Which wonder would you chose, part 2

[WackenOpenAir]

Bach's
leonardo's
smiths
magelans.

magelans gets low because i prefer pangea maps anyway.

leonardos gets high because im a warmangerer

bachs gets highest because i play deity.

[Danarchy]

Originally posted by Solomwi Smith's
Leo's
Bach's
Magellan's

That's what I'd say to, though I might consider putting Megellan's up a notch on the importance list if the map was an archipelago or very watery continental.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Dominae
Thanks for the help, but I (and many others, I'm sure) associate the Sistine Chapel and Michelangelo far more readily than Bach and any old cathedral (I associate Bach with music and religion, not a building).


Dominae

That's kind of what I'm saying. The cathedral has to have Bach, game-wise, to be anything more than just a cathedral. Sistine is Sistine, and Michelangelo created the only one. Actually, I like this better than my original swipe at an explanation. The others all need the person's name for recognition

Sun Tzu's and the Globe Theater, though, break the mold then.

[nbarclay]

I agree with Catt and Dominae regarding Leo's and Smith's. If I'm planning a massive horseman-to-cavalry upgrade (which is one of my favorite tactics), getting Leo's is a high priority for me. Otherwise, it's no big deal.

On those map settings, Magellan's would be at its most useful if you expect to invade the other continent(s) before airports become available. If you do, it might be more useful than Bach's. Otherwise, its value is minimal.

The value of Bach's depends a lot on city spacing and on how hard it's going to be to acquire luxuries. In most of my games, I use a tight city spacing and can build a tech lead to trade techs for luxuries (plus cash and other goodies), so I don't mind missing Bach's. But with bigger cities and having to pay gold for luxuries, Bach's can make a much bigger difference.

In a way, I'm sorry I can't give a more definitive answer, but in another way, I'm glad. The fact that different wonders have different values in different situations is a significant part of what keeps Civ fun even after playing it for a long time.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Sun Tzu's and the Globe Theater, though, break the mold then.

There are three basic categories that wonders can fall in with regard to naming. Some, like "Magellan's Voyage" and "Smith's Trading Company" would be completely meaningless without a person's name attached. There have been countless voyages and more than a few trading companies over the centuries.

The second category is one in which the wonder could, at least in theory, be adequately identified without using a person's name but its identity is signifcantly clearer with a name attached. "Art of War" and "Globe Theater" could potentially be identified without attaching a person's name, but many people would miss the significance without the person's name attached. Anyone who has heard of Shakespeare would understand that "Shakespeare's Theater" is important, but fewer people would make the connection with the name Globe Theater. (Actually, "Bach's Cathedral" almost certainly has another name in real-world history, but how many people would know it to make the connection?) Similarly, attaching Sun Tsu's name to his Art of War provides a useful clarification for the unfamiliar.

The third category is wonders like the Pyramids, Colossus, and Sistine Chapel that are well-known in their own right. Where the Globe Theater and Bach's Cathedral (whatever its actual name was) had merely transitory significance as the place famous works were originally performed, Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel is an integral and lasting part of it. That gives the Sistine Chapel a kind of lasting significance that the other places do not have.

Nathan

[Cort Haus]

Whilst flying off-topic on this nomenclature issue, I might add that Smith's Trading company is a wierd name. Adam Smith was a pure theorist, and didn't previous Civs/CTP have the East India Company instead?

The latter was a highly effective tool of Imperialism, therefore more appropriate for a Civ Wonder. Adam Smith was a visionary and an idealist, seeing human freedom linked with free trade. Free trade was for all was not the embodiment of the East India Company, which represented freedom of capital, but not freedom of labour.

[Cort Haus]

Back on topic, I'm a fan of Leo's, though for different reasons than for most people, it seems. I use it for the defensive builder.

Pikemen to Muskets are an expensive upgrade, and if the threat-board is running low, I'll often wait for Rifles of even Infantry before upgrading.

If neigbours are more threatening, esp if they've got Knight-era UUs, I like to get the Muskets up fast, and without breaking too much into my infrastructure build programs. If I have Leos, I can raise the defensive level much easier than without.

[Stuie]

Re: Which wonder would you chose, part 2

Originally posted by Turrosh Mak
Leo's Workshop
Smiths Trading Post
Magellans Voyage
Bachs Cathedral

You posted them in my order of preference.

I always put an emphasis on obtaining (through trade or otherwise ) all eight luxuries, so once hooked up, Bach doesn't do much for me. Leo and Smith both let me save money, probably more so Leo's if I'm playing a large map with a huge military. Magellan? I can take it or leave it.

[Datajack Franit]

For EVERY civ game including large masses of land:

JS Bach's
Sistine
Pyramids
Sun Tzu's

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
For EVERY civ game including large masses of land:

JS Bach's
Sistine
Pyramids
Sun Tzu's

Ummm, okay but not quite...

For one thing, you replaced three of the stipulated wonders. For another, you completely miss the aspect of different playstyles. For someone who builds cathedrals in every city, Sistine's is going to be more valuable than Bach's. For a warmonger without a militaristic civ, Sun Tzu's is likely to be a higher priority than any of the other three you list. Personally, ever since I moved to Monarch, I don't even try for the Pyramids, but rather hope somebody on my continent builds it. Of the four you listed, with my playstyle, I'd rank them Sun Tzu's, Sistine, Pyramids, Bach's, with Pyramids and Sistine potentially swapped depending on circumstances.

[WackenOpenAir]

i do build cathedrals in every city, but i do not value sistine higher than bachs. maybe equal i think.

bachs is more versatile in that when you build or conquer a new city you have the benefit before you buid a catherdral.

furthermore, building pyramids is simply impossible (on deity) so i give it 0 priority.

leo's and sun tsu i very like because i am a warmongerer, but i see them as bonus wonders. they are not necesarry for my succes, they just make it easier. while at least one of the happyness wonders is pretty much nescesary.

Smith's is not so important for me, i usually am to busy building units and stuff to bother building any more economy than marketplaces.

magelans doesn't mean much for me, on island maps it would have average priority probably, but not high

[MysteryMan]

First of all, if I had to be stranded in a random Civ III game with only one wonder, it would be the Sistine Chapel, no hesitation, no questions asked.

However, which of the four (Leo, Bach, Maggie, Smith) is best depends on your game and your settings and your style.

Leonardo's Workshop is actually MORE important for me if I'm a builder as I don't want to actually have to BUILD new defensive units, nor do I want to pay a whole lot
Magelan's Expedition is a very hit or miss wonder. It can be a large advantage, but only under limited circumstances (archapalaego map, your involved in a high tech naval war, or one of your enemies is a big naval power - you wouldn't want THEM to build it, would you? This is the Hasek Theory at work again).
I'm very sorry but Bach's I use only for the culture. Since I have EVERYTHING concentrated on getting the Sistine, thus doubling my cathedrals, Bach's is just the icing on the cake (unless you are trying for a cultural win). Don't get me wrong, Bachs is very good, but the Sistine is just so much better that it is put to shame.
And that brings me to Smith. Well, it sure is nice getting them free marketplaces and banks. Sometimes that alone is the difference between a rich civ and a poor civ. This wonder is worth much more on larger maps.

However, all factors being equal, this is my order of importance:

Leo (both an economic and a military advantage)
Smith (economic edge)
Maggie (naval power/shorten supply lines)
...what was that other one again? (build the Sistine and forget about Bach)

[Solomwi]

bachs is more versatile in that when you build or conquer a new city you have the benefit before you buid a catherdral.

Another perfect example of my larger point (different playstyles).

By the time I have Sistine and/or Bach, I'm also racing to get into Democracy (largely for the worker boost, but also for the lessened corruption), and my concern in war is more with keeping my own cities happy long enough to achieve my war objectives, toward which end Sistine is more valuable. The conquered cities I treat as more or less of a writeoff production wise at least until the war ends, and am usually building workers from as population control. When I build a new city, it's going to have a cathedral before the happiness becomes a problem, since I almost always have 5+ luxuries and value marketplaces highly.

Smith's is not so important for me, i usually am to busy building units and stuff to bother building any more economy than marketplaces.

Play huge and do both . I always find myself heavily reliant on banks to pay the upkeep on my armed forces and keep a decent cash flow coming in.

[Theseus]

Ya know I actually had to read this whole thread twice through before the inherent problem I had in answering the query became clear.

Isn't the question, as posed, sort of misleading? I don't mean that in a bad way TM... I just mean that asking about the relative value of GWs in a strategic vacuum doesn't really make sense.

Ranking their relative value will become clear in any given game as you approach the point where you can build them.

[MysteryMan]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Play huge and do both . I always find myself heavily reliant on banks to pay the upkeep on my armed forces and keep a decent cash flow coming in.

How can one afford a huge standing army without banks? if you don't build the banks, you have to use the army right away or it will deplete your treasury. Being forced to use your army right away takes a LARGE chunk of the strategic value out of having an army.