Speculation on Amenity: quantity, and indirect control.

[Sansa_Stark]

Atleast or at most?

The second level could be 3-4 surplus and there could be levels beyond that starting at +5, maybe there are alot of levels but getting huge surplus is not easy.

I am like 93% sure they had +5 in some city and it was still +9%.

You know what? I am gonna watch them again to make sure

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

+5 is just a guess they could very well if they have more level put them higher up.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

+5 amenities is the same city and no change

Spoiler :

EDIT: +6 amenities in other city and still 9%. La Rochelle size 2, basic output should be 2.6 culture (monument + 2pop) and 2.4 science (worked iron + 2pop) and its 2.8 and 2.6 respectively.

Spoiler :

 

[Big J Money]

I'm not worried about the auto-distribute.

The worst case is going to be that when not all cities can be happy, we don't get to choose which are the unhappy ones. But there will be some mechanics behind it that we can depend on. Perhaps it will be distance from the capitol.

And even though we don't have direct control, maybe there will be some amenities priority weighting by city that we can have enough control?

 

[kampori]

I'm not worried about the auto-distribute.

The worst case is going to be that when not all cities can be happy, we don't get to choose which are the unhappy ones. But there will be some mechanics behind it that we can depend on. Perhaps it will be distance from the capitol.

And even though we don't have direct control, maybe there will be some amenities priority weighting by city that we can have enough control?

According to the recent livestream, the 'Department of Amenities Allocation' (or whatever they called their coding), the code will automatically assign amenities to where they are needed the most by priority (assume capital and biggest cities, and most unhappy get priority)

 

[Silverdawn]

They called it the "Department of Luxury Resources"

 

[Big J Money]

Yes, that's what I based my statement from.

 

[Brutus2]

Does anyone know if there is any "Avoid Growth" button that will 100% stop all growth like we had in Civ5? It would be nice to be able to stop growth in some of the cities that maybe lack the production to build entertainment buildings before they grow to an unhappy level thus making it even harder to build in those cities.

Also, if the Entertainment district reaches all cities within 6 tiles, are there other districts that do that as well? I sort of remember hearing the Industrial District would add production to multiple cities but not sure about that. I know Japan's electronic factory does, not sure about regular factory.

 

[Silverdawn]

Does anyone know if there is any "Avoid Growth" button that will 100% stop all growth like we had in Civ5? It would be nice to be able to stop growth in some of the cities that maybe lack the production to build entertainment buildings before they grow to an unhappy level thus making it even harder to build in those cities..

I don't recall seeing such a button yet.

I think the radio buttons next to the yields in the lower right control, are the governors like in Civ 5, but I don't know how you would switch it back to "default" if you used them. Maybe can toggle them on an off. Has anyone seen a player use them--I don't recall any cases?

Spoiler :

 

[Big J Money]

@brutus
Toronto's suzerain bonus mentioned industrial districts receiving a 3 tile increase to their regional bonus, so sounds like there are more than just entertainment, yes.

 

[juanpavo]

Does anyone know if there is any "Avoid Growth" button that will 100% stop all growth like we had in Civ5?

Seems like the "Avoid Growth" was useful in these scenarios:

1. Avoid getting hit with the unhappiness hammer
2. Redirect growth to prioritize the capital growth

For (1), maybe the effect in Civ6 is softer and less scary? And for (2), maybe it is less necessary to have a super mega-size capital?

So maybe no more need for "Avoid Growth"? It does seem like a goofy control to have.

 

[Big J Money]

Avoid growth is still helpful since we don't have control over where the amenities go, a city growing can mean its' desire for amenities goes up by 1 and takes it from another city, reducing it from happy to content or something. Remember this lowers all production by 5% as well as food by 10%.

But you're right that growth penalties are smaller this time around. Before, simply crossing into unhappy was a massive growth penalty. Now it seems not so bad at only -15% food for the first level of unhappiness.

 

[Akkarin]

Because luxuries are spread globally, amenities are "global happieness" by another name. E.h. If you build an amenities building, that still has a global impact because simply means that your luxuries can be spread to another city.

However, there are 2 significant differences:

1. Its much more gradual. In CiV, if you have just one unhappyness you are (apparently there is filter)ed. In CiVI, one unhappieness will mean just one city is unhappy, with the rest sitting on the verge of becoming unhappy. And even being unhappy doesnt have such a drastic effect as in CiV where it completely stopped your pop growth (this is now limited by housing). However I also assume that its going to be much harder to actually gain happieness too.

2. While CiV global happieness significantly favoured tall civs, CiVI amenities significantly favour wide civs. Having lots of cities means that you can use several copies of amenities, and your first 2 pop in each city are free. This means that a civ with 8 cities with 6 pop each (=48 pop) and 2 copies of 2 luxuries needs no additional amenities, while a civ with 4 cities with 12 pop each (=48 pop) and 2 copies of 2 luxuries needs 12 additional amenities from other sources. This is massive.

 

[Brutus2]

@brutus
Toronto's suzerain bonus mentioned industrial districts receiving a 3 tile increase to their regional bonus, so sounds like there are more than just entertainment, yes.

Yes. That's probably what I was trying to remember. I knew I had seen something about Industrial districts having regional bonus. I have a feeling all of my games are going to be covered with map pins as I plan out exactly where I want to place everything

 

[Stringer1313]

I definitely predict they will eventually create a Dept of Luxury Resources screen so people can micromanage distribution if they want to.

 

[joncnunn]

Because luxuries are spread globally, amenities are "global happieness" by another name. E.h. If you build an amenities building, that still has a global impact because simply means that your luxuries can be spread to another city.

However, there are 2 significant differences:

1. Its much more gradual. In CiV, if you have just one unhappyness you are (apparently there is filter)ed. In CiVI, one unhappieness will mean just one city is unhappy, with the rest sitting on the verge of becoming unhappy. And even being unhappy doesnt have such a drastic effect as in CiV where it completely stopped your pop growth (this is now limited by housing). However I also assume that its going to be much harder to actually gain happieness too.

2. While CiV global happieness significantly favoured tall civs, CiVI amenities significantly favour wide civs. Having lots of cities means that you can use several copies of amenities, and your first 2 pop in each city are free. This means that a civ with 8 cities with 6 pop each (=48 pop) and 2 copies of 2 luxuries needs no additional amenities, while a civ with 4 cities with 12 pop each (=48 pop) and 2 copies of 2 luxuries needs 12 additional amenities from other sources. This is massive.

On the Rome Video not only did they say each luxury provides 4 amenities; but also that could safely trade a luxury to Germany because they couldn't currently use it anyway. (They had 3 cities at the time; so they weren't getting any benefit at all from the copy.) So in your second example the second copies don't matter at all, while they do in your first example.

This does have significant implementations when going from 4 cities to 5 by either self building or conquest:
1. You'll start using a second copy of a luxury when you have it.
2. If you only have one copy; one of your cities will go without.

Following this, you only have to worry about #1 every time you go past a multiple of four (and definitely something to consider when AI asks to buy a luxury for cash instead of trading with a luxury you don't have), but #2 will then be a factor every time the number of cities in your empire expands as a smaller percentage of your empire gets use of luxuries you only have one copy of.

And hopefully the bug from Civ V where if one time you had traded a luxury to the AI but the deal is now lapsed and in fact the luxury has been sold elsewhere that it says it's not being used if the AI calls you up to reinstate it has been fixed in Civ VI; otherwise it has potential to get much worse.

 

[Grumpbeard]

Avoid growth is still helpful since we don't have control over where the amenities go, a city growing can mean its' desire for amenities goes up by 1 and takes it from another city, reducing it from happy to content or something. Remember this lowers all production by 5% as well as food by 10%.

But you're right that growth penalties are smaller this time around. Before, simply crossing into unhappy was a massive growth penalty. Now it seems not so bad at only -15% food for the first level of unhappiness.

There's a case to be made that if you are the type who tunes your empire to quite that degree, you are probably also the kind of player who will go in to the city screen and manually reassign population, which you could then lock, which would prevent growth?

 

[MadDjinn]

There's a case to be made that if you are the type who tunes your empire to quite that degree, you are probably also the kind of player who will go in to the city screen and manually reassign population, which you could then lock, which would prevent growth?

probably. locking down worked hexes was always a good way to prevent growth.

ofc, now you could also just refuse to construct the housing buildings, or make just enough, to hit a specific population you want for that city right now. Then later add those buildings when you can afford the pop increases.

 

[Big J Money]

You're sort of right, but my experience from Civ V was that those were 2 different actions for me.

Prevent growth was very nice because it was one click.

The only time I actually micromanaged workers were when I needed to rush something and the AI behavior for production focus wasn't doing what I wanted. I can't remember the exact scenarios but it was never in a situation where I was trying to prevent growth.

ofc, now you could also just refuse to construct the housing buildings, or make just enough, to hit a specific population you want for that city right now. Then later add those buildings when you can afford the pop increases.

That's a good point. It won't always be an option for each 1pt of pop, but at least it might sometimes.

TLDR; I micromanage citizens when I feel like I have to, but that was never for preventing growth. I would really not like to have to do that in Civ VI. But I'll admit that I'm less worried about it because the unhappiness penalties are far more forgiving.

 

[Big J Money]

Following this, you only have to worry about #1 every time you go past a multiple of four

Yeah. In the last video Ed mentioned the "1-2-3 Rule" and I couldn't help but expand it to the "1-2-3-4 Rule" using the same observation you make here.