Which wonder would you chose, part 2

[Turrosh Mak]

You have a choice of either or of the following wonders, how would you rank their usefulness over a long game, huge map, 60% continents?

Leo's Workshop
Smiths Trading Post
Magellans Voyage
Bachs Cathedral

[PeaSoup]

here's how I'd rate them from most important to least (to me at least)

Smiths Trading Post
Bachs Cathedral
Leo's Workshop
Magellans Voyage

[statusperfect]

Depends on the situation.

What is you strategy??

[Arrian]

Depends. Are you planning a mass upgrade of forces to try and go a-conquering? Or are you playing as more of a peaceful builder type? Leonardo's value varies wildly depending on your style of play.

The only one I can rank for certain is Magellan's. I like it and all, but it's gotta be #4 on that list.

The other issue is this: if your plan is conquest, then not only is Leo's directly powerful for the upgrading, but it is indirectly powerful because the conquering you do may gain you one or more of the wonders you chose not to build. Any idea of where Bach or Smith would end up if you build Leos?

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I have to add one more "depends"

If you plan to wage wars (like aiming for domination or conquest) and do massive upgrades of expensive units (I talk about upgrading Chariots to Sipahi and alike), it's Leo's hands down.

If you suffer happiness problems, because you are short of luxuries, it's Bach's.

If it's an archipelago map and you plan a naval powerplay, it's Magellan's. Admittedly, this one is the weakest of all wonders you mentioned, even if you're such an island hopper as I am.

If you're a builder nature at heart (again, like I am), Smith's is the way to go. The amount of money it saves is insane, especially on larger maps / with bigger empires.

EDIT: Considering the map conditions you mentioned, it's either Leo's (planning warmongering) or Smith's (planning to build). On huge continents are usually plenty luxuries, so happiness shouldn't be a problem, and Magellan's is next to worthless at this map.

[CerberusIV]

The first issue is it depends on which civ you are playing as you could be looking for one of these wonders to trigger a GA - which makes that particular wonder more valuable.

Apart from that it has to be Leo's if you are going a-conquering and Smiths if you are playing a balanced mixture of war and peace or a completely peaceful game.

Magellan is nice but nothing special and Bach depends on how many cities might benefit on a continents map.

[Catt]

Definitely an "it depends" answer, but I'd say Smith's is the better choice in most cases.

If you've prepared for a massive horse-to-cav upgrade, Leo's might be the right answer. But absent that, I'd be inclined to go with Smith's, even if you plan to go a-conquering. On a huge map, max land, continents, and a "long game," you're going to save a massive amount of cash over the long run with Smith's due to the number of cities you will control. And, I'd wager that you'll also save more in the short term unless you're preparing the horse-to-cav rush. If you already have knights, the upgrade cost to cavs is small. I am one of those players who only selectively upgrades pikes to muskets (where needed), and rarely researches Nationalism -- more often than not, I'll build an infantry force from scratch so there are only limited upgrade costs on the defensive side. In short, if you actually have a chance to build any of the four wonders (but only one), I'd wager Smith's is the better choice.

A couple of caveats -- both Smith's and Leo's can be captured later -- Bach's can be captured but you need it on your landmass. If a neighbor (preferably a weaker neighbor ) was closest in the wonder race, I'd probably build Leo's and expect to take Smith's as soon as it was built.

Bach's is great, and one I covet, but only rarely is it a "must have" in my games. On a huge map, with luxuries more widely dispersed, Bach's stock goes up, but not, IMHO, enough to cast aside Smith's. Magellan's is a "nice to have" wonder, rarely (if ever) a must have. BTW, having Leo's, Smith's, and Magellan's available seeems a bit rare to me -- I would have thought Leo's would be gone by now.

So, absent a planned and pending horse-to-cav upgrade and rush (and even then I'm not sure I'd change the order), I'd rank them as:

Smith's
Leo's
Bach's
Magellan's

Catt

[Dominae]

I think if you're going for a "Horseman to Cavalry" strategy, Leo's is definitely the top choice; Smith's will pay off in the long run, but you need all that Gold (so to speak) now when you're rushing the opposition. 1000 Gold right now in Cavalry upgrades is well worth 2-3k many more turns down the road.

Trying to avoid a "it depends" answer, here would be my ranking:

Leo's
Smith's
Bach's
Magellan's

(Side rant: why did Michelango get shafted out of having his Wonder named after him? Every other Medieval era Wonder is named after some famous dude, why not Michelangelo. Definitely something I hope to see fixed in Conquests!).


Dominae

[Rhothaerill]

Having just now done that horseman to cavalry upgrade and having Leo's available to me I'm slightly biased. Then again I would pick Leo's over Smith's almost any day. My ranking would be the exact same as Dominae's above.

Then again though, AU209 opened me up to the possibilities of being able to win the game on emperor without building a single great wonder throughout, and only capturing Sun Tzu until the very end when I captured a few more useless wonders.

[Solomwi]

I've got to go with the majority here and say the order of the first two may depend, but in large part...

Smith's
Leo's
Bach's
Magellan's

Your map conditions describe just about every game I play, and Smith's is immensely powerful there (markets, airports and harbors in single shield cities with no upkeeep even appeals to warmongers). Likewise, Leo's is extremely powerful with the 300-unit armies that aren't uncommon on such a map, at least for me. I would bump it up to #1 if planning a mass Cav conquest, but right now I'm in the Modern Age mindset, where because of Smith's in large part, I've got enough of a treasury stockpiled to pay for the full upgrade price without batting an eye. Had you asked when my current game was late Middle Ages, I'd have probably reversed the top two.

Rest assured, though, once I build my one, I'm planning to take the others very quickly.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
(Side rant: why did Michelango get shafted out of having his Wonder named after him? Every other Medieval era Wonder is named after some famous dude, why not Michelangelo.

That would be just another name for the Sistine Chapel, wouldn't it?

[Dominae]

"Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel" would be more fair, then. Take out his work and you've got pretty boring dome there (just like if you take out Bach's music, the cathedral would be awfully silent and boring too).

I hate inconsistencies, and so naming all Medieval era Wonders after famous people save one is just annoying for me. Something I'll just have to live with, I guess (hm, maybe not...editor?).


Dominae

[Jaybe]

I would go for Smiths, generally. If I didn't already have the Sistine Chapel, I might go for Bachs.

[Solomwi]

Dom, maybe it's keyed to the primary recognition of the casual observer, for instance...

"Oh, I love Bach's music... it was played in a cathedral, right?"

As compared with...

"Oh, I love the Sistine Chapel... wait, that was Michelangelo, right?"

Yeah, I don't really buy it either, but just trying to help you out.

[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