Equality for Wonders?

[Cyclotron]

Keep wonders, keep all wonders, balance them somewhat, but they are an essential part of gameplay and should be kept. Make the benefits primarily help one Civ, so there is an incentive to build it.

Hey! Here's an idea: Certain wonders that ordinarily benefit only their owners could also benefit the owner's allies... new reason to ally, new twist to diplomacy!

To balance out such "worldwide" wonders like Manhatten and Apollo, make it so for 10-15 turns only the owner can build the new units/improvements granted, and after that time everyone can build them.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

I second cyclotron7's motion on this matter. V. good ideas.

[tniem]

I think the benefit for wonders needs to be more historical. The pyramids were never used as granaries. They were tombs.

So this is where the whole culture thing fits in. Stuff like the Pyramids should have less of a bonus that does not include culture and possibly trade from people visiting your wonder. Past that it just makes the game more unrealistic and hard to balance.

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-15-2001 04:08 PM Keep wonders, keep all wonders, balance them somewhat, but they are an essential part of gameplay and should be kept. Make the benefits primarily help one Civ, so there is an incentive to build it. Hey! Here's an idea: Certain wonders that ordinarily benefit only their owners could also benefit the owner's allies... new reason to ally, new twist to diplomacy! To balance out such "worldwide" wonders like Manhatten and Apollo, make it so for 10-15 turns only the owner can build the new units/improvements granted, and after that time everyone can build them.

Whoa,Cyclo, you are right on the money here. I especially like your idea about allies being able to share benefits for a wonder you build. (This makes sense, since America's allies were first to share benefits of things like internet, nuclear power, etc.) You're right, it would be a great way to convince nations to ally themselves with the human player.

[SerapisIV]

Definitely. If you get more trade for alliances, you should be able to get at least partial Wonder benefit as well, due to stronger cultural/trading ties. Nice idea, cyclo.

[samurai]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-09-2001 09:51 AM I don't object to universal benefit, but they're must be some kind of stronger impact on your civ, otherwise, why build it? Let some one else do it and you gain the benefit. It's this kind of reasoning, which is why commuism doesn't work. No matter how nice the theory is, the greed of man overcomes. They're must be something in it for the player if its gonna be a useful improvement.

How bout gaining the advantage that you get to see the world for 10 turns before the rest if you build the Apollo project? That way you can get some use of it if its badly needed.

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-11-2001 02:34 AM I suppose the question to answer first is: do you want wonders to help larger Civ to gain great advantage, or do you prefer wonders as a way to help civ in middle rank to resurrect and catch the leaders?

You mean like Darwins voyage only gives the best civ further advantage.
I prefer the wonders to help the middle rank to catch up, but some of them have to be so good that you will do anything to get them.