Do we need Wonders?

[Tiberius]

I saw one very-very interesting thread in the CTP2 section, and because the same discussion could be applied very well on CIV3 also, I thought we can discuss it here.
Click here: Wonders o' the world... the root of all evil?
Thank for idea, TheLimey.

So, what do you think? What's your opinion? Would you be happy with one wonder/nation or one wonder/nation/age? Should we pick the wonder from the beginning along with the nation we choose? Should the wonders be civilization (culture) specifics?

We all like the Wonders, so com'on, put your comments here.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 23, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

Excellent question!

I for one, think that Civ3 should first of all have wonders, and that there should be some civ-specific ones and others that are globally available.

For example, the wonders that could be available to all civs could be ones such as "Cure for Cancer", "Women's Sufferage", "Hoover Dam", and the "Mahattan Project". The civ-specific wonders would impact less benefits and'll mostly be the early wonders in the game. Example are "Pyramids" (which maybe some, but not all civs can build), and the "Hanging Garderns".

To implement this idea there would obvious have to be separate folders and hence separate rules files for each civ then. This was something that was discussed in another thread.

It also links to the other threads that mentioned how many wonders should be available, because this system would allow for many more wonders, but not everyone'll be able to build them and so the game would not be too diluted by wonders.

---

In fact, as I write this, I've just had an idea! How about having wonders that must meet additional requirements to be built?

For example:
*Can only be built on a coastal town, next to river (eg Hoover Dam), in the desert, etc
*Requires a town that is bigger than 40 people when building commences.
*Requires you to control a certain number of cities before commencement.
*You need to know a certain number of other civs.
*You must be in a certain form of government when building commences.
*Needs a constant cash input while being built (eg Manhattan Project?). It shouldn't require money after being built as that'll make the wonder seem like a normal improvement.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Tiberius]

I think that globally available wonders should be very few (max. one/age) and they should be very hard to build; the idea with additional (special) requirements is also not bad. It is also a possibility that from those wonders should benefit ALL civilizations (like the Internet ) and the nation who built it would receive in addition a reputation bonus.

I agree that civ-specific wonders should impact less benefit and must be a little bit easier to build. The need to have folders and separate rules files for each civ is obvious and, I think, benefic. The more cultural differenes will exist between nations, the more interesting the game will be. I'd be quite happy to see that each nation has its own UNIC wonder, unit, maybe even a unic tech or building.

[TheLimey]

While CtP was universally damned for its inital quality, it has some pretty lovable features, not least of being its flexibility from a rules standpoint. CtP2 is by all accounts, to have a fabulous scripting language, allowing for all kinds of implementation.

Ideas and changes like the limited wonders idea are easy to conceive, harder to implement and even harder still to balance.

I'm certain that when Sid and Brian were designing Civ & Civ2, they didn't believe that wonders were an unbalancing force, and were too good and relevant to 'civilization' as we know it, not to go in.

If I had to guess, i'd say that 80% of Civ players aren't Deity players. Those 80% find the cushion they get from those wonders comforting, allowing them their cheating against the cheating AI... so that they can bomb their opponenents to hell and back.

An idea like this will only be proved by its implementation, and from initial inspection, I believe that it will possible to do so in CtP2.

Then there will need to be extensive play balancing to learn how the new minimized wonders scheme works for players in general, and the different difficulty levels. There will, i'm sure, need to be many iterations before this process is complete, and much discussion with the intelligent posters of Apolyton before the best solutions appear.

What I'm saying here is that there is a significant playbalancing effort required, with need for beta testing, to iron out the wrinkles.

I think that its possible or maybe likely that Sid and the Firaxis crew are striving to avoid those paradigm shifts that would take a long time to play balance.

Having the ability to implement smart ideas however, is excellent, since the mod maker can spend an eternity designing and play balancing his new concept.

In a perfect world, there would be as much time as is necessary to finish every product perfectly. This definitely isn't that world, so...

What I'd suggest for the Civ3 (and CtP2 designers) is the possible inclusion of a choice for number of wonders per civ per age, with that being the only 'effort' on the designers part.

There, however, should be sufficient customizability, to be able to deal with added features like this one... although that I guess goes without saying.

EDIT: glaring grammatical error

[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited June 23, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-23-2000 04:43 AM there should be some civ-specific ones

No civ-specific stuff for me, thanks. My civ should be able to do whatever I lead it to. I don't want to be discluded from building the Pyramids just because of my choice of a civ at the start of the game.

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-23-2000 04:43 AM In fact, as I write this, I've just had an idea! How about having wonders that must meet additional requirements to be built? For example: *Can only be built on a coastal town, next to river (eg Hoover Dam), in the desert, etc *Requires a town that is bigger than 40 people when building commences. *Requires you to control a certain number of cities before commencement. *You need to know a certain number of other civs. *You must be in a certain form of government when building commences. *Needs a constant cash input while being built (eg Manhattan Project?). It shouldn't require money after being built as that'll make the wonder seem like a normal improvement.

These are much better. Trickier to program, no doubt, but I like them a lot. If you want to stop people from building wonders (or whatever else - units, improvements) it should be because of the choices they've made earlier in the game, and not just because they're in a certain civ.

- MKL

[St Leo]

Thumbs down, way down! Civ needs an unbalancing force, one that makes one tribe different from another tribe - without wonders to give a nation a unique personality every time civ is played, it would just be a repetitive every nation's Crusaders attack every nation's Musketeers.

The point of wonders is to provide special properties to a side, so that one side is more powerful at sea and the other builds faster; I have nothing against the wonder-rich becoming wonder-richer - they deserve it.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[UltraSonix]

Doh! I didn't make myself very clear. When I said civ-specific wonders, I meant that the properties would be juggled around like civ1-civ2 so that the good wonder-benefits from the past (eg pyramids' granaries, Leo's free upgrades) would be still available to everyone. So only the Egyptains and a few others would be able to build the pyramids, but the free granary aspect would be embodied in another, globally available wonder.

An alternative:
*Have the normal civ2-type globally available wonders. But in addition, have civ-specific wonders that only affect things like happiness and maybe tax. The civ specific wonders would have names that reflect famous historical buildings etc of the civ.

I give this suggestion because I want the individual civs to have character, not like in Civ2 where there was no point in choosing a civ because they all played the same. (SMAC make inroads into this problem with the special SE civs, but I think this issue can be further improved.)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Tiberius]

quote: I give this suggestion because I want the individual civs to have character, not like in Civ2 where there was no point in choosing a civ because they all played the same

I totally agree with you. Firaxis definetely MUST do something to give more personality for civs.

[Slax]

I totally DISAGREE with both of you. I want to be able to choose my own civ name (real or made up) and follow any path to victory as I choose. I don't want to play the same civ each game because the game is unbalanced in its favour.

Please, no civ-specific aspects!

[TheLimey]

A no wonders game is an awefully dry concept. Although I can see the gameplay benefit.

I don't agree with civ specific wonders for the same reason; the 'perfect' wonder combo will be found, then there is an utterly compelling reason to play that civ.

[Par4]

No No No Civs should get nothing from the start that is predefined. Your flags and colors etc should come from the culture that arises in you empire, and can change, ie you city is conquered by classical civ you get it back in 500 years the city looks classical not whatever you are right after you get it back. As for having to have an area near a city that fits the discription, I like this.

Maybe we could have the names change a little too, instead of 'Pyramids' what about Pyramids of X. X is the city they are built by. Also I would like to see them on the map, the Pyramids weren't built a city but near one.

Anyway I like wonders, they make the game 'civy'.

------------------
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Tiberius]

Hey, customize it!

Make it possible in a .txt file to:

1. Choose between civ-specific wonders vs. globally available wonders
2. If you pick civ-specific wonders, by default certain nations would have certain wonders. If you want to play Americans with Pyramids though, change it in the same (or another) txt file.

Easy, right?

Typing this I realized that this is not a wonder-no wonder problem, but a historical accuracy/realism problem. So, we should choose in the beginning of Civ3 between a historical accurate and, let's say, a random game. If you choose a historical accurate game, then you will have civ-specific wonders; otherwise make the wonders globally available (but still with the customizability options I described above).
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 28, 2000).]

[N_A]

My thought is that we either get rid of wonders completely, or put in 2 gameplay options:

- wonders for everyone
- wonders that are culture specific

[UltraSonix]

That's a good idea! The game should provide a simple rules toggle option at the start to change whether you want wonders or not, or whether you want civ-specific wonders or not.

And I really like the sugestion that wonders should be seen on the map, not just after clicking a button in the city. Not all the wonders would be like this, eg the recently completed Human Genome Project, but things like the pyramids, Hoover Dam (or equivalent), and of course, the Great Wall.

Hummm... How about having the Great Wall actually manifest itself onto the map. And I don't just mean just near its city of construction, but all around the civ's borders. And as your borders expand, you can pay to expand the Great Wall as well, and it would serve as some sort of long fortress that enemies would find hard to get through. It would only be effective in early-middle game though (can't put tanks on the wall, after all). Then as the game heads towards the spce age, the wall can crumble, creating one of those cool landmarks that SMAC has.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Tiberius]

double post...deleted.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 28, 2000).]