[Vote] (6-10) Multiple Civs Can Have A Monopoly

[Stalker0]

Current: A person has a % of a resource based on how many copies of that resource are on the map. Ex: Normal standard maps have 5 copies of most luxs, meaning you need 3 copies to get a luxury.

When someone grabs 51% of a resource, they acquire a monopoly. If someone comes along and acquires a higher % (which as through East India, Great Admiral, etc), they take the monopoly and the original player loses it. Ex: A player that has 2 copies of that luxury, and then got 2 more from East India, would steal it from the OG player who had 3 copies.

Proposal: All civs that have 51% of a resource gains the benefit of the monopoly.

Rationale: Having your monopoly stolen is a real feels' bad man scenario, and it also exaggerates the wonkiness that adding "free resources" can bring to the game. In this version, monopolies become simplier, you get a majority of the resource (based on what the map has), and you get the monopoly. No muss no fuss.

Thematically, this is actually very accurate in the real world. While there are true singular monopolies were one entity owns everything, more common is a small group of companies or countries that control it an engaged in "monopolistic practices."

 

[KlHannibal2]

What I like about the current model is that you can strategically secure or deny corporations. If multiple players can have a monopoly, getting the tech first becomes mor important.

 

[azum4roll]

Very rarely can you deny a monopoly from another player by gaining more copies than them, while both have over 50%.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Very rarely can you deny a monopoly from another player by gaining more copies than them, while both have over 50%.

You can citadel some copies or that a city, or help another AI take a city.

 

[azum4roll]

You can citadel some copies or that a city, or help another AI take a city.

None of these change the total number of resources on the map, so are irrelevant to the discussion. Whether this passes or not doesn't impact that at all.

 

[Anarcomu]

None of these change the total number of resources on the map, so are irrelevant to the discussion. Whether this passes or not doesn't impact that at all.

Consider this situation :

• There is 9 resources on the map
• Player A have 4 resources, and the EIC granting 2 more copies, for 6 total (majority)
• Player B have 5 resources, and the EIC granting 2 more copies, for 7 total (majority, monopoly)

Actually, Player B have monopoly, but if Player A steal one resource from Player B, they steal the monopoly. Both players have majority.

With proposal, both players have monopoly, and stealing resources won't change this status.

Also note that it is a potential buff to Netherlands, as they would only need to buy a majority of luxury, instead of all + get one extra.

 

[Recursive]

Sponsored.

 

[pineappledan]

I dislike this. I like the current system better.

 

[Captain Carrot]

I support anything that makes the Netherlands viable in multiplayer.

 

[Tekamthi]

current system does a good job at inflaming conflict over resources, and in this sense is a good abstraction for irl geopolitical concerns. Proposal softens this desireable aspect considerably imo

compromise to me would be to have it as a world congress initiative -- if players want a more co-op game, turn on multiple monopoly via vote, otherwise default to single monopoly

 

[azum4roll]

A fair point is that current Netherlands doesn't have a way to buy his way to a monopoly unless 1) he gets at least one source on the map/from a third party, and 2) the original monopoly owner is stupid enough.

 

[adan_eslavo]

A fair point is that current Netherlands doesn't have a way to buy his way to a monopoly unless 1) he gets at least one source on the map/from a third party, and 2) the original monopoly owner is stupid enough.

Is the 2) even possible? I mean, AI?

 

[azum4roll]

If you pay enough, AI will often sell their last copy. For a higher price against Netherlands.

 

[Rekk]

What would the Monopoly UI look like with two players allowing a Monopoly? Still only the player that has the most, even though that doesn't matter anymore?

 

[pineappledan]

I support anything that makes the Netherlands viable in multiplayer.

I think Netherlands just needs a new UA if viability for multiplayer is in any way a goal. There is no amount of half-measures that will convince other human players that trading with the Dutch is a good idea, unless you price the benefit they derive from their UA into the deal directly.

 

[KlHannibal2]

I think Netherlands just needs a new UA if viability for multiplayer is in any way a goal. There is no amount of half-measures that will convince other human players that trading with the Dutch is a good idea, unless you price the benefit they derive from their UA into the deal directly.

What if also the player trading with Netherlands gets extra yields from dutch UA. Only Gold, not culture?

 

[azum4roll]

unless you price the benefit they derive from their UA into the deal directly.

Which is exactly what the AI is doing right now?

 

[Recursive]

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