Amenity Formula

[Atlas627]

Has anyone been able to figure out the formula for how many amenities are required? Or how luxuries apply to cities?

 

[Cyon]

If you have one copy of a luxury does it give you one amenitie in all of your cities no matter how many you have

or

do you allocate luxuries to your cites and gets one amenety pretty unique lux?

 

[King Jason]

The amenities requirement raises by one at pops 3, 5, 7, 9 and presumably each odd interval after that. Amenities can be satisfied with the following things;

When you have as many Amenities as the city requires, the Amenities is stat on the city screen is listed at 0 (neutral). If you have less Amenities than are required then the number is -1 or -2, etc. Currently, both -1 and -2 puts you in a displeased state where growth is limited by 15% and all other yields in the city suffer a 5% penalty as well. While I haven't seen it yet (or don't remember), I imagine having even less than -2 will eventually put the city in a worse state than displeased, increasing the penalties listed above, and perhaps adding some new ones.

Also, I believe I've seen a this happen but I can't remember, so I'll just say that I presume having higher amenities than the city requires grants a positive state that likely bestows growth and yield bonuses. This mechanic likely replaces the "we love the king" mechanic of past games.

 

[Atlas627]

Thanks, hadn't noticed the pattern of odd population numbers increasing the amenity requirement.

I have seen bonuses for cities with more amenities than required.

So if luxuries only apply to the local city, what good are spares? Where do traded luxuries apply?

What does the Aztec UA "luxuries give amenities to more cities" mean, exactly?

I would love for different luxuries to provide different luxuries, and have that change over the course of the game. Different values for different civs would also lead to mutually beneficial trade agreements.

 

[King Jason]

I was wrong about local luxuries. I figured out the Jade conundrum of offering 2 amenities while being the only luxury in the city. A nearby city has 3 ivory improved and also only has 2 amenities from only luxuries.

Naturally, this leads me to assume that both the jade and the ivory are providing 1 amenity to both cities as they're the only luxuries that are being improved in the empire. Further, it would seem that multiple copies do not add to the luxury cap so it seems you can trade off the extras.

 

[Atlas627]

I was wrong about local luxuries. I figured out the Jade conundrum of offering 2 amenities while being the only luxury in the city. A nearby city has 3 ivory improved and also only has 2 amenities from only luxuries.

Naturally, this leads me to assume that both the jade and the ivory are providing 1 amenity to both cities as they're the only luxuries that are being improved in the empire. Further, it would seem that multiple copies do not add to the luxury cap so it seems you can trade off the extras.

So if luxuries work the same way as in Civ5, what does the Aztec UA mean? Why are we allowed to trade away multiple copies of the same luxury to the same civ?

 

[Seek]

It could be that each luxury gives amenities to only a certain number of cities (I'd guess six given the suzerain bonus from that one CS) - unfortunately none of the previewers really went wide so it's not verifiable.

 

[King Jason]

Luxuries seem to work the same was as civ4 actually. But honestly I'd need to look into it more. The wording of the Aztec UU says that "luxuries provide amenities to 2 extra cities" Which means it's entirely possible Luxuries only affect a certain number of cities.

I'll re-examine the Jade situation again later to see why that city was getting 2 amenities off of one luxury. But either way the other city was getting 2 amenities off of 3 Ivory. If the luxury bonuses stacked then Ivory city should have 3 amenities.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It could be that each luxury gives amenities to only a certain number of cities (I'd guess six given the suzerain bonus from that one CS) - unfortunately none of the previewers really went wide so it's not verifiable.

The problem with that is how do you decide Which 6 cities get the bonus from a 6 amenity luxury.
Is it automatically the 6 biggest?...then if i have 1 copy of 4 different luxes my 6 biggest get +4, the rest get none.

 

[Cyon]

Maybe the least aminible (if that's the right adjective???) city gets the next lux? But I would prefer if you could allocate then manually add well.

Since it could maybe be better to have your capital super happy sometimes at the expense of a small city you just built to grab a strategic resource.

 

[Seek]

Maybe it's the closest cities?

Maybe duplicate luxes only come on line when you've exceeded your cap, so duplicates won't make a city happy but would keep it from growing discontented? That would explain the Ivory Conundrum (I was assuming he obtained another lux from somewhere and I didn't notice). Also, UI bugs are a thing.

Many ways this could go.

But agreed also, a way to allocate them would be handy; could give a new city tons of growth to get it up to speed, or pump amenities for production of a key wonder.

 

[Ll1442]

all this talking about how things influence the tiles around them, ie adjacency, as well as the religious system, makes me think that maybe, its the cities within a certain number of tiles from the luxury that get amenities from a luxury. or at least the ones closest if nothing else.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

all this talking about how things influence the tiles around them, ie adjacency, as well as the religious system, makes me think that maybe, its the cities within a certain number of tiles from the luxury that get amenities from a luxury. or at least the ones closest if nothing else.

Or, perhaps it's the cities connected to the luxury/amenity-producing city by a road laid down by a Caravan/Trader - similar to the 'old style' Civ where you had to physically connect resources within your Civilization to be able to use them.

The would, I hope, imply that there are fewer restrictions on the number of Traders/Trade Routes you can have in play, since as your cities grow it could be critical to make sure that you have physical connections between them...

 

[Stringer1313]

does anyone think it's weird that war weariness and bankruptcy fall into the "amenities" category? I don't have a brilliant alternative but in terms of immersion it seems kind of off.

 

[King Jason]

does anyone think it's weird that war weariness and bankruptcy fall into the "amenities" category? I don't have a brilliant alternative but in terms of immersion it seems kind of off.

Not really, an amenity is any feature that grants comfort or convenience. War Weariness and bankruptcy are negative 'amenities', or burdens. I think it fits in just fine.

 

[aguliondew]

I thought amenities were city only bonuses? So if should effect the city its near. I have not seen how many luxury you get per tile yet? If you are getting multiple luxury per tile than I would assume then internal trade route or city connections would enable your to share luxuries. If they are using similar bonus like in BE then positive amenities would give a city extra growth/production so on. I know I am assuming a lot but amenities from luxuries should be local unless traded.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I'm really interested to know how this works because even if distance is what determines which cities get the amenities from luxuries it's going to be an unnecessary headache to figure it out. The tooltips on either cities or luxuries can help explain which cities are connected to which luxuries but from the vids I haven't seen any indication of that. And there's is no "luxuries lens" I think.

does anyone think it's weird that war weariness and bankruptcy fall into the "amenities" category? I don't have a brilliant alternative but in terms of immersion it seems kind of off.

I think the better word is Happiness or Stability but either they didn't want to confuse old civ players into thinking it's the same system (or sound a lot like EU), or they wanted to give every status a tangible physical representation just like housing is.

Edit: Actually I think City Morale would've been good too.

 

[shaglio]

all this talking about how things influence the tiles around them, ie adjacency, as well as the religious system, makes me think that maybe, its the cities within a certain number of tiles from the luxury that get amenities from a luxury. or at least the ones closest if nothing else.

If it's a range system, I'm not sure how the Aztec ability (2 more cities) factors in. Unless their ability is misworded and it actually increases the range by 2 tiles (like how Civ 5's Itinerant Preachers belief expands the radius of religious pressure).

 

[King Jason]

So I've spent a good amount of time cross-referencing different let's plays. As of the latest build of the game that we've been able to watch, the following are all true (and subject to change):

The positive state of amenities (+1) is Happy, Increasing growth by 10% and all other yields by 5%

Luxuries are not local. At least not strictly (more on this in a bit). If you have Two cities, and one city has chocolate and the other city has salt, both cities have +2 amenities due to luxuries. Furthermore, Luxuries do not need roads be transported across your empire. If the same two cities with chocolate and salt are a ways away from each other without a road connection or even touching borders, they still both recieve +2 amenities.

Luxuries give amenities at a 1:1 ratio (just mentioning this since I personally brought it into question)

Repeats do not increase amenities - Using the above two cities again, if you add another chocolate to your empire by any means, those cities' amenities stay the same.

Occupied cities have -1 amenities in war weariness.

-----

This next part appears to be true to the best of my observation, as It remains the only common thread that explains the difference in luxuries vs amenity totals across different cities in various different let's play videos.

Your first two cities receive all amenities from luxuries in the empire. Cities after this appear to incur a penalty of -1 for every two additional cities. For example, if you have 4 cities in your empire and you have 5 luxuries, your first two cities will recieve +5 amenities from luxuries, your next two cities will receive +4 amenities from luxuries (a -1 penalty).

The above trend continued with an empires 5th city only receiving +3 amenities from 5 luxuries (a -2 penalty). The aztec's special ability did not throw off this theory. In fact, it helped affirm it; what their ability seems to do is push the point where luxuries begin to "fall off" in your cities back by 2 cities. So, for example, the first 4 cities for the aztecs will receive all amenities from luxuries, and it will begin to fall off starting at the 5th city.

Edit:
Edit2: The specific example bellow was found to be due to an amenities bonus from government. However there are still various gameplay videos have have discrepancies between amenities totals from luxuries between cities (one city recieving 3 while another receives 2,etc ) with no government or any other observable augmentation.

Spoiler :

As an example, in Quill18's video, at one point he has 4 cities - London, Bristol, Leeds, and Manchester. Additionally, he has 4 unique luxuries in his empire. At the same time across his entire empire (with only a difference of 1 turn checking between cities, with no pop growths in that turn), London is recieving +4 amenities from luxuries, Bristol +4, Leeds +3, and Manchester +3. (those totals don't factor in his amenity needs, so london, at pop 7 requires 3 amenities and had a +1, which means he was recieving +4 amenities from luxuries, for those that are inclined to go check.)

It's that inconsistency that led me to investigate why that could possibly be the case - and I have found similar trends across several of the prolonged let's play style videos that covered the game. It's entirely possible something else is at work, but I can't figure out what that would be, and this theory remains the most consistent across videos so far.

 

[Lucius_]

This next part appears to be true to the best of my observation, as It remains the only common thread that explains the difference in luxuries vs amenity totals across different cities in various different let's play videos.

Your first two cities receive all amenities from luxuries in the empire. Cities after this appear to incur a penalty of -1 for every two additional cities. For example, if you have 4 cities in your empire and you have 5 luxuries, your first two cities will recieve +5 amenities from luxuries, your next two cities will receive +4 amenities from luxuries (a -1 penalty).

The above trend continued with an empires 5th city only receiving +3 amenities from 5 luxuries (a -2 penalty). The aztec's special ability did not throw off this theory. In fact, it helped affirm it; what their ability specifically does is push the point where luxuries begin to "fall off" in your cities back by 2 cities. So, for example, the first 4 cities for the aztecs will receive all amenities from luxuries, and it will begin to fall off starting at the 5th city.

Bear in mind everything is subject to change. But I'm about 90% confident that's how the luxuries were working in all of the most recent footage.

If this is correct, that's very, very interesting. It reminds me of a less harsh version of CiV III's corruption mechanic crossed with a less restrictive version of CiV's happiness mechanics.