Banned Luxuries

The World congress system is not crudely implemented but it certainly IS exploitable by any human with half a brain. First of all people love to win culture victories now and the tech needed to found congress is right on the way, beeline it b/c all the other civs might too. Secondly, with the filthy amounts of money you can rake in there is no reason you should not be able to outbuy your rivals in city state voting.

Honestly though the WC is one big free diplomatic relations boost. For your first 4 or so proposals, make sure youre the one everyone loves for proposing stuff. Propose the 33% arts funding cuz civs love that , propose the + culture per great person improvement tile, propose every international project, If enough civs are following it propose a world religion/ideology. In all of these cases you are going to get a nice relations boost with every person on the map who likes your idea which for the first half of the game is nearly always all of them.

You can really run the AI's life when you do get complete control of the senate. The 1 single proposal i have a problem with is embargo city states. I dont like giving my science away for free! I can make almost as much trading with CS'es and the AI will frequently try to propose this to punish warmongers who already have a specific embargo against them. This would be fine except i dont want to trade with any other civs most of the time especially later in the game. Maybe you should still be able to have trade routes with a CS if they are your ally? this proposal is advantageous for the AI only therefore they are the only ones who will propose it and buying their votes against their own proposals just feels stupid
 
There are ways to counter the ban on luxes. If you have a monopoly on a lux, don't be stingy: trade it away, either for other luxes or for money. Just make sure that there are other civs who also have that lux, and they will vote against the ban with you (it's in their interest). If you don't have enough delegates to become WC leader yourself, then use your votes to choose a leader that you think will be friendly to your cause, like a friend who you're trading those resources with. Then you can be pretty sure they won't make those kinds of proposals. You can also try to buy delegate votes from other civs through trade deals. The point is, you can no longer be passive in your diplomacy, you have to be active about it.

And don't play the unrepentant warmonger any more, because that will get the world against you, just like in real life. Do you think Germany had it easy declaring war on the world twice? No, because most of the world turned against them. You can't just start wars willy-nilly any more, you have to go about it skillfully and diplomatically. Make sure you have a friend or two to trade with while you fight your foes. And pick them carefully. Staying on the good side of stronger civs can buy you time to vanquish your weaker foes. But ignoring diplomacy will often end up isolating you, and you don't want to be there unless you are really powerful. So make some allies/friends first, take down your common foes, and then finish off those 'friends' later when you've strengthened your situation. It's all about intrigue and backstabbing; it's what they call politics.
 
No reason to complain. The na luxury feature is awesome, if we want to hit our oponent without warmongel penalty. However im not sure how much affected are AIs by it, since there is some hapiness discount for them i suppose. Also it is cool when AI start to fight each other using lux ban. Impressive when with simply AI they manage to include such strategy.

As for how to defend against it: sale your spare luxies around, collect enought CS friend, repeal later on, or just build enought hapiness to not care.
 
the AI will also propose banning lux that affects another AI too, not just against the human player. my last game, Spain proposed (and it passed) to ban Nutmeg. i saw the proposal and was like "OMGWTH, nutmeg? did they make a new lux in BNW?" and then much much later came to realize that Indonesia gets unique lux's as their UA.

me and Spain were good banning buddies in that game, and i hate Indonesia fyi. :lol:
 
Definitely agree with those who have said to use spies as diplomats.

If you have excess salt, you can even trade salt for votes. When the civ leaders taste your delicious salt they will think twice about banning it. :mwaha:

Move the diplomats around after the trade is done - it won't cancel the trade or anything like that.

Salt might just be salt, but it is a lux according to the game's rules. The tooltip for the Ban Luxury measure says that the item's being proposed for a ban for SOME reason. Maybe the civ leaders all have high blood pressure. :shifty:
 
How am I supposed to get whole day's supply of vitamin C in a glass without my oranges???
:lol:
 
Some ironic cases:
Japan wanting to ban whales :lol:

Seriously though the word "luxury" is to be taken with a grain of, ahem, that dangerous substance which is unfit for general use :lol:

In a game where salt mines give food (SERIOUSLY?) but citrus, sugar and spice plantations and vineyards do not (not until fertilizer anyway) and you actually lose food when you chop jungle for them :lol:

I find it pretty useful in screwing some civs up (if your ideology has them in revolutionary wave state, sometimes that 4 happiness is the difference between having rebels and not)
 
The whole mechanic of banning luxuries makes me think that the Western world made ivory trade illegal solely to completely screw over Africa. (and it kinda worked)
 
I actually liked that mecanic in WC. It allows undermining a rival Civ's happiness as a previous step to Embargo and/or DoW

There are ways to avoid it if you are to get affected by it. And they have been already said.
 
Banning luxuries hurt the AI that hard? Maybe i need to give it a shot next time xD or be an unrepentant warmonger just to see it in action against me.
 
The thing is, Civs that don't have it will always support the ban, even if the civs they are on good terms with have it. The only good thing about this is that by the time this world congress thing goes out of bounds, you are finally not relying anymore on luxury resources to keep high happiness, you should be fairly close to an ideology that just inflates your happiness.

It really is annoying how your 'friends' will support the ban most of the times.

It's especially enraging when you're playing as Indonesia. The AI in one game immediately tried to ban Nutmeg and succeeded with everyone saying Yea... even my DoF allies. They then went on to try and ban my other unique luxuries. They were banning my UA basically.

I wasn't mass expanding or forward settling anyone and was on friendly terms with everyone, yet they were all gunning for my luxuries. So, in the end I was playing a vanilla civ with no bonuses since I had no iron for my UU and wasn't given any lakes/rivers for my UB.
 
It really is annoying how your 'friends' will support the ban most of the times.

It's especially enraging when you're playing as Indonesia. The AI in one game immediately tried to ban Nutmeg and succeeded with everyone saying Yea... even my DoF allies. They then went on to try and ban my other unique luxuries. They were banning my UA basically.

I wasn't mass expanding or forward settling anyone and was on friendly terms with everyone, yet they were all gunning for my luxuries. So, in the end I was playing a vanilla civ with no bonuses since I had no iron for my UU and wasn't given any lakes/rivers for my UB.
That's interesting... in my experience the AI will only propose resolutions adverse to your interests if (a) they don't like you, or (b) you are dominating the game and they want to take you down a peg.

If you were friendly with everyone and weren't particularly threatening, I don't see why they would target your luxuries specifically.
 
That's interesting... in my experience the AI will only propose resolutions adverse to your interests if (a) they don't like you, and (b) you are dominating the game and they want to take you down a peg.

If you were friendly with everyone and weren't particularly threatening, I don't see why they would target your luxuries specifically.

I can only assume that a few of the 'friendlies' were being deceptive as it was Alexander and someone else who proposed the bans. I'm just surprised the two civs I had a DoF with had no qualms in banning them by also voting Yea.

Perhaps another cause is that there's only ever going to be two civs in the entire game benefiting from nutmeg/cloves/pepper. Other more plentiful resources will be harder to ban if more are benefiting from them.
 
In a game where salt mines give food (SERIOUSLY?) but citrus, sugar and spice plantations and vineyards do not (not until fertilizer anyway) and you actually lose food when you chop jungle for them :lol:

Salt did play a big role in preserving food. Given that refrigeration extends trade routes, it might be cool to give salt a trade route distance bonus as well for the city it's worked in (kind of like how marble helps with wonders).

Citrus could probably give a food bonus (helpful against disease), though I think the other examples are fine giving gold instead.
 
I guess salt banners either dislike the working conditions for the miners or they are slug/snail lovers.

I guess citrus banners might dislike the working conditions in the orchards, i dunno.
 
Top Bottom