Bach's Cathedral, Sistine's Chapel, or both?

[Sharpe]

I agree that the sudden RP agreement does make things nicer for us to the point where we should strongly consider building both wonders, however one issue that I cannot leave uncommented...

I find the idea that building both happiness wonders would trigger a general war against us (I apologize for that, but...) ridiculous.

I have played about 150 Civ MP games over the past 4 years (mostly Civ 2 admittedly) - I am just telling what I have seen during my experiences. That comment was completely unnecessary... Hopefully you haven't seen it happen because the people you play with are smart enough to prevent both of these wonders fallling into the hands of only one civ. However, admittedly in Civ 3 these wonders are a little less crucial due to the introduction of luxury resources and the major change in the rewards of the Sistine Chapel...

There is nothing ridiculous about it - look what has caused the wars in the game so far in comparison...

[lmtoops]

IMO the eventual war with Legoland will due to our uncheck power. Building Wonders will be a sign of this power and may indeed be the "trigger" for a war.

But the war is unavoidable, that is building only Bach will not prevent the war. But if we are successful in building both happiness wonders, we will be self-sufficient during the war.

That said, I agree that we are not here to ridicule each other ideas.

As far as ridiculing my ideas, please do so in a foreign language. I will automatically assume it's a complement.

[Sharpe]

As far as ridiculing my ideas, please do so in a foreign language. I will automatically assume it's a complement.

I think that we do appear to have a team consensus to build a wonder in Legopolis and that wonder should probably be Bach.

However, as we can have seen already several times in this game so far, what we plan for and what actually happens in the long run turn out to be generally completely different from each other...

I agree with lmtoops assessment - it will probably be a war to check our growing power rather than anything we do or not do. Hopefully we can prevent the entire world from moving against us and maybe even get a few civs on our side to make such a war not only winnable, but possibly to our advantage...

[Tiberius]

Sharpe, I didn't mean to insult you. I stated my opinion, and it is unchanged: the idea that everybody would attack us for the sheer fact that we have built both happiness wonders is ... you know

What would you say if I wrote: "Don't build a city with our first settler. In all my games, those who built a city with their first settler were attacked later!" This statement is completely ridiculous.

The 2 wonders are the simptoms, not the disease. Probably in your games those who built the 2 wonders grew too strong and the others attacked them because of that; not because of the wonders. It was only a sign that they are too strong. I bet they've also built Leonardo's.
This game is completely different: partially because it is civ3 and not civ2, and partially because a lot of people are involved, who monitor the current situation and the other players very carefully. The others know exactly how strong we are. We have a lot of land and we have built the Pyramids. This would be more than enough reason to attack us if they could. We will grow even stronger with or without the 2 wonders. We could build all the wonders or none of them, the others will see a threat in us sooner or later no matter what. The "flying under the radar" period is over. The only thing we can do is build a strong enough military to defend ourselves and if possible prevent a situation with all other nations forming an alliance against us.

The only possible scenario in which we could avoifd being attacked is making a pledge that we are here only to build and have fun, but we don't want to win the game. Honestly, as long as we have a chance, I will try to win this game and frankly I don't care if I piss off others (teams) during the process.