Ban HG in Duels and/or MP games

War4ever · January 23, 2003, 21:37

The "Rah rules" group bans GW in our games b/c of the unfair advantage it provides the recipient. Some have argued this is moot b/c it expires quickly. I agree with both sides of the fence here and could really care less one way or another.

HG is the one wonder in the game that throws everything out of wack, especially so in duels. If one player gets HG he has the ability to expand without interruption.

The other player must make a beeline for another happy wonder thus taking him off the course to gunpowder where by he will likely lose the race to other important wonders.....

HG is only 4 caravans/200 shields......

my proposal is to make the wonders either cost more in our x2x1 games, as the double production makes it easier to build anyways or at the very least make HG cost 300 -400 shields.

Now i know you don't have to sit there and let the HG owner run away with the game, but with great players, it can make catchup difficult and make nights very long for weaker players.

Personally i would like to see GW back in our games, and HG costing alot more. In fact , i think all wonders should be bumped up 100 shields ...

re-evaluating the wonders is necessary, especially since strategies have changed so much over the last five years of playing.

i think this would promote a mini rebirth in continuations for our group, and add a freshness to the game that is so sorely missed ....

anyone else have some ideas ?

deity · January 23, 2003, 22:08

Yeah I do.

Wonders are totally over rated and I don't care about them. I build them rarely. It makes no difference to competent players.

The Great Library is the most powerfull in the 1x1x games I play and Magellans/Lighthouse gives an advantage that no improvements can match.

Generally speaking most Wonder benefits can be matched by other strategies or improvements.

I have NEVER built HG but might build GW or Sun Tzu in any rare duel I might play.

Ming · January 24, 2003, 01:09

I don't see a problem with the way it is. Yeah, I like to get HG, but I can live with out it. Plus, the person that goes for HG is usually giving up on something else... usually early expansion.

Everything is a trade off... With Oracle being extended in our games' it's a viable alternative.

Each wonder gives you some advantage... and I've seen people that get other happyness wonders still beat people to invention.

And I totally disagree with your comment that it might lead to more continuations... You are just saying that to try to support your argument to get rid of it

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 01:13

actually , i don't really want to get rid of it, i would prefer to bring it up in cost, and bring GW back......this might make it easier for weaklings to survive..

and i totally disagree that you give up anything to get HG

Ming · January 24, 2003, 01:18

Sure you do... If you set your first city building a wonder, you are giving up on the early cities that you could get from kicking out settlers instead. Also, if you wait for trade, you are still trading four caravans for a wonder. Those could be used for trade routes, or you could have built four settlers, creating four more cities.

Everything is a trade off. Just because you don't like to go for it doesn't mean the price should be jacked up for those that do

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 01:21

no, i stopped building it not b/c i couldn't beat people to it , but b/c its a crutch for the weaker player......

HG is the one wonder in x2 games which gives the owner a real advantage, especially at half the cost, with hg i can celebrate all cities to size 8 before you even get monotheism......to build mikes, which will cost you twice as much.....

ever notice that weaker players do better with it.....yes the skilled guys don't need it to be competitive..its about creating balance....

besides once in monarchy size two-three cities build sets and vans at crazy rates

Ming · January 24, 2003, 01:27

I can win with it or without it... I don't see it as a crutch.
If I'm in a position to build it, I will. But I won't make that my goal from the beginning of the game.

Eventually, any of the happiness wonders are useful. Getting HG allows you to move on to other things... but it's not critical.

Sure... it's a nice wonder... but so is Leo's... and many other wonders. The wonders add a lot to the games. Different strategies depending on which you can get... and which ones you have to fight against. I think that's one of the best elements of the game.

Ming · January 24, 2003, 01:29

As far as GW goes... I don't see why we don't allow it in 3 or 4 persons games. I can see why it kind of sucks in a duel, but I have no problem with it in larger games.

deity · January 24, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Sure you do... If you set your first city building a wonder, you are giving up on the early cities that you could get from kicking out settlers instead. Also, if you wait for trade, you are still trading four caravans for a wonder. Those could be used for trade routes, or you could have built four settlers, creating four more cities.

Everything is a trade off. Just because you don't like to go for it doesn't mean the price should be jacked up for those that do

Exactly!

I agree...

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 01:57

see i disagree, an early monarchy and HG is lethal.....and i don't think you can't spit out two sets from your cap and still get HG, i have done it enough and so has rah....

i also think the wonders like HG in the beginning of the game which are so cheap have a bigger impact at their point of the game....

leos, big deal......disband pike, rush a horse, build musket, 1 turn 25 gold.....whopee.....

hg= 20 cities faster than anyone else, which means first crack at philo, and other wonders, how many times have i seen hg-leos by 1700 bc in our games, MANY times...

hg is just too cheap.....we extended oracle, and banned GW...i just feel HG should cost the same as oracle.....

maybe i need to prioratize it at the expense of expansion again (or so you say Ming) just to prove my point

but your right, the game doesn't hinge on it, i just think making it 300 shields would be a realistic way to deal with its value, which early on is rivaled only by the pyramids...

deity · January 24, 2003, 02:10

I disagree...

Ming · January 24, 2003, 02:12

Maybe you should go for it early war...

From multiple threads and many discussions, many people have a different idea of what's best in terms of wonders. That's half the fun of civ

deity · January 24, 2003, 02:17

I agree...

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 02:26

i dont need it....thats why i dont go for it......but i think with x2 production it wouldnt' hurt to make it a bit more costly.....

i will build it if its offered when i get around to a wonder, but its been ages since i used any type of strategy that requires hg in an mp game

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 02:35

2x is different to 1x.

Ming · January 24, 2003, 02:38

Lately... I've been building it late, because nobody else has bothered to build it... and as you say, at that stage of the game, a few caravans is nothing.

Like you, my game doesn't depend on building it... I can crank out the cities without it. But if it becomes available

War4ever · January 24, 2003, 02:38

horse your so insightfull

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 02:39

well its true. 2x and 1x effect of these things are different.

deity · January 24, 2003, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
well its true. 2x and 1x effect of these things are different.

Insight of the millenium

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 03:01

its true though

Ming · January 24, 2003, 03:04

And your point... we all know that

DrSpike · January 24, 2003, 05:24

Well War, I'll provide you some much needed support here.

Unfortunately first, I agree with Ming that you have to sacrifice something to race to HG (or lighthouse on water maps). Hence banning HG is extreme. However, I would agree with your point that wonders generally should be made more expensive. Whatever Deity says wonders in Civ2 are overpowered for their cost, and I have felt for a long time that the game would be a little more balanced if all wonders were a little dearer........just to make that person think twice before building an extra few caravans to get the wonder.

Personally in 4 player games I'd allow the lot, and make them all a little dearer......though exactly by how much in each case would take a lifetime to agree.

In deity duels I am sympathetic to banning HG (don't tell Eyes I said that......if he sees this thread he is going to laugh) like GW, but I think it's up to the 2 players to agree here. I have agreed in duels not to build lighthouse on water maps, and you could apply the same to HG.

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 06:25

Hey Spike - come and sub for us!!!!!!

DrSpike · January 24, 2003, 06:33

Hehe Deity has been bugging me on icq.......I just started work and I have a meeting to prepare for. It is mid-morning here.

Hydey not show?

Alexander's Horse · January 24, 2003, 07:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe Deity has been bugging me on icq.......I just started work and I have a meeting to prepare for. It is mid-morning here.

Hydey not show?

Hydey had to pick up his parents. Deity says he now only plays 4 ways - so that was that............

You should have played with us and then you could have been spontaneous at your meeting, dazzled them with improvisation, told a few jokes........huge adrenalin as you bluff your way through............