Modifying Wonder costs?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

To preface this post, I'm not sure if this should go in the Strategy forum, or the Creation forum. I'll post it here, confident that the appropriate folks will see it and move it as necessary.

In the Strategy forum, there is quite a good discussion on the viability of KRC in succession games. For a lot of people, KRC isn't worth the 6 caravans, which could be used to produce trade (cash & science) - and the extra production doesn't equal the 300 shield cost.

I've seen similar objections made to Darwin's voyage - 8 caravans (IIRC that is the cost) could produce enough trade for the 2 science advances Darwin produces, PLUS cash, plus the advances can be timed so that no beakers are wasted, etc.

All well and good. We all have our fave wonders - HG and Michelangelo are two I prefer, and always build. And I never build some other wonders due to cost-benefit analysis, and opportunity cost (e.g. better wonders available for building, more or less at the same time).

So... some wonders are obviously worth much more than they cost... and some are worth much less. I'd probably build Darwin if it only cost, say, 200-300 shields. Michelangelo might still be worth building at 500-600 shield cost.

The question is...
Assuming you wanted wonders to be equally valuable per unit of cost (shield cost) so much as possible - how would you modify wonder costs to reflect their game value? Which ones would you reduce in cost, and how much? For which ones would you increase the cost, and by how much?

[Scouse Gits]

The problem with this analysis is that the value of any Wonder is determined by the game style in use - I too value the HG far more than the paultry 200 shields it costs - but if you made it cost 600, would I bite the bullet or modify my game plan? Probably the latter - the opportunity cost of 600 shields at that early stage is enormous.

We have each evolved our game to 'best' take advantage of the existing game structure - once that structure is changed we need to re-evaluate our personal strategies.

This is one of the big benefits of the various Succession Games that many of us have been (are) involved with. How on earth do you extract yourself from this particular mess that you know you would NEVER have encountered in SP play - as (I believe it was you that posted) has been said - Succession Games require some 'outside the box' thinking - this can only be good for our collective ability to master this silly game...

SG[1] - in total threadjack/philosophical mode

[Scouse Gits]

There are Wonders which seem poor value. Who would build KRC when Cope's or Shake's cost the same?

We must remember that many people enjoy Civ 2 playing at levels below Deity. At Prince level the HG is not so important ... for quick growth the Pyramids enter the equation.

The 200 shields for the HG seems substantial during the BC years. Later in the game 200 shields is a smaller investment; superhighways costing the same amount.

People will always find the best value. Make the HG 400 and I may snap up Marco's at 200 to obtain a map of Babylon so I can capture the HG instead


-----------------------

SG(2)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Good points, (2) - regarding keeping the game in balance for people playing on the lower levels. At anything below King, I'd agree that HG is much less valuable - and a lot of other wonders become more, or less, important (e.g. Pyramids, Bach).

[1] - If my 'preferred' early wonders cost 600 shields, then definitely my game style would change. I suppose I was wondering at what point would HG become less of a no-brainer to build, and more of an actual decision. At 200, you definitely build it. At 600, you definitely don't build it. How about 400? 300?

Sure, as (2) says, you could wait for someone else to build it at 400 shields... but that might be a long wait. In the meantime, growth is hampered... and you still have to mount a good sized invasion force, which can take time.
**************************
Even considering that some people have different game styles, there is still a value for some wonders based on cost-benefit analysis.

Example - Pyramids 200 shields - free granaries in all cities. Since a granary is 60 shields, if you have more than 3 cities than you want/need a granary for, it's a good deal.

Michelangelo - 400 shields - free Cathedrals. Cathedral is 120 shields, so again, if you want Cathedrals in more than 3 cities, it's a good deal.

Same analysis for SETI/Research Lab. More than 3 cities needing a RL - build SETI.

Bach is like having a temple in each city that already has a Cathedral - however Bach costs 400 and temples are 40, so it is a much worse 'deal' than Mikes or Pyramids.

For wonders like HG/CFC - their effects can only be duplicated by jacking up luxuries to create happy people - and the happy effect created with luxuries will vary dependent on improvements in the city(ies), base arrows, etc. If you assume CFC lets you get the same celebration effect with 10% less luxuries... then it could be worth as much as 50g/turn in increased taxes... or an additional 1 advance/6 turns in increased science...

And so on...

For early wonders, I'd raise the cost of:

HG to 300, at least.

Marco Polo to 300 (diplomats are 30 each, 6 AIs= 180 shields... and then there is the need to deliver them)

And drop the cost of:

GL - drop to 200. Keeps the AIs closer to the human player, if it's built early by an AI. If the human wants to build it, fine... its cheaper but your preferred research path may be slowed.

KRC - drop to 200. As said in the other thread, it doesn't produce enough shields before expiration to be worthwhile at 300.

Oracle - drop to 200. A worthy rival for HG (?)

Colossus - left alone
GW - left alone.
Lighthouse - left alone.

Thoughts?

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Example - Pyramids 200 shields - free granaries in all cities. Since a granary is 60 shields, if you have more than 3 cities than you want/need a granary for, it's a good deal.

The other huge advantage of the "xxx in every city" wonders is that you avoid paying maintenance costs on the improvements. So pyramids is worth (potentially) one gold per city per turn. And Sun Tzu's, my second favorite, is worth two gold per city per turn after gunpowder (a huge benefit for an ICSer).

I'd have to agree with the Gits that wonders' values vary considerably with map size/age/etc., play style, and difficulty level. There's always a way to win, and making the wonders more expensive would tend to encourage a more militaristic style (Civ3, anyone?).

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by DaveV

The other huge advantage of the "xxx in every city" wonders is that you avoid paying maintenance costs on the improvements. So pyramids is worth (potentially) one gold per city per turn. And Sun Tzu's, my second favorite, is worth two gold per city per turn after gunpowder (a huge benefit for an ICSer).

Right, forgot that one! Maintenance costs savings on something like granaries, or cathedrals, are huge in a 300-turn game.

I take your point on increasing wonder costs leading to more of a militaristic approach... put those shields into unit production! But... decreasing costs of some less-used wonders might change that, would it not?

Incidentally I would modify Eiffel to make it automatically appear in the capital city of whoever gets Steam Engine first

[Caesar the Great]

Eiffel Tower... leave it to the French to design the most useless WoW

[Straybow]

( @ CtG)

I don't think that shield cost can be directly compared to trade opportunity cost. You build the WoW with food caravans from cities that don't have commodities available. Zero lost opportunity cost.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
The problem with this analysis is that the value of any Wonder is determined by the game style in use
SG[1] - in total threadjack/philosophical mode

For example the pyramids are cost effective, but I've stopped building them because my cities grow too fast and I have to spend a lot of time and effort dealing with the disorder . I'd rather build the graneries once the cities are bigger and taking longer to grow. I'm not sure I'd build the pyramids even if they were free.

But maybe you more experienced players have found a way round this problem.

RJM at Sleepers

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


For example the pyramids are cost effective, but I've stopped building them because my cities grow too fast and I have to spend a lot of time and effort dealing with the disorder . I'd rather build the graneries once the cities are bigger and taking longer to grow. I'm not sure I'd build the pyramids even if they were free.

But maybe you more experienced players have found a way round this problem.

RJM at Sleepers

I don't build Pyramids either. But some deity players do - one of the 'favorite wonder' threads revealed a few Pyramid proponents. Like you, I don't need or want the fast growth in the very early game (size 2 strategy) - and in the later game, WLTPD in the representative governments gives you fast growth if you want it.

However... even if you didn't build Pyramids... would reducing the cost make it more likely that an AI would build them faster? Probably. Would that mean the AI would be more competitive, having spent fewer resources on the Pyramids and had the benefit of them earlier? Possibly. Would it make the game more of a challenge? Errrr... maybe.

My thinking in starting this thread was based on 2 ideas - one, that the game might be more interesting to me personally, and others with similar play styles, if there was a real decision to make on whether to build certain wonders. I'd always build HG if both it and Pyramids were 200 shields. If HG was 400 shields and Pyramids were 150... well, perhaps I'd change my strategy.

The other idea was that if you make less valuable wonders cheaper, the AI will get them faster and possibly (unlikely???) put up a better fight.

[Gatekeeper]

Of course, you can also build those 1-gold-per-turn improvements with an eye down the road to building Adam Smith's Trading Company.

Gatekeeper