Do we need Wonders?

[Tiberius]

Slax,

If you don't want civ-specific aspects at all, then how do you choose one civ or another to play with? Do you play with the colour you like the most? What's the difference right now between them? Why don't just name the nations/civs "Nation1", "Nation2" or "Civ1", "Civ2", ... then ?

But, like I said before, the answer is: customizability!

[TheLimey]

Tiberius- it IS more than a question of realism.

I don't know what Civ games you've been playing, but what is one of the major reason for jumping ahead, by any participant?

Humans level of play versus the AI is one thing, but another thing that makes the human player potentially far better is that he knows:

a) how powerful wonders are
b) how to build them quicker (and get techs to get to build them similarly)
c) which are pointless and which are highly beneficial

Ultimately, by whatever means, the more wonders you have, the quicker you progress through the tech tree, and given that you have a modicum of skill in empire building, its pretty much game over when you get a critical mass of wonders going.

Wonders are the only all-upside item in the game. Units cost maintainance, and improvements cost upkeep. The two worst things about wonders are; their building cost, and the fact that they go obsolete. Both of these 'disadvantages' aren't really disadvantages at all. The level of benefit you gain from them is disproportionate.

I'm not saying you should tone down wonders. Wonderful wonders are great fun. However, limiting wonders to one-per-civ-per-age is a great balance, in my opinion.

It becomes one less reason for a player to pull ahead.

I'm not saying this is the only reason for the imbalances in the game, but this isn't a symptom, it is a cause.

[TheLimey]

I'd also like to say on another note that, civ specific wonders might be nice for scenarios, so perhaps the possibility for their inclusion should be considered. I wouldn't however, personally see them as balanced within a standard single player (or for that matter multiplayer) game.

Also, certain omni effect wonders already exist, and are good ideas; like the manhattan project in civ2, and the gaia wonder in CtP.

I see no reason to not include these in future civ games. I think that they should even maybe be exempt from the one-per-civ limits, since they don't just benefit the civ that builds it, except from a strategical choice standpoint.

[Tiberius]

TheLimey, you are right about the wonders.
However I'm still not sure what the sollution could be. Here are some posibilities:

1. No wonders at all. NO WAY! I think everybody love to buid wonders. If not for their bonuses, at least for self-satisfactory reasons (Wow, look how cool is my civ!). And if the wonders will also look great on the map or in the city-view, this feeling will surely increase.

2. Limiting wonders to one-per-civ-per-age. Maybe. But some could still argue that why shouldn't they build them if they could, in an "I deserve it" attitude. And also, which wonders should Firaxis keep and which through away?

3. Limit the wonders to one-per-civ-per-age and make the rest of them civ-specific. I like this because could give more personality for civs, but some people don't. Maybe, like I proposed, provide a simple toggle option at the start to choose between historically accurate (civ specific) or random game. The civ-specific wonders would be less powerfull.

4. Make the wonders harder to build and eliminate cheating (make it impossible to build a wonder that is already built or even to switch from a wonder construction to another; stuff like this). Also make a better balance between wonders. With other words, keep the existing system, but optimize it.

5. ????????????

P.S. I play Civ2, generally on Deity. I don't like SMAC, so I can't comment its wonders system.

Edited twice. F***ing errors

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 29, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 29, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

I went through a lot of these thoughts earlier.

1) No wonders. I agree. Awefully bland. Although i'd like to try a game this way... (just for a change)

2) Limited-to-one-per-age-per-civ wonders. What i'm suggesting is that no wonders are 'left-out'. You choose one at the end of the wonder creation period. The 'bonus' a leading civ gets is the first pick. There might be multiple copies (different names of course) of particularly useful wonders.

4) Standard game with harder to build wonders. Bad because it doesn't solve the balance problem. Some things even might make balance worse... for instance; if you can't switch production from one wonder to another, what happens when the leading civ finishes the wonder? Everyone else looses the production?

5) I don't know there is a 5 either.


I do think that this should all be optional. Obviously its going to be a big shock to the first 'formulaic' player of civ2, when they can't use their tried and true world domination through wonder supremacy (among other things) strategy.

An option keeps the bulk of players happy, and the people who are looking for more of a challenge and balance happy too.

[Az]

My idea for a 5 , maybe some1 has mentioned it before but :

wonders that while being build don't demand shields , or just shields , but also demand science and gold . Apollo flights and Manhattan project demanded tons of scientific development and supports cost in addition to the production needed. what do you think ?

------------------
Prepare to Land !

[TheLimey]

Initial cost is initial cost. Its the ongoing cost vs. benefit thats the problem with unlimited wonders.

If wonders 'cost' maintainance & shield upkeep & perhaps other forms of cost, for their duration, then they *could* be balanced. You ultimately get back to the point about how special do you want wonders to be, though.

[UltraSonix]

I think having a cost like money/science on all wonders would probably make the wonders undesirable. But perhaps the need for extra stuff to balance out the benefits of a wonder could be done through having extra requirements when you build a wonder.

quote: 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.

Extra possible requirements could be:
*Needs a certain amount of science in the city for construction to continue (but it wouldn't actually use up the science, if that's what Dalgetti was saying). This could apply to wonders such as human genome, cure for cancer, apollo, and manhattan.

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

[TheLimey]

The problem with the 'extra requirements' are that the leading civ is always the most likely to have these advantages, and the trailing civs less so. This will extend the 'wonder gap' even further.

Yes, certain wonders requirements would be a pain to 'get to', so they wouldn't get built for a while, but the leading player (most likely human) would still be the one in the best position to get to those, when circumstances were optimal.

[UltraSonix]

Heh - what's wrong with the wonder-rich getting wonder-richer? If you've worked hard (or not worked hard if the AI turns out to be a dud) to get into a dominant position, then you deserve to get all the wonders. Only great civilisations build wonders.

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

[TheLimey]

The problem isn't a problem for a vast majority of players content to 'beat up' on the AI.

The problem is with the Deity players who want single player to be at least mildly challenging. The civ2 guys are setting up artificial challenges frequently. This is an extension and expansion of that idea.

Also, wonder balance helps at both ends of the spectrum; at the lowest levels of civ, you might want to have limited wonder building (maybe just a limit on the AI's rather than the human, or a lower limit,) so that the AI can't go on a wonder spree.

The last point is about 'specialness'. Wonders have become more like fancy improvements than being the greatest achievements of the civilizations time.

In civ2, and lots of other civ games, you can have a 'wonder factory' city and pump caravans into the city to get them done fast and cheap. Doesn't sound like a great achievement to me.

If you're ok with wonders not being special, play without the option.

[timfry]

Just wanted to add a thought on wonders...

In the Civ Series if a city with a wonder is destroyed, the wonder is too. This is not historically acurate for all wonders. Yes, the Hanging Gardens and the Colossus disappeared. But what about the Pyramids? Or the Greek Pantheon? Easter Island? All wonders of their day whose society/civilization has left but still remain.

In Civ III large wonders should be on the map and in some cases should remain even if the city is destroyed. Likewise, in a war there should be a chance during a bombardment that the wonder is destroyed or at least damaged and the city still remains.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, we need wonders, wonders are the spice in this game. They are the random element. The jokers in the deck.

[jdlessl]

they are no longer functional so they might as well be called "destroyed"

Well, define functional. The Pyramids, wondrous though they may be, are not and have never been "functional" in any sense of the word. The Hoover Dam could be said to be nonfunctional if the nearby electrical grid (ie, all major cities) were destroyed, but the dam is still there and requires minimal work to make operational again.

I'm for having some of the wonders being placed on the map and not the city (Great Wall and the Pyramids). City-bound wonders (Leonardo's Workshop) can be destroyed, yes. Some can't be destroyed at all, like Cure for Cancer and the Manhattan Project. It's knowledge, not a construction project.

--
Jared Lessl

[St Leo]

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

Realism might benefit, but gameplay will definetly suffer.

In the Civ Series if a city with a wonder is destroyed, the wonder is too. This is not historically acurate for all wonders. Yes, the Hanging Gardens and the Colossus disappeared. But what about the Pyramids? Or the Greek Pantheon? Easter Island? All wonders of their day whose society/civilization has left but still remain.

Yes, but they are no longer functional so they might as well be called "destroyed".

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