Did they mess up the science wonders?

[Smash]

The manual is wrong regarding Copernicus' Observatory and Sir Isaac's College.We all know that.Its basically backwards.

But does it not make sense?Cope's is the cheaper of the 2(300 sheilds)(Isaac 400)and yet it is more powerful as it doubles the science in the city.Isaac's only gives 50% more.

Seems like it should be the other way round.


Some programmer made a boo-boo.

[Sten Sture]

I thought they were both +50% of base??

[Ribannah]

You are right: the manual has them mixed up.

I'm pretty sure it was done intentionally though. Copernicus comes much earlier in the game, when 300 shields are harder to come by than 400 shields later on. The same is true for Bach's Cathedral v Cure for Cancer: again double the effect at a lower price, but way sooner in the game.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Smash]

Cope's doubles it.

I don't know.I think of The Lighthouse vs Magellans.Different but similiar as they are sea wonders.As you improve your naval capabilty,you are offered better boats and a better wonder(imo).

Or even Mich's vs The Gardens.Although strong arguments can be made for The Gardens being better,I think most figure Mich's as the better.

It just seems as you progress that bigger and better things would come.Isaac's requires more techs and more sheilds but is only half as good as Cope's.

Later you are offered a potentially strongest science wonder of all.SETI.

[Ribannah]

Well, I'd say Apollo is the most powerful wonder ...

SETI is so late in the game that it rarely makes a difference towards victory. And you could always build Research Labs, so it merely saves money - and only if you have to build more than 3 labs.

Hanging Gardens is much better than Mike's, since you can always build Cathedrals but nothing will replace the HG. Also, because it is available so early, once more the effect is much greater.

Even the Lighthouse has a much greater effect than Magellan. Easy exploration early on is way more important than quicker movement later, when you could simply build a few more ships to compensate. And vet status, too!

Marco Polo beats the UN, too. IMHO the Hoover Dam may be the only major late wonder (not counting Apollo), for a large empire or if you can't build Hydroplants.

So, about all early wonders are clearly better than their later counterparts. But it takes longer to build them.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by Smash on 09-13-2000 06:55 PM The manual is wrong regarding Copernicus' Observatory and Sir Isaac's College.We all know that.Its basically backwards. But does it not make sense?Cope's is the cheaper of the 2(300 sheilds)(Isaac 400)and yet it is more powerful as it doubles the science in the city.Isaac's only gives 50% more. Seems like it should be the other way round. Some programmer made a boo-boo.

I think the percentages are 6 of one, a half-dozen of the other.

If you start with an initial city beaker production of, let's say, 12 beakers, and then throw in a library (50 % increase), Cop's (100% increase), a University (50% increase), and then Sir Isaac (50% increase), you get the following:

12*1.5=18(Library)
18*2=36(Cop's)
36*1.5=54(University)
54*1.5=81(Sir Isaac)

On the other hand, if you change Cop's to 50% and Sir Isaac to 100%, you get the following results:

12*1.5=18(Library)
18*1.5=27(Cop's)
27*1.5=40.5(University)
40.5*2=81(Sir Isaac)

The latter wonder (Sir Isaac's) should cost more since you should be able to produce more, i.e., more cities. Therefore, is there any real problem?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[SCG]

One could also argue the principle of diminishing returns. Since at some point you start getting less extra benefit for more effort put in. In this case, less extra science for slightly more shields. Ribannah seemed to try and point that out reguarding the JSB vs CfC, and you even demonstrate that with the increasing costs of getting 50% increase with marketplace/ bank/ stock exchange and library/ university/ reserach lab among other things.

Of course as with many debates, only an official word can really settle it, and that would be most likely from a Civ III release.

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*

[Bohlen]

Well, I'd say that looks right, kcbob. I'm not one to study the mathematics within the game, but just assumed your scenario would come out with different totals. We need a number cruncher here. Where's DaveV when you need him?

------------------
Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance

[kcbob]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 09-14-2000 12:40 PM Then, using kcbob's numbers, you're looking at a difference between 54 shields (if Copes = 100%) or 40 shields (if Copes = 50%). Multiplied over many turns, this could be a very significant difference.

I think you meant "beakers" instead of "shields". But you do make a good point. I hadn't considered the difference on the intervening turns while you're waiting for the final numbers to get back in sync.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[Gatekeeper]

Smash, et al.:

Typically I will build only Wonders which have no expiration date. My reasoning for this is simple — the effects *never* expire, which happens a lot with Wonders available early in the game (Pyramids being a notable exception).

The only expire-prone Wonders I build are Colossus and Marco Polo's Embassy. Those two are key to making or breaking a game, particularly Colossus. I mean ... it helps having seven to 12 extra trade arrows in an early city, particularly the capital.

CYBERAmazon

[Bohlen]

I always tend to give the Civ programmers the benefit of the doubt when talking of programming mistakes or oversights. It’s nice to believe that Sid & Co. really intended on some of the game’s idiosyncrasies

With that said, it could make sense that Cope’s is cheaper, yet more powerful, due to “the age of discovery” that it represents. Convincing the world that the Earth is not the center of the universe was, IMHO, more enlightening than a theory of why we fall and stay on the ground. Of course, these two Wonders represent more sweeping change and breakthrough than just these two ideas, but I would say that the building upon an established science (Ike’s) is less influential and more difficult than the establishment of the science itself (Cope’s).

So, if you buy this idea, then maybe this is the way these two wonders are supposed to work. They either screwed up on the manual or programming, I guess. Take your pick.

------------------
Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance

[Theben]

Whichever wonder is best depends on your situation.

FE, HG in the same city with the Colossus is a great way to insure WLT?days (esp. in Monarchy- gives Republic trade), but if you don't get it no sweat; 3 caravans are cheaper. HG & GW together are marvelous as GW forces peace while HG allows for rapid expansion (1st very unhappy becomes happy for some reason). But in the end you'll want MC.

That said I wonder if 3 solid trade routes per city isn't the best "wonder" of all. I've never been disciplined enough to find out.

[N35t0r]

No!

the percentage increases of libraries, universities, etc. are added up, then applied to the original number. Don't know about the wonders, though.

ie:
base science: 4
+ library: 4*150%=6
+ library&university: 4*200%=8
NOT 4*150%=6*150%=9

[Smash]

Man,I need civ3 to come out now.I'm making topics about civlopedia/manual errors

Some goods cases for it is right as is.But I still think it was a mistake.It just sits better the other way.

Yes it is kinda relevent to the time.A city will be bigger and better at the time of Theory of Gravity compared to Astronomy(generally speaking).So,one could say that Isaac may be cheaper or at least easier to build than Cope's.

But the civlopedia says so.I know ,I know.What about JSB and Hoover's??

Well,that may be a mistake of sorts also.Is it not possible that, in the concept stage,game designers wanted them to be SAME continent wonders?

Hoover Dam does not supply power to Hawaii.Or Alaska for instance.

Then,during actual programing,it was found impossible or too difficult to do?Keep in mind this was made eons ago in computer terms.

Why does Pottery allow me granaries,but Masonry allows The Pyramids which act as granaries?Something seems funny here.

WTF happened to The Oracle?In the original rules.txt it is not good at all.Why is it more than The Gardens?Even with altered rules.txt I know which one I'd rather have.This wonder was not thought out well.Seems more like a late change from something else.

I think there was many changes due to long days and programming limitations.

Can you say BORED?

[DaveV]

Well, how can I resist posting after a question like that? I'll agree with kcbob that it doesn't make any difference in the long run. The difference is during the time span when you have built Cope but not Isaac. Then, using kcbob's numbers, you're looking at a difference between 54 shields (if Copes = 100%) or 40 shields (if Copes = 50%). Multiplied over many turns, this could be a very significant difference.

I'd agree with Smash that this was probably a programming error. It can, of course, be fixed by fiddling with the rules.txt.