GW's, Civ Traits and GA's - The facts.

CerberusIV · January 29, 2003, 08:12

There have been several posts recently about Great Wonders and triggering Golden Ages. The full list of civ traits and GW's (for PTW 1.14) is;

Religious - Pyramids, Colossus, Oracle, Sistine Chapel, Bach's Cathedral, Internet.

Industrious - Pyramids, Hanging Gardens, Great Wall, Hoover Dam, Manhattan Project, Internet.

Commercial - Colossus, Great Lighthouse, Magellan's Voyage, Smith's Trading Co, United Nations, Internet.

Scientific - Great Library, Newton's University, Theory of Evolution, Cure for Cancer, Longevity, Internet.

Militaristic - Great Wall, Sun Tzu's Art of War, Leonardo's Workshop, Universal Suffrage, Manhattan Project, Internet.

Expansionist - Colossus, Great Lighthouse, Magellan's Voyage, Copernicus's Observatory, SETI Program, Internet.

Shakespeare's Theatre is not associated with any civ traits but can still trigger a GA. The game only checks when you build a GW, not when you capture one. If you capture one (or more) GW's that correspond to both your civ traits you don't get a GA but if you then build any other GW the game checks, discovers you have GW's for both traits and starts your GA.

I haven't checked in Civ3 1.29 but assume it is the same except no Internet GW.

CerberusIV · January 29, 2003, 08:35

Part of what triggered me to start this thread is that I am playing the Koreans in my current SP game (I play random civs).

The Koreans are handicapped to start with as the Hwacha can't start a GA unless altered in the editor to have Lethal Land Bombardment. Commercial isn't too hard to get GW's for but scientific only has the Great Library and then Newton's University right at the end of the Medieval Era. Apart from those two there is only Theory of Evolution (nicely timed to give a GA to build Hoover). By the time a game reaches building the Internet, let alone Cure for Cancer or Longevity it is usually all over. (Would you research genetics and invest 1000 shields in a GW rather than build spaceship parts or military units?).

I have managed a Korean GA with Colossus and Newton's but nearly didn't get Newton.

Does someone at Firaxis not like Korea? or are the Koreans the ultimate challenge civ, if you can win with them you can win with anyone?

Jamski · January 29, 2003, 08:57

I thought the H***ska thing had lethal land bombardment as standard. That's what it says in the civilopedia. I've never had the slightest desire to build one, so I don't know for sure. And a late GA is very useful for building SS parts, getting SS tech and winning. 1000 shields invested can return a lot more. But the game is won or lost well before this point anyway.

-Jam

Bluefrog · January 29, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
I thought the H***ska thing had lethal land bombardment as standard. That's what it says in the civilopedia. I've never had the slightest desire to build one, so I don't know for sure. And a late GA is very useful for building SS parts, getting SS tech and winning. 1000 shields invested can return a lot more. But the game is won or lost well before this point anyway.

-Jam

Any unit with Lethal Land Bombard would break the game. Flat-out break it. The AI doesn't use bombard units effectively as it is, but putting a bombarding unit in the hands of a player that can wipe out a city's defenses would be disastrous, in terms of balance.

Yes, I know the civilopedia says the H'wacha has LLB. It was changed before the game shipped, but the civilopedia entry wasn't edited.

But, I do agree that the limited number of early-mid scientific wonders hurts the Koreans badly. Adding the scientific trait to Leo's or Copernicus' may not be a bad idea.

Jamski · January 29, 2003, 09:23

I didn't see that. Copernius is NOT scientific? ? I thought it was, I just assumed. I almost always get my GA through my UU's. Hmm I'll have to check this in the editor.

-Jam

Bluefrog · January 29, 2003, 09:58

Making the H'wacha have lethal SEA bombard may be an option, though. Maybe not entirely realistic, but it wouldn't be waaay out there.

muppet · January 29, 2003, 20:15

Sounds like someone wasn't on the ball with Korea.

Couldn't they have solved all these balancing and UU/GA problems by giving them the Turtle Ships? I know... ships aren't great... but better than a non-GA UU.

I thought they were famous for having the first armored ship in the world. I thought the turtle ship was suppose to have been a major reason why they managed to fend of the Japanese invasion during the height of the samurai.

MrWhereItsAt · January 29, 2003, 23:58

I'm sure one of my civ-induced history readings told me that the Koreans built the first Ironclad. How much more appropriate would that have been as a UU?

joncnunn · January 30, 2003, 11:32

The Copernicus Obsevartory defeatly belongs in the Expansionist category: The whole point of this, is looking out at the stars.
Similarly, SETI belongs in the expansionist category.

---

Adding Sci to Leos would be a bad idea: It would make Germany (Scientific & Military) too powerfu.

Also, adding Sci to Coperacous is a bad idea: It would make Russia (Scientific & Expansioist) too powerful.

As a Scientfic civ, I sugest beelining to Literature anyway; the earlier you can take advantage of your half cost Libaries, the better.

I was under the impression that the US & CS built the first Iron Clads during the Civil War. Those early versions were strictly river & coastal vessels, but cannon fire tended to just bounce off their hulls.

CerberusIV · January 30, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn

I was under the impression that the US & CS built the first Iron Clads during the Civil War. Those early versions were strictly river & coastal vessels, but cannon fire tended to just bounce off their hulls.

Apart from the Korean turtle ships there are references to Oda Nobunaga, dictator of Japan, ordering the construction of "iron ships" shortly before 1600AD and using them to crush a rival Japanese fleet. There is some dispute about how they were actually armoured.

HolyWarrior · January 31, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluefrog

Any unit with Lethal Land Bombard would break the game. Flat-out break it. The AI doesn't use bombard units effectively as it is, but putting a bombarding unit in the hands of a player that can wipe out a city's defenses would be disastrous, in terms of balance.

Yes, I know the civilopedia says the H'wacha has LLB. It was changed before the game shipped, but the civilopedia entry wasn't edited.

But, I do agree that the limited number of early-mid scientific wonders hurts the Koreans badly. Adding the scientific trait to Leo's or Copernicus' may not be a bad idea.

Why would LLB break the game? Bombard units in CIV2 attacked like everyone else and THAT game wasn't broken. Bottom line is that the Koreans need a unit that can trigger GA. Also, NOT having LLB is unrealistic. Ask the survivors of the Dresden firebombing.

Bluefrog · January 31, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyWarrior

Why would LLB break the game? Bombard units in CIV2 attacked like everyone else and THAT game wasn't broken. Bottom line is that the Koreans need a unit that can trigger GA. Also, NOT having LLB is unrealistic. Ask the survivors of the Dresden firebombing.

I haven't played MP, but I don't think it would be broken there nearly so much as in SP. The AI does not use bombard units like it should as it is. It may have one or two cannons in each city, fortified, and it won't even bombard enemy units right next to the city.

Now, with lethal land bombard, the human player will put a stack of nothing but 2-3 defending units and 10-15 bombard units on a mountain next to an enemy city. Mass bombarding ensues, and all the AI's defenders are destroyed. The defensive troops walk into the now-undefended city, taking the city without any chance of casualties.

As for realism, there are elements in the game that are far more unrealistic than not having lethal bombard. I think we've all had some infantry (or tanks, heh) lose to a spearman the AI neglected to upgrade. The fact that bombard isn't lethal helps the AI considerably warrants the slight unrealism.

Brizey · January 31, 2003, 21:14

BF:

Civ2 did not have bombardment in the sense civ3 does. Artillery is not subject to counter-attack, and bombers are only subject to counter attack by fighters and SAMs.

Zero · February 1, 2003, 16:32

I dont play the koreans but I give them uber archer or longbowmen cause korea's had deep root in archery skills and has been the staple of their military.

Master Zen · February 1, 2003, 20:08

I don't think LLB makes the game more unbalanced. City bombardment is notoriously ineffective as it is, even with RA's and Stealth Bombers pounding at it. I've had attacks of 8 RA's on a city with all being "artillery bombardment failed".

On units outside of cities, however, it would tend to be unbalanced if all artillery units were given LLB. I would mod the Hwacha to include the LLB if only to give them a GA, but all other artillery types remain as they are. In my mods the only units to have LLB are the Stealth Fighter and the F-15 but since they have bombardment of 4 the effect is not as decisive.