Poll - Allow all Unique Improvements on resource tiles

[Hinin]

Hello everyone,

After some discussions about unique improvements with @Milae, the idea of allowing every unique improvement to be constructed on resource tiles (with only some improving them) was raised. Since it is an interest subject to debate about, I decided to create a thread on the matter.

What is the current situation here ?

Among all base VP unique improvements :

• One can be constructed on resource tiles and improve the resource : Moroccan Kasbah
• One can be constructed on resource tiles without improving the resources : Polynesian Moai
  
• Most can only be constructed on resourceless tiles : Brazilwood Camp, French Château, Hunnic Eki, Encampment, Portuguese Feitora, Mayan Kuna, Dutch Polder, Incan Terrace Farm, Spanish Hacienda.

So, among the 11 UIs of base VP, 9 can't be constructed on tiles with revealed resources.

My problem with the current situation

The Kasbah and Moai have been allowed to be constructed on them because of their (apparently) stricter placement conditions. That said, I actually think that almost each UI has enough reasons to be allowed on resource tiles.

For some, like the Hunnic Eki or the Incan Terrace Farm, placement is actually often more difficult than what can imagine at first sight :

• For the Eki, the accumulation of the No Fresh Water / Flat terrain / No Resource with the triangle adjacency bonus makes it fairly difficult to efficiently use throughout the game.
  
• For the Terrace Farm, I think I don't need to explain how frustrating a single sheep on the perfect hill can be for your placement, especially when positionning can change the yields of the UI so much.

For others, every improvement can be crucial in their gameplan (especially early game) : Mayan Kuna (for rushing Mathematics), Encampment for Shoshones (their UI falls of later into the game, and so needs to be spammed early as much as possible).

Finally for late improvements (Polder, Château, Feitora, Hacienda), having some crucial spots wasted by random resources can be a source of unnessecary frustration I think.

An exception : the Brazilwood Camp

The only UI I would keep out of this is the Brazilwood Camp, for one simple reason : since it spawns a resource under it when constructed, it makes any previous resource disappear. That's not that major for some minor bonus resource, but quite important for strategic and luxury resources.

Pros and Cons

So, what would be the potential consequences of such a change ? Here are some pros and cons I foresee.

Pros :

• Actually quite easy to code. Allowing improvements to be built on resources without improving them simply requires using the BuildableOnResources function. Even I could do it (which means a lot).
  
• Better mastery over UI placement : there would be of course an opportunity cost when putting a UI on a resource, but it's the player's choice
  
• Diminishes map contigency : such a change would overall mean more UIs on the map, and a more consistent number of UIs per City from one game to another

Middle :

• Balance modification : buff for France, Huns, Incas, Shoshones, Portugal, Mayas, Netherlands
• Increases the importance of resource-boosting buildings : previously, these buildings had to only take into account normal improvements, GPTI and Cities when boosting these resources. Not something I'm very concerned about, but I still wanted to mention it.

Cons :

• Yield inflation : the augmentation in UI number on the map means that the civs with one will usually fare a bit better (exception for Morocco and Polynesia, which wouldn't change), and that ideology tenets boosting UIs would need to be toned down a little bit.
  
• Brazil solitude : the current way Brazilwood Camp works means that it won't be able to benefit from the change => by extension, this means a slight nerf for the civ by comparison
• Noticeable gameplay change : for those who don't want more drastic changes in how the game feels, this change, although minor in term of code, will be felt.

So, what do you think ? I'm aware that it's not a matter that has been brought up a lot, but I think it's still something worth talking about. Thx for reading, and have a good week.

 

[dylansan]

If a unique improvement is placed on a resource, is that resource removed? Based on the BuildableOnResources flag, I'm guessing not by default.

That might be one factor in balance. If the resource isn't removed it will still provide it's base yield without it's particular improvement, meaning the UI will always add yields. If the resource is removed, there will be more of a trade-off, but it would still allow placing the UI if that's the player's priority.

 

[Hinin]

If a unique improvement is placed on a resource, is that resource removed? Based on the BuildableOnResources flag, I'm guessing not by default.

That might be one factor in balance. If the resource isn't removed it will still provide it's base yield without it's particular improvement, meaning the UI will always add yields. If the resource is removed, there will be more of a trade-off, but it would still allow placing the UI if that's the player's priority.

BuildableOnResource doesn't mean the resource will be removed when the UI is constructed. Only in the case of the Brazilwood Camp it happens, because another resource (Brazilwood) is created under it.

In term of balance, well, the Polynesian UI already keeps resources under it, and it doesn't appear to bother anybody. I'm well aware of the implications though, hence why I added 'yield inflation" among possible cons (although in the long run not building a quarry or a pasture can be detrimental in certain setups).

 

[dylansan]

BuildableOnResource doesn't mean the resource will be removed when the UI is constructed. Only in the case of the Brazilwood Camp it happens, because another resource (Brazilwood) is created under it.

In term of balance, well, the Polynesian UI already keeps resources under it, and it doesn't appear to bother anybody. I'm well aware of the implications though, hence why I added 'yield inflation" among possible cons (although in the long run not building a quarry or a pasture can be detrimental in certain setups).

I don't have a problem with the resources remaining, in general. Though in some cases it makes more sense than others. It's reasonable for a Moai or Feitoria to coexist with whatever resources occupy the land. It makes less sense with a Terrace Farm or Chateau.

It's not really necessary for the discussion, but I'm surprised I can't find any real-life information about the Kuna or Eki. Are there more common names for these, or are these really so obscure?

 

[looorg]

I voted option 3. I kind of like it how things are now, it makes every game a bit different depending on your land and the civs are different. You have to look for suitable land to fit your improvements and such.

Is it annoying when say there is a sheep on the hill you wanted to build your terrace farm on? Yes.

If anything then make a new worker function to harvest or remove the resource/feature and then you can build your terrace farm (in this case) on the hill you wanted it on.I would prefer that.

In some regard said or mentioned improvements wasn't meant to be spammed in every viable tile. So some will be lost to geography, or however one wants to put it.

In most cases you'll know a long time before if there will be a resource on said tiles before the unique improvement becomes a thing.

 

[InkAxis]

You have to look for suitable land to fit your improvements and such.

Right, this doesn't change that at all though. The UIs still have their normal restrictions. It just stops resources sometimes blocking adjacency. In most cases you would still want to improve the resource. It's just completely random whether or not you can get that placement, this allows for a bit fairer distribution. It's a very edge case, I think saying that improvements will become spammable is a pretty big overstatement. For most strategic resources I would still improve it, and the cases where a resource spawns exactly so it blocks a perfect placement, and one where I wouldn't want to improve it, are very low. In that case it's just random chance being annoying.

Is it annoying when say there is a sheep on the hill you wanted to build your terrace farm on? Yes.

If anything then make a new worker function to harvest or remove the resource/feature and then you can build your terrace farm (in this case) on the hill you wanted it on.I would prefer that.

Well so short of harvesting the resource, we should do this.

In some regard said or mentioned improvements wasn't meant to be spammed in every viable tile. So some will be lost to geography, or however one wants to put it.

There's still restrictions on UI, as i've said, this only blocks the specific annoying case, and in most cases you still would want to put the correct improvement. Think about it this way: in some games, you will be able to "spam in every viable tile" like you say, if you get lucky with map generation. So this doesn't actually change anything, it just makes it so that it's more equal. So the case you are talking about - it already happens, but now we are reducing the randomness and annoyance if this is implemented.

In most cases you'll know a long time before if there will be a resource on said tiles before the unique improvement becomes a thing.

And? doesn't change the fact that in some games you'll be able to place it there, and in others you won't, just because of randomness.

 

[stii]

None of these UI seem powerful enough for this to be an issue, the fact you can already do it with Moai suggest it is fine for everything.

 

[adan_eslavo]

What about MUCfVP new Unique Improvements?

 

[pineappledan]

I can maybe see an argument for any improvement that relies on adjacencies (Terrace Farm and Eki), but not for standalone UIs (Encampment, etc.) I wouldn't support a change, personally, because civs still get chances to use their UI, and I don't agree that the UI should be the only thing they build. I think this would make maps with UI civs homogenous carpets of their UIs.

I wouldn't mind removing the buildable on resource ability from Moai, actually. Makes it harder and more rewarding to find that special strip of resourceless coastline. Polynesia can settle literally anywhere they want on the map from turn 1, so I'm not overly concerned with making their placements easier.

 

[InkAxis]

I wouldn't support a change, personally, because civs still get chances to use their UI, and I don't agree that the UI should be the only thing they build. I think this would make maps with UI civs homogenous carpets of their UIs.

But this doesn't really change much. In some maps, if you are lucky, this carpet will happen anyways. So this just standardizes it a bit better, and in many cases the difference would be slight - you would rather place the correct improvement in most cases.

I wouldn't mind removing the buildable on resource ability from Moai, actually. Makes it harder and more rewarding to find that special strip of resourceless coastline. Polynesia can settle literally anywhere they want on the map from turn 1, so I'm not overly concerned with making their placements easier.

Definitely not. It's already very difficult to find that spot and you often have to sacrifice a city connection for it. Sometimes it won't even generate on the map. And Polynesia definitely can't settle anywhere they want, and certainly not on turn 1. They are not an OP civ so they wouldn't need a nerf.

Well, at the very least I think this should be changed for Eki and Terrace Farms.