Did it show a specific entry for polders?Originally Posted by MadDjinn
Why don't trade your tulips for silver and the spices for whatever else the civ in question has?
Did it show a specific entry for polders?
Why don't trade your tulips for silver and the spices for whatever else the civ in question has?
Actually, my initial description was somewhat backwards in explaining the problem, but the idea that the two interfere with each other still stands.
If someone has a resource you want (Gold) and you have one Spice plus a resource you are guaranteed not only to have, but to have multiple of and be the only civ to have that resource (Tulips), it's always a better idea to trade the Tulips first over the Spices because then you get to keep 3 full luxury Happy bonus instead of 2.5, so immediately Tulips create a situation where the UA is not prioritized or at least competes (instead of working in synergy) with your other Unique (Polder/Tulips).
There's only a finite number of luxury resources, and a finite number of trading partners. Of these luxury resources, you'd naturally get a few of them from just your land alone. Then from each trading partner, you'll have the ability to trade Tulips for another unique resource per trading partner, then you have the multiple of the same resource from your own land to trade for more unique resources per trading partner, finally, after all that, does it only become advantageous to start trading your last copy. In which case there are significantly less opportunities to actually use the UA (especially since the smaller unique tradeable resource pool does not include the last numbered resource of the other civs as they won't trade them nor overlap between resources you both naturally get from your lands). This results in it being a much weaker UA than if Tulips weren't present.
Of course, this all depends on the world size and number of civs. The impact of the Tulips is lessened when you have only a very few trading partners, as there's less opportunities to trade it for something unique from a different trading partner. Which is fine as there are many UA's that are map dependent. But it still doesn't change the fact that Tulips would be the only unique that has the potential to actually detract from a UA and compete with it instead of working in synergy.
Also, ironically, the fact that Tulips would actually interfere less with the UA when you have less trading partners makes the UA/Tulip combo better for aggressive play styles. However, I doubt the intent of the developer's for a trading UA is to focus primarily on lowering the number of potential trading partners you have in-game to help an aggressive player. On top of that, the opportunity to trade your last numbered resources would now primarily come later in the game as the opportunity is only after everything else is traded (Tulips and multiples) AND after most of the land is settled to up the number of unique resources available to trade. This is now forcing the UA to compete even more with late game empire/land expansion and the resources you would acquire naturally in the process, as well as the fact that the later a Unique bonus comes in a game, the lesser the impact.
The exception is trading resources purely for gold. There is the potential for balance issues with this (I'm not really sure, would probably have to test). Even here though, your priority would still be to first trade the Tulips to maintain happiness from multiple partners (as you'd keep 2 instead of 1.5 luxury Happy bonuses), and then trade your last type resources for gold. In which case a), it changes the focus of the UA from a Happy bonus to a Gold bonus which seems against the primary intent of the UA, and b) you've just created a needlessly complicated mechanic to make a UA that essentially is just +xx gold per turn.
Last edited by istry555; 05-24-2012 at 04:25 PM.
Ah this is very well explained Istry. While it seems they're adding several new luxuries, and perhaps we don't know the numbers on average luxuries each Civ is like to have, (# of luxuries, # of dupes) we don't exactly know what the trading climate will be like -- but it sounds like you're correct.
I still think Netherlands would need SOMETHING to help them stay in good favor with most rivals... Civs that depend on trade ought to have something like that. Arabia for instance could use some help in getting people to be friendly with them (A cooperative gold boost based on trade routes with Civs who have a DoF with you, similar to Sweden?) Its just a bit too iffy a UA without it, but I do really like Civs who gain benefits for making friends.
It did, and it didn't mention Tulips, but the text portion of the entry was purely historical, and not game-related. It's within the realm of possibility that the portion that mentioned Tulips was in the lower half of the entry not visible in the screenshot.
Tulips were mentioned in more than one preview, so it doesn't seem likely that it was just a case of misunderstanding. If it's true that Polders no longer provide Tulips, then I think it's more likely that it's something that has changed since the early previews in which Tulips were mentioned.
Austria has a Coffee Shop UB? I think I know who I'm playing as...
OK, I think people are misunderstanding the effectiveness of Netherlands' UA, how it works, and the role that Tulips could play, so to clarify, first the UA as described in the official Civ V G&K website is as follows:
"Retains 50% of the happiness benefits from a luxury resource if your last copy of it is traded away."
As I understand it, this means you keep 50% happiness for EVERY luxury resource whose last copy you trade. So to turn the deal in Netherlands' favor, simply make sure to trade the last of each one of your luxuries for a foreign luxury, that way by trading away the last of a luxury for another luxury you actually GAIN happiness by a factor of 1.5. If you should have to trade your last copy of a luxury for a strategic resource or gold, then at least you are left with 0.5 factor of happiness for that traded luxury as a safety net, so you get what you wanted and still didn't loose all you had.
The existence of Tulips should not degrade this effect (or at least by much), especially when compared to net good, the existence of Tulips has to the world at large (aka the potential happiness gained by other players). Assuming that Tulips can't be stolen by simply capturing a Polder, and that they are unique only to Netherlands, it may not be in an enemy player's best interest to wipe out the Netherlands civ (much like wiping out a Mercantile city-state will deprive the world of a luxury!). Furthermore, since Polders are restricted only to marshlands (usually the rarest of all land tiles and almost never found clumped together) I doubt you should worry about the Netherlands' player spam building Polders to amass Tulips. If you were using the Earth map from Civ 5, you would have to scatter your cities all over the world in order to build multiple Polders to get your hands on multiple Tulips, which is probably not the best strategy for a non-militarily oriented civ like Netherlands.
In the end I still find Russia's double Horse, Iron, and Uranium resources to be more troubling, even Arabia's duplicate luxury-creating Bazaar in tandem with double oil I feel has a bigger impact on the game that does Netherlands UA and the Tulips that they may or may not have.
I've expressed my doubts over Netherland's UA as well. Among other problems, it can be completely voided depending on whether or not the Dutch have difficulties with diplomacy (did you like my alliteration there?).
But that's just it. The Tulips would essentially be a better version of the Netherland's own UA. Which is bad design as a) why have the same ability twice in the same civ, and make the better one the less accessible/apparent one, and b) introduces competition between your own uniques instead of synergies.
They have Gold, you have 1 Spice and lots of Tulips. You can trade your last Spice for the Gold and get 1.5 the Happiness, or you can trade the Tulip (which since you have an exclusive monopoly on and can self-produce, is a more guaranteed trade and you'll have more than one of), and get 2 Happiness. Trading Tulips are always a better option.
Now, as there are a finite number of luxury resources and a finite number of trading partners, the existence of the Tulip mechanic ensures it'll be longer before you even get any bonus from your UA as a) it's always more advantageous to trade through your monopoly of tulips first, and b) trade through your natural multiple resources, before you ever even have a reason to trade your last of any resource. At which point, your competing against several factors to even make a trade.
Tulips as an incentive to not attack the Netherlands is non-existent in SP, and in MP you'd probably get more resources you don't have from taking their lands than a single Tulip trade. So there is no real point to the "net good to the world at large" for keeping Tulips in play. Finally, they don't have to amass Tulips, even getting 4-5 is more than enough when there's only between 15-18 unique luxury resources, period.
I also already pointed out the sole indisputable benefit would be trading for gold, but then again, you've just introduced a needlessly complicated mechanic to make an UA that's essentially +xx gold per turn. Especially since it's always more advantageous (and you have more opportunity to) trade your Tulips instead of your last copy of a resource.
It's not that the Tulips wouldn't help or be a cool unique, it's just bad design to implement them with the existing UA and the overlap would essentially give the Netherlands 2 uniques instead of 3.
Last edited by istry555; 05-24-2012 at 08:45 PM.
Yes, well said...
Anyways I thought I would find all the evidence from past game reviews regarding Netherlands and the infamous Tulips luxury resource, here's what I found:
From Eurogamer article on April 3: "Dido of the Carthaginians, Pacal the Great of the Mayans, Boudicca of the Celts and William of Orange of the Dutch will all make their presence felt - the latter with a full range of ☺☺☺☺s, windmills and tulip fields."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ring-the-faith
From VentureBeat article on March 13: "They can develop polders that generate extra food and tulips that can be traded."
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/13/ci...-wars-preview/
From VentureBeat article on May 10: "The Dutch are particularly good at taking marshes and building dikes that convert them into fertile farmland. They can develop polders that generate extra food and tulips that they can trade."
http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/10/ci...kings-preview/
Has anyone seen a screenshot or video that shows Siam's UA (i.e. the selection screen)? I am wondering if it will be changed to reflect the changing city state types. I'm hoping they will get bonuses from either Mercantile (happiness) or Religious (faith) CSs. If they get both it's a big boost. If they get none it's a huge nerf. They should get one of those and I'm leaning towards Faith.
I get what your saying istry555 but your assuming that every civ wants to trade you for your tulips and that the resources you want are spread among each player. I have played many games where I have acquired a monopoly on a luxury (like 8-10 wine) and tried to trade only to find that from a huge map of 20 civs, only about 10 have anything to offer in trade (pathetic stuff like 80gp, 2 horses, or open borders) in exchange for one of my luxury resources, and that only 3 civs (Russian, Songhai, & Siam, who always seem to dominate all my games) actually have more than one of multiple luxury resources I didn't already have but since all I have to offer are multiple copies of the same, I could only trade 3 of my wines to them for each civ, and then I was stuck with the rest making my monopoly rather useless to me, since each civ needs only one copy. See the problem, I had many of one resource and only one of 4 other resources, whereas each of the 3 dominating civs had at least two quantity of about 3-4 sets of different luxury resources, but I could only get 1 luxury off of each civ since I only have the same monopoly resource to trade off.
Not every civ will be able to trade for your resource so unless all the civs you play against each happen to have multiple copies of a different luxury that they for some reason have not already traded with other neighbors, it matters very little if you have infinite Tulips cause you will never find a buyer. I don't know how your games turn out but that's just my experience.
I tend to agree. Most games I am able to get done about 2 or 3 trades for lux that could be on going through out the game even if I have 5 incense or something.
And outside of the AI, it's even more problematic imo. Players in multiplayer (if that ever gets fixed) could easily just totally block the Dutch from achieving anything with their UA.
Guess boath sweden and the dutch earn alot from getting friends.
The one element of AI diplomacy that really needs to change is that the player cannot always be the one to offer a trade proposal. What happens is that the player is usually too slow to offer the proposal when the AI civ has something available to trade. The AI winds up trading with itself, because for some reason it will never initiate a trade with the player. Right now, the closest thing it'll do is establish a DoF, then ask for a handout.
Yeah I have noticed that too, but AI can do other things too.... It can get mad at your for simply loading up the game and settling your first city or even ask you to go to war for them only to attack you later. The AI is pretty biased and pathetic in Civ V, yet for some reason I still love the game. G&K/'the patch' can only make this more addicting.
Well, I was speaking specifically to the Netherlands and their design, which is heavily oriented around trade.
I can live with a few civ's out 30+ not being ideal for MP. As long trading with the AI actually works.
Agreed. With this many teams its fine to have a few niche Civs.
Last edited by zephyrtr; 05-26-2012 at 12:16 PM.
I don't have a huge problem with it either. I was just pointing out that it's not such a great UA, in my opinion.
It's fine if you never go random, but where's the fun in that?
Speaking if teams, if you play with teams in MP Sweden will be great to have on your side.
woooo! expansion pack
cant wait, but online will be kinda difficult to play since not everyone will have the pack..
well i guess i dont mine playing without the pack
Yeah, I was thinking that...I might go as Sweden in an allied match - +10% Great Person generation to both parties sounds like a big help to me! It'd be especially good if you're the one playing as Sweden, because the more friends you have I'd think the higher that percentage would grow.
I think I'm liking Sweden more than Denmark.
For those who follow this thread and still don't know, the pre-order for Civ5 G&K is finally on Steam, get it now and you get 10% off.
On a side note now that I think about it, I'm gonna have to redo my personally customized map thanks to the new European civs, there's just not enough room in Europe. Is it fair to say we have enough European civs with G&K and the DLC's, or is anyone out there still craving more European civs?
Oh I'm sure someone still wants more Europeans... Honestly I wouldn't bemoan Portugal very much, but that's about it.
And Australia gets ripped off again...
http://www.steamprices.com/au/dlc/16...gods-and-kings
No way am I paying $50 with or without 10% off, I try to refrain from using such invective, but they can go get ☺☺☺☺ed!
Last edited by Codex; 05-29-2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason: don't bypass the language filter
According to our latest poll Portugal is the most wanted civ not in the game. There's also a call for Poland, but that's dropped a bit since Austria's been added...Aside from that there's been some talking about Serbia recently as well. It'll take at least one more civ before we stop talking about Europe as much as we are.
Personally I'm more interested in other regions of the world right now.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-new-civs-poll
Wait, is it possible to change the beliefs' names as well?
About trading luxuries you have multiple copies of, the AI doesn't give you as good of a price for a Wine if you have three of them, but if you have only one or two Incense you get better exchange.
And if AI has two Ivory, and you try to trade it with one out of your five Gems, he won't do it because AI sees that
the "market" has less Ivory than Gems.
I've learned this thru trade.
Yes -- the religions "represented" in the game are all just titles and symbols. The symbol is permanent. That can't be changed unless you go into the asset files for the game. Upon founding the religion, though, you can choose to rename the religion from, say, Christianity to Mormonism or Dudeism or whatever you want.
Also, each real-world religion doesn't impart any bonuses to your Civ. The bonuses you get come from the Beliefs you choose. The actual religion symbols and titles are purely cosmetic.
That doesn't imply the beliefs names can change, though. They have names that are relevant to their effects. It would seem weird to be able to change the names of beliefs.
You can change the name of your Religion, but it's very unlikely that you will be able to change the names of Beliefs -- that would be like changing the names of Technologies or Social Policies or civilization Special Abilities... it would be very confusing especially to other players in a multiplayer game.
(some people use the words "faith" and "belief" and "religion" interchangeably, but in game terms they are all different things)
Get it, thanks.
Yeah, sorry -- I misread your post.
Why do you always get the highest prices possible? I always see Aussies complaining, and rightfully so, about the incredibly high price of video games.
My impression is that Australia has unusual restrictions and many hoops they force foreign game publishers to jump through, and so the publishers get their retribution by jacking up the price.
It must be the Giant Spider tax. It'll get you every time.
Yeah, basically distribution, market and taxes force game companies to drastically (about 1.8x normal) raise the price of their games in AUS/NZ. Europeans also get it pretty bad (about 1.5x normal price I think?) I don't know what the Asian markets suffer. Probably nothing. Sony and Nintendo can just as easily distribute in Asia as in USA, and that probably forces everyone else to keep their prices low.
That reminds me...I want a Giant Spider mecha unit for the Future era.
What extra taxes? AFAIK Steam pays no GST (10% sales tax).
What extra distribution cost? It cost Steam no more to send their digital goods here.
It's historic, we are a small market at the arse-end of the world, when things come in boxes and required local support some extra cost can be justified.
Now it's just gouging while the market bares it. Thankfully it's actually being discussed in parliament now because local vendors are getting squeezed out as more and more people circumvent this bs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote