Do we need Wonders?

[Tiberius]

I saw one very-very interesting thread in the CTP2 section, and because the same discussion could be applied very well on CIV3 also, I thought we can discuss it here.
Click here: Wonders o' the world... the root of all evil?
Thank for idea, TheLimey.

So, what do you think? What's your opinion? Would you be happy with one wonder/nation or one wonder/nation/age? Should we pick the wonder from the beginning along with the nation we choose? Should the wonders be civilization (culture) specifics?

We all like the Wonders, so com'on, put your comments here.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 23, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

Excellent question!

I for one, think that Civ3 should first of all have wonders, and that there should be some civ-specific ones and others that are globally available.

For example, the wonders that could be available to all civs could be ones such as "Cure for Cancer", "Women's Sufferage", "Hoover Dam", and the "Mahattan Project". The civ-specific wonders would impact less benefits and'll mostly be the early wonders in the game. Example are "Pyramids" (which maybe some, but not all civs can build), and the "Hanging Garderns".

To implement this idea there would obvious have to be separate folders and hence separate rules files for each civ then. This was something that was discussed in another thread.

It also links to the other threads that mentioned how many wonders should be available, because this system would allow for many more wonders, but not everyone'll be able to build them and so the game would not be too diluted by wonders.

---

In fact, as I write this, I've just had an idea! How about having wonders that must meet additional requirements to be built?

For example:
*Can only be built on a coastal town, next to river (eg Hoover Dam), in the desert, etc
*Requires a town that is bigger than 40 people when building commences.
*Requires you to control a certain number of cities before commencement.
*You need to know a certain number of other civs.
*You must be in a certain form of government when building commences.
*Needs a constant cash input while being built (eg Manhattan Project?). It shouldn't require money after being built as that'll make the wonder seem like a normal improvement.

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

[Tiberius]

I think that globally available wonders should be very few (max. one/age) and they should be very hard to build; the idea with additional (special) requirements is also not bad. It is also a possibility that from those wonders should benefit ALL civilizations (like the Internet ) and the nation who built it would receive in addition a reputation bonus.

I agree that civ-specific wonders should impact less benefit and must be a little bit easier to build. The need to have folders and separate rules files for each civ is obvious and, I think, benefic. The more cultural differenes will exist between nations, the more interesting the game will be. I'd be quite happy to see that each nation has its own UNIC wonder, unit, maybe even a unic tech or building.

[TheLimey]

While CtP was universally damned for its inital quality, it has some pretty lovable features, not least of being its flexibility from a rules standpoint. CtP2 is by all accounts, to have a fabulous scripting language, allowing for all kinds of implementation.

Ideas and changes like the limited wonders idea are easy to conceive, harder to implement and even harder still to balance.

I'm certain that when Sid and Brian were designing Civ & Civ2, they didn't believe that wonders were an unbalancing force, and were too good and relevant to 'civilization' as we know it, not to go in.

If I had to guess, i'd say that 80% of Civ players aren't Deity players. Those 80% find the cushion they get from those wonders comforting, allowing them their cheating against the cheating AI... so that they can bomb their opponenents to hell and back.

An idea like this will only be proved by its implementation, and from initial inspection, I believe that it will possible to do so in CtP2.

Then there will need to be extensive play balancing to learn how the new minimized wonders scheme works for players in general, and the different difficulty levels. There will, i'm sure, need to be many iterations before this process is complete, and much discussion with the intelligent posters of Apolyton before the best solutions appear.

What I'm saying here is that there is a significant playbalancing effort required, with need for beta testing, to iron out the wrinkles.

I think that its possible or maybe likely that Sid and the Firaxis crew are striving to avoid those paradigm shifts that would take a long time to play balance.

Having the ability to implement smart ideas however, is excellent, since the mod maker can spend an eternity designing and play balancing his new concept.

In a perfect world, there would be as much time as is necessary to finish every product perfectly. This definitely isn't that world, so...

What I'd suggest for the Civ3 (and CtP2 designers) is the possible inclusion of a choice for number of wonders per civ per age, with that being the only 'effort' on the designers part.

There, however, should be sufficient customizability, to be able to deal with added features like this one... although that I guess goes without saying.

EDIT: glaring grammatical error

[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited June 23, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-23-2000 04:43 AM there should be some civ-specific ones

No civ-specific stuff for me, thanks. My civ should be able to do whatever I lead it to. I don't want to be discluded from building the Pyramids just because of my choice of a civ at the start of the game.

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-23-2000 04:43 AM In fact, as I write this, I've just had an idea! How about having wonders that must meet additional requirements to be built? For example: *Can only be built on a coastal town, next to river (eg Hoover Dam), in the desert, etc *Requires a town that is bigger than 40 people when building commences. *Requires you to control a certain number of cities before commencement. *You need to know a certain number of other civs. *You must be in a certain form of government when building commences. *Needs a constant cash input while being built (eg Manhattan Project?). It shouldn't require money after being built as that'll make the wonder seem like a normal improvement.

These are much better. Trickier to program, no doubt, but I like them a lot. If you want to stop people from building wonders (or whatever else - units, improvements) it should be because of the choices they've made earlier in the game, and not just because they're in a certain civ.

- MKL

[St Leo]

Thumbs down, way down! Civ needs an unbalancing force, one that makes one tribe different from another tribe - without wonders to give a nation a unique personality every time civ is played, it would just be a repetitive every nation's Crusaders attack every nation's Musketeers.

The point of wonders is to provide special properties to a side, so that one side is more powerful at sea and the other builds faster; I have nothing against the wonder-rich becoming wonder-richer - they deserve it.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[UltraSonix]

Doh! I didn't make myself very clear. When I said civ-specific wonders, I meant that the properties would be juggled around like civ1-civ2 so that the good wonder-benefits from the past (eg pyramids' granaries, Leo's free upgrades) would be still available to everyone. So only the Egyptains and a few others would be able to build the pyramids, but the free granary aspect would be embodied in another, globally available wonder.

An alternative:
*Have the normal civ2-type globally available wonders. But in addition, have civ-specific wonders that only affect things like happiness and maybe tax. The civ specific wonders would have names that reflect famous historical buildings etc of the civ.

I give this suggestion because I want the individual civs to have character, not like in Civ2 where there was no point in choosing a civ because they all played the same. (SMAC make inroads into this problem with the special SE civs, but I think this issue can be further improved.)

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

[Tiberius]

quote: I give this suggestion because I want the individual civs to have character, not like in Civ2 where there was no point in choosing a civ because they all played the same

I totally agree with you. Firaxis definetely MUST do something to give more personality for civs.

[Slax]

I totally DISAGREE with both of you. I want to be able to choose my own civ name (real or made up) and follow any path to victory as I choose. I don't want to play the same civ each game because the game is unbalanced in its favour.

Please, no civ-specific aspects!

[TheLimey]

A no wonders game is an awefully dry concept. Although I can see the gameplay benefit.

I don't agree with civ specific wonders for the same reason; the 'perfect' wonder combo will be found, then there is an utterly compelling reason to play that civ.

[Par4]

No No No Civs should get nothing from the start that is predefined. Your flags and colors etc should come from the culture that arises in you empire, and can change, ie you city is conquered by classical civ you get it back in 500 years the city looks classical not whatever you are right after you get it back. As for having to have an area near a city that fits the discription, I like this.

Maybe we could have the names change a little too, instead of 'Pyramids' what about Pyramids of X. X is the city they are built by. Also I would like to see them on the map, the Pyramids weren't built a city but near one.

Anyway I like wonders, they make the game 'civy'.

------------------
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Tiberius]

Hey, customize it!

Make it possible in a .txt file to:

1. Choose between civ-specific wonders vs. globally available wonders
2. If you pick civ-specific wonders, by default certain nations would have certain wonders. If you want to play Americans with Pyramids though, change it in the same (or another) txt file.

Easy, right?

Typing this I realized that this is not a wonder-no wonder problem, but a historical accuracy/realism problem. So, we should choose in the beginning of Civ3 between a historical accurate and, let's say, a random game. If you choose a historical accurate game, then you will have civ-specific wonders; otherwise make the wonders globally available (but still with the customizability options I described above).
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 28, 2000).]

[N_A]

My thought is that we either get rid of wonders completely, or put in 2 gameplay options:

- wonders for everyone
- wonders that are culture specific

[UltraSonix]

That's a good idea! The game should provide a simple rules toggle option at the start to change whether you want wonders or not, or whether you want civ-specific wonders or not.

And I really like the sugestion that wonders should be seen on the map, not just after clicking a button in the city. Not all the wonders would be like this, eg the recently completed Human Genome Project, but things like the pyramids, Hoover Dam (or equivalent), and of course, the Great Wall.

Hummm... How about having the Great Wall actually manifest itself onto the map. And I don't just mean just near its city of construction, but all around the civ's borders. And as your borders expand, you can pay to expand the Great Wall as well, and it would serve as some sort of long fortress that enemies would find hard to get through. It would only be effective in early-middle game though (can't put tanks on the wall, after all). Then as the game heads towards the spce age, the wall can crumble, creating one of those cool landmarks that SMAC has.

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

[Tiberius]

double post...deleted.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 28, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

Slax,

If you don't want civ-specific aspects at all, then how do you choose one civ or another to play with? Do you play with the colour you like the most? What's the difference right now between them? Why don't just name the nations/civs "Nation1", "Nation2" or "Civ1", "Civ2", ... then ?

But, like I said before, the answer is: customizability!

[TheLimey]

Tiberius- it IS more than a question of realism.

I don't know what Civ games you've been playing, but what is one of the major reason for jumping ahead, by any participant?

Humans level of play versus the AI is one thing, but another thing that makes the human player potentially far better is that he knows:

a) how powerful wonders are
b) how to build them quicker (and get techs to get to build them similarly)
c) which are pointless and which are highly beneficial

Ultimately, by whatever means, the more wonders you have, the quicker you progress through the tech tree, and given that you have a modicum of skill in empire building, its pretty much game over when you get a critical mass of wonders going.

Wonders are the only all-upside item in the game. Units cost maintainance, and improvements cost upkeep. The two worst things about wonders are; their building cost, and the fact that they go obsolete. Both of these 'disadvantages' aren't really disadvantages at all. The level of benefit you gain from them is disproportionate.

I'm not saying you should tone down wonders. Wonderful wonders are great fun. However, limiting wonders to one-per-civ-per-age is a great balance, in my opinion.

It becomes one less reason for a player to pull ahead.

I'm not saying this is the only reason for the imbalances in the game, but this isn't a symptom, it is a cause.

[TheLimey]

I'd also like to say on another note that, civ specific wonders might be nice for scenarios, so perhaps the possibility for their inclusion should be considered. I wouldn't however, personally see them as balanced within a standard single player (or for that matter multiplayer) game.

Also, certain omni effect wonders already exist, and are good ideas; like the manhattan project in civ2, and the gaia wonder in CtP.

I see no reason to not include these in future civ games. I think that they should even maybe be exempt from the one-per-civ limits, since they don't just benefit the civ that builds it, except from a strategical choice standpoint.

[Tiberius]

TheLimey, you are right about the wonders.
However I'm still not sure what the sollution could be. Here are some posibilities:

1. No wonders at all. NO WAY! I think everybody love to buid wonders. If not for their bonuses, at least for self-satisfactory reasons (Wow, look how cool is my civ!). And if the wonders will also look great on the map or in the city-view, this feeling will surely increase.

2. Limiting wonders to one-per-civ-per-age. Maybe. But some could still argue that why shouldn't they build them if they could, in an "I deserve it" attitude. And also, which wonders should Firaxis keep and which through away?

3. Limit the wonders to one-per-civ-per-age and make the rest of them civ-specific. I like this because could give more personality for civs, but some people don't. Maybe, like I proposed, provide a simple toggle option at the start to choose between historically accurate (civ specific) or random game. The civ-specific wonders would be less powerfull.

4. Make the wonders harder to build and eliminate cheating (make it impossible to build a wonder that is already built or even to switch from a wonder construction to another; stuff like this). Also make a better balance between wonders. With other words, keep the existing system, but optimize it.

5. ????????????

P.S. I play Civ2, generally on Deity. I don't like SMAC, so I can't comment its wonders system.

Edited twice. F***ing errors

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 29, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 29, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

I went through a lot of these thoughts earlier.

1) No wonders. I agree. Awefully bland. Although i'd like to try a game this way... (just for a change)

2) Limited-to-one-per-age-per-civ wonders. What i'm suggesting is that no wonders are 'left-out'. You choose one at the end of the wonder creation period. The 'bonus' a leading civ gets is the first pick. There might be multiple copies (different names of course) of particularly useful wonders.

4) Standard game with harder to build wonders. Bad because it doesn't solve the balance problem. Some things even might make balance worse... for instance; if you can't switch production from one wonder to another, what happens when the leading civ finishes the wonder? Everyone else looses the production?

5) I don't know there is a 5 either.


I do think that this should all be optional. Obviously its going to be a big shock to the first 'formulaic' player of civ2, when they can't use their tried and true world domination through wonder supremacy (among other things) strategy.

An option keeps the bulk of players happy, and the people who are looking for more of a challenge and balance happy too.

[Az]

My idea for a 5 , maybe some1 has mentioned it before but :

wonders that while being build don't demand shields , or just shields , but also demand science and gold . Apollo flights and Manhattan project demanded tons of scientific development and supports cost in addition to the production needed. what do you think ?

------------------
Prepare to Land !

[TheLimey]

Initial cost is initial cost. Its the ongoing cost vs. benefit thats the problem with unlimited wonders.

If wonders 'cost' maintainance & shield upkeep & perhaps other forms of cost, for their duration, then they *could* be balanced. You ultimately get back to the point about how special do you want wonders to be, though.

[UltraSonix]

I think having a cost like money/science on all wonders would probably make the wonders undesirable. But perhaps the need for extra stuff to balance out the benefits of a wonder could be done through having extra requirements when you build a wonder.

quote: For example: *Can only be built on a coastal town, next to river (eg Hoover Dam), in the desert, etc *Requires a town that is bigger than 40 people when building commences. *Requires you to control a certain number of cities before commencement. *You need to know a certain number of other civs. *You must be in a certain form of government when building commences. *Needs a constant cash input while being built (eg Manhattan Project?). It shouldn't require money after being built as that'll make the wonder seem like a normal improvement.

Extra possible requirements could be:
*Needs a certain amount of science in the city for construction to continue (but it wouldn't actually use up the science, if that's what Dalgetti was saying). This could apply to wonders such as human genome, cure for cancer, apollo, and manhattan.

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

[TheLimey]

The problem with the 'extra requirements' are that the leading civ is always the most likely to have these advantages, and the trailing civs less so. This will extend the 'wonder gap' even further.

Yes, certain wonders requirements would be a pain to 'get to', so they wouldn't get built for a while, but the leading player (most likely human) would still be the one in the best position to get to those, when circumstances were optimal.

[UltraSonix]

Heh - what's wrong with the wonder-rich getting wonder-richer? If you've worked hard (or not worked hard if the AI turns out to be a dud) to get into a dominant position, then you deserve to get all the wonders. Only great civilisations build wonders.

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

[TheLimey]

The problem isn't a problem for a vast majority of players content to 'beat up' on the AI.

The problem is with the Deity players who want single player to be at least mildly challenging. The civ2 guys are setting up artificial challenges frequently. This is an extension and expansion of that idea.

Also, wonder balance helps at both ends of the spectrum; at the lowest levels of civ, you might want to have limited wonder building (maybe just a limit on the AI's rather than the human, or a lower limit,) so that the AI can't go on a wonder spree.

The last point is about 'specialness'. Wonders have become more like fancy improvements than being the greatest achievements of the civilizations time.

In civ2, and lots of other civ games, you can have a 'wonder factory' city and pump caravans into the city to get them done fast and cheap. Doesn't sound like a great achievement to me.

If you're ok with wonders not being special, play without the option.

Just wanted to add a thought on wonders...

In the Civ Series if a city with a wonder is destroyed, the wonder is too. This is not historically acurate for all wonders. Yes, the Hanging Gardens and the Colossus disappeared. But what about the Pyramids? Or the Greek Pantheon? Easter Island? All wonders of their day whose society/civilization has left but still remain.

In Civ III large wonders should be on the map and in some cases should remain even if the city is destroyed. Likewise, in a war there should be a chance during a bombardment that the wonder is destroyed or at least damaged and the city still remains.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, we need wonders, wonders are the spice in this game. They are the random element. The jokers in the deck.

[jdlessl]

they are no longer functional so they might as well be called "destroyed"

Well, define functional. The Pyramids, wondrous though they may be, are not and have never been "functional" in any sense of the word. The Hoover Dam could be said to be nonfunctional if the nearby electrical grid (ie, all major cities) were destroyed, but the dam is still there and requires minimal work to make operational again.

I'm for having some of the wonders being placed on the map and not the city (Great Wall and the Pyramids). City-bound wonders (Leonardo's Workshop) can be destroyed, yes. Some can't be destroyed at all, like Cure for Cancer and the Manhattan Project. It's knowledge, not a construction project.

--
Jared Lessl

[St Leo]

A no wonders game is an awefully dry concept. Although I can see the gameplay benefit.

Realism might benefit, but gameplay will definetly suffer.

In the Civ Series if a city with a wonder is destroyed, the wonder is too. This is not historically acurate for all wonders. Yes, the Hanging Gardens and the Colossus disappeared. But what about the Pyramids? Or the Greek Pantheon? Easter Island? All wonders of their day whose society/civilization has left but still remain.

Yes, but they are no longer functional so they might as well be called "destroyed".

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/