'Dud' Wonders

Evil Capitalist · September 14, 2000, 13:35

I don't know about you, but when I play civ II I make a be line to certain wonders- Michaelangelo's Chapel, Adam Smith's co., etc. This obviously unbalances the game.

My solution is to have more wonders, say 35-50, and some of these are duds- the maginot lines of the world. I know this could be a serious iritation, but it could add a nice element of chance.

September 14, 2000, 13:57

That is way nasty. How about just letting the player place only one wonder in x number of turns instead?

Theben · September 14, 2000, 15:04

I'd prefer to allow options: No wonders, mini-wonders (&/or world's greatest), and 'build-your-own' wonders.

Of course the ones presented to players originally should be balanced vs. each other. When a player has a choice between SoL and Sheakspeare's there's usually no contest.

Ribannah · September 14, 2000, 19:04

quote:

Originally posted by Theben on 09-14-2000 03:04 PMWhen a player has a choice between SoL and Sheakspeare's there's usually no contest.

Hmmm, that depends, doesn't it? In OCC, Shake's is the way to go, but for controlled warfare you want SoL to go into Communism asap.

But options is always good

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

UltraSonix · September 16, 2000, 00:16

quote:

I don't know about you, but when I play civ II I make a be line to certain wonders- Michaelangelo's Chapel, Adam Smith's co., etc. This obviously unbalances the game.
My solution is to have more wonders, say 35-50, and some of these are duds- the maginot lines of the world. I know this could be a serious iritation, but it could add a nice element of chance.

Of course, the other solution is to trim down wonders so that the ones left are the good ones - it'll make wonders more "wonderful".

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

September 16, 2000, 17:27

Maybe it would be better to limit the number of functioning wonders to only the best of the best, but to make lots more that only serve to increase the score or something. Owning these would just boost your civ. They have no specific function.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

DarkCloud · September 16, 2000, 17:57

Heck. I don't care if some wonders are duds. Excepting the Colossus which is trash and should be deleted.

I believe there should be another age of wonders for the game between the ancient and renaissance. Or they should have 8 wonders for each age (which won't happen)

UltraSonix · September 16, 2000, 23:33

quote:

Maybe it would be better to limit the number of functioning wonders to only the best of the best, but to make lots more that only serve to increase the score or something. Owning these would just boost your civ. They have no specific function.

Maybe there should be two types of wonders:
*specific ones that actually do something (eg Hoover Dam, Apollo Program)
*ego-boosting ones that randomly increase either happiness, trade, science, etc. (eg Cure for Cancer, and the aforementioned Colossus)

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

September 17, 2000, 00:17

one more vote for limiting the # of wonders rather than expanding them.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - well who am I?~~~
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- "Women's breasts are like toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them."
- "Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?"
~~~Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing~~~
- Apolyton Picture Contest IV

Urban Ranger · September 19, 2000, 23:10

I think this can be balanced by the cost of the wonder. Right now the cost of any wonder is determined by the Era (or Age) and not what actually it does. If the cost is changed to reflect the capabilities of a wonder then it would make sense.

UltraSonix · September 20, 2000, 02:18

But if the cost was related to the worthiness of the wonder, then the good wonders'll be too hard to build - it was done by era so that the cities of that era'll be able to build the wonder.

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

Father Beast · September 20, 2000, 08:26

some of the wonders are duds for some of us and gold for others. Darkcloud hates the collossus, and when I read his post I thought he was a heretic. I almost always build the collossus.
Like Ribannah says, it depends on your playing style, too.

But are there wonders which are duds for everyone? I have my personal duds, but if some people find them invaluable, then lets keep them.
in civ1, I never built shakespeare because it expired too fast to be useful. now it's of vast use.

After looking over the list, I have 2 that I NEVER build. Sun Tzu's and Marco Polo's. I can get the benefits (well, most of) of Sun Tzu's by building barracks, but I can't do without the barracks because of the repair function. And I never saw much advantage in Marco.

Father Beast · September 20, 2000, 09:06

Hmmmnnn... Come to think of it, I shy away from wonders that just give me a ____ in every city. unless the maintenance cost is high, and my buddy Adam usually helps with that.
absolutely DESPISE wonders that don't give my civ an advantage, like apollo and Manhattan. OK, Apollo does reveal the map for me,BFHD. Does anyone actually race for these wonders? If I hear another civ has started on one of those, I'll quit and let them do it. Save my production when I'm going to get the benefits of the wonder for free.

Ribannah · September 20, 2000, 11:28

quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast on 09-20-2000 08:26 AMAfter looking over the list, I have 2 that I NEVER build. Sun Tzu's and Marco Polo's. I can get the benefits (well, most of) of Sun Tzu's by building barracks, but I can't do without the barracks because of the repair function. And I never saw much advantage in Marco.

Marco Polo can be essential on a large map, if all the other civs are too far away. Also notice that it costs only slightly more than 6 diplomats.

Sun Tzu can be of great use if your high-production cities are not at the frontline, which is usually the case. Also note that Barracks have upkeep costs.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Father Beast · September 20, 2000, 21:28

Allright, Ribannah (and probably others) do use Marco and Sun Tzu from time to time, so all the wonders do get used.
But evil capitalist has a point. Some are more used than others. some are indispensible, and some are useful iff you have some extra production you're not using.

Nick-oh · September 22, 2000, 04:41

Many's the grand scheme of history which has failed miserably. The Legue of Nations, for all it's great intentions, failed to avoid two world wars.

There should be some small chance (remote but there none the less) that your marvellous wonder turns out to be useless. After spending all those resources, you get zip for it; neither does anyone else. Adds a nice touch of natsiness.

------------------
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire

UltraSonix · September 22, 2000, 07:18

quote:

There should be some small chance (remote but there none the less) that your marvellous wonder turns out to be useless. After spending all those resources, you get zip for it; neither does anyone else. Adds a nice touch of natsiness.

Just as well there's the save/load feature...

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

Shadowstrike · September 22, 2000, 17:57

quote:

Just as well there's the save/load feature...

You mean you really use that.....

Hmm... that reminds me, the League of Nations should be a wonder too. How about this: All wonders have an effect, but there is a random percent chance that it may not work. Simple and concise.

Good idea?

Theben · September 22, 2000, 23:40

quote:

Originally posted by Shadowstrike on 09-22-2000 05:57 PM
How about this: All wonders have an effect, but there is a random percent chance that it may not work. Simple and concise.

Good idea?

The wonder may not work, or parts of it may not work?

I'd be more inclined to allow a Mike's Pigeon Hut to have a random chance to not affect random cities, as opposed to being a total dud.

BTW, I too find Sun Tzu's & Marco Polo's to be immensely useful. MP espec. if the Great Lib not built yet. But that's for another forum.

Empress · September 22, 2000, 23:45

I also vote for reducing the number of wonders....