DESIGN: Wonder limits & limited wonders

[MrBaggins]

I mentioned this a long, long time ago, but I'm strongly of the opinion that the current wonder system is a problem...

• The system mostly rewards the tech leader, allowing them to get richer, effectively.
• Although wonders effectively add flavor to civilizations, the players experience is very often similar, due to their aiming for (and usually/often getting) the same initial wonders, and most if not all of the later ones.
• Wonders aren't wonderful: to me they seem more like a very expensive city improvement, often. I think this is largely because they've been toned down, due to the above problems.

My thought was to limit the number of wonders available to players, per age. This approach hasn't been available til now, with the release of the source code.

Tech leaders still get an advantage since they get "first dibs" on the wonder(s) of their choice. Once a civ starts building a wonder, it can't be built by another civ, unless the construction is abandoned by that city.

Abandoning wonder races solves a lot of the AI wasting foibles. Currently, the AI often wastes a lot of production on lost races... with limited wonders, these issues just wouldn't happen.

Obviously this is a somewhat controversial subject, even though I think it has a lot of merit, so it should be optional. I'd put it in age.txt

In each age, put WonderLimitPerCiv. If the value is -1 then there are no limits or building restrictions for wonders, as per standard. If 0 then wonder building is disabled for all civs. If more than 0 then there are limited wonders available to each civ, on a first-come-first-serve basis.

I also like the idea of including limited wonders, somewhat like Civ3. These are available to all civs, but only one can be built per civ. These would compliment wonder limits very well, also, I think.

[Kuciwalker]

I like this idea, but I'm worried that this would have a rather ironic effect wrt warmonger/builder balance - only warmongers could have multiple wonders from the same age, by conquering them. However, I don't think a good solution is to have the wonders just "disappear" if they're captured and the capturing civ has already reached the wonder cap. I also don't like the idea that once one civ starts a wonder, another civ can't - that means that the first to get a tech to a wonder AUTOMATICALLY gets that wonder (unless they've hit the limit).

[MrBaggins]

Right... the purpose is eliminating wonder races... something the AI sucks at big time... or rather... the human can exploit so much better.

The capturing wonder issue is solved by eliminating the effect of the captured wonder, but not the wonder itself, so it could be recaptured, and useful again to the initial builder.

[Martin GĂĽhmann]

I think this should be a speacial rule available from the rules screen where you can set the Pollution and Bloodlust.

-Martin

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Right... the purpose is eliminating wonder races... something the AI sucks at big time... or rather... the human can exploit so much better.

The wonder race has to be there - or tone wonders down a lot. It is too powerful to secure a wonder merely by starting to build it.

The capturing wonder issue is solved by eliminating the effect of the captured wonder, but not the wonder itself, so it could be recaptured, and useful again to the initial builder.

The reason I didn't like the disappearance of the wonder isn't because no one can get it again (though that's part of it) but rather that the warmonger should be able to acquire wonders through conquest. However, they shouldn't have the ability to have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are IMO primarily a builder benefit (ideally).

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by skywalker
The wonder race has to be there - or tone wonders down a lot. It is too powerful to secure a wonder merely by starting to build it.

Not if the effects are equivalent, and you can only build one or two. Given the current system, once a tech leading civ gets a fair tech lead and has a couple of high production cities, then they can get ALL the wonders they want, destroying game balance.

The reason I didn't like the disappearance of the wonder isn't because no one can get it again (though that's part of it) but rather that the warmonger should be able to acquire wonders through conquest. However, they shouldn't have the ability to have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are IMO primarily a builder benefit (ideally).

I agree that warmongers shouldn't have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are a choice... expend the effort... get the benefit, warmonger or not.

Part of the system I'm suggesting is eliminating the wonder races. There is really no way around this... Wonder races do more to destroy game balance than any game "fun" benefit from their capture has, anyway. The loss of 1000's of shields for a number of AI opponents is unacceptable.

This system puts civs on an equal footing, thus increases competion, thus increases fun.

[_R_]

It has always bothered me, in all Civ-games, that Mayas would be prevented from building a Pyramid just because the Egyptians did it before. Actually, for an isolated civ, it should make no difference whether they're the first or the last to build a wonder. In the case of conquest, the traditional handling of Wonders doesn't make much sense either : when Alexander conquered Egypt, the Pyramids had a far lesser importance to his civ than they had for the Egyptians who built it.

To translate in game terms, here's my proposition :

• Wonders can be built once by every civ = Small Wonders
• The first civ to build a particular gets an added bonus = Wonder of the World. For early wonders at least, this bonus should only apply to situations involving direct interactions of civ (e.g. increased religious influence,...)
• A wonder built by another civ has a limited effect (compared to a Small Wonder and irrespective of whether it was a Wonder of the World). This way, there is a gain if you conquer a wonder, but it's smaller you'd have if you built it yourself.
• For balancing, it might be better to reduce the cost of the wonders once the first one has been built. In the case of a close wonder race, the loser should be allowed to transfer the excess production to another Wonder project.

I think this retains the interest of the wonders, while adressing most of MrBaggins's concerns.

BTW, I'm really excited by the work you're putting with the source code and I hope you'll be able to create the game I've been dreaming of since I first played Civ1.

[Kuciwalker]

MrBaggins - how about make wonder cost increase for each wonder you build? Thus, the first wonder you build in an era may cost 500 shields, and the next would cost 5000, and the next 50000, etc. As for a wonder race, allow a city to "freeze" its shield if there are no wonders to switch too - it doesn't get any more shields in the shield box, but it doesn't lose them, either. It gets to save them for the next wonder. You could have them degrade over time, to prevent misuse.

[The Big Mc]

I am siding with _R_

Inelegance Agency = CIA = MI5 = loads more

East India Company = Dutch East India Company = British East India Company

Freeing of slaves = happened in some countries first then others *

Great wall = Chinese great wall = Hadrian's wall

London exchange = pick a country

Penicillin = happened in some countries first then others



• Also it allows a civ to pick when they want to stop slavery

Well that’s my view there should be no limit however if you are a warmonger if you capture a wonder it would be cancelled out until you make the small version then it should be upgraded to the grand wonder (simulating the repairs needed to the wonder).

[MrBaggins]

Whilst there absolutely are wonders that are often built by more than one nation, they really should be "limited" or "minor" wonders anyway... except with "full wonder level powers". You might also wish to have two or three identically powered but differently named wonders so that two or three different civs could get the same kind of wonder on a first-come-basis.

As for isolation, I'm afraid its really not too viable, since contact isn't limited in the "civ" world, versus the real world. Among "known" civs there really aren't wonder races in the classic sense...

No one talks about the Collosus of Troy that almost was... or the semi finished Great Pyramids of Oslo...

I like the idea that there be limited wonder versions of the wonders (specified in each wonder,) that could be built by late comers, or reverted to when a city is conquested.

As for allowing extra wonders to be built at extra (exponential) cost, that acts as an extra one... or two, or maybe three, for the leader, essentially, with what amounts to a hard cap behind it. I'm not in favor of it.

As for saving production, I think it stretches the abstraction a little too far. I like the idea of having limited wonders you can build instead... plus as I mentioned before... why not include a couple more "alike but differently named" wonders, especially later in the tech tree?

[The Big Mc]

Well no body talks about the 1/2 finished English Eiffel Tower but it happened, no joke .

But it was a copy not a race which means that you should be able to make wonders after they have been made.

Future wonders would also be needed to be re made like the nanite diffuser. What idiot would kill there own nukes.

[Ekmek]

_R_'s idea is pretty interesting. making the first built a wonder and all else a small wonder. Perhaps limited even more by only allowing the wonder bonus for 10 or 20 turns (like civ3 golden age) where as a Wonder of the world (first wonder) would have it until a tech obsolecence.

As far as the uniqueness of the wonder, with the code I think its possible to make culturally unique wonders...An Aztec pyramid, Egyptian, even hypothetical viking ones OR make the wonder have a generic name like for pyramids have them called "Great Religious building" or something and once built you can uniquely name it (i.e. pyramids of Giza) and the AI's name would come from alist of cultural versions of that. (like a big viking funeral pyre or something.)


As for balance, I think Civ2 did it but they had improvements that if built in EVERY city, would equal the power of a wonder. So losing a wonder race wouldnt leave you behind you just had to put more into infrastructure. This approach may help smaller civs over bigger ones.

[MrBaggins]

If you have wonder races where an AI pays full cost for a lesser version of a wonder, you have a balance problem... better for it to be building a limited wonder, at lesser cost, or building the full wonder, at full cost.

[The Big Mc]

One word for you MrBaggins

Compensation

Have the left over go on what they are next building (baring wonders)

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
Well no body talks about the 1/2 finished English Eiffel Tower but it happened, no joke .

But it was a copy not a race which means that you should be able to make wonders after they have been made.

Future wonders would also be needed to be re made like the nanite diffuser. What idiot would kill there own nukes.

As I mentioned... there's no reason why limited wonder versions... with lesser effects, not be available for everyone, even after the "real" wonder has been built, subject to obsolescence, of course.

I agree that we should examine wonder effects, though.