[Vote] (2-VT) Buff Manufactory Proposals

[Recursive]

balparmak's Proposed Buff
Discussion Thread: (2-VT) Buff Manufactory
Proposer: @balparmak
Sponsor: @balparmak

Proposal Details
The Manufactory doesn't scale as good as mines, and remains the weakest GPTI in my opinion.

Proposal: Manufactory should benefit from boosts given by buildings and policies to Mines, so it gains:
- +2 from Forge and Siege Workshop (note: if (2-08) Reduce Mine Yields Proposals pass, the Manufactory gains the same yield as a Mine would),
- +1 and +1 from Ostrog,

- +2 and +1 from Entrepreneurship policy,
- +3 from Five Year Plan tenet.


Stalker0's Proposed Buff
Discussion Thread: (2-VT) Improvement Adjacency - Manufactory Counts As All Types
Proposer: @Stalker0
Sponsor: @axatin

Proposal Details
Proposal: For all improvements that have adjacency bonuses (farms, lumber mills, logging camps, certain UIs), the Manufactory counts for the purpose of adjacency. So for example, 2 farms next to a manufactory would count as a "farm triangle" and get their extra food.

Rationale: We have often talked about ways to beef up the manufactory but just adding "more yields" adds straight yield bloat and isn't very interesting. Adjacency is a fun mechanic, and with this it allows players a new puzzle to try and optimize terrain, and creates fun synergies with certain UIs as well.

 

[DoveCDog]

If 2-08 passes, does 2-20 fall to +1 hammer from forge?

 

[Recursive]

If 2-08 passes, does 2-20 fall to +1 hammer from forge?

Yes. Clarified that.

 

[pineappledan]

Ya'll are gonna inflate the bujeezus out of the manufactory with this stuff.

 

[Rekk]

Manufactory is incredibly strong just due to its hurry scaler.

 

[hokath]

Keeping adjacencies is really cute, I like that.
I wouldn't just make it a mine on crack, that seems like too much.

 

[pineappledan]

I think it would be helpful to write out all the bonuses implied by @Stalker0 ‘s proposal.

counts towards the 2 adjacent bonuses for:
To adjacent farms
To lumber mills (could change due to other proposal)
To logging camps (could change due to other proposal)
To Hunnic Ekis

Direct yields for each adjacent improvement:
To each Polynesian Moai
To each Terrace Farm
To each national park (approved but not yet implemented)

Various modmod improvements (guuuuuh…)

Does it boost Haciendas? Those rely on adjacent resources. Are bonuses for adjacent terrain etc included, or only improvement adjacencies?

Anything else I am missing?

I really don’t like this idea.
- It causes a lot of compatibility work.
- It is not future-proof, and is one of those bonuses where if something else in the game changes we will have to revisit this constantly.
- It favours inland cities where it can be surrounded by adjacent improvements, marginalizing placement on coastal/island cities which are production starved (unless you’re Polynesia).
- It’s a very civ 6, land management, tile puzzle bonus, which is precisely the aspect of civ 6 I hate the most.
- I believe Adjacencies are better kept to unique components, so civs can just focus on maximizing 1 at a time, rather than having to keep track of an ever-growing list of them.
- It’s highly variable in power, especially for Polynesia. This almost feels like a direct Polynesia/Inca buff, because their UIs are so directly and powerfully affected.
- thematically conflicting with the national park improvement we were going to add to late game. An industrial park boosting a nearby nature preserve will look weird.

 

[Rekk]

An SQL trigger should make it forwards compatible, at least.

As proposed, it acts like an adjacent improvement, not a resource.

 

[pineappledan]

Villages get +1 from polders. Does the manufactory adjacency bonus also mean that manufactories will give this bonus???

Ugh, why is this proposal? Please write out the actual game impact of proposals before getting people to vote on them.

 

[Stalker0]

Villages get +1 from polders. Does the manufactory adjacency bonus also mean that manufactories will give this bonus???

Ugh, why is this proposal? Please write out the actual game impact of proposals before getting people to vote on them.

Villages do not get bonuses from adjacent polders. Instead, the polder is pushing a bonus onto the village.

The proposal is that a manufactory counts as any needed building for the purpose of an improvements adjacency bonuses. As villages have no adjacency bonuses, they would receive nothing from a manufactory.

A way to think of it is, if I go to an improvement's tooltip, and it doesn't mention any bonuses for having things next to it, the manufactory does nothing. If it does, the manufactory would count for that bonus.

 

[Rekk]

Villages do not get bonuses from adjacent polders. Instead, the polder is pushing a bonus onto the village.

This is a meaningless distinction that only exists because the other option is *adjacent bonuses from improvements of the same type* tables. I am changing all the improvements away from this paradigm in the next patch.

Everything will instead be improved by other adjacent improvements; nothing will push the bonus onto others.

Figure out another justification, please.

 

[Stalker0]

To make the proposal clear per PADs request, here are the bonuses the manufactory adjacency would provide:

Eki: +1 prod per 2 eki bonus
Farms: +1 food per 2 farms bonus
Logging Camp: +1 gold per 2 logging camp bonus
Lumber Mill: +1 prod per 2 lumber mill bonus
Moai: +1 culture per moai bonus
Terrance Farm: +1 food per terrance farm

 

[pineappledan]

To make the proposal clear per PADs request, here are the bonuses the manufactory adjacency would provide:

Eki: +1 prod per 2 eki bonus
Farms: +1 food per 2 farms bonus
Logging Camp: +1 gold per 2 logging camp bonus
Lumber Mill: +1 prod per 2 lumber mill bonus
Moai: +1 culture per moai bonus
Terrance Farm: +1 food per farm/terrance farm

This should have been the proposal before you got people to vote on this by allowing them to imagine their implementation of it.

Also no, it doesn’t work how you say it does re: the adjacency bonuses. Your exclusion of village and town adjacencies is an entirely arbitrary trick of language. The method used by terrace farms to themselves is the exact same as the one polders use to buff villages.

 

[Stalker0]

The method used by terrace farms to themselves is the exact same as the one polders use to buff villages.

You are right, I reread the tooltip and realized that farms do not provide adjacencies to terrace farms, and updated my notes with that in mind.

 

[Stalker0]

This should have been the proposal before you got people to vote on this by allowing them to imagine their implementation of it.

I agree that the proposal could have been clearer, and had it been vetoed much earlier based on those grounds I would have respected it. But it didn't, so here we are. @Recursive I'll let you decide if you think a revote is needed or if we just proceed with the proposal as is.

 

[Recursive]

Villages do not get bonuses from adjacent polders. Instead, the polder is pushing a bonus onto the village.

The proposal is that a manufactory counts as any needed building for the purpose of an improvements adjacency bonuses. As villages have no adjacency bonuses, they would receive nothing from a manufactory.

A way to think of it is, if I go to an improvement's tooltip, and it doesn't mention any bonuses for having things next to it, the manufactory does nothing. If it does, the manufactory would count for that bonus.

After consideration, I think that this distinction is not clear enough to the players.

The proposal's wording was:

For all improvements that have adjacency bonuses (farms, lumber mills, logging camps, certain UIs), the Manufactory counts for the purpose of adjacency.

Which would imply Villages are included. If Villages are going to be excluded, this should have been specified.

As it's too late in the Voting Phase for a revote, I will veto these proposals. They can be resubmitted next session. Sorry balparmak.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.