[Complex] (6-13) Calculate Monopoly Base from All Copies of the Resource on the Market

[adan_eslavo]

It might sound complicated, but currently your Global (or Strategic) Monopoly is calculated based on the number of resources on the map. Let's analyse the following example:

a) There are 4 Ambers on the map

So any player might gain a Global Monopoly by claiming 3 copies of this resources. "Base" in our example is 4, because that's how many resources are on the map. Let's assume 1st Player controls 2 of them, so he has only 50% of the global Amber, so he has not a Global Monopoly. Now let's add another factors:

b) 1st Player has 2 copies of Amber in his capital
c) 1st Player constructs East India Company National Wonder

Now the situation is quite odd. Player gains 2 additional copies of Amber in his capital from EIC, so now he controls 4 copies of Amber. Comparing with the "base" which is still 4 he controls 100% of Amber gaining a Global Monopoly. But remember that there are 2 more Ambers on the map, unimproved by anyone. Strange situation for me. Quite unnatural. But the thing gets more interesting now, when we add another factors:

d) 2nd Player controls remaining 2 copies of Amber in his capital
e) 2nd Player also constructs East India Company in his capital

Ok. If we calculate everything, then we get that both players control 100% of Amber, and both should get a Global Monopoly. Weird enough, don't you think? It's an edge situation, but might happen in your game easily.

Another thing would be the fact, that resources granted by free buildings also do count towards monopolies, but ONLY if there are another copies of such resource on the map. This leads to super weird situations, and let's use an example of my More Wonders mod, when you get 1 copy of a unique luxury resources (Tern Egg) and you have no monopoly. Why? Because it's not on the map. If building would give let's say Iron, then it would be guaranteed that it will be counted towards monopoly, because you always have at least 1 copy of Iron on the map. And last example using f.e. Copper, would be random. If map generator would pick Copper from the pool, then it will count towards monopolies. If not, then it will be omitted.

Not mentioning that UI tells you that you control 140% of the resource. Ugh... Imagine that in real world, when someone controls over 100% of the coffee available on the market. Or all Tobacco companies together produce 150% of Tobacco.

Proposal: All copies of luxury or strategic resources added by the events of the game should be added to the "base", which is used to calculate players' monopolies. They should also count towards monopolies (always). Current sources we are aware of are:

• resources granted from Great Admirals (2 copies);
• East India Company resources (duplicates luxuries from the city it is build in);
• free resources from buildings (World Wonders, Natural Wonders (mod), National Wonders etc.);
• free resources from UAs (Russia);
• free resources from Policies (Foreign Service, Third Alternative);
• free resources from Beliefs (Zealotry);

In such case, using our example, both players would control only 50% of Amber available on the market, thus none of them would gain a Global Monopoly. "Base" would change dynamically depending on what the player actions are. Easy?

Complex Proposal: DLL + UI Changes

 

[Recursive]

This leads to super weird situations, and let's use an example of my More Wonders mod, when you get 1 copy of a unique luxury resources (Tern Egg) and you have no monopoly. Why? Because it's not on the map.

This could be a huge buff depending on the monopoly in question. e.g., you have the only copy of Copper or Coffee, giving you +10% Production in all cities.

Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[adan_eslavo]

This could be a huge buff depending on the monopoly in question. e.g., you have the only copy of Copper or Coffee, giving you +10% Production in all cities.

Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.

Unique Resources' monopoly bonuses should then be balanced. As a modder I'm in control of what power they have.
With base luxuries, yes, it would be a bit more difficult to handle. But it is quite unintuitive when in one stuation you gain a monopoly and in other you do not.
Also, if I create a luxury resource and give it to player, then I want him to gain a monopoly. If I did't want to, I would make it a bonus resource instead.
I don't know if there are any "base" luxuries given by buildings. If not, then there's not a problem for VP, but modmods adding such.

 

[Enginseer]

It might sound complicated, but currently your Global (or Strategic) Monopoly is calculated based on the number of resources on the map. Let's analyse the following example:
...
Ok. If we calculate everything, then we get that both players control 100% of Amber, and both should get a Global Monopoly. Weird enough, don't you think? It's an edge situation, but might happen in your game easily.

I disagree, only one Monopoly Owner. I'm not interested in both sides getting a monopoly bonus. Monopoly is brutal and one-sided, not equal. the first one gets the benefits and keeps it until the competitor ups the ante. The first person who built the East India Company first currently deserves to keep its monopoly not share it with someone else who built it.

Another thing would be the fact, that resources granted by free buildings also do count towards monopolies, but ONLY if there are another copies of such resource on the map. This leads to super weird situations, and let's use an example of my More Wonders mod, when you get 1 copy of a unique luxury resources (Tern Egg) and you have no monopoly. Why? Because it's not on the map. If building would give let's say Iron, then it would be guaranteed that it will be counted towards monopoly, because you always have at least 1 copy of Iron on the map. And last example using f.e. Copper, would be random. If map generator would pick Copper from the pool, then it will count towards monopolies. If not, then it will be omitted.

This is where you would make your Wonder spawn Tern Egg.

Not mentioning that UI tells you that you control 140% of the resource. Ugh... Imagine that in real world, when someone controls over 100% of the coffee available on the market. Or all Tobacco companies together produce 150% of Tobacco.

If someone controls over 100% coffee, then they have extracted artificially more out of the natural reserves.

That's why I would like to suggest, that resources granted by East India Company and by free buildings should be counted towards "base". In such case, using our example, both players would control only 50% of Amber available on the market, thus none of them would gain a Global Monopoly. "Base" would change dynamically depending on what the player actions are. Easy?

And it would change dynamically depending on everyone else actions. Monopoly bonuses are granted to the strongest monopoly owner. The way you have phrased this is in a way that exempts resources generated from policies and from great people when the code for monopoly is pretty simple-coded and limited to just getting a resource quantity of the civilization vs resource quantity on the map.

With base luxuries, yes, it would be a bit more difficult to handle. But it is quite unintuitive when in one stuation you gain a monopoly and in other you do not.
Also, if I create a luxury resource and give it to player, then I want him to gain a monopoly. If I did't want to, I would make it a bonus resource instead.
I don't know if there are any "base" luxuries given by buildings. If not, then there's not a problem for VP, but modmods adding such.

Candi is in the background crying. If you want to create a luxury resource and give it to the player, place it on the map.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I disagree, only one Monopoly Owner. I'm not interested in both sides getting a monopoly bonus. Monopoly is brutal and one-sided, not equal. the first one gets the benefits and keeps it until the competitor ups the ante. The first person who built the East India Company first currently deserves to keep its monopoly not share it with someone else who built it.

I'm not suggesting that both sides should have a Global Monopoly. Rather the opposite. I'm only suggesting that the numbers are weird. And why only the "first" should benefit from monopoly if he has no more the majority of the market?

If someone controls over 100% coffee, then they have extracted artificially more out of the natural reserves.

But it shows up on the market increasing the supply. Looks more natural that anyone calculating if he has the monopoly will do calculations based on all supply.

And it would change dynamically depending on everyone else actions. Monopoly bonuses are granted to the strongest monopoly owner. The way you have phrased this is in a way that exempts resources generated from policies and from great people when the code for monopoly is pretty simple-coded and limited to just getting a resource quantity of the civilization vs resource quantity on the map.

Are there policies giving resources? Can you elaborate?
Basically yes, this would mean making the "base" dynamic. I don't say it will be easier to code. But It will look more natural from the player perpsective.

Candi is in the background crying. If you want to create a luxury resource and give it to the player, place it on the map.

It's not so easy. Unless you are a model maker

 

[Enginseer]

Are there policies giving resources? Can you elaborate?
Basically yes, this would mean making the "base" dynamic. I don't say it will be easier to code. But It will look more natural from the player perpsective.

Especially when Third Alternative's balance is pretty much, "I give you so many strategic resources if you control them, you gain a massive strategic monopoly bonus that could be global, recalculating it to include it means this tenet gets nerfed."

 

[Recursive]

Great Admirals also give free copies of Luxuries. How are those handled?

 

[adan_eslavo]

Great Admirals also give free copies of Luxuries. How are those handled?

For now, it depends. If there are available unused resources, then they will give you 2 copies of such and they do not count towards monopolies. However if there are no unused resources (all of them are placed on the map, edge case), then they have to give you something, so they choose one. This time given resource counts towards monopoly.

 

[rkkn]

I don't like the edge cases that this allows for. Example: there are 5 of a luxury on the map. you get 3, but the other 2 are spread out a bit and two other empires each get 1. You get a global monopoly with 3/5. All is well for now. You build east india company and now you have 5. 5/7. Still good. The other two empires then also build one, and now you are at 5/11. No monopoly anymore, even though you have the majority of the resources on the map. I think this is a bad outcome. Even worse is that it's very unclear for the player as to what happened to lose the monopoly. Should we get global notifications each time someone constructs an east india company?

Also, I'm not sure how admiral luxuries work, but maybe there's additional potential for a monopoly to be lost by someone using an admiral, and you'd again have no idea what happened.

 

[Zuizgond]

So I guess it also applies to Russia and their ability to double the amount of strategic resource.

 

[AndreyK]

I don't like the edge cases that this allows for. Example: there are 5 of a luxury on the map. you get 3, but the other 2 are spread out a bit and two other empires each get 1. You get a global monopoly with 3/5. All is well for now. You build east india company and now you have 5. 5/7. Still good. The other two empires then also build one, and now you are at 5/11. No monopoly anymore, even though you have the majority of the resources on the map. I think this is a bad outcome. Even worse is that it's very unclear for the player as to what happened to lose the monopoly. Should we get global notifications each time someone constructs an east india company?

Also, I'm not sure how admiral luxuries work, but maybe there's additional potential for a monopoly to be lost by someone using an admiral, and you'd again have no idea what happened.

If other empires build EIC then we have 5/9 and it's still good.

 

[CppMaster]

I don't like the edge cases that this allows for.

Like you said, it's just an edge case. In practice, how often do you think it would happen. 1 in 100 games? I wouldn't worry about it.

I like the idea.

Should we get global notifications each time someone constructs an east india company?

I think a notification each time you get/lose a monopoly is enough.

 

[rkkn]

If other empires build EIC then we have 5/9 and it's still good.

and your own. that's three EIC, adding an extra 6

So I guess it also applies to Russia and their ability to double the amount of strategic resource.

indeed, it would be a notable nerf to Russia's ability to get monopolies on strategics
if there are 79 horses on the map, Russia needs 20 to get a global monopoly. this would increase that to 27.
Russia would also make it harder for others to get monopolies.

 

[axatin]

What about the Dutch and their resource import ability? How would that be affected by your proposal?

 

[AndreyK]

and your own. that's three EIC, adding an extra 6



indeed, it would be a notable nerf to Russia's ability to get monopolies on strategics
if there are 79 horses on the map, Russia needs 20 to get a global monopoly. this would increase that to 27.
Russia would also make it harder for others to get monopolies.

I have 2, so EIC adds 2, but other 2 have 1 copy each, so they get +1 each, so total extra 4.

 

[AndreyK]

If I have 3 then with EIC I get 6, other 2 get +1 each, so that gets us 6 out of 10.

 

[adan_eslavo]

What about the Dutch and their resource import ability? How would that be affected by your proposal?

Their case is a bit more difficult to analyze, because they are the only case when a copy of a resource is used twice during monopoly calculations. But because it's tied to their UA, I would leave them as they are. They are not adding additional copy to the market that can be traded. They only make it count for their own monopoly bonuses. This means, they do not increase the "base".

@rkkn I suppose getting a notification about gained or lost monnopoly as you have it now would be enough to make you notice "something happened". If you indeed controlled most of the map copies, then it had to be from additional source.

Amendment 1:
To simplify things, every copy of a luxury or strategic resource added to the trade (market, pool) should increase the "base" that monopolies are counted from. I will list all potential sources.

 

[Rekk]

Well, this would be a massive buff to Great Admirals, at least.

I agree with Enginseer. If you want your modmod to give resource monopoly bonuses, spawn the resources on the map.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Well, this would be a massive buff to Great Admirals, at least.

I agree with Enginseer. If you want your modmod to give resource monopoly bonuses, spawn the resources on the map.

This was only one of the examples. Case is much wider as there are more "extra" sources in the game. I tried to list them in the op. I could miss some, but if you about some let me know.

 

[Stalker0]

just noting the example in the OP isn't quite correct. If Person 1 has a monopoly, and then person 2 gets a higher % by building east india, ONLY player 2 gets teh monopoly (player 1 loses it).

Personally I would rather we go the opposite direction. Allow multiple people to get monopolies, and then no extras affect the map, it is purely map driven.

Ie if the map has 5 copies of a lux. If I have 3 copies, I get a monopoly. If the next person had 2 copies out of 5, no monopoly. They get east india, they now have 4 copies (but still out of 5). Both players get the monopoly.


And before the thematics people come down in that, in real life a monopoly is often not control by just a single entity, even a small number of companies can often utilize "monopolistic" practices, so allowing for 2 civs to share a monopoly is not crazy to me.