A better policy for losing Wonder Races?

Jawa Jocky · August 1, 2002, 15:19

I'm really annoyed by the lost shields associated with losing Wonder races. If you don't have a fall back build, you can get screwed out of a lot of shields. I'd be willing to forgo pre-builds in exchange for no lost shields.

For example you get beat to a wonder:

You can now switch to another wonder (the only time it would be allowed). Switch to a small wonder (the only time it would be allowed), or switch to a city improvement.

The extra shields would carry over to your next turn and you would be allowed to put them toward another build. You could even build 3 or 4 turns in a row if you had that many shields going.

IMO this system would be better. It would get rid of the pre-build exploit, and not punish you so severely for losing the wonder race.

dunk · August 1, 2002, 15:55

How does this get rid of "pre-builds"?

I don't think you should get all those shields right into your next build. Maybe 33-50% of leftovers each build would be appropriate... come to think of it, this should happen with everything.

delsolsi · August 1, 2002, 16:01

I have no problems with the way it works now. The way it works now is if you know its going to be a close race you have to decide if the risk of losing the shields is worth the beneifits of the wonder. If you lose its just something you have to deal with it. The AI has to deal with it when you beat them to a wonder, so it is fair the way it is now.

GI Josh · August 1, 2002, 17:04

system works fine the way it is now. my only suggestion is to make the penalty even *worse*. right now you get "cascading" wonders when several civs are in the wonder race . . . when you switch from one particular wonder to something else (whether another wonder or not), you should get a 50% shield penalty. right now with the cascading, you have to watch not only the cities building your particular wonder, but any cities building any wonder, which is quite a few in the middle ages. shields should be specific to a specific wonder.

ChrisiusMaximus · August 1, 2002, 17:15

I like things fine the way they are.

ShuShu · August 1, 2002, 17:45

The Civ Games alter on excess production. Most of the Civ games burn the excess, but allow free switching. (CIV I, II, III, MOM). Some allow carry over and free switching (MOO, MOO II). SMAC allowed carry over but penalized switching.

The Great wonder production loss occurs because the original CIV has it. I believe that the variation as these games come out is an indication that this is a very changeable aspect to the 4X genre and thus does not possesss one right way to do it.

Personally, I like the 'Prebuild/always have an open wonder strategy' the major loss engenders. I rarely lose one or two turns of production due to a lost wonder race, (and I lose a lot of races)

PGM · August 1, 2002, 18:06

I don't have a problem with the way the game works now, nor do I object to playtesting the following concept:

Excess shields add to the next build project(s). Of course, maybe not all shields, due to specific costs, but some. Playtesting is essential to find the proper value.

Regardless, I'm sure there's much more important improvements to be done to the game for the next patch and PTW. (Unit trading/commerce, anyone?

)

Inverse Icarus · August 1, 2002, 19:15

expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.

GhengisFarb™ · August 1, 2002, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.

Does that work after the latest patch?

PGM · August 1, 2002, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Does that work after the latest patch?

No man, we're just talking here...

steven8r · August 1, 2002, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.

It would be very cool, (at least for me, I don't know about the AI) to be able to pump out multiple units per city per turn.

I mean if you had, say an 80 shield per turn city, you 'should' be able to get 8 - 10 shield units. I know my example isn't perhaps the best--by the time cities can generate 80+ sheilds/turn, I don't think there's anything that can be built for 10s. However, the concept would be kinda cool--at least for me

Sargoth · August 1, 2002, 20:18

workers cost ten.

steven8r · August 1, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Sargoth
workers cost ten.

I, then, stand corrupted, err, corrected. It would be cool to produce 8 workers from 1 city in 1 turn. It could be used to get rid of all those 'dissident' citizens. But if it were possible, it would probably only take your Happy folks and as soon as it was completed, your city would descend into Anarchy and probably just spontaneously combust or something.

The_Aussie_Lurker · August 1, 2002, 21:19

O.K, I answered "Maybe" to this question, with the following Caveat!
My feeling is that, if you try and build a Great Wonder, then swap to either another wonder, or a Small Wonder or improvement, even if you get beaten to it, then you should lose only as many shields as it would take to get you "Half-way" towards completing your goal! Example, let's say you're building the Pyramids, you are half-way there, then you decide to build a Library, 'cause you just got the requisite tech. In civ2, you would have been more than finished the library, and would recieve it the very next turn. Instead, I think that, if the library would have taken a total of 8 turns to build, then you should only get to keep 4 turns worth of shields (thus leaving 4 turns left to build the library!).
If you switch to units, though, you should lose all but 1 shield!!
Anyway, that's just my view! I should point out, though, that it's not that big a deal to me!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Zizka · August 2, 2002, 10:36

IT woul dbe nice just to rather get some gold for teh loss of shields since the "investment" of shields/ie manpower may generate derivitive benefits. Ok so i didn't build the hoover dam.. but dammit i must have built SOMETHING!! (or did it all go to "consultants" LOL) Perhaps if each wonder was tied to an improvement or unit which would spin off if teh wonder failed.. say a failed great library may create a university, a failed great wall = city wall, a failed manhattan project = nuclear power station..etc

Z

Richelieu · August 2, 2002, 10:40

Quote:

Originally posted by GI Josh
system works fine the way it is now. my only suggestion is to make the penalty even *worse*. right now you get "cascading" wonders when several civs are in the wonder race . . . when you switch from one particular wonder to something else (whether another wonder or not), you should get a 50% shield penalty. right now with the cascading, you have to watch not only the cities building your particular wonder, but any cities building any wonder, which is quite a few in the middle ages. shields should be specific to a specific wonder.

I agree. And i would even wipe out all shields assigned to that specific wonder. You don't win the race: you lose the shields.

ACooper · August 2, 2002, 10:50

Keep things the way they are. You lose the race, you lose the investment. There are many parrallels in real life.

ACooper · August 2, 2002, 10:52

In fact, I think all shields should stay with what's being produced and not carry over when you switch production.

Yit · August 2, 2002, 11:56

Off the top of my head thought.

How about a 'wealth' counterpart, called 'investment' or something. It costs a billion shields, so all you are doing is 'investing'. If you are investing and you have more than enough to complete the improvement, you get automaticly get 1/2 of the shields needed to complete the wonder. However, if you don't have enough stockpiled to complete it, your shields get divided by 2.

Example:

Say you are investing, and you have 1000 shields stockpiled. Something spiffy comes up and you want it, say Sun Tzu's thing. Lets say it costs 400 shields. You convert from 'investment' to Sun Tzu's, and you start off with 200 shields towards it. However, if you only have 150 shields stockpiled, you would only get 75 when you cross over.

So, if you have 399 and someone beats you to Sun Tzus...just switch to invest ment, and wait until something else comes along.

Anyone like this idea?

Zylka · August 4, 2002, 02:17

What a sad state of affairs the policy is now though

sabrewolf · August 4, 2002, 15:59

i don't like the shield transferring either.
say, you're building the pyramids and get beaten by the AI short before completion... how should your workers be able to change all into something completly different (e.g. hanging gardens).

also, if i'm building a colosseum for 20 turns and then can just change to a unit? seems a bit strange.

but anyhow... it would suck even more if you'd always lose the shields, so i guess it's part of the game

Hagbart · August 4, 2002, 16:05

This would probably be exploited very much, I don't think it's a good idea...

candybo · August 4, 2002, 18:43

I think part of the point is to try to get players to keep tabs on what the other civs are doing via the embassies. If you wanna spend enough money after Lit, I think, you can see what any city is doing, and if you're behind..

OOPs! Forgot to vote

YC4B4U · August 4, 2002, 21:00

Zizka's suggestion is the best idea I have heard in yonks. Even if no appropriate building exists - I am sure one could be created.

From the top of my head:-

Wonder - Second prize
Hanging Gardens - Gardens (increase happiness in city)
Great Wall - City Wall
Oracle - Temple with double effect
Great Library - Library with double effect
Sun Tzu - Hmm, I have no idea...
Magellans -

Okay maybe it needs a little bit more thought... but the idea still sounds good!

Grumbold · August 5, 2002, 08:53

I'd prefer a complete step back from major wonder races that goes even further. Everyone should be able to build them, just like the small wonders, but there should be a modest extra benefit for being the first to do so. I.e. everyone can build a wonder that will decrease the cost of upgrading their military units, but only the first one to complete will be known as Leonardo's and carry a culture and commerce bonus. This would allow them to be useful without people scrabbling around to find ludicrous benefits to bestow for using them and no wonder would then become a game breaker.

vondrack · August 5, 2002, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'd prefer a complete step back from major wonder races that goes even further. Everyone should be able to build them, just like the small wonders, but there should be a modest extra benefit for being the first to do so. I.e. everyone can build a wonder that will decrease the cost of upgrading their military units, but only the first one to complete will be known as Leonardo's and carry a culture and commerce bonus. This would allow them to be useful without people scrabbling around to find ludicrous benefits to bestow for using them and no wonder would then become a game breaker.

Grumbold, you've just won my vote!

I have been thinking about something very similar for quite some time. Let's have - for every wonder - a certain benefit everybody will enjoy after finishing it. However, let only the first one to finish it be awarded with a reasonable extra (culture/commerce sometimes, a little bit stronger effect of the wonder at other times).

And then, do not allow switching production from/to a wonder. This way, the problem of wasted shields is gone and the strategy of "prebuilding" (which is a logical nonsense, forced only by the current game mechanics) as well. I guess it would make for a more fair/believable game.

It would be okay to get rid of the system of small/great wonders as they are now. There would be pairs of great/small wonders, like:

"Shakespeare's Theatre"-"National Theatre"
The former makes X citizens content and generates Y culture beakers, the latter makes X/2 citizens happy and generates Y-2 culture beakers. A really nice touch would be to have the great wonder named according to the nation that built it (like the current Shakespeare's Theatre would remain for the English, but become the Metropolitan Opera for the Americans, Bolshoi Teatr for the Russians etc.). It might be pretty difficult to find suitable names for every single combination though, I know...

Everybody would start with building a "National Theatre" (a small wonder, or "unique building"), however the first one to finish it would get the great wonder title and the small extra benefit.

Good point about making wonders less unbalacing from the gamepoint view then.