Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vanigo]

That sounds... erratic. And complicated.

[abculatter_2]

IRONYOWL AND CHEDDARIUS!

DON'T MAKE ME BREAK OUT THE PMs!

[IronyOwl]

I'm sorry! I've been busy! Working on it!

I like the luxury thing in theory, but I'm concerned about bookkeeping for it. It's relatively simple when you're producing X of everything to provide X of everything, plus that one odd luxury, but when you get 1.0 lobsters a turn, 3.0 clothing a turn, 2.0 spirituality a turn, and sometimes but not always 2.0 jewelry a turn, tracking how much you have and have built up to the next level might become problematic.

I guess a sample turn for me at the moment would look something like this:

Luxury Needed: 2.2
2.0 Spirituality (2.0/2.2 stored)
2.2 Clothing (+1 Morale)
2.0 Mushrooms (1.8/2.2 stored)
1.0 Silver Jewelry (0.7/2.2 stored)
[+1 Morale Total]

Hm... now that I think about it, splitting off at least some of your warehoused luxuries into "stored" ones could simplify things at least a little. Having some stored in your warehouse and some built up in your people's hands might be a bit harder, though.

[Cheddarius]

Can you find gold and such in hills when you build quarries there?

[IronyOwl]

Considering that's how I found silver, I'd say so.

As to whether there's any limits or modifiers on that, like if your ores are set at the beginning of the game and literally discovered, or if they have a lower chance of being added the more your already have, no idea.

Short answer is that quarrying your hills probably has a higher chance of discovering gold than not quarrying them, but it's definitely a gamble.

[IronyOwl]

So my research is a bit of a mess. The short answer is I want stone without ripping out my mines, but I'm not sure how I or you want to accomplish that.

Theory of Elemental Earth and Basic Artifice both seem like nice techs, but I'm not sure how thematically appropriate they are. I'd eventually want pretty much all the benefits they provide, though, so I'm not sure about going off in a different direction to get the same result.

Of course, I might very well research further along whatever line I end up with, so being the same or similar now might not mean it's always the same.

[Knight Otu]

Can you find gold and such in hills when you build quarries there?

There is a chance to find gold when quarrying, yes.

[Cheddarius]

Ah. I meant "Can you find things in hills, or only mountains", but I guess IronyOwl answered that already.

[Vanigo]

So, do I need to edit my turn's luxury consumption? If I need to, I guess I could spend three food to go with the spirituality, and use the entertainment with 1.5 jewelry for the third point.
Come to think of it, what will we do about extra food if we go to that full morale points only thing?

[IronyOwl]

That's a good question. I suppose Cheddarius has shown that getting large quantities of food isn't necessarily hard, but at the moment using food for luxury is definitely more useful to get that last slight boost you need.

On the other hand, an irrigated plain produces 3 food, so 0.6 luxury for 1 labor. Considering it can be acquired almost anywhere, getting 1.2 luxury for 2 labor isn't bad at all. Each unit of clothing requires about 1.3 labor, for instance, assuming no clothier's workshop and a single improvement on a given hill.

If you're big on food production, this gets better. Cheddarius' three-field farms produce five food on a non-river tile. That's 1 luxury good per 1 labor, which is about what jewelry tends to take. And sure, that requires somewhere around a dozen labor to set up, but it's doable on any plains tile next to a river, rather than just the one or two ore tiles luxury normally requires.

So I guess the short answer is luxury food would be useless for most people, but the ability to "store" the built-up luxury could make it worthwhile if you're running low on granary space and/or interested in lower efficiency luxuries. It'd be useful for very food-oriented civs either way.

[Knight Otu]

So, do I need to edit my turn's luxury consumption? If I need to, I guess I could spend three food to go with the spirituality, and use the entertainment with 1.5 jewelry for the third point.

Looks like, yes. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll use this distribution.

Come to think of it, what will we do about extra food if we go to that full morale points only thing?

Likely it would act the same as other luxuries under that model, but it's definitely one of the things that need a closer look.

[Vanigo]

What would we do about excess spirituality? Would it accumulate at all? If not, what happens to already-accumulated spirituality when a new temple/whatever is built, putting spirituality production over the top? I'm liking this system less and less. I do like how it makes a thin trickle of luxury useful, but you could do that with most luxuries anyway by storing them in the warehouse. Meanwhile, it's unnecessarily complex and causes morale to bounce around wildly. What are the good points of this system, anyway? Something I'm missing?

[Cheddarius]

I think one purpose was to force diversification, so that you can't just have 10 morale by spamming ungodly quantities of clothes and turning your population into sweaty spheres covered in layers and layers of thick woolen turtlenecks or whatnot. And I guess the advantage of having a luxury only able to be involved in one morale boost is to make sure that the opposite is also unfeasible, that you need to be able to create a decent amount of each luxury instead of getting .1 gold, .1 silver, .1 clothes, etc.

Though, whether or not you think those are advantages is up to you, I guess. The first one could make the game more interesting, I think (and encourages trading), while the second one could make the game easier to GM? I dunno.

[Vanigo]

Why would small quantities of lots of luxuries be bad, though? If anything, I'd think it would be harder to manage that than decent quantities of several. (As for spamming clothes, nobody has proposed a system that wouldn't stop that. If anything, the whole-point-only thing discourages diversification, since the more luxuries you use the more chaotic your morale gets.)

[Knight Otu]

In combination with the idea that luxury resources don't mix, I do believe that it should be simpler than the current system. I don't really see how taking away the exceptions and making the luxuries work the same way increases complexity - it certainly increases bookkeeping, but most of the stock is already being tallied, and only one player has no need to worry about spirituality. In a newly-started game, it would also lessen the oddity that, say, a shrine becomes worthless without other luxury resources.

Excess spirituality would be accumulated. That is one of the reasons that the high priest would be nerfed under this model. There should be a limit on how much can be accumulated however.

I may have an idea regarding food and the erraticness, but that would involve an exception to the rules again...