Wonder sharing

[Smash]

In games with alliances I like this.I think its perfect for diplo games also.Within reason.

Wonders that replace improvements should not be shared.Pyramids,Mich's,Hoover Dam,SETI,Sufferage.I would also add JSB,CfC,Oracle and The Gardens.In other words,wonders that are needed to maintain a civ every turn:NO.

Definite share wonders:Leos,War Academy,Great Wall,Marco Polo.At deity level I think it can be a very good idea to allow the SOL to be shared.

Maybes-Magellan,Trading Company,Lighthouse.

I'm not sure about science wonders.These are almost always in capitols and although I'm not sure,I have a feeling it may be bad to cede your capitol.On second thought I would say no to these for sure.These would have to swapped every turn.No good.

I think it adds alot to a game.I think it would work very well in diplo games as big profits could reaped in addition to adding more serious negotiations.

I guess the biggest anti would be time.If done correctly, a quick Leo's swap doesn't take 30 seconds.But wholesale exchanges could get lenghty.

I think it is best to share wonders such as The Wall,Marco's,War Academy,Magellans,Lighthouse,Adam Smith under special circumstances.Namely, your ally is undergoing a massive invasion.Or you are

Leo's and SOL can shared when needed.

I suspect the vast majority of games frown upon this tactic.A percentage of "don't know it could going on" and a small% "of course"

[SmartFart]

I see very little logic in your post. I am strongly against wonder sharing,but if they are shared i see no point or restriction when it comes to the type of wonder.

Sorry,but sharing a wonder like Great Wall is not only unrealistic (Hey Romans! Those pesky Zulus gives you a hard time? No problem. You may borrow our 1,000,000 tons Wall,carry it across the ocean,but beware: you have to bring it back in 20 years or else...) but its also a cheating which surely leads to victory. Especially when you prevent other side to share happy wonders.

[Empress]

I love wonder sharing!!

[Smash]

Of course it needs to be on the pre game discussion list.

The Great Wall wonder is not realistic.No wonder is realistic.Nothing in the game is realistic cept the names of stuff.

Many times Leo's has gained me technology,gold or territory thru peaceful interaction.I like to think of it as cultural exchange.

[SmartFart]

It only leads to disaster. Once when you share Leo with someone,that will piss of civs which aren't part of the share.
Then they'll start sharing all cities (xcept capitol) every turn to get max beakers/gold,they'll share units to get double movement and attack twice in a row,they'll share caravans to get instant trade routes,diplomats,blah blah blah.

I would certainly share everything i could if i see someone sharing wonders.

[SmartFart]

I mean everything connected with Civ2 mp game

------------------
No i ain't doing much,doing nothing means alot to me (AC/DC)

[Makeo]

Wonder sharing is wrong wrong wrong.

[Smash]

Hehehe..well thats silly.I've only done this a few times in games that featured long term alliances to hinder Mich's builder.Don't ask me why,but that is the thing to do.To be honest,it was not discussed before hand.Then again aside from no city bribes and no caravan or unit trading for movement nothing was discussed.But that is how I approach alliances.It involved Leo's and SOL.I built both.My ally was supposed to build 1 and I, the other but he was being annoyed by 2 pesky ai controlled civs.

What the heck-game was deity raging hoardes 7 civs but only 3 humans.
I found myself in the middle of 2 ais.My future ally was sandwinched between 2 other ais.The other player had nice continent all to himself.You can guess how it developed.
Hostile MGE ai forces early military for "us" while other player was able to build nothing but camels and rattled both big happy wonders and built a SSC without Collosus.
After ais were crushed we had fair sized civs but due to war had little or no infastructure keeping us in lower governments.So the course was clear.An alliance and SOL were a must to keep the game interesting.Otherwise it was a runaway.And it did become a darn good game.We worked hard and eventually pulled ahead in science while accumilating 10000+ treasurys.

The only complaint we heard was when we stole the SETI wonder thru timely espionage and tech gifting.

I don't have any problem with saying no sharing I just think it can add some fun and keep interest in lopsided starts.

------------------
In a MP game I only care about getting a good ally. Nothing else is as important.....Xin Yu

[SmartFart]

I've played pretty fat number of alliance games and after some time i started to dislike them because of numerous reasons.

Finding someone 1st is a tremendeous adventage.
Game is slower than in non-alliance games. There are some situations where you actually have to negotiate during your or your ally's turn.
Little time left for micromanaging early in the game when turns takes 10 or less seconds and in that period micromanaging wins most of MP games.
I would rather spend my game time to managing my civ instead of endless chatting.

That doesn't mean i am bad ally...i just prefere non-alliance games and i have no problems finding them

[rah]

Smash, great Xin quote.

SF,
I agree. I used to like alliance games for the comraderie, but findind someone first is a hell of an advantage. We did minimize this by agreeing that no tech trading occurs until all teams had met.

But now I much prefer no-alliance games, I think it does promote earlier warfare. In alliance games you're usually allied with the closest person instead of fighting them for the good territory. Settler cranking games have a tendency to bore me after awhile.

RAH
And no-alliance is becoming more the norm in our group.

[markusf]

The only people who usually want to share them are people who can't play without them

[SmartFart]

Or people who cannot earn themselves some

[CapTVK]

You could decide to have a "no alliances allowed"-period that lasts till a certain turn. For example: state that everyone's forbidden to forge alliances until 0AD or later but is free to wage war, that should keep things moving...

[rah]

Yeah, but, if there will be alliances in the future, people will create them under the table. (You can have this land, etc)

If there never will be alliances, (some people will still have gentleman agreements) peace treaties are made and will be broken. (some quicker than others) so you always have to watch your back.

Peace treaty breaking keeps the game more interesting. hehehehe

RAH

[cavebear]

I don't think that Wonder-sharing should be permitted in anything except Tribe play. In that, you have a known and permanent ally, and the whole point of the format *is* coordination and sharing of goods and resources.

If there is another format with permanent and assigned allies, that would make sense, too.

But, I just can't see it as fair in regular MP games...

------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

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