(2-VT) Improvement Adjacency - Manufactory Counts As All Types

[Stalker0]

Counterproposal to: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-31-proposal-buff-manufactory.680408/

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.

 

[azum4roll]

Fun, but likely new code if you want it to work with the 2-adjacencies.

 

[1slayerpikmin1]

This is my favorite proposal of all time

 

[pineappledan]

Not a fan. Too many variables and unique bonuses to tie into and track.

 

[CrazyG]

This is very civ 6 esque and I am not a fan of civ 6.

 

[CppMaster]

Just because sth is in Civ6, it doesn't mean it's bad. We already have adjacency bonuses anyway.

 

[andersw]

Yes, I like this.
One question however, what happens if you make a manufactury triangle, would that then be triple or quad boosted by it self from the various adjacency bonuses?

 

[CppMaster]

Yes, I like this.
One question however, what happens if you make a manufactury triangle, would that then be triple or quad boosted by it self from the various adjacency bonuses?

It wouldn't do anything, because it's about these: "farms, lumber mills, logging camps, certain UIs"

 

[Stalker0]

It wouldn't do anything, because it's about these: "farms, lumber mills, logging camps, certain UIs"

Correct. Because manufactories themselves do not gain adjacency bonuses, having a fellow manufactory next to them wouldn't do anything.

 

[CrazyG]

Just because sth is in Civ6, it doesn't mean it's bad. We already have adjacency bonuses anyway.

I'm not claiming its bad because its from civ 6. I think civ 6 isn't that great exactly because of mechanics like this, very high complexity and hard to keep track of. If you spend the time to learn to maximize your position the reward is tiny so there's very little depth to the actual decision.

A lot of adjacencies are at best a noob trap, you shouldn't be heavily weighing if you can get a forest triangle when placing cities in the ancient era. Optimistically you squeeze out an extra 3 production like 100 turns in the future? Honestly I don't think the adjacency bonus for lumber mills is even worth the text it takes up. Farms are interesting but I only ever work farm triangles on desert rivers.

I don't think manufactories need a buff either.

 

[CppMaster]

very high complexity and hard to keep track of.

Do you actually think that adjancency is that complicated? In Civ6 yeah, it is, because there are a lot of factors, but in Civ5 is pretty simple.

 

[CrazyG]

Do you actually think that adjancency is that complicated? In Civ6 yeah, it is, because there are a lot of factors, but in Civ5 is pretty simple.

That's what I'm saying. I'd like to keep it simple.

This mod has a fair amount of adjacency bonuses, which aren't complex but in my opinion are mostly worth ignoring anyways. Other than early game farms (and UI like Moai), the yields are just so tiny compared to the huge numbers of food and production your cities will have.

I think if you removed the production or gold to lumbermills/logging camps from adjacency it would not have affected the outcome of a single game I've ever played.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm opposed to adding additional adjacencies for existing base improvements. Many UIs have adjacencies and that's fine, because prioritizing UI placements and adjacencies is something that 1 civ can just do 1 at a time. However, adding all sorts of adjacencies onto GPTIs and basic tile improvements chokes out and competes with those unique flavors. No thanks.

I agree with @CrazyG that the adjacencies on lumber mills and logging camps was probably a bad move.

 

[CppMaster]

If it's that insinficant then it doesn't matter if you don't do it. I like this mini puzzle both in Civ5 and even more in Civ6

 

[ma_kuh]

I can respect the issues with allowing Manufactories and other GPTIs from contributing/affecting adjacencies. Why not also allow Academies to count? Towns? If all GPTIs counted for adjacencies, then it would at least be consistent. I think I'd rather go a different route, and give GPTIs a bonus from adjacent resources or something before trying to include them in the adjacency-tile puzzle sub-system.

Regarding the adjacency puzzle as an element in the game, I think it's actually cool to give rewards for trying to map out your tile improvements. Some Civs get this with their unique improvements, and sharing a little bit of that feeling through core mechanics is great in my view. I might suggest taking it one step further, introducing some of the other placement rules to base improvements. Villages getting a bonus from adjacent resources (like the Hacienda), or lumber/logging not being able to be placed adjacent to each other (like the Kuna). I think it's healthy because these are proven patterns for what makes an "interesting" tile puzzle. The benefits that a specific Civ provides can still be made to feel unique, but everyone gets to play with all of the different puzzle pieces, not just the "basic" one (Farms/triangles).

 

[Stalker0]

Why not also allow Academies to count? Towns?

For a very simple reason, Manufactories are the only GPTI we are looking to strengthen. GPs do NOT operate the same, many of them have unique mechanics and modes of operation. Providing this as a unique feature of manufactory is not strange at all, its just one way to boost a GPTI in a way that is a lot more interesting than just slapping on more yields.

 

[ma_kuh]

For a very simple reason, Manufactories are the only GPTI we are looking to strengthen.

Manufactories have a (fairly significant?) buff incoming with 3.0 right? I'll definitely reserve judgment for whether they need further tweaks after playing with that a bit. I know these proposals won't be voted on for a month, so it's all good. Having the idea in the hopper doesn't bother anything.

As for other GPs operating differently, I'm assuming you mean Culture GP (they put their TI in the city, and have theming), and Holy Sites getting a benefit from beliefs? Academies don't have anything special, and Towns only have road and caravan synergy, which mostly just comes from mirroring villages. So I guess if Manufactory = Farm/Lumber Camp, then it's no stretch to ask for it to count for triangles (mines don't have adjacency right?). I'd probably target it a little more towards just the similar improvements though, there's not really a reason it should affect Moai.

 

[pineappledan]

I would much rather just add the % towards wonders for each improvement worked to manufactories. It’s a bit of unused code, and would mostly work to counteract the % cost modifier from previous eras.

Much simpler and cleaner than adding manufactories into all adjacencies. That’s a massive headache for compatibility.

 

[InkAxis]

I originally liked this idea but pdan has convinced me, there is an elegance about game design. You don't want to add more micromanaging. And it really is a noob trap because it's only one or two extra yields.
This is the kinda thing you add for a UI as a special part of a civ, but just for everyone in a weak way doesn't make sense.
Also, I'm not sure if the AI knows about this or not

 

[ma_kuh]

I think right now placing GPTIs basically amounts to choosing if you want the yields paired with food or production (flat or hill), and avoiding messing up a village road chain.

I will say, this suggestion is still a cool idea to be able to bridge forest/farm triangle sections with a unique mechanic. Maybe it is better as a unique TI for a civ. And again I'll say, I think making it count for ALL adjacencies is where it loses me, if it was targeting specific improvements that are Manufactory/Engineering "themed" then it seems thematic, and prevents civ-unique TIs with adjacencies from needing to be considered, which I think is a compatibility need-to-have.