(6-NS) Calculate Monopoly Base from All Copies of the Resource on the Market

[adan_eslavo]

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.

In such case all of these should be listed, so you know where are these resources from. Currently UI tells you control 6 of 5 pieces. You look at the map and see only 4 and 1 unimproved. What the hell? Then it turns out you have EIC adding 2 extra that are not mentioned in the monopoly window. This is true for every extra source. People like me, who learn some things should have this info shown. I don't know why it is hidden.

EIC is easy. But when you add up other factors like policies, beliefs and UAs, then it gets funny.

 

[azum4roll]

But it is quite unintuitive when in one stuation you gain a monopoly and in other you do not.

Which is why I dislike the events/buildings/other sources that can potentially give you more than one of a luxury resource that can sometimes be on the map. Granting one globally is ok, but more can trigger monopoly.

And it's definitely a no if Voyage of Discovery can grant a monopoly.

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."

Nah, it'll just become the "I'll remove these monopolies from the current holder" tenet.

Currently UI tells you control 6 of 5 pieces. You look at the map and see only 4 and 1 unimproved

Easy. Just change the UI to say "on the map". The Monopoly Concept in the Civilopedia should also explain this.

 

[dostillevi]

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.

Right now the opposite can occur. 5 luxuries on the map, player 1 controls 3 and has a monopoly. Player two controls 2 and then builds East India, giving them 4/5 and taking the monopoly. I dont think the proposal is any more confusing than current behavior, and has the added benefit of clarifying the luxury calculation to something that can make sense. As it is now, player 1 would look at the luxury monopoly screen and scratch their head wondering why their 3/5 ownership is suddenly no longer a monopoly. The civilopedia entry also encourages the idea that owning greater than 50% of a resource grants a monopoly, which contradicts with the presentation of resource count on the monopoly screen.

 

[rkkn]

As it is now, player 1 would look at the luxury monopoly screen and scratch their head wondering why their 3/5 ownership is suddenly no longer a monopoly.

well, it also shows that p2 is at 4/5

 

[dostillevi]

I strongly support this change in principle and largely as proposed. I do think any edge cases should be reviewed carefully, but rationalizing the monopoly logic seems reasonable even if it has knock on effects on other mechanics or civs, which could later be balanced if needed.

 

[dostillevi]

well, it also shows that p2 is at 4/5

Which is confusing in its own right. P1 would see their 3 resources, the 4 from P2, and come up with 7/5 resources. An experienced player knows those owned resources didn't come from the map and that the divisor is just the count on the map, but writing it like a fraction almost never makes sense given the context and behavior of monopoly logic.

 

[ma_kuh]

Would it be more understandable if the denominator was just the number you needed to secure the monopoly, rather than the count on the map?

So if there are 9 resources on the map, you would get 1/5. If you claim 5 resources, you get the monopoly. If someone shows up and raises their count to 7, they would have 7/7 and you would have 5/7, and know that you need to bump to 8/8 to win it back.

 

[rkkn]

well it's shown as a % on the monopoly screen. Your % needs to be > 50%, and it needs to be bigger than everyone else's. I think it's pretty straightforward already.

 

[KlHannibal2]

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.

That would make admirals extremely strong. Getting 10% globally for a yield from a single great person is way better than other GPs.

 

[Rekk]

Will need to make monopoly bonuses for Paper as well.

 

[ma_kuh]

Allows you to build the Paper Maker, a unique building only paper monopolists can build.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Will need to make monopoly bonuses for Paper as well.

Paper cannot be traded, so I think we can exclude it.

 

[CppMaster]

Paper cannot be traded, so I think we can exclude it.

Hey! That gave me an idea! Why paper cannot be traded?

 

[Enginseer]

Hey! That gave me an idea! Why paper cannot be traded?

CSD Units used to scale a lot in paper and CSD buildings like Chanceries itself provided Paper. This encouraged wide diplomatic play more than tall diplomatic play. The AI would sometimes value this a bit too much (like Siam who has a bunch of alliances thinking they want to deny paper to their enemies by buying the paper ends up hurting themselves because I'm not gonna bother trying to compete with them and thus sell the paper at an advantage to me).

 

[CppMaster]

The AI would sometimes value this a bit too much (like Siam who has a bunch of alliances thinking they want to deny paper to their enemies by buying the paper ends up hurting themselves because I'm not gonna bother trying to compete with them and thus sell the paper at an advantage to me).

So that's just AI resource evaluation problem. All resources could be evaluated incorrectly, not just paper.

 

[azum4roll]

Allows you to build the Paper Maker, a unique building only paper monopolists can build.

But do they make paper?

 

[adan_eslavo]

But do they make paper?

It's kinda neat idea

 

[ma_kuh]

I should probably have been clearer, the unique building thing was a joke.

But yes, it should cost 1 paper to build, and generate 1 paper for you.

 

[Captain Carrot]

Does it also cost 1 in maintenance while adding 1 to the city tile?

 

[Recursive]

I strongly dislike this because it'll make strategic resource monopolies near-impossible to acquire if a lot of players go Statecraft.