Amenities - 4 per resource or per source?

[Kazimierz Wielk]

The main difference is that in CiV, happiness was global. The fact that the empire had dyes, meant that the entire empire benefited from access to dyes. Since the Civ VI amenity system is local/city based, one would assume that multiple sources would simply allow more cities to have access to it. It doesn't make logical sense that if an empire had 2 dyes, that only 4 cities would have access to it.

"Dear Emperor, please send us some of the stockpiled dyes immediately. Our people yearn for color in their lives, otherwise they may revolt!"

"I'm greatly sorry, city #5, but the laws of nature only allow 4 cities to benefit from all our dyes. The lord God has stated that all extra dyes must either sit in our warehouses or be traded."

The difference in the CiV happiness system compared to the Civ VI amenity system should allow multiple instances of a luxury resource to be used if there are more than 4 cities.

 

[Oleary]

The main difference is that in CiV, happiness was global. The fact that the empire had dyes, meant that the entire empire benefited from access to dyes. Since the Civ VI amenity system is local/city based, one would assume that multiple sources would simply allow more cities to have access to it. It doesn't make logical sense that if an empire had 2 dyes, that only 4 cities would have access to it.

"Dear Emperor, please send us some of the stockpiled dyes immediately. Our people yearn for color in their lives, otherwise they may revolt!"

"I'm greatly sorry, city #5, but the laws of nature only allow 4 cities to benefit from all our dyes. The lord God has stated that all extra dyes must either sit in our warehouses or be traded."

The difference in the CiV happiness system compared to the Civ VI amenity system should allow multiple instances of a luxury resource to be used if there are more than 4 cities.

Correct. The question isn't which system is more realistic, it's which system did they implement.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Since gameplay > realism (for developers - I understand a lot of people disagree), the implementation depends on which fits best the rest of the game. In my understanding, additional copies of resource don't provide additional amenities for more active trade and better function as wide limiter. But I agree it could work both ways.

Actually I dislike the amenities system altogether - it looks like developers had a goal to avoid global happiness. No matter part of it is still global, no matter there are 2 more mechanics to limit city growth, they wanted happiness to be local. Reworked global happiness would be much better in my view (i.e. not from number of cities and population, but, for example, from specific districts and buildings). However, that's my external point of view.

 

[dturtle1]

It doesnt have anything to do with Gameplay VS Realism and everything to with ease of Abstraction.. I wouldnt mind if 1 copy of a resource gave an amenity to every cities. This I can abstract the Gameplay mechanic to real life, we are trying to simulate real life to at least some small degree. Trying to Abstract one city being able to benefit from a resource and not another for entirely arbitrary reasons is almost impossible.

Your argument that it better suits diplomacy is a poor one as well. If X Civ has 8 cities it will look to have 2 copies of a resource if available, 12 Cities it will look for 3 etc. IF it has less than 8 but more than 4 then the value is equal the base value multiplied by 25-75%, which ever applies. That doesn't seem hard now does it. The fact that so many people already believed this is the system implemented before we started actually looking for concrete proof reminds us how silly the alternative actually is. I reckon the amenities system far outstrips "Global Happiness"..(lol)...as long as it is implemented how most people expect it to be... aka logically

 

[igorsrs]

From Marbs game, I remember he could trade more than one copy of a luxury to another player (it actualy did it automatically, he had to manualy reduce it to 1).
It wouldn't make sense being able to sell more than one if it didn't do anything.
In Civ V you can't.

 

[dturtle1]

From Marbs game, I remember he could trade more than one copy of a luxury to another player (it actualy did it automatically, he had to manualy reduce it to 1).
It wouldn't make sense being able to sell more than one if it didn't do anything.
In Civ V you can't.

Yeah this was brought up in the previous thread, not conclusive tho
We will no soon enough

 

[donald23]

Luxuries give 4 amenities for your empire, according to the civilopedia.

 

[Seek]

Filthy just said that multiple copies can affect more than four cities...

 

[dturtle1]

Nice!!,...Thank God for that I am not sure i would have enjoyed abstracting the other scenario

 

[shaglio]

Filthy just said that multiple copies can affect more than four cities...

So I guess there's no longer a need for Lux-for-Lux trades. Just Lux-for-Gold/GPT/Relics/Great Works/War/etc. if you're running short on Amenities.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So I guess there's no longer a need for Lux-for-Lux trades. Just Lux-for-Gold/GPT/Relics/Great Works/War/etc. if you're running short on Amenities.

Lux for Lux is useful if you have more copies than cities

2+ copies and 7- cities (you can only use 1 fully)
3+ copies and 11- cities (you can only use 2 fully)
4+ copies and 15- cities (you can only use 3 fully)

etc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Lux for Lux is useful if you have more copies than cities

Or just for flexibility. If you have 1 type of luxury resources, each city can't get more than 1 amenity from them. If you have different types of them, amenities could concentrate in the city there they are needed the most.

 

[Tomice]

Is Filthy's statement confirmed? Do we know for sure how it works?