VP Congress Session 1: Stalker0's Voting Record


Baller Magnus
Dec 31, 2005
Both for my organization but also in case people care, I'm going to document how I'm voting and for what reasons:

Quick Note: For anyone having trouble finding all the vote threads, use your filter to look at Prefix: VOTE and sort by Title: Ascending

(01) Proposal: Open borders needed for trade routes once unlocked - NO​

I think the idea is cool for like a modmod, but this is fairly radical change and I don't think it ultimately provides a lot of benefit. Trading can already be questionable in some games due to the fluidity of wars, being further denied trade by things like simple denouncements and loss of open borders I think is too much. I would try this out in a modmod, but I would want to see it in the core game.

(02) (EDITED, VOTE AGAIN) Proposal: Units Should only Heal at +5HP Within the Borders of a Revolting City - YES​

The +5 HP is a neat little idea, but ultimately I don't care to much about that. However, I rarely raze in my games, I think the introduction of barb units during key war times is just too much a risk, for too little benefit. However, this idea of razing to heal is a neat one that I want to try out, I think it adds a new dynamic to warfare that is currently missing in the game.

(03) Proposal: Make Nuclear Missiles Better - NO​

I am fully on board with this proposal EXCEPT for the very last part about the defense building only halving the effect. I think that goes too far. I am all for increasing the missile to have actual combat applications (its too expensive right now), but I don't think we should be blasting cities with impunity.

(04) Proposal: Burghers rework - NO​

This is ultimately a nerf to Fealty, and I do not feel Fealty needs any nerfing.

(05) Difficulty Level Revamp Proposals - (Option 1) Chieftain Difficulty becomes Bonus Neutral​

I do think having a completely AI bonus neutral difficulty would provide a lot of value, both for players who like that experience, but also for testing purposes.

The second option to me is way too comprehensive, in fact so much so I am actually uncomfortable with it being a counterproposal. It feels like the equivalent of someone wanting a little more oil in the map, and someone else proposing creating 13 new strategics, each one a different grade of oil. The actually "bonus neutral" part in Option 2 is such a small part of the proposal that it really doesn't feel like that is even its focus. So no to that one.

(06) Tradition Changes Proposals - (Option 1) PineAppleDan's proposal​

This one is just interesting enough that I want to try it. The +1 GPTI production and the +1 working range will be neat additions, and based on look at my own tradition games I don't think would be too OP combined with the other nerfs that are present in the proposal. The CrazyG proposals operate under the assumption that Tradition is too strong for both Tall and Wide play, and that is just not my experience in my own play. I don't think Tradition is "weak", but I don't think it needs nerfs.

(07) Proposal: Artistry OVERHAUL - NO​

Ultimately, this is a nerf to artistry, ESPECIALLY the opener. The loss of +25% GPP to ALL great people (now its only +25% to writers/artists/musicians) is a big nerf, and its far from the only one. While I understand the desire, I don't think the execution works here, all it does is further water down the Artistry tree

(08) Proposal: Buffs to Engineer specialists - NO​

This one might surprise people, but I think its easy to forget the recent buffs to engineers already. Engineers to me aren't looking bad right now, and the new GE is crazy good. I don't think more buffs are needed right at this moment, ESPECIALLY the forge bonus. If it was just the industrialization/ballistics change, I could get behind that, but putting more buff on forges is a pretty big deal.

(09) Proposal: Remove malus from healing promotion - NO​

I think people underestimate how strong healing is for defense on the same unit, not to mention the power of applying it to all units around you. This is a big change, and I documented some math in the original discussion to shows just how much defense this can mean. Medic is a VITAL promotion, I use it all the time on my ranged units, it is rock solid....it needs no buffs.

(10) Make Paper Maker Make Paper Proposals - (Option 2) National Wonder​

The UB proposal gives too much paper, like way too much paper, I think that way leads to exploits. The UI is an interesting idea, but I think its a major buff to china, and the meer loss of the food bonus is not sufficient to cover it. The National Wonder though is a cool idea, seems thematic, and provides some new things without pushing the envelope of power, so I like that one.

(11) City-State Unit Gift Proposals -​

(Option 1) - CS gifts go to capital
(Option 2) - CS gifts gain XP/promotions to normalize them

I am good with either option here, I think both do a good job at fixing a specific problem.

(12) Proposal: Add a new city fate when conquering a city state that is under a Sphere of Influence - YES​

I think this is a reasonable counter to Spheres of Influence. If a CS gets conquered, you lose the right to that CS as far as I'm concerned, so this makes good sense, and it offers counterplay to SOI.

(13) Proposal: Urban Planning (Progress) Settler Production Bonus - NO​

Progress doesn't need buffs imo, I don't think this is needed.

(14) Proposal: Greatly increase production requirements of world congress collaborative wonders - NO​

I've been going back and forth on this one. I think an increase makes sense, but triple is a lot. I think there is also the laziness factor, a lot of times if I'm going for the top prize, I just leave everything on production until the proposal finishes, as its effort to switch everything back when I've "hit the key threshold". This will mean I spend a lot more bang for my buck. If it was just double I would probably be on board, but 3x....eh, not sure.

(15) Proposal: Remove Difficulty Randomization of AI Choices - YES​

Time to make the AI less dumb! We have a number of other ways to nerf the AI, I would rather not nerf its intelligence as well. Unleash the beast!

(16) Popup / Notification when City-States go from Peace Blocked to War - (Option 1) Event Popup​

This was my proposal so...yeah I want it:) Its a common annoyance for me, its so easy to forget about the CS and suddenly your like "crap I could have not been warring with that CS 3 turns ago!".

Now a notification is a step forward, but frankly I get SO many of them that I ignore most of them by the midgame, so they wouldn't stop me forgetting. Only an event popup will do that. For people worried that that is too in your face, I mean how often does a CS go from peace blocked to war and you want to stay warring with it? Most of the time I want to peace with it, and this makes it even faster than what I have to do now, so its a total win as far as I'm concerned.

(17) Proposal: Change how Bonus vs Domain works - NO​

Also torn on this one. At the end of the day this makes combat even slower, and I don't know if I want to do that.

(18) Proposal: Sphere of Influence can only be proposed by current CS ally - YES​

This helps curb SOI spam in a very simple way. While I like some of the more aggressive proposals that have been floating around, they are complicated, and will take time and effort to figure out. Meanwhile we can implement this very easily and take care of 50% of the problem.

(19) Proposed Replacements for Trailblazer Double Movement Promotions - NO​

I feel like both of these proposals miss the mark. The goal is to remove double movement, not reinvent the scout line (AGAIN). Both of these proposals are too radical, there are far simplier ways to handle this. So nay on both.

(20) Proposal: First Great Prophet always spawns in the capital - YES​

Just vote yes and be happy:) In seriousness, this fixes a core balance issue to me. There are very very very few times I want my GP to spawn outside of my capital, and a lot more times where I'm hating life when it does.

(21) Policy Wonder Unlocking Requirement Proposals - Option 1 and 2​

Option 1 is my proposal: So often I see design changes to make the game fun or more interesting, yet I feel we ignore one of the stalest parts of the game, the policy tree. All high level play focuses on one tree, yes you can choose different ones, but once you do, your basically locked in. If players actually picked from multiple trees more often, my lord what an interesting new puzzle that would add to the game. So I think this is a solid step in that direction. Now option 2 is also a reasonable one, allowing for the same flexibility but reigns it in a bit more. So I'm good either way.

(22) Infiltrators Promotion Proposals - Option 2 (Azum4's proposal)​

I think this option maintains the spirit and power of the original but makes it cleaner and easier to work with. Solid change to me.

(23) Early Game Building Proposals - Option 2 (Granary/Lodge/Herbalist)​

I think this proposal fixes a lot of what broke when the lodge was created. This rebalances the 3 buildings in a nice solid way, giving them each a good niche.

Option 1....I think the +2 food on the granary is a mistake. It was rock solid before, it does not need a buff, it just needs to return to its former glory.

(24) Proposal: Swap Eki and Encampment Improvement Unlock Techs - Abstain​

I have no skin in the game on this one, as I don't play those civs that often. so I'll leave it to others to decide.

(25) Proposal: Cooperation buff - No​

Growth bonuses are too strong in AI hands, we have seen this before when cooperation used to be stronger. I think the better way is to add some secondary benefit to cooperation that is not growth related.

(26) Proposal: Change the distribution for CS quests asking for a number of buildings in the empire - YES​

I do agree that the "build X building" quests are a bit too much sometimes, this seems a reasonable change.

(27-1) Mod Integration Votes - Yes to Options 1-5​

These are all UI improvements that I think are wonderful additions to the game.

(28) Proposal: Netherlands Polder buildable on Coastal sea tiles instead of fresh water tiles. - YES​

Ultimately I think this is a nerf to the Polder (the 3 land adjacency I think will be too much, I don't even know how to get adjacent polders in that scenario.). However, it is a really cool concept, and if people want to code it, I'm game to try it and than probably buff it to where it needs to be.

(29) Proposal: Double the duration of the "Kill X CS/Ally both CS" quest - YES​

My proposal. This quest is just too short a lot of the time, it is very difficult to accomplish. Doubling the duration should give it a nice place.

(30) Proposal: Reduce Heavy Skirmisher CS by 1 - YES​

My proposals. Heavy Skirmishers are just overtuned at the moment with the new skirmisher changes. They need a slight nerf.

(31) Proposed Adjustments to WLTKD & CS Quests - Option 3 (cities don't demand unknown resources)​

I think this is an interesting way to fix some of the randomness of WLTKD.

(32) Proposal: Add a free Warrior to Traditions Engineer Policy - No​

This is just completely unnecessary.

(33) Proposal: Smooth grow penalty from unhappiness. - NO​

I already think about happiness enough when its just the key thresholds. A smooth curve would mean every up and down tick becomes something to manage, way too much. I actually hate this idea:)

(34) Proposal: Tweaks for wide gameplay on Brazil - NO​

Ultimately I think this will greatly increase the use of the brazilwood camp which is a buff to brazil, and I don't think brazil needs any buffs.

(35) Proposals for Woodsman Promotion - Option 1 (Yes to both changes)​

I think woodsman could use some love. Make it an earlier promotion that now also gives a CS bonus on defense should make it a useful promotion, instead of a once a bluemoon kind of thing.

(36) Proposal: Remove Tourism bonus to GWAM from Garden - Yes​

This is a nice simple way to remove a bit of early game tourism (as CVs are still too quick). The garden is a perfectly good building without this bonus.

(37) Proposal: Later Eras Tech Cost Reduction - Yes​

The last update made late techs a bit too long, this is a reasonable new adjustment based on actual AI collected data. So its not just "a finger in the air to feel it out" but based on science.

(38) Proposal: Amphibious gives double movement in Marsh - Abstain​

No skin in the game on this one. Amphibious is a perfectly good promotion right now (I use it a lot in later wars), but this change is very niche and probably wouldn't affect much.

(39) Proposal: Rework the defense buildings (walls) line - Yes​

I do think the arsenal is expensive and late to the party against what you face in the game, so splitting out the bonuses makes sense to me.

(40) Proposal: Remove the 10% unit supply bonus from Hospital - No​

If your going to remove supply I think there are better ways to do it. This bonus is important for Tall freedom play, to give them vital supply to maintain their defense.

(41) Proposal: Give authority science through producing units instead of for gaining cities - No​

I understand the sentiment, but its just a bit too radical for my tastes.
Last edited:


Sep 28, 2014
I'm glad my Polders proposal is being approved by many in the congress, i think their walkability and destructibility + displacement will actually add a lot of great strategy, not to mention historical accuracy (in war polders were destroyed to delay enemy advances).

About the adjacency, the bonus will come into play most often while "filling the gaps" in internal seas, and the idea is to represent how each polder is actually the base by which another polder can be reclaimed from the sea.

Of course, if the 3 land tile restriction proves too much, i'm also for a 2 tile restriction, but many rightfully argued that then it takes away from both strategic placement and it cannibalizes the coast too much.


Dec 9, 2017
Even a combination of 3 land or polder cannibalized the sea too much.
Top Bottom