Equality for Wonders?

[Shadowstrike]

I was reading my good ole' Civ II manual yesterday, and I came across this passage near the end, where they said that Civ2 tried to make wonders equal. Plainly this was not as effective as hoped (i.e. some wonders are way better to build then others). Should Civ3 try to balance the wonders out? Or should we get Wonders which are more preferable then others, ubt cost more?

[MrFun]

If I ever get back to my CTP2 modification project, I will be implementing a new aspect of wonders.

With the wonders I plan on creating (someday), I will have positive effects that will be for ALL civilizations. For example:

Arybhata's Mathematical Treatise - gives equivalent of one free scientist in every city for host civilization, and all other civilizations.

This I believe would add another strategic challenge: how badly do you want a certain wonder, and then are you willing to allow your culture's achievement benefit all other civilizations?

This is what happened in history -- one civilization did NOT have eternal, exclusive benefits because of their achievements. The achievements/discoveries spread throughout the world, causing other cultures and civilizations to expand on others' achievements.

I'm not sure if this relates with your equality in wonders question, but this concept might help improve equality in wonders.

[SerapisIV]

Heck yeah, CivIII should try and balance the wonders. Having too much strength in one wonder imbalances the game, as evident in the Cloudbase Academy or whatever it was called in SMAX. With the power and utility of air units (protecting land units from attack, long range) receiving free airports at all cities was a huge windfall, combine that with the satellite improvements soon researched afterwards and a civ almost becomes too powerful in SMAX with that wonder and the final nail in any opponents coffin.

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-08-2001 03:15 PM If I ever get back to my CTP2 modification project, I will be implementing a new aspect of wonders. With the wonders I plan on creating (someday), I will have positive effects that will be for ALL civilizations. For example: Arybhata's Mathematical Treatise - gives equivalent of one free scientist in every city for host civilization, and all other civilizations. This is what happened in history -- one civilization did NOT have eternal, exclusive benefits because of their achievements. The achievements/discoveries spread throughout the world, causing other cultures and civilizations to expand on others' achievements. I'm not sure if this relates with your equality in wonders question, but this concept might help improve equality in wonders.

Wonders did not benefit all civilizations. Did the Colossus increase trade to Persia, no, only Rhodes. Did the Pyramids benefit England?

Although this can be said about more recent wonders, such as women's suffrage and the united nations, these wonders do initially provide strength to their primary owner. Women's Suffrage, (begun in England ??) took years to spread to other nations and still doesn't exist everywhere today, look at the more fundamental Muslim nations. If your idea for universal impact of wonders would have to be weighted with a period of exclusive benefit for your civilization, otherwise why build it? Over time, other civilizations would benefit, but not immediately.

I myself prefer though to keep wonders as they are, exclusive, but instead of having them become obsolete by a technology, make them active for only a certain number of turns, say 150 for Leonardo's Workshop. With the effects becoming longer or shorter depending on difficulty.


An aside thought. How about wonder building warnings longer in advance. In Civ II, you received warning of a wonders emminent construction one turn before it was built. Even if you rush built a wonder, the opposing civ would still build first. How about a warning at 2 and 5 turns with no warning for rush builds, but acknowledgement that it was rush built, such as the decleration being, " and the peoples of Babylon in gathering all efforts and resources of their civilization endeavered to rapidly construct their glorious Lighthouse " or whatever, something like that.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 08, 2001).]

[MrFun]

Serapis -- you're over-generalizing. SOME wonders should represent international benefits.

[SerapisIV]

Where is the impetus to construct them then? I can see allowing some impact on everyone, but you should have a stronger benefit that a civilization on the other side of the globe.

Currently the Manhattan Projects and Apollo Programs already have universal benefits. The only benefit received is that you keep the wonder score for yourself. Every civilization gets a view of the earth and you recieve no bonus military for building the Manhattan Project first. Personally, I always build the Apollo Program when I can cause it eliminates further exploration and AI already sees everything anyway, so it just levels the playing field a little. The Manhattan Proj. I avoid like the plague only building to keep it out of other hands. I don't like opening the nuclear genie. I don't like polution and don't like using nuke weapons, they're too powerful. But the AI uses them like candy.

I don't object to universal benefit, but they're must be some kind of stronger impact on your civ, otherwise, why build it? Let some one else do it and you gain the benefit. It's this kind of reasoning, which is why commuism doesn't work. No matter how nice the theory is, the greed of man overcomes. They're must be something in it for the player if its gonna be a useful improvement.

[MrFun]

That is a good point!

I will have to reexamine my mod ideas regarding wonders and perhaps implement an additional benefit for only that civilization, and the other civilizations only getting the lesser benefit.

[me_irate]

I personally dont want wonders balanced, i think it adds strategy to the game. Should i use all my resources to build the pyramids, or should i invest in my entire civ and go for a less desirable wonder. I also believe some realy beneficial wonders should expire, but some weak wonders even very early in the game should last for its intirity. I might even be in favor of wonders never expiring if they weakend or removed a couple of them.

[Adm.Naismith]

I suppose the question to answer first is: do you want wonders to help larger Civ to gain great advantage, or do you prefer wonders as a way to help civ in middle rank to resurrect and catch the leaders?

AFAIK in Civ II, early wonders are available to human and AI factions pretty fair. Then the game (not multiplayer) derail, while the human player chose every relevant wonder and let others players face down into the dust.

Someone also mentioned Wonders as a way to differentiate Civs, but in Civ II they didn't act so, last but not least because every conqueror can get the wonder and all its benefit waging war to the original owner.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-11-2001 02:34 AM I suppose the question to answer first is: do you want wonders to help larger Civ to gain great advantage, or do you prefer wonders as a way to help civ in middle rank to resurrect and catch the leaders? AFAIK in Civ II, early wonders are available to human and AI factions pretty fair. Then the game (not multiplayer) derail, while the human player chose every relevant wonder and let others players face down into the dust.

Good question Adm.Naismith!! Never looked at it that way. Guess I'm just greedy, I want them all for myself. I think though that this depends a lot on the AI/game difficulty. I've had a few games where competition for wonders extended deep into the mid-game/early-end-game, but that was with SMAC (which makes sense, newer game, better AI)

I'd rather have the AI be able to keep pace with a human and compete and equal footing then delegate wonders to smaller civs to help them catch-up.

[King Richard]

I think the wonders destroys the game a bit! I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I put all my resorces to get all of them. This means that I'm not building a lot of other things, at least early in the game. I think that we should get an option if we want to play with or without wonders, or that every civilization has unique wonders that only they can build. These wonders would then give the same advantages to everyone! This would make it funnier to play different civs!

[stonewall]

I really like the realism factor of Civ, so I would like to see the option of playing with NO wonders. I just don't see how most of them make any sense. I mean, how can I build this one wonder in city X, and it automatically "builds" a city improvement in every city? What real life parallel is there?

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by stonewall on 04-14-2001 10:14 PM I really like the realism factor of Civ, so I would like to see the option of playing with NO wonders. I just don't see how most of them make any sense. I mean, how can I build this one wonder in city X, and it automatically "builds" a city improvement in every city? What real life parallel is there?

I'd really like to see an option to play without ANY wonders either.
Just RAW civ building

And in any case its the exact same set of wonders we go after in every single game most of the time.

Don't build the SETI and then what's your alternative (according to the game designers)? Research labs?! Have you ever built labs in every one of your city after the AI (very rarely) managed to build SETI before you?

Enter the manufacturing era without having secured the Hoover Dam and the consequences are dire. Your engineers will be filled in smoge by the time you raise your Mass Transits and Recycle centers, not to say something about productivity.

Play Deity and don't build any happiness wonders, and your citizens will revolt like crazy.

Now, Don't build the UN? What is the problem?! Very little.

Build Colossus and your trade and WLT_D is guaranteed.
Don't build the Lighthouse? So what?

It doesn't really have to do with what kind of strategy you play. Some wonders are massively more beneficial to your civilization than others.
And the ways to «compansate» if you don't manage to build them is not succesful.

I think wonders are very unbalanced in civ II ( it was the same in Civ I if I remember correctly). I'd hate to see that happen in Civ III.
Actually, I'd like wonders with only half the effects that they have in Civ II


Have you ever played Deity deciding you will not build any wonders? It increases the challenge somewhat! To the point of thinking that certain wonders are inherently necessary as a part of your civ in order to win instead oif an added bonus...

[Gammaray fan]

Wonders should not be taken out of the game. That said, they must be significantly changed.
1. no ultra powerful wonders like Leonardo's Workshop. Additionally, no fake wonders such as 'build a lab in every city', or Magellens Expedition (its not even a building)
2. make some wonders have negative effects as well as positive. For example, the War Academy could strengthen your troops, but reduce trade. Wonders would then play a role in how you develop your civ. Seafaring, or trading etc. Wonders therefore should have general effects similar to the built-in bonuses to factions in SMAC. The result: would create a system of civ specific bonuses (eg Romans might be a technological civ because they have built a few tech wonders) but the civs could change these bonuses during the game to meet changing requirements. (eg. Romans might build a few military wonders to increase military power, decrease technology, in order to meet barbarian hordes where the dark ages would begin)
ESSENTIALLY: I'm arguing for a complete revaluation of the role that wonders play in the game from 'cookies', to becoming an intrinsic part of the game - Sid has already decided to place an emphasis on culture, this would further complement it and solve the civ-specific bonus problem.
(Check my complete ideas on this subject in the thread 'last time no civ bonuses' - bottom page 1!)

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea of optioning to be able to turn wonders off at the start. I'll ususally play with them in, but its a nice way to level the playing field for multiplayer or even single player comparisons. Just as turning off huts/pods in SMAC is an option. This way it just comes down to "Raw Civ"

"Raw Civ" - Thats funny, I like that line paiktis22.

[Bereta_Eder]

Hehe, but with raw civ you must be prepared for extreme micromanagement at least in some levels.

In my game in Deity without any wonders, I had to forsee troubles 10 turns ahead in order to be able to solve the problems when they apppeared. Very hard, but very satisfying when you've done it

[Cyclotron]

Keep wonders, keep all wonders, balance them somewhat, but they are an essential part of gameplay and should be kept. Make the benefits primarily help one Civ, so there is an incentive to build it.

Hey! Here's an idea: Certain wonders that ordinarily benefit only their owners could also benefit the owner's allies... new reason to ally, new twist to diplomacy!

To balance out such "worldwide" wonders like Manhatten and Apollo, make it so for 10-15 turns only the owner can build the new units/improvements granted, and after that time everyone can build them.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

I second cyclotron7's motion on this matter. V. good ideas.

[tniem]

I think the benefit for wonders needs to be more historical. The pyramids were never used as granaries. They were tombs.

So this is where the whole culture thing fits in. Stuff like the Pyramids should have less of a bonus that does not include culture and possibly trade from people visiting your wonder. Past that it just makes the game more unrealistic and hard to balance.

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-15-2001 04:08 PM Keep wonders, keep all wonders, balance them somewhat, but they are an essential part of gameplay and should be kept. Make the benefits primarily help one Civ, so there is an incentive to build it. Hey! Here's an idea: Certain wonders that ordinarily benefit only their owners could also benefit the owner's allies... new reason to ally, new twist to diplomacy! To balance out such "worldwide" wonders like Manhatten and Apollo, make it so for 10-15 turns only the owner can build the new units/improvements granted, and after that time everyone can build them.

Whoa,Cyclo, you are right on the money here. I especially like your idea about allies being able to share benefits for a wonder you build. (This makes sense, since America's allies were first to share benefits of things like internet, nuclear power, etc.) You're right, it would be a great way to convince nations to ally themselves with the human player.

[SerapisIV]

Definitely. If you get more trade for alliances, you should be able to get at least partial Wonder benefit as well, due to stronger cultural/trading ties. Nice idea, cyclo.

[samurai]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-09-2001 09:51 AM I don't object to universal benefit, but they're must be some kind of stronger impact on your civ, otherwise, why build it? Let some one else do it and you gain the benefit. It's this kind of reasoning, which is why commuism doesn't work. No matter how nice the theory is, the greed of man overcomes. They're must be something in it for the player if its gonna be a useful improvement.

How bout gaining the advantage that you get to see the world for 10 turns before the rest if you build the Apollo project? That way you can get some use of it if its badly needed.

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-11-2001 02:34 AM I suppose the question to answer first is: do you want wonders to help larger Civ to gain great advantage, or do you prefer wonders as a way to help civ in middle rank to resurrect and catch the leaders?

You mean like Darwins voyage only gives the best civ further advantage.
I prefer the wonders to help the middle rank to catch up, but some of them have to be so good that you will do anything to get them.