Guild/Corporation Yield Balancing

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I was thinking more of a sub-list. You'd pick "Ban a Resource", then launch a second list to pick exactly which resource to ban. You could ban resources individually to mess with your enemies the most, and they could do the same to you.

Adding a sub list in UN Resolutions is not that easy I think. I could add some resource banning resolutions to the main resolution list and add the sub list when I have more time to look into the code. But your list is very long and I'd like to know what's the reason for adding all those resources to the list. While I understand Oil/Coal/Uranium, I'm not sure about all the other ones. Why would you like to ban Cotton or Hit Movies, for example? And why not Wheat or Potatoes?

 

[Pongui]

When you say 'affect many and not just a few', you mean like say... Gather them up into subcategories? So you'd ban a category and it'd pull the resources collected under it as well (Like the Movies/Musicals/Singles could be in one category, Ivory, Whale, Fur, possibly Fossils/Pearls in another, Gold, Gems, Silver, and/or Pearls in one... etc)

There's a partial solution, Vokarya. On the main (and only?) list one button to "Ban Dirty Power" could ban both Coal and Oil.

Another group might be "Conservation" and simultaneously ban Whale, Fur, Ivory.

A "Vices Prohibition" ban could cover Hemp, Tobacco, Alcohol, Wine, in one swoop.

I appreciate Civ is a "what if" game, but having global bans on innocent resources like Gems or Cotton really stretches my imagination.

 

[Vokarya]

Adding a sub list in UN Resolutions is not that easy I think. I could add some resource banning resolutions to the main resolution list and add the sub list when I have more time to look into the code. But your list is very long and I'd like to know what's the reason for adding all those resources to the list. While I understand Oil/Coal/Uranium, I'm not sure about all the other ones. Why would you like to ban Cotton or Hit Movies, for example? And why not Wheat or Potatoes?

I was thinking, for purposes of play balance, that if you can ban any luxury resource, then you theoretically should be able to ban all of them, just not all at once. If you look at the list of Resolutions in Civ5, that is what they chose to do. It's explained as designating a luxury as "immoral, endangered, or otherwise inappropriate for use by the general population."

Banning health resources doesn't seem to be as worth the effort. Food production numbers are high enough by the Modern Era (where UN is available) that an extra -1 or -2 won't do as much, so I think that would be much less used and therefore not worth the effort to add it to the game.

If we just want to do the Coal/Oil/Uranium ban resolutions for the moment, that would be interesting enough.

 

[Arakhor]

I like Pongui's suggestions.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I like Pongui's suggestions.

Me too; I'll think about it. For the moment we can start with Coal/Oil/Uranium. Once a resolution is done, adding more of the same kind should be pretty easy. Vokarya, what do you think of Pongui's proposal? 3 resolutions, one for Dirty Power, one for Prohibitionism, one for Wildlife Conservation. I'll also need to teach AI to use them properly.

 

[Pongui]

... one for Dirty Power, one for Prohibitionism, one for Wildlife Conservation. I'll also need to teach AI to use them properly.

I guess there are a few ways to modify the AI weight for specific resources, or the ban options themselves. Would be nice if it tended to coincide with favorite civic.

Some ban button names:
Coal, Oil = Clean Air Act or Carbon Emissions Treaty.
Uranium = Anti-Nuclear Treaty (The real Non-Proliferation Treaty is actually supposed to encourage peaceful nuclear tech... don't get me started!)
Maybe clarify the existing BtS ban <bNoNukes>1</bNoNukes> applies to nuclear weapons only, it's a Nuclear Weapons Ban.
Whale, Fur, Ivory = Yeah, Wildlife Conservation, perfect.
Hemp, Tobacco, Alcohol, Wine = Global Prohibition.
Hit Musicals, Movies, Singles = Cultural Exclusion Treaty, or as known in Canada Cultural Protection (Agreement).

Parenthetic text on button = (Bans Resource, Resource, Resource for all players)

 

[Vokarya]

Me too; I'll think about it. For the moment we can start with Coal/Oil/Uranium. Once a resolution is done, adding more of the same kind should be pretty easy. Vokarya, what do you think of Pongui's proposal? 3 resolutions, one for Dirty Power, one for Prohibitionism, one for Wildlife Conservation. I'll also need to teach AI to use them properly.

That will work. I think "Fossil Fuel Ban" would work for the Coal/Oil banning name, and then the other two names are good.

I think for teaching the AI about the Prohibition and Wildlife Conservation banning resolutions, what comes to mind the most obviously is for the AI to consider if its cities would tip over into unhappiness without the resources. So a civilization that didn't have any of the banned resources would be likely to vote for it, while a civ whose cities would go unhappy without those resources would be against it. Fossil Fuels are a bit harder to quantify, because there's more strategic depth. Losing Coal cuts you off from Steel, and losing Oil mostly cuts you off from Oil Products. I'd look at military aggression ratings here.

 

[Vokarya]

Oh, and one more thing. Even if we do a Uranium ban resolution, I would still like to see the Nuke Ban resolution kept separately. The code is already there and I think it would be useful to support add-ons with other nuclear weapons, or for wanting to ban nuclear weapons without blocking nuclear ships and power plants.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Non Proliferation Treaty will remain, I don't want to get rid of it. And it's exactly that, a Non Proliferation Treaty, meaning that you can't build more nukes. But you keep the old ones. We could add a Nuke Ban Resolution which would prevent nuke building AND would remove all nukes, like Nanite Defuser currently does.

 

[Pongui]

I like "Non-Proliferation Treaty" in that context.

So three resolutions:
1) Non-Proliferation Treaty prevents building new nuclear weapons
2) Nuclear Disarmament removes all nuclear weapons
3) Ban Nuclear Technology removes access to Uranium

Mix and match. Does (2) also do (1)? I think it'd be fun either way.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I like "Non-Proliferation Treaty" in that context.

So three resolutions:
1) Non-Proliferation Treaty prevents building new nuclear weapons
2) Nuclear Disarmament removes all nuclear weapons
3) Ban Nuclear Technology removes access to Uranium

Mix and match. Does (2) also do (1)? I think it'd be fun either way.

2 would include 1. And 3 would ban nuclear Fission, because we still want Nuclear Fusion to be available.

 

[Pongui]

I'm keen to see how this plays out. #3 needs a more specific name, the natural one Ban Nuclear Fission, why not.

For Coal/Oil Vokarya's name Fossil Fuel Ban sounds best to me.

 

[<Nexus>]

I really like those ideas.
...but could a ban not only take away but also give something?
I mean:

1. affecting and in general for all civs
2. affecting and with certain civics

"Fossil Fuel Ban" would mean a clearer sky for those too, who never used Coal and Oil (+1 ) and make nature respecting citizens happier (+1 with Paradise and Green)
"Wildlife Conservation" would again make nature respecting citizens happier (+1 with Paradise and Green)
"Anti-Nuclear Treaty" would make citizen feel more secure (+2 or 3 )

 

[Vokarya]

I'd prefer to keep this simple for now. Banning fossil fuels should cut off unhealth penalties for coal and oil. Industrial civilizations generally get -3 health from each, -1 from the resource and -2 from Factory. Uranium also has a -1 happiness penalty, so a uranium ban would eliminate that as well.

 

[<Nexus>]

I'd prefer to keep this simple for now. Banning fossil fuels should cut off unhealth penalties for coal and oil. Industrial civilizations generally get -3 health from each, -1 from the resource and -2 from Factory. Uranium also has a -1 happiness penalty, so a uranium ban would eliminate that as well.

...for those civs that had access to those resources. My idea is to benefit those (mostly tiny) civs as well that don't have access to those.
Big and powerful civs usually have access to all those resources. When such a ban passes it's a double win for the weak civs.

 

[Rezca]

...for those civs that had access to those resources. My idea is to benefit those (mostly tiny) civs as well that don't have access to those.
Big and powerful civs usually have access to all those resources. When such a ban passes it's a double win for the weak civs.

I don't think such a tiny boost is really going to count as a 'win' for a nation that is so small to be honest. An extra Happiness point or so - which also requires them to be in a civic I almost never see anyone use, or in one that comes so late that the bonus provided is entirely meaningless - isn't going to make much of a difference to them. The larger nations would likely benefit more because the Happiness/health would be spread out across more and larger cities. That is again, assuming they're using either of those civics. One nobody ever really uses, the other comes too late for the proposed bonuses to matter.

It's not going to be a double-win for the weak and tiny at all. The only real benefit they get is knowing that their rival nations just lost access to Oil (unless they're Japan or have Biofuel) and Uranium.

 

[Pongui]

That is again, assuming they're using either of those civics. One nobody ever really uses...

Well, the cart may lead the horse then: With resolution passed the AI will see that additional bonus for switching to - e.g. Green - and maybe switch civics. I'm just guessing the switch to Liberal was always driven purely by Happiness consideration, not explicit code.

 

[Rezca]

Well, the cart may lead the horse then: With resolution passed the AI will see that additional bonus for switching to - e.g. Green - and maybe switch civics. I'm just guessing the switch to Liberal was always driven purely by Happiness consideration, not explicit code.

The bonuses from Green/Environmentalism are mostly health-related ones, and one minor point is lost if you lose access to Oil (The Public Transportation's bonus). It has some bonuses attached to some improvements which you may or may not have, a hefty penalty to corporations - another reason why I rarely see this come up, since the AI often has one or several in their empires - and nationwide +1 Happiness and +3 Health.

Despite this, and the civic having a 45 weighting value on it, I almost never see a single nation take this civic up. With how health-focused it is coupled with penalizing owning corporations, that might factor into why its not generally used? The alternatives are (much more appealing usually) Free Market and etc, so its competition in Economy civics tend to be picked over it. Except for Mercantilism, since no one ever uses that civic either. Not sure how a nation losing access to coal and oil would make it want to go into a civic that promotes health when you just lost access to unhealth-spreading resources though.

Off topic, but while I was looking at the civic weightings, it says that Post-Scarcity is set to -50. For the "Best Civic" in that category to have a negative weighting... Is that intentional? xD

 

[<Nexus>]

Off topic, but while I was looking at the civic weightings, it says that Post-Scarcity is set to -50. For the "Best Civic" in that category to have a negative weighting... Is that intentional? xD

I think it was meant to give Green a little chance

Despite this, and the civic having a 45 weighting value on it, I almost never see a single nation take this civic up. With how health-focused it is coupled with penalizing owning corporations, that might factor into why its not generally used? The alternatives are (much more appealing usually) Free Market and etc, so its competition in Economy civics tend to be picked over it. Not sure how a nation losing access to coal and oil would make it want to go into a civic that promotes health when you just lost access to unhealth-spreading resources though.

I think it will never be a really useful civic without a good "environmental pollution" system

 

[Rezca]

I think it was meant to give Green a little chance

I think it will never be a really useful civic without a good "environmental pollution" system

Green will never have a chance as long as Free Market has a say in the matter

Aye, like the Pollution system from C2C. I actually liked the Pollution system in that mod, and how it influenced things. Leaving forests and jungles untouched was beneficial, building a lot of industry would slowly leave a negative impact... While I doubt it'll ever become a core mechanic of AND (Even though if implemented properly, it could be a pretty strong addition) maybe as a Module it could work its way in. I wasn't very big on Flammability, had a neutral to indifferent opinion on Crime, but I liked the Pollution concept.