Amenities - 4 per resource or per source?

[Edish]

Hello, quick question:

One amenity is enough for 4 cities, but does two sources of the same resource then provide for 8 cities, and so on? I's pretty sure that's the case, but just wanted to be certain.

 

[master__jj]

given the way they are distributed, I'd say they add up

 

[stealth_nsk]

There was some discussion lately. Developers are really unclear. But in 4 hours we'll have Let's Plays and hopefully YouTubers will clarify the issue.

 

[Edish]

If it's not, it's just ridiculous...

"no sorry, we have corned the entire worlds supply of silver and gold, but as they want some over there we cant have any...

But but, before we captured the mines there was enough for an whole continent?

Silence, those people over there needs ALL of it!!

But if we open even more mines?

What are you not hearing, they needs AAAAALL of it"

 

[Plus Ultra]

1 Amenity = 4 cities.
2 Amenities = 8 Cities.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

1 Amenity = 4 cities.
2 Amenities = 8 Cities.

Montezuma disagrees

But seriously, devs weren't 100% clear, but I think it is pretty obvious that this is the case.

 

[Leyrann]

I could see 1 amenity being 4 and 2 amenities being 8 being the logical thing. It might look like it doesn't matter which amenity you have then, until you realize that you still cannot stack two of the same amenity in a city, while you can stack two different ones.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If it's not, it's just ridiculous...

It makes a lot of gameplay sense, though, as it would inforce much more active trade. We have to wait and see.

 

[Josephias]

1 Amenity = 4 cities.
2 Amenities = 8 Cities.

I agree it has to be like that, even if not fully confirmed.
Or as said in other thread

Max amenities per luxury in a single city = 1*luxury type
Max sum of amenities per luxury in your empire = 4*luxury source

Both rules must be met, therefore the first maximum to be reached will limit your luxury allocation (i.e you may have empire useable luxuries that cannot be assigned to any city because city maximum is reached, or the city maximum may not be reached because there are not enough luxuries in your empire)

 

[Paramecium]

Yeah, in the last livestream they have spoken a lot about amenities, but they were not very clearly about the distribution in case of multiple ressources of the same luxury.

I think I remember they said One luxury -> 4 amenities -> that's it. BUT they just had 3 roman cities plus 1 conquered. So it was unsure if they meant it in general Or for that certain case.

It can be both way atm. But yeah, I agree it would just be weird. But in CiV it was kind of the same, you could have 5 copies of one lux but just support 4 happiness. It was weird but okay, happiness was global counted and only one lux counted there. Sure You had Buildings which provided local happiness, but now the "happiness" is, god thanks, counted local. So I really hope that multiple sources of the Same lux can Support more cities and if you prefere a smaller empire, you can trade your extra copies to get a higher diversity of amenities to support your fewer cities...

Just hope that some youtuber will show us it today or in the next days.

 

[Oleary]

It will be interesting to see what the actual system is. It sure sounds like (to me) it's limited to one use per empire. As Stealth states, this opens up the trade system. If we can use multiple copies, trading will be scarce (for lux). Hopefully we'll get an answer later today.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I don't see how it open up the trade system because each city can only get one amenity from each luxury so multiple copies will just make the happy a bit more happy which may be less valuable then making the unhappy happy.

 

[Oleary]

I don't see how it open up the trade system because each city can only get one amenity from each luxury so multiple copies will just make the happy a bit more happy which may be less valuable then making the unhappy happy.

hmm, I'm not sure I understand your statement. Not enough coffee yet probably.

If you have 2 copies of a lux, you use one for amenities and are able to trade the other copy to another civ for something else (e.g. a lux you don't have, gold, etc). It's the system Civ V uses, right?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't see how it open up the trade system because each city can only get one amenity from each luxury so multiple copies will just make the happy a bit more happy which may be less valuable then making the unhappy happy.

In the system where 2 resources give 8 amenities, trading additional resource for another resource is still viable - even if it doesn't provide additional amenities, it still provides flexibility. However, there's also trade resource for gold.

Let's take the last Rome LP. Barbarossa offers gold for the second copy of tea. Rome has just 3 cities, but is going for conquest war against Greece in the next turn, planning to take at least 1 city, maybe more. Would you trade this second tea in this case in real game? I doubt it.

 

[Bonci]

Diversity will always be better. In absence of that, quantity will help bigger empires.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

In civ V extra copies are useless to your civ but that do not have to be the case in civ VI and what I ment above is that it do not have to work like in civ V to make trade useful.

It is actually more interesting if you can use several copies because then you can either keep it for a benefit or trade it away instead of having the choice already made for you.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In civ V extra copies are useless to your civ but that do not have to be the case in civ VI and what I ment above is that it do not have to work like in civ V to make trade useful.

It's a game and there could be war anytime and so on. Subtle things don't work in game diplomacy. That's why Civ5 luxury resource trade worked so well and strategic resource trade mostly didn't.

 

[Oleary]

In civ V extra copies are useless to your civ but that do not have to be the case in civ VI and what I ment above is that it do not have to work like in civ V to make trade useful.

It is actually more interesting if you can use several copies because then you can either keep it for a benefit or trade it away instead of having the choice already made for you.

Sounds like different play styles then. I play wide so it's essential I get as many luxes as possible. Trading extra copies was a boon.

i'm not arguing for or against either system. I can see the reasoning behind both and realize the game is tuned around whichever way they went. We should know soon though.

 

[Josephias]

It's a game and there could be war anytime and so on. Subtle things don't work in game diplomacy. That's why Civ5 luxury resource trade worked so well and strategic resource trade mostly didn't.

It did work well, but I did not work so well, because at some point resource trade reached a stall, as every possible trading partner had already one copy of the resources you had in surplus.

Now, you may need more copies of a lux, but your trading partners too: it leads to you potentially trading ivory (1 copy) to Rome even if they are receiving alreadh Ivory from Brazil (1 copy), because they need 2 (8 cities) and have none. In Civ 5, Ivory trade was closed to Rome as soon as they got the extra copy from Brazil.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Now, you may need more copies of a lux, but your trading partners too: it leads to you potentially trading ivory (1 copy) to Rome even if they are receiving alreadh Ivory from Brazil (1 copy), because they need 2 (8 cities) and have none. In Civ 5, Ivory trade was closed to Rome as soon as they got the extra copy from Brazil.

The second copy will be less valuable for Rome, so Rome will offer less for it, so in real world the trade will not going to happen.

Also, the closed trade in Civ5 made some interesting situations where you needed to plan your trade (taking potential wars into account) to maximize your output.