no transfer of production!

[Lambiorix_be]

To give an example of just how serious Firaxis is, consider that you will no longer be able to transfer production from one project to another, a major exploit since time immemorial. Johnson admits he's a bit nervous about such a bold step, because it will certainly force Civ veterans to rethink their basic strategies, but it's something that needed to be addressed. Here's how the exploit worked. In earlier Civ games, let's say you had been building a great wonder for 39 turns. But before you could finish it on the 40th turn, another civilization finished it before you. No problem, because you could simply transfer all that production to a different project and pick up as if you had been building it for 39 turns. In Civ IV, when you lose a race to finish a wonder, you lose all the production made on it, and you can no longer transfer it to another project, though you will be refunded an amount of gold. (This rule also covers production of regular buildings and units as well, though in those cases, if you suddenly switch from producing, say, a settler to an archer, you simply save the production that's been made for the settler and start the archer from scratch. And when you go back to producing the settler, you'll pick up where you left off.) ...(GameSpot)

It is more realistic but I am sure that I will not feel very happy when I lose a wonder that way. Could be the trigger to start a war with the neighbour who has the audacity to be more efficient than me

[marcuspeddle]

It works both ways, of course. If you get a wonder first, think of all the production the AI (or other human players) will have wasted. Sweet . . . . .

[The diplomat]

I think that it's a good change. It was a major exploit. It is more realistic this way and it will force players to make tougher decisions about what to build.

[Sabre2th]

Exactly my thinking. It's always bothered me that after I finished the Great Library, 4 other Civs could turn around and finish off all the other wonders instantly.

Of course, this probably means that a lot of people won't even bother with wonders anymore, but oh well...

[Last Conformist]

I like it this way. It increases the risk inherent in going for a wonder, making for more strategic decisions.

[Tattila the Hun]

I wonder if they could make some sort of...

Eh, an example. I'm building the Pyramids, and someone beats me to it. Instead of getting gold or something, I could finish the structure, but it would not be the Great Pyramids, and grant granaries to every city. It would just be a pyramid, with a slight culture, happines or/and religion boost.

Or similar to MOO, where you could store the "production", and then boost a planets production. Nifty way to survive nova's. This for emergency situations, like unexpected war.

[Solver]

Very, very interesting change. This will change the way the game plays fundamentally.

[Zoid]

And some people say that the Civ concept doesn´t evolve... This is a MAJOR change in gameplay.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Masuro
It works both ways, of course. If you get a wonder first, think of all the production the AI (or other human players) will have wasted. Sweet . . . . .

I agree

I like this idea

[Aro]

Great change, The game will be really different...
In fact, when you put all the (confirmed) changes togheter, like this one, the new tech tree, personalities traits, health or citiy especialization...
Not to mention the new visual approach (it's very interesting! )
AND a spear will not be able to defeat a tank. Not anymore.

Well, It seems a better game.

I can't wait!

[asleepathewheel]

excellent change.

No more of this bs wonder prebuild business.

risk
less micromanagement

[yin26]

For this to work properly (that is, for it to be a strategy game and not Las Vegas), you'll need some kind of warning through a spy network or something that lets you know somebody is building a wonder and roughly how far along they are. I would be fine if the information cost me money, but to commit blindly to something of that magnitude only to lose out by one turn is too fickle.

The idea generally is good, but without a reasonable way to strategize the process, it becomes a horrible feature. Of course, we don't know how much of a refund we get if we lose out, so perhaps the main loss is of time and of not building something else during that time, but there are too many questions for me to say this is a positive.

[General Ludd]

How is this more realistic? Why would the mayans stop building their pyramids because one was built in Egypt? Why would america give up it's space program because russia beat them to it?

I don't like switching from one wonder to another, but I don't like spending thousands of years constructing a great wonder only for it to mysteriously disapear when it's almsot done because some unkown civilization on the other side of the world happened to be building the same thing. The system of wonders used in Civilization is antiquated.

[yin26]

Here would be a compromise: The entire value of a wonder is that, well, it's so unique in the world. I say, therefore, that if Civ A and Civ B both develop Great Pyramids...they both get to keep them but at only half the benefit. To make it even better, I would only cut these benefits if CivA and CivB, either through direct knowledge of each other or through an intermediary Civ, could logically know about each others accomplishments. Then both populations say: "Well, our Pyramids are still Great, but I guess not so great after all."

This process would continue. So if CivC also built them and was aware of Civ A and Civ B (everybody knows everybody), then the benefits drop to 1/3rd for each civ. This has the following plusses:

1) Anybody can still build any wonder and get at least some benefit.

2) Remaining an isolationist would have at least one small benefit.

3) Building wonders now also serves to detract from your enemy's power. You can now strategically match his building prowess and leave his people less impressed with their own wonders.

In other words, player control and strategy.

[Proteus_MST]

I especially like the Idea of saving the shields (eh Hammers) for one project if you switch to another one.

So if I know Barbarians attack in 2 turns and want to switch from my (9/10 built) Settler to the production of a spearman those shields spent for the production of the settler aren´t lost (or converted into gold) anymore