• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

VP Session 2: Stalker0's voting log

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
11,046
Once again I'm going to record my votes and rationales, both for my own organization, but for any utility it has to anyone else on the fence on certain issues.

(2-01) Proposal: Decolonization - Change to affect ALL players​

Yes, though I'm not as gung ho about this as when I first proposed it. I think decol remains an extremely powerful proposal, moreso than most proposals in the WC. This makes it more of a reset mechanic to get back in the diplomacy game when a single entity is dominant. That said, I wonder why well it will work with the AI, and will the scenarios where a person would want to propose this actually provide them enough votes to make it happen? It seems like a proposal that would still need a lot of general support to pass, and will the AI cooperate with something that still hurts them a bit, even if it hurts someone else more? I'd like to try it and find out, but I do have those reservations.

(2-02) City-State Coup Mechanic Proposals​

Yea to implementing both (2b) and (2c). I think retolling the CS coup chances based on spy turns is a nice idea, and its smoother than the more blunt "can't coup until a rigging has occured". I also think changing the coup quest to pure gold is the right approach, GPP should not be given out so easily....the other CS quest that gives them is a much more involved quest, which feels appropriate for the power.

(2-04) Proposal: Iron is revealed earlier at Mining, instead of Bronze Working​

No. I understand the desire, I really do, but iron reveal is a major benefit of bronze working, and helps balance the south side of the tech tree. I think moving iron reveal needs to be compensated by something for this to work, so in its current state I'm a no.

(2-05) Proposal: Improve Attila's Kit​

No. Only reason is all the extra work that would need to happen to adjust prize ships in general, and I don't think civs like the dutch needs to get free supply.

(2-06) Rome Rework Proposals​

Yes to PAD's change (6a). I'm not fully sold on PAD's new vision for rome but I do wish for a change, and I think this does move the needle. I also fully agree with pilum remaining on upgrades and that the capture unique buildings mechanics is too painful codewise to keep. I want to give this one a try.

(2-07) Proposal: Allow purchases of religious units, religious buildings and worker units in puppet cities​

Yes. I've been using this modmod for a while and I really like it. I think it smoothes out some of the rough edges of puppeting.

(2-08) Reduce Mine Yields Proposals​

Yes to +2 to mines on resources, +1 to mines. Honestly I'm really torn on this one. I understand that forge is a powerful building, and that mines are powerful terrain. But I think people really underestimate what a nerf to the mine could do this early in the game. Further, an early forge is a really nice benefit to going south tech and giving up all of that lovely science and culture in the top of the tree, so I feel like this could heavily weaken the south side of the tree.

This version is as far as I'm willing to budge, and I'm willing to try this. But I will really look closely at this in ratification, I'm nervous about this change.

(2-09) Proposal: Change special Farm yields for Wheat, Rice, Maize​

Yes. Seems reasonable enough.

(2-10) Proposal: Jungle Deer​

Yes. I think jungles could use a lot of help, so I'm on board.

(2-11) Proposal: Higher maintenance for later buildings​

No. I actually think some of the higher end maintenance increases here are a bit much, and with the other various gold nerfs in the queue I would rather go with those methods than this change.

(2-12) Proposal: Change How the Number of Religions in a Game is Determined​

Abstain. I only play on standard size maps, so I have no skin in teh game here.

(2-13 & 2-03) Early Naval Unit Rework Proposals​

Yes to Remove Barbarian Galley, Yes to let Polynesian's melee boats improve resources at fishing. I get that people are excited about a new unit, but quite frankly I don't think new units that early in the game actually change much gameplay, as your already so hammer starved. You can't just magic out a new galley, that is one less building or worker or settler, or XYZ that you are missing out of, so its not free. If the focus is on dealing with barbs....the answer is so much simpler, just remove the barb problem. There is no reason barbs needs some special early ship, with the new version they are a strong threat regardless, so just remove the ship, let them have their triremes like everyone else, and move on.

I think the polynesia boat change is a good rounding out for the civ so works for me.

(2-14) Proposal: Remove religious resistance from religious buildings​

Yes, though with a caveat. I like the idea, but the Synagogue is one of the last buildings I would choose to keep the defense bonus, its already PLENTY strong. So if this passes I am going to propose moving that bonus to another building, realism be damned.

(2-15) Merge Logging Camp With Lumber Mill Proposals​

Yes to Stalker0 proposal (lumber mill works with both terrain and provides the same bonus). This to me just nips the problem in the bud, logging camps are not only bad, they are just unnecessary, better to just remove them. Azum4's proposal isn't bad (it actually makes adjacency really strong because it effectively adds +2 gold with Golden Ages), but I am fearful it makes lumber mills too weak with its new tech improvements, as +1 prod/+1 gold is just plain weaker than +2 hammers, and lumber mills have already had a questionable competition with mines (though the forge change might fix that).

(2-16) Proposal: Merchant of Venice cannot purchase city states under sphere of influence of another player anymore.​

No. Its Venice's unique power, no reason to curb it.

(2-17) Proposal: Dojo's promotion also applying to naval melee units.​

Yes. Its a cool little idea, and I think Japan could support the increase in power. I'm willing to see how this plays out.

(2-18) Weaken Inspired Works Reformation Belief Proposals​

Yes to full weaken. I do think Inspired Works is just that strong, it really needs a good nerf. That said, I respect it if people want just the middle ground nerf, I think its still a solid step in the right direction without "rocking the boat" too much.

(2-19) Proposal: Decrease Workshop Cost from 350 to 250 hammers​

Yes. Ultimately production buildings are directly compared to their cost more than any other building type, as its literally a "pay hammers to get hammers" kind of scenario. So its a situation where a cost reduction has the most direct benefit. I think this is a good method of scalpel balancing without adding even more yields to the game (yield bloat is a constant concern to be wary of).

(2-20) Buff Manufactory Proposals​

Yes to Stalker0's proposal (manufactory counts for adjacencies). I think this is really cool idea that helps distinguish a GPTI and makes it interesting without a massive yield bloat. I will say if nothing else, I hope that both proposals don't pass. I can respect one or the other (or none if people think the GPTI is fine), but I think voting for both is just too much here.

(2-21) (REVOTE) Proposal: Remove Gold Bonus from Chanceries and make Bonuses for CS Friends and CS Allies stack​

No. I can respect the desire to clean up an "odd" game mechanic, but I don't think this proposal has been baked enough, The Germany changes are way too good, the schriver's office change may be surprisingly strong in the mid game (its basically another hanging gardens worth of food in many cases). I don't think this proposal has been tightened up enough.

(2-22) Proposal: Integrate Enhanced Naval Warfare into VP (with modifications)​

Yes. To me this is the kind of proposal that ratification is made for. I am voting yes because I generally like ENW (I don't love it but I use it from time to time), but I do think its worth exposing the greater community to. However, its a big change, and I don't think voters are really going to understand that until they see it in action. So I'm a yes, but I think this needs serious consideration in ratification (hell I would even support a two month window for its ratification just because of the scale of the changes, I really want people to be eyes open on this proposal).

(2-23) Proposal: Adjust Heavy Tribute​

Yes. I'm willing to try this as I agree tributing could use a shakeup. I ultimately don't know if this will be better or worse, its definately one that will have my eye in playtest.

(2-24) Proposal: Slight tweaks to Persia​

Yes. I actually changed my vote midway while writing my thoughts on this one. My original hesitation was that it seemed to be a bit too much of a buff, but I ran a few numbers and I don't think its as strong as I thought at first glance. I also don't think GAP is all that strong as a yields, especially as Persia already gets a good amount of it, I don't think a little more is going to change things. Persia is a solid middle civ to me, so it can support a little buff. So sure, lets go for it.

(2-25) Weaken Orders Proposals​

No. I think the base proposal is too ham fisted with the once per turn bonus, and honestly still gives a lot of faith with that era scaling later in the game. PADs version, that Teocalli looks a bit much to me, still tons of faith generated AND I get +15XP on top, phew that's good.

(2-26) Proposal: Base CS Influence Decay rate on Resting Influence​

Yes. Now that the Siam bonus will now stack with the base resting influence (based on PAD's and Recursive's last exchange) than I have no reservations, this seems like a good solid change.

(2-27) Proposal: Bletchley Park rework​

No. I don't like that the NIA is losing the +1 level up for spies. That means we are taking a bonus enjoyed by all civs and giving it to Rationalism, it also feels very unthematic (this is THE spy NW in the game). I do agree that both buildings shouldn't have it, so I say remove it from Bletchley Park. The other bonuses are kind of meh to me, and the fact that BP still gives a research lab (I can't think of a time I didn't have a research lab when I get BP). I think there are better versions of this to aspire to.

(2-28) Proposal: Add Brute Force promotion to Slingers.​

No. Slingers are fine, I already build one initially instead of a warrior. They don't need more buffs.

(2-29) Proposal: Swap the names Accuracy and Barrage​

No. This is the old man in me talking. Do the names make more sense swapped......100%. Will i confuse this in my head for 6 months....100%.

(2-30) More Processes Proposals​

No. So integrating all of these processes straight up is NUTS.....because of the tourism one. In a time when we are already trying to curb CV, you want to give CV players the ability to just convert their entire late game economy into tourism?....that's crazy. I will do this every single CV game I play, I'll tech until I hit my key techs....then ramp up my tourism into the stratosphere. Not to mention that power plants will further enhance this.

I have made my arguments against PAD's order changes pretty aggressively in the original post, and I stand by them. I can respect some of the changes that are suggested....to tourism. You don't need to nerf Great Leap Forward (and Order's entire science basis) to do it. I don't like the change, and I don't like the presenation. This is all packaged as tourism changes, yet this will have a major impact on Order's SV play. If this proposal just changed the tourism policies of Order, I would support giving this a shot as I think its a solid idea. But this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater type changing to me.

(2-31) Proposal: Don't reveal information about counterspies in city-states​

No. This is where my aesthetics kick in, I would rather tooltips meant what they said and were actually useful than add in a little more realism. I don't want % chances that aren't accurate.

(2-32) Make Scouting Units More Resilient Against Barbarians Proposals​

Yes to remove barb penalty from scouting unit. I think with the new barbs this is warranted; pathfinders are still not great against barbs even with this change but it gives them a bit more survivability.

(2-33) Proposal: Smooth settler production penalty from unhappiness​

Yes. Why not.

(2-34) Proposal: Give Indonesia Jungle/Forest start bias​

Abstain. I don't have any strong feelings on this one.

2-35) Proposal: Change border growth cost reductions to BGP modifiers​

Yes. This feels a lot more intuitive than the previous version, will definately watch this in playtesting to see if it throws any border growth out of whack.

(2-36) Proposal: Reduce Cost of Market​

Yes, but a weak yes. I really can go either way here.

(2-37) Proposal: Integrate Improved TechTree Screen for VP/EUI​

Yes. Feels almost mandatory since we have several techs that you can't even see all the benefits due to limited space.

(2-38) Proposal: Allow mounted/armor units to take the amphibious promotion​

No. This is a time when theme and mechanics work together to say...NO!. Thematically it makes no sense, its actually anti-sense. Mechanically I think its nice for infantry to maintain this niche, and frankly mounted is fine right now with the new skirmishers.

(2-39) Proposal: Increase skirmisher RCS by 1​

Yes. I think a small buff here is fine, it does help smooth out the chariot archer -> skirmisher transition.

(2-40) Proposal: Museum split​

No. I went into a lot of arguments against this in the main thread. I think this has several notable issues and I don't think it will even solve any CV issues. This just feels like bloat...and the problem is we have a terrible track record of removing things once they are added. So as soon as this is added, people will feel justified keeping it around, which will probably led to more bloat.

(2-41) Proposal: Amphitheater Split​

No. I'm going to protest the name of this proposal first off. This isn't an amphitheater split, your taking the weakest part that I barely care about it off of it. No this is about making a brand new building. I don't mind that as a proposal, but that's what the focused of this proposal is.

Ultimately, I think this is just a bad idea. The rationalization is that this will help curb CV....it won't. This is just adding science back into the game for....reasons. Its adding more building bloat at a time where I do not need more buildings. Its just bad.

(2-42) Proposal: Consolidate Apostolic Tradition and Way of the Pilgrim Founders​

Yes. Willing to give this a shot, as I do agree with the premise. Revelation might be a bit weak at first glance, but willing to give it a try.

(2-43) Proposal: New Founder belief: City of God​

Yes. I like the mechanic of this, giving more reasons to grow big. My initial numbers suggest its strong but not dominant, though its clearly one that needs to be playtested and looked at, but I'm willing to see it in action.

(2-44) Proposal: Change some of the bonus yields to holy sites on Founder Belief Reformation wonders​

Yes. A nice little scalpel change, I like to see these kind of things more and more.

(2-45) Proposal: New Enhancer Belief: Animism​

Yes. Its a cool unique idea, I think its worth trying out to see how it balances.

(2-46) Proposal: New Reformation Belief: Orthodoxy​

Yes. Willing to see this in action, though I'm guessing its just too weak overall.

(2-47) Proposal: New Follower Belief: Warrior Monks​

Yes. Another interesting idea worth trying....will need to be looked at closely.

(2-48) Proposal: Follower Belief: Veneration Split​

No. I think this turns a good belief (Veneration) into 2 mediocre ones.

(2-49) Proposal: Remove Influence Modifiers from Tech​

No. My vote may be surprising here so let me dig in. I think the basic idea makes sense, and especially for Radio. Radio already has the wonderful broadcast tower to ramp up tourism, and this is the point in the game where the "too fast CV" is often a problem. Computers is more debatable. However, I think the removal at internet is going too far. To me if your at Internet and haven't won CV, its because your in a fierce CV battle that is hard to win. So to me internet is similar to Globalization for DV, its the tech that pushes you over the top and forces people to deal with you. I think losing that is a concern.

(2-50) Proposal: Small display modification for Faith points​

Yes. Can't see any reason not to.

(2-51) Make Unit Promotions Weaker Proposals​

No to everything here. I think this is a scenario where the solution is worse than the problem.

(2-52) Proposal: Cooldown between unit purchases​

No. This is club like solution, too much, too game changing.

(2-53) Proposal: Increase Great Prophet movement to 4​

Abstain. Part of me likes it, part of me doesn't. Ultimately I'm fine either way.

(2-54) Proposal: Let city states give quests earlier​

Yes. I actually think this will be a slight buff to the AI, as AIs will have teh resources to accomplish quests faster than humans, but I don't have an issue with that and it makes sense overall.

(2-55) Proposal: Buff Oil Well​

Yes. good change.

(2-56) Lategame Unit Tweaks Proposals​

Yes to buff mech infantry/bazooka. I agree that mobile tactics units are pretty weak at this stage of the game, so a buff here is fine to me. I think the second proposal overreaches, it weakens gatling guns, it strengths infantry....I don't think that's needed. And 3 range bazookas feels wrong for a strategic less unit, that's what rocket artillery is for.

(2-57) Proposal: Naval Units in Cities don't increase City Strength​

Yes. good change.

(2-58) Proposal: Reduce International Trade Route Gold​

Yes. I think this both reduces the gold glut a bit, ensures people aren't TOO reliant on trade for their gold (in the event of war or sanctions), and gives a little power back to ITRs. Overall good cahnge.

(2-59): Proposal: Ancestor Worship change​

Yes. This needs a nerf.
 
PADs version, that Teocalli looks a bit much to me, still tons of faith generated AND I get +15XP on top, phew that's good.
Your post suggests you think the teocalli is a buff. It’s not.

In comparison to the existing order, the teocalli doesn’t give morale, and everything else is the same. Strictly speaking it is weaker, because it does fewer things. It’s still good, but it’s not better.

(2-14) Proposal: Remove religious resistance from religious buildings​

Yes, though with a caveat. I like the idea, but the Synagogue is one of the last buildings I would choose to keep the defense bonus, its already PLENTY strong. So if this passes I am going to propose moving that bonus to another building, realism be damned.
Just to be clear, the proposal is to remove the religious pressure bonus off the synagogue. The synagogue will not make the city’s pressure stronger, just more resistant to other pressure.

Your post implies that the synagogue is getting an extra ability, rather than Getting a tradeoff.

(2-29) Proposal: Swap the names Accuracy and Barrage​

No. This is the old man in me talking. Do the names make more sense swapped......100%. Will i confuse this in my head for 6 months....100%
I wouldn’t even say 100%, it’s a side-grade. Accuracy leads to range and barrage leads to logistics. That makes sense to me. Swapping the names makes this progression less obvious. Why would fruiting in a barrage increase the range you can hit things? Why would increasing your accuracy increase your firing rate?
 
Last edited:
The Teocalli is equivalent or worse in every metric to our current Order.
Right but the point is to nerf orders, not remake it in a new form. Losing morale is not that critical do to the heroic epic anyway, it’s the xp and faith on kills that is the major power source.
 
Right but the point is to nerf orders, not remake it in a new form. Losing morale is not that critical do to the heroic epic anyway, it’s the xp and faith on kills that is the major power source.
I’m not jazzed about how a new belief proposal got lumped into an order nerf proposal. The teocalli/order split is a nerf relative to the current order, but the main point was to turn 1 belief into 2, thereby having more beliefs, and one from an as yet unrepresented religion to boot.

I agree that the other proposed change isn’t good. It might even not result in an overall nerf, if people can exploit the jank of pacing their kills. I kind of hate how that proposal recontextualizes the teocalli and what it is meant to do.
 
The Faith from the Teocalli doesn't scale with era right? If that's so it's a significant nerf.

If it does scale with era it should be written more clearly and is an insignificant nerf that doesn't address the problem.
 
The Faith from the Teocalli doesn't scale with era right? If that's so it's a significant nerf
It works how the current order yields work. Removing era scaling from kills will require new code.
If it does scale with era it should be written more clearly and is an insignificant nerf that doesn't address the problem.
Agreed. Hence my consternation that the proposal was tabled as a way to nerf orders, and not as a way to merely change orders. adding more beliefs was the intent; and slightly weakening the order was incidental. You should vote for it if you want a new belief building more than you want yields on kills to only happen once per turn. It seems absurd these two proposals are exclusive. The teocalli could conceivably work with axatin’s yield on kill change.
 
Last edited:

(2-13 & 2-03) Early Naval Unit Rework Proposals​

Yes to Remove Barbarian Galley, Yes to let Polynesian's melee boats improve resources at fishing. I get that people are excited about a new unit, but quite frankly I don't think new units that early in the game actually change much gameplay, as your already so hammer starved. You can't just magic out a new galley, that is one less building or worker or settler, or XYZ that you are missing out of, so its not free. If the focus is on dealing with barbs....the answer is so much simpler, just remove the barb problem. There is no reason barbs needs some special early ship, with the new version they are a strong threat regardless, so just remove the ship, let them have their triremes like everyone else, and move on.
No to both.

Allowing Polynesia able to build Fishing Boat with naval melee is already a strong UA, why do you need to add more?
I guess you never played on a map with lots of islands and water resources. I played with Polynesia several times, and the feeling of don't need to build work boats to improve water resources is a no-brainer for me, too strong. Just settle on an island, get some naval melee to improve the resources, then the city is ready for production!

Also, the Barbarian Galley problem does not exist previously, only appeared now after the barb change. So if this is the problem then fix the barb change, not the unit! This is the wrong way to solve a problem. For a long time, the sole function of the Barbarian Galley is to fend off early exploration. If you remove it then you're free to explore with no threat aside from Archer.

It's a leapfrog game for Barbarian:
Barbarian:
Galley -> Trireme -> Galleass
You:
Trireme -> Galleass -> Caravel

You should get the good stuff first, and the barbs will catch up.
 
The barb problem was not on my radar when I proposed the galley unit be available to major civs. It would address that problem too though.

My main focus was the massive gap between triremes and caravels, which makes early naval anemic and stagnant for a really long time.
 
Top Bottom