1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Here's a novel thought, luxuries in limited quantity

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Zechnophobe, Dec 30, 2010.

  1. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Goleta, California
    Instead of just having an 'incense' square, why not make it like '3 incense' square similar to Iron and horses? 3 incense = 3 happiness. Getting more incense makes you more happy, with a cap at like 10 or something. Why do Luxury resources work in a different way than tactical ones?
     
  2. cf_nz

    cf_nz Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The thought has crossed my mind as well but more for trade than anything else.
     
  3. civnoob13

    civnoob13 King

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Nottingham
    I have thought about a luxury resource limit but I thought of it being that you would run out of the resource by 'x' turns. (I think) most games on standard speed have around 400 turns, so I'd say resources run out in 100 turns. They last longer in smaller empires and shorter in larger ones. Of course, the only luxury resources that would run out would be the non-renewable ones (not plants or animals).

    I also think that food resources should have a limit. Like with strategic resources (2 horse graphic = 2 horse etc), you would have a certain number of food resources. 1 cow, for example, would go to 1 city. This cow would provide a growth bonus and a health (yes, I want health back as a local variable) bonus too. So three cows would go to three different cities if the city owning the cows is connecting to the other cities via a trade route. Obviously you could choose where to assign the food resources. Also, a second food resource of the same type in the same city is useless.

    Just though that I would add that here.
     
  4. gcorlett

    gcorlett Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    The entire concept of trading luxuries is predicated on the fact that you don't derive additional benefit from having more than one.

    If you get +1 happiness for each incense, then why would you ever trade it? To get +1 for someone else's wine or silver? What would be the point? Net zero.

    Civ isn't a "history simulator", but there is some historical basis to the way it works as implemented. Civilizations would mine what what is available to them locally, and trade for what they needed from others. Hence, the Silk Road, and the entire Europe/Carribean/North America trade triangle during colonial times. Resources are a driving force for expansion and conquest. They MUST be in limited supply to have this effect.

    Aside from that... at your house, if you like incense, you buy incense, you burn incense, you enjoy incense. But you don't get twice the enjoyment by buying and hoarding extra incense. (I assume. I don't.)

    Tactical resources make sense, too. You need particular resources to field an army. Twice as much iron means you can build twice and many sabres and shields to keep your military stocked.
     
  5. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,177
    Location:
    STL
    Yep, this. There'd be no reason to ever trade luxury resources anymore.
     
  6. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Goleta, California
    So, the reason I mention the cap is exactly for this. If you have 13 Incense and 0 silver, and trade 3 for 3, you gain 3 happiness. See now?
     
  7. gcorlett

    gcorlett Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Okay... but what you're describing here is just a modified version of the way it works now. Incense is worth +5 instead of +1, you get one per tile instead of 4 (or 2, or random), and the cap you describe is 1 instead of 10. I don't see how modifying the system would be any sort of improvement.

    Maybe the reason it's the way it is is because it's the way it was in Civ 4.
     
  8. cf_nz

    cf_nz Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    New Zealand
    My argument for change from 1 x +5 to 5 x +1 from a trade perspective, is that it's not always possible to get value for money in luxury for gold trades due to a lack of gold from the AI. On epic/marathon settings you're trading for 45/90 turns and whilst I dislike having extra luxuries sitting around serving no purpose I also dislike trading them for what might be >1/5 of their value.
     
  9. MikeJep

    MikeJep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    66
    I think you need a mix of both of the above ideas as well some correlation to population.

    The following logic//equation could work.

    X = population * 0.1 / Luxury

    If X > 5:
    Then X = 5
    Else pass

    :c5happy: = X * Luxury

    Now for an example.

    China has 120 population and 3 Silk.
    The British have 50 people and 2 Cotton.

    China has (120 * 0.1 /3)*3 = 12 :c5happy: from Silk
    British has (50 * 0.1 / 2)*2 = 5 :c5happy: from Cotton

    Net happiness 12 + 5 = 17 :c5happy:

    Trade 1 Luxury for 1 Luxury?

    China has 120 population and 1 Cotton and 2 Silk.
    British has 50 population and 1 Cotton and 1 Silk.

    China has (120 * 0.1 /2) > 5 so... 5*2 = 10 :c5happy: from Silk
    China has (120 * 0.1 /1) > 5 so... 5*1 = 5 :c5happy: from Cotton
    British has (50 * 0.1 / 1)*1 = 5 :c5happy: from Silk
    British has (50 * 0.1 / 1)*1 = 5 :c5happy: from Cotton

    Net happiness 10 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 25! Clearly trade is favored

    China gained 3 :c5happy: from trade.
    British gained 5 :c5happy: from trade.

    Maybe looking at the actual :c5happy: gained from trade, China may demand :c5gold: as well.
     
  10. gcorlett

    gcorlett Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Excellent point.

    I like what MikeJep is saying too, but I'm afraid that if you make an equation that affects each civ differently (based on their relative size), then a situation would arise where nobody would trade if it helped their opponent more than themselves. Or, figuring out the relative value of a trade (or, how to balance it with an amount of gold), would be complicated enough that trade would be vastly reduced. The 5-for-5-happiness deal that comes from exchanging luxury items is blissfully simple to grasp, creates a balanced trade every time, and encourages massive trading, which, I think, is good for the game. (I like it, at least.)

    This post got me thinking... I wonder if there's any room for adding Colonization-style manufacturing into the mix? Where excess luxuries can be traded to someone else, perhaps in combination, as manufactured goods (a new class of resource). Perhaps a surplus of both furs and dyes could be traded as coats. Perhaps the "buyer" exchanges gold, the "seller" exchanges their "coats" manufactured resource, which begets happiness, and both gain a modest amount of culture out of the bargain, but the net gain for both would be greater than trading the individual components.

    Again though, this might add complexity simply for the sake of adding complexity. I would welcome anyone's thoughts on this. Maybe there's already a mod in place like this. I didn't play much with mods in Civ 4.
     
  11. CGG1066

    CGG1066 Minister of Finance

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    California
    The happiness system is a bit odd because it's on a different scale than population, and I like MikeJep's attempt to correct for that - but it is really a larger problem worth it's own thread.

    I enjoyed colonization, but I'm against the manufacturing idea described above. It's fun in colonization because that's really the focus of the game. Including it in Civ is just distraction from following the real victory conditions, and really boils down to a non-decision, because if you have the raw goods, it's always better to combine them. (Really - it would be similar to corporations from Civ IV, which weren't that fun).

    Back to the original topic: the problem is easily solved if there is decreasing marginal utility for each resources. For example - say the first incense gives you +3 :c5happy:, the second +2 :c5happy:, and the third +1 :c5happy:.

    Then, there is still an incentive to trade resources and a benefit for having more than one (in this example, up to 3, but it could easily be implemented in a differently depending on balance considerations)
     
  12. Trias

    Trias Donkey with three behinds

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Something like that seems necessary to provide an incentive for trading. If each additional copy of a luxury gives happiness their either needs to be a reduced return or an added value to having divers luxuries. An idea I had this morning in the latter category works as follows:

    The amount of :c5happy: provided by a copy of a resource is determined by the rarity of the luxury in the civilization. The commonest luxury would give +1 :c5happy:/per copy, the second commonest would give +2 :c5happy:/per copy etc.

    Note that this is based on the rarity of the luxury in the civilization, in another civilization the values would be different. For example, England has 10 fur, 5 silver, and 1 gold, while India has 6 silver 5 gold and 2 Incense. Then England gets:
    10 x 1 :c5happy: + 5 x 2 :c5happy: + 1 x 3 :c5happy: = 23 :c5happy:
    And India gets:
    6 x 1 :c5happy: + 5 x 2 :c5happy: + 2 x 3 :c5happy: = 22 :c5happy:

    Suppose England trades 1 fur for 1 gold, from England's perspective it is gaining a +3 :c5happy: luxury in exchange for a +1 :c5happy: luxury, while India gets a +4 :c5happy: luxury in exchange for a +2 :c5happy:. Both civs have an incentive to make this trade.

    Some effects of such a system:
    -All luxuries have intrinsic value to each civ, luxury resources are thus always interesting to settle near. (As compared to the current situation were addition copies have no value beyond trade fodder, and tile with luxuries may actually be less productive than straight farms.)

    -Acquiring new luxuries is rewarding, this encourages trade and expansion. Finding new luxuries on a different continent may shift the balance of a game, encouraging the pursuit of ocean exploration and colonization. At the same time finding a distant civilization for which your common luxuries are rare means a powerful trade opportunity (beads and mirrors!).

    -Luxuries that are globally rare may be worth fighting over.

    -Happiness scales better with empire and map size. In particular, the latter may be important since players have been complaining about a shortage of happiness on large and huge maps.

    Possible issues:
    -Balance. System might create an abundance of happiness compared to the current system. This needs to be balanced by adjusting the other sources of happiness and unhappiness. Map scripts may also need to limit the number of different luxuries found in any one area.

    -ICS. One effect of this system is that happiness will steadily increase as you expand. If this effect is too strong, it will completely negate the break on expansion caused by global unhappiness.
     
  13. tylor

    tylor Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    I think, leave them as they are, but add buildings that consume them, like factories consume coal.
     

Share This Page