New civ linked to new resource

[Deggial]

Most of the posts in this thread propose interesting/sophisticated/far fetched ressources and try to link them to a new and currently unknown civ.

What about the other way? We already have quite strong evidence regarding the four leftover civs:

1. Morocco
- Hinted by the accidental (?) slip in the interview and the poster clue.
- Ressource: nothing comes into my mind

2. Venice
- Hinted by the CS-color changes; additionally, Venice was a trading powerhouse and perfectly fits the theme of BNW.
- Ressource: Glass

3. A native American Civ (Soiux or Cherokee, very unlikely Inuit)
- To "compensate" for the Pueblo; useful in one scenario
- Ressource: Buffalo (if Inuit: Seals)

4. An asian civ (probably Majapahit as a fan favorite, or maybe Vietnam)
- There has to be an asian Civ in the expansion! Everything else would be a scandal...
- Ressource: NOT rice, as this would be too unspecific.
- Ressource: NOT Poppy as it is used for drugs.
- Other proposed asian ressources in this thread seem to be way to exotic and far fethed to fulfill the requirement of "giving away a civ".

Which leaves me with the possibilities 2 and 3.

 

[mitsho]

@Loaf Warden I do see your points and I agree with most of it, but I'm not trying to write an essay here. In short, I was bringing up the suggestions for someone who proposed 'tea'. Where your argument btw fails is that we already have China, Japan and India. And Britain (England) for that matter. Now if you would have suggested a civ that's not in the game already, you would be correct.

I don't think it will be tea for that matter. And I don't think it has to be a luxury either.

@alpha2117 Short answer: Glass could also be renamed luxury ressource #13 as it's not different at all to say furs or wine. Venice would not have a monopoly on luxuries. One luxury more or less doesn't break the game. If you are asking for civs that have monopolies on something: Carthage can enter mountains, Polynesia has a monopoly on ocean going til the other civs research Astronomy, Maya have a monopoly on archers until the rest researches archery, etc. ...

A "free" (I guess they would reign it in by making it available with a mid-game naval building like the seaport) would not be overpowered. The free gold available to Arabia or the Dutch by trading the luxury away is a) pretty similar to a free luxury and b) stronger as they should be available earlier.

 

[Loaf Warden]

@Loaf Warden I do see your points and I agree with most of it, but I'm not trying to write an essay here. In short, I was bringing up the suggestions for someone who proposed 'tea'. Where your argument btw fails is that we already have China, Japan and India. And Britain (England) for that matter. Now if you would have suggested a civ that's not in the game already, you would be correct.

The fact that we already have China, Japan, and India is not a "failure" of my argument. It's part of the point of my argument. If, in the interview, upon being asked if there were any new resources, Dennis Shirk had said, "We've added tea," that wouldn't cause any kind of a stir about new civs because the civs most strongly associated with it are already in the game. It would make perfect sense to add tea to a game with China and Japan and India in it. It would not send any of us running to the forums to insist that x civ must be in because it doesn't make sense to have tea without them. The civs that it wouldn't make sense to have tea without are there already. Therefore, I highly doubt tea is what he was talking about. I want tea to be added, but I think the people who are suggesting that it has are wrong, and this is why.

 

[mitsho]

Or, you know, as ferretbacon just argumented in a very good post, that "Shirks impromptu response" shouldn't be looked at as a quote hammered into stone. (simplifying here, folks)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Or, you know, as ferretbacon just argumented in a very good post, that "Shirks impromptu response" shouldn't be looked at as a quote hammered into stone. (simplifying here, folks)

He makes a good point, but frankly anything to argue at this point smells of gold-dust mixed with chocolate powder and heroin.

 

[alpha2117]

@Loaf Warden I do see your points and I agree with most of it, but I'm not trying to write an essay here. In short, I was bringing up the suggestions for someone who proposed 'tea'. Where your argument btw fails is that we already have China, Japan and India. And Britain (England) for that matter. Now if you would have suggested a civ that's not in the game already, you would be correct.

I don't think it will be tea for that matter. And I don't think it has to be a luxury either.

@alpha2117 Short answer: Glass could also be renamed luxury ressource #13 as it's not different at all to say furs or wine. Venice would not have a monopoly on luxuries. One luxury more or less doesn't break the game. If you are asking for civs that have monopolies on something: Carthage can enter mountains, Polynesia has a monopoly on ocean going til the other civs research Astronomy, Maya have a monopoly on archers until the rest researches archery, etc. ...

A "free" (I guess they would reign it in by making it available with a mid-game naval building like the seaport) would not be overpowered. The free gold available to Arabia or the Dutch by trading the luxury away is a) pretty similar to a free luxury and b) stronger as they should be available earlier.

I'll give you Carthage and mountains that is an example of something exclusive - it should be pointed out if they get stuck on a mountain damage occurs as an offset.

The others aren't exclusivity they are advantages. That's my point - I can see UA or UB giving Venice advantages I just don't see Glass as an exclusive Luxury resource

Consider a scenario involving Venice and a exclusive Luxury manufactured resource. Huge map 12 Civs normal resource spread. All Civs get a few resources to keep happiness going then the map fills up and diplomacy or conquest are required to try to get resources to keep happy. Enter Venice - automatically happier once it can produce Glass and potentially able to trade for more happiness from the other 11 civs whilst slaughtering city states and using the traded luxuries to offset conquest unhappiness. Venice could become the ultimate city state killer. Hell the first thing you do if you're Venice is get rid of Jewelry and Porcelain because that weakens your stranglehold on the game. If Venice is in I want a cultured trading nation not a crazy warmonger and I'm saying right now exclusive resource will lead to people playing the Venitians becoming psychopaths game wise if you are playing against the AI.

I could be wrong but I'm of the opinion that the tactic I just mentioned is the way to play Venice with an exclusive Luxury and that means after the first couple of plays they would be boring as hell. I think it makes them Nazi's in the early 30's. The AI will allow them to run amok on the CS's because they will be trading to the AI Civs and they then become so powerful that they do a runaway win because the AI doesn't fight back well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

A fair and reasoned argument and to paraphrase Sheldon Cooper - I reject it outright.

*snip*

As I said above, it IS already possible to get a resource monopoly in Civ V. It just takes a little expansionism and a little conquest. Then you alone can hold all the dye, cotton, copper or whatever. And there is a benefit to it. Every other civ will give you something for a unit of it. But it's not horribly overpowered. Unlike real life, you don't have bidding wars that drive up prices for rare commodities in the game. There does not need to be an adjustment to game mechanics to allow for it. Giving a civ a monopoly as something unique would not be any more overpowered than Arabia's UB or the Netherlands' UA.

And

While Venice was not the only place that made glass, their glass had a unique appeal that made it highly desirable. People in Medieval Europe would not have seen Venetian glass as the same product as glass made elsewhere. The difference is what we would call "branding" today. Venetian glass is to other glass what Ferrari cars are to economy cars. It has a built in exclusivity and implies that its owner is superior. It was a status symbol.

 

[ferretbacon]

He makes a good point, but frankly anything to argue at this point smells of gold-dust mixed with chocolate powder and heroin.

They really need to give us a little something to chew on... just a screenshot of a Zulu city (to see its art style) with a few Impi scattered about would be nice.

 

[alpha2117]

As I said above, it IS already possible to get a resource monopoly in Civ V. It just takes a little expansionism and a little conquest. Then you alone can hold all the dye, cotton, copper or whatever. And there is a benefit to it. Every other civ will give you something for a unit of it. But it's not horribly overpowered. Unlike real life, you don't have bidding wars that drive up prices for rare commodities in the game. There does not need to be an adjustment to game mechanics to allow for it. Giving a civ a monopoly as something unique would not be any more overpowered than Arabia's UB or the Netherlands' UA.

And

While Venice was not the only place that made glass, their glass had a unique appeal that made it highly desirable. People in Medieval Europe would not have seen Venetian glass as the same product as glass made elsewhere. The difference is what we would call "branding" today. Venetian glass is to other glass what Ferrari cars are to economy cars. It has a built in exclusivity and implies that its owner is superior. It was a status symbol.

Again your description of Venitian Glass is why it should be a Glassworks UB giving them extra gold or improving trade routes or just some general UA increasing trade for them rather than an exclusive luxury resource.

The Arab & Netherlands abilities and the new Portugal ability dont give you the sort of power I can see Venice having if they are the holders of a luxury resource monopoly. Any other Luxury resource monopoly relies on a fair amount of luck and skill the proposed Venitian one is a matter of surviving till a certain point in the game and then potentially running rampant using the dumb AI to allow you to win in a canter. Against humans I'm saying right now the first resolution of the World Congress will be to ban Glass if Venice is in because otherwise they could become a big problem. I just see that exclusive resource as a recipe for dull repetitive play involving Venice.

 

[mitsho]

He makes a good point, but frankly anything to argue at this point smells of gold-dust mixed with chocolate powder and heroin.

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting what you are trying to say? Can you explain it once more

The others aren't exclusivity they are advantages. That's my point - I can see UA or UB giving Venice advantages I just don't see Glass as an exclusive Luxury resource

But it's just one of many luxuries, potentially very strong on bigger maps where it's harder to get different luxuries, less so on duel maps. It would be a monopoly if it would encompass all luxuries...

Consider a scenario involving Venice and a exclusive Luxury manufactured resource. Huge map 12 Civs normal resource spread. All Civs get a few resources to keep happiness going then the map fills up and diplomacy or conquest are required to try to get resources to keep happy. Enter Venice - automatically happier once it can produce Glass and potentially able to trade for more happiness from the other 11 civs whilst slaughtering city states and using the traded luxuries to offset conquest unhappiness...

1) A luxury gives 4 :c5happiness: + anything you can trade it away for. In a wide empire with the Commerce finisher, it gives ~1 :c5happiness: per city. The Celtic Ceilidh Hall gives additionall 3 :c5happiness: per city?

2) You can potentially trade away your additional copies of luxury #13, buying or :c5happiness: practically for free. Agree, very strong. But where's the difference to the Dutch or Arabia?

3) You're assuming they will be getting that bonus from turn 0. What if it's late Renaissance?

4) There are quite a few other ways of getting happiness: Religion, Buildings, Unique Abilites/Buildings, Social Policies. Why would one be screwed?

I do like that you go for a gameplay argument. I'm however not sure that it would make me want to take out city states. It might make me not wanting to go for allied status with CS, or it might want me to invest the gold gained into city state alliances. It would certainly make me want to go wide often, but not too wide since there's not much use for more copies of luxury ressource #13 than there are civs in the game who would trade with me. Also, civs that hate you due to you being a warmonger will give you less for the luxury... (which I would focus as a strength of the ability btw.

I would suggest you try a game of the newest GEM Beta (a mod) which replaces the Carthage Unique Ability and grants 1 Tyrian Purple Ressource per Cothon (harbor replacement). I do feel like this current civ composition does make them a bit too strong (and oculd be toned down a bit), but I don't feel it's as strong as you think it is. I haven't played as them so far to be fair.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Again your description of Venitian Glass is why it should be a Glassworks UB giving them extra gold or improving trade routes or just some general UA increasing trade for them rather than an exclusive luxury resource.

The Arab & Netherlands abilities and the new Portugal ability dont give you the sort of power I can see Venice having if they are the holders of a luxury resource monopoly. Any other Luxury resource monopoly relies on a fair amount of luck and skill the proposed Venitian one is a matter of surviving till a certain point in the game and then potentially running rampant using the dumb AI to allow you to win in a canter. Against humans I'm saying right now the first resolution of the World Congress will be to ban Glass if Venice is in because otherwise they could become a big problem. I just see that exclusive resource as a recipe for dull repetitive play involving Venice.

I would do it as a resource provided by a building, or potentially an improvement because it would be a unique gameplay style. Simply having a UA benefit to trade routes is kind of boring, and too close to Portugal's UA. I like the idea of having a unique that encourages diplomatic exchange.

I play huge maps at marathon speed. If I trade my luxury to all 11 civs, and they are all friendly, I can get 700g x 11 civs / 90 turns. That's about 86 gold per turn. However, you probably wouldn't get the Glass luxury till midgame, so it wouldn't help you in the early game when 86g/turn is a lot of money. And not every civ is friendly and pay top price or can afford 700g for a luxury. And some civs usually get wiped out by mid game. And it will take me a while to get the UB built in 11 cities. And maintenance costs on 11 UBs will reduce the net profit. So it quickly dilutes the monopoly's potency.

And why exactly would you want to wipe out Mercantile city-states? If they are all wiped out, it's not going to make the other civs pay you more money. They will give you something for your luxury with or without Mercantile city-states. And they sure as hell won't like you for attacking city-states, so they won't even pay top price if you do. It would be better to lock them up with alliances or just let them be.

 

[alpha2117]

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting what you are trying to say? Can you explain it once more



But it's just one of many luxuries, potentially very strong on bigger maps where it's harder to get different luxuries, less so on duel maps. It would be a monopoly if it would encompass all luxuries...



1) A luxury gives 4 :c5happiness: + anything you can trade it away for. In a wide empire with the Commerce finisher, it gives ~1 :c5happiness: per city. The Celtic Ceilidh Hall gives additionall 3 :c5happiness: per city?

2) You can potentially trade away your additional copies of luxury #13, buying or :c5happiness: practically for free. Agree, very strong. But where's the difference to the Dutch or Arabia?

3) You're assuming they will be getting that bonus from turn 0. What if it's late Renaissance?

4) There are quite a few other ways of getting happiness: Religion, Buildings, Unique Abilites/Buildings, Social Policies. Why would one be screwed?

I do like that you go for a gameplay argument. I'm however not sure that it would make me want to take out city states. It might make me not wanting to go for allied status with CS, or it might want me to invest the gold gained into city state alliances. It would certainly make me want to go wide often, but not too wide since there's not much use for more copies of luxury ressource #13 than there are civs in the game who would trade with me. Also, civs that hate you due to you being a warmonger will give you less for the luxury... (which I would focus as a strength of the ability btw.

I would suggest you try a game of the newest GEM Beta (a mod) which replaces the Carthage Unique Ability and grants 1 Tyrian Purple Ressource per Cothon (harbor replacement). I do feel like this current civ composition does make them a bit too strong (and oculd be toned down a bit), but I don't feel it's as strong as you think it is. I haven't played as them so far to be fair.

Not assuming it's from day dot - I assume they turtle till they get it then manipulate the game mechanics to victory. I'd do it and I'm pretty sure most everyone else will too. They get glass they trade one of their glass to India for Dye, then one to Spain for Cotton, then one to the US for Spices etc etc. Suddenly they are ultra happy, the AI likes them because they are making them happy and CS's become an endangered species as Venice eliminates the competition Mafia style with minimal repercussions until it's too late. Play against them and it's the opposite - kill Venice before they get that Glass or at least make sure they dont have many cities to leverage that power.

I'm sorry but exclusivity doesn't make sense for a luxury resource gameplay wise nor in trying to replicate the real Venice. Give them extra trade bonuses and I'm happy but exclusivity just changes the game mechanics too much for mine.

 

[mitsho]

I gotta ask one question here, are we talking single or multiplayer?

What does ultra happy help them to? More ? That's okay, but I'd rather take the from trade mostly. Higher population? Okay, but it won't be that many citizens more, it's not instant and it means you need to keep up the trade for the next 100 turns!

And if you kill of City States, you will not get the ressource-for-ressource trades anymore and it won't result in you getting a bigger prize for your luxury #13, it's still capped at 240 if friendly/neutral on standard speed. And the AI will pay the prize whether they need the happiness or gold or not. It doesn't act like a rational trading partner. (which is bad and a pity for civ 5, but that's another topic)

Now, naturally, that might be different on multiplayer. I don't know as I never play that. But I still feel that this won't be overpowered... But again, I need to try it out first in a practical game, it's not too hard to mod

PS: Also you assume in your example above that the other civ do have the second copies of the luxuries you want, have build the tile improvement on them and are willing to sell them to you.

 

[Dunkah]

Can you please explain to me why we are arguing over glass?

It's either in or it's not...

Whom are you trying to convince?...

Me?... You will never convince me... It's silly to think that they will alter gameplay that much just for one civ.

The Devs?... Too late they have all ready made their decision.

SO Either way it doesn't matter.

We get it. You want to see Glass as a resource. You made your point. 37 pages of glass arguments. SHeesh.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Can you please explain to me why we are arguing over glass?

It's either in or it's not...

Whom are you trying to convince?...

Me?... You will never convince me... It's silly to think that they will alter gameplay that much just for one civ.

The Devs?... Too late they have all ready made their decision.

SO Either way it doesn't matter.

We get it. You want to see Glass as a resource. You made your point. 37 pages of glass arguments. SHeesh.

Actually, it's not so much about glass at this point, but rather if a luxury resource monopoly is a viable unique bonus for a civ such as is being proposed for Venice. This argument could be applied to any luxury resource that would be unique to any civ.

 

[mitsho]

We're not actually arguing about glass so much, but more whether a luxury ressource would be a appropriate unique bonus for a civ or not. If it's not a free luxury (whether it's glass, seals or anything else), it's a bonus related to a bonus or strategic ressource (or a bonus related to a luxury ).

Actually, I don't want glass, I don't want Venice, this is really more about the luxury ressource. If you don't like it, don't read the posts? It is related to the topic after all and it is discussing, not flaming!

 

[otaman1]

If the resource's got to do with a civ, which it is, then that civs' UA has to be about that resource

 

[Leugi]

If the resource's got to do with a civ, which it is, then that civs' UA has to be about that resource

Or the UB... like Monasteries yielding faith because of Wine... or an UI, on said resource...

Its hard to say...

Still, and because glass is the biggest discussion right now, I'll only say it again..

Seals

 

[Babri]

I would go with turquoise (Publeo) or buffalo/bison (Sioux or similar civ) idea.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[wigwam]

Not assuming it's from day dot - I assume they turtle till they get it then manipulate the game mechanics to victory. I'd do it and I'm pretty sure most everyone else will too. They get glass they trade one of their glass to India for Dye, then one to Spain for Cotton, then one to the US for Spices etc etc. Suddenly they are ultra happy, the AI likes them because they are making them happy and CS's become an endangered species as Venice eliminates the competition Mafia style with minimal repercussions until it's too late. Play against them and it's the opposite - kill Venice before they get that Glass or at least make sure they dont have many cities to leverage that power.

Why would you destroy city-states? Why not sell your glass for gold and then ally yourself with them instead?

More importantly, you're seriously overestimating how valuable luxuries are. I just played a game as Arabia in which I had every source of silver in the world—14 in all, once I had my bazaars built. Not only was that more silver than I could trade (I was playing on a standard map), but at no point in the game was I ever able to trade with all seven opponents anyway.

A total monopoly on one luxury, even an infinite number, would not necessarily be unbalanced.