VP Congress 7: Stalker0's Voting Record

[Stalker0]

Reminder that this only happens if you actively declare war on a CS.
For a human, that usually means you're going to conquer it.

I understand that, but what is the POINT of the proposal? What do we gain?

Isn't conquering CS already penalizing enough? Why do we want to make it even more painful if you do have a failed conquest, or someone else liberates it from you?

You already lose all of the influence you have gained with the CS when you attack it. But removing the resting influences could mean that late game you have 0 rest versus other civs with 100 or more due to heavy GD usages. Why do I need a permanent penalty with that CS when even civs I used to go to heavy war with can turn the corner and call me a friend? Why are CS more bitter and vindictive?

 

[Stalker0]

I continue to appreciate the debates created here, and I actually just changed my vote on 7-14 to include another option. Good logic can win the day!

 

[Recursive]

(7-54) Remove CS Resting Influence Bonuses if War is Declared / City Captured
No. There are already sooooo maaaaaany penalities for warring on a CS. I don't need to remove every single influence bonus I have ever gotten. Even against major civs you don't lose every diplomatic bonus you have acquired due to war.

shrugs

                // We're no longer trade partners
                SetRecentTradeValue(ePlayer, 0);
                GET_PLAYER(ePlayer).GetDiplomacyAI()->SetRecentTradeValue(eMyPlayer, 0);

                if (!bDefensivePact)
                {
                    // Forget any of that liberation crud!
                    SetResurrectedBy(ePlayer, false);
                    SetPlayerLiberatedCapital(ePlayer, false);
                    SetPlayerLiberatedHolyCity(ePlayer, false);
                    SetNumCitiesLiberatedBy(ePlayer, 0);
                    SetPlayerReturnedCapital(ePlayer, false);
                    SetPlayerReturnedHolyCity(ePlayer, false);
                    SetMasterLiberatedMeFromVassalage(ePlayer, false);
                    SetVassalagePeacefullyRevokedTurn(ePlayer, -1);
                    
                    // Forget civilians returned, landmarks built, and intrigue shared so they don't affect relations any more
                    SetNumCiviliansReturnedToMe(ePlayer, 0);
                    SetNumLandmarksBuiltForMe(ePlayer, 0);
                    SetNumTimesIntrigueSharedBy(ePlayer, 0);
                    
                    // Clear positive diplomatic values
                    SetCommonFoeValue(ePlayer, 0);
                    SetVassalProtectValue(ePlayer, 0);
                    if (GetRecentAssistValue(ePlayer) < 0)
                        SetRecentAssistValue(ePlayer, 0);
                }

It's not all of them but it is most of them. It also sets the "DoF Level" back to "Untrustworthy" (which is below "New") which has an enduring negative impact until you become friends again.

 

[Rekk]

That said, the ability to get resource bonuses on city settle might turn out to be quite a big change, moreso than people might think

You currently get every other yield except for the first / (in some cases) that a resource produces. It's a very weird exception.

 

[rkkn]

it's never going to be more than +1f or +1p vs now. but that still can be significant. enough to make it viable to settle on things other than amber

 

[azum4roll]

Unless there's another resource tile/lake in the first ring, it's not better to settle on a resource.

 

[randomnub]

Afaik I voted similarly but despite advocating for progress/authority nerfs multiple times I voted against those because I voted yes to the tradition flat food buff that I think is spot on (also, faith scaler for fealty is simply the right thing), and early food can easily be translated into early production. Maybe it's not enough to balance the initial trees but I prefer not to swing the pendulum from one extreme to another too fast. I won't mind too much if either proposal goes through anyway, just saying.

 

[Anarcomu]

Unless there's another resource tile/lake in the first ring, it's not better to settle on a resource.

In the specific cases of China or the Polynesian, which have very strong UI with limited placement, you might well want to put cities on resources to free up space for your UI.
Haven't played China recently but did play Polynesia, it frees more space for your Moais so you definitely want to found on them.

 

[Rekk]

Next we will want to rename the Eiffle Tower.

You'll notice that no one has suggested renaming World Wonders to a generic version.

 

[CppMaster]

How about "National Broadcast Tower"? It kinda looks like that

 

[Recursive]

(7-68) Change AI Peace Treaty Behavior - Consistent to All Players in the Same Team
Yes. I do think CS conquest could use a bit of love, you really do loss a LOT of benefit when you war with CS rather than buddy up with them. The most common argument I've seen is "but they aren't CS anymore once they are conquered".

To which I reply....but you can't raze them. You can't raze them because....the game still considers than CS. Similar to when you conquer a capital, its still a capital for all sorts of reasons.

Wrong thread link.

 

[Rekk]

(7-47) War Weariness and War Score Affected by Damage on Cities
Abstain for now. I have an outstanding question in the thread I want to understand this better.

What's your outstanding question?

 

[azum4roll]

In the specific cases of China or the Polynesian, which have very strong UI with limited placement, you might well want to put cities on resources to free up space for your UI.
Haven't played China recently but did play Polynesia, it frees more space for your Moais so you definitely want to found on them.

Moais can be placed on resources. There's a point for luxuries and strategics though, even though I generally avoid putting cities on those (since many of the improvements have great yields).