Worst wonder?

What is the worst world wonder?

  • Angkor Wat

    Votes: 24 4.6%
  • Broadway

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Chichen Itza

    Votes: 181 34.8%
  • Cristo Redentor

    Votes: 18 3.5%
  • Hollywood

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Mausoleum of Maussollos

    Votes: 9 1.7%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Rock 'n' Roll

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Shwedagon Paya

    Votes: 25 4.8%
  • Stonehenge

    Votes: 6 1.2%
  • The Colossus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Eiffel Tower

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • The Hagia Sophia

    Votes: 36 6.9%
  • The Hanging Gardens

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Parthenon

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • The Pentagon

    Votes: 5 1.0%
  • The Space Elevator

    Votes: 113 21.7%
  • The Spiral Minaret

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • The Statue of Zeus

    Votes: 11 2.1%
  • The Taj Mahal

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • The Temple of Artemis

    Votes: 10 1.9%
  • The Three Gorges Dam

    Votes: 3 0.6%
  • University of Sankore

    Votes: 4 0.8%
  • Versailles

    Votes: 12 2.3%
  • The Internet

    Votes: 44 8.5%

  • Total voters
    520
Just finished an immortal Mehmed game. 6 great generals, iron works, heroic epic, Mining Inc from the works, and no need for coal except for the railroads. 2 cities always making a rifle/turn. I never saw a need for power. Hit the domination limit just before I was going to engineer rush broadway. I used riflemen, cannon, and grenadiers mostly, with a few infantry at the end.

Anecdotal "evidence" using what is probably suboptimal play that still works does not make for a strong argument. I can just as easily say I swept maps using coal plants everywhere...and that would also mean nothing. You're free to say things like this of course, but don't go thinking anybody with sense is going to buy this as an argument against power.

Offense is the best defense.

Then why are you even waiting for infantry? Why bother with factories? You can come up with faster/better kill approaches. If you're playing defense (which is valid by the way, and the investment to repel invasions is far less than capturing cities when coasting a winning position to space).

If you're already post-conquest and consolidating cities for a space win, then you already have the necessary military most likely...unless you're just going to finish the game right there.

I will war to slow the leading AI down even if it slows me down (but relatively less). I don't care for speed wins.

Hehe. Hiding behind that instead of talking about timeframes that neither of us have attained. I understand though, it's not like I routinely launch ships in the 1500's (I can launch in the late 1700's AD sometimes with good cottage spam micro, usually 1800's).

Whether one decides to slow down the AI is a factor of whether or not that AI is a realistic candidate to win the game. If it isn't, hurting one's own position to slow down someone materially behind doesn't make sense; just out-race it if you're in front.

Those guys almost certainly have vassal-snatched enough health resources by the time coal is available to use it well (and the map has to be moderately generous). The thing is, they've already won by then, and the coal just speeds things up.

Unfortunately, most industrial-age positions have already settled a likely W or L by that point; rarely is the outcome actually decided later.

You have very good units to make by then, though. You would have to be very behind to want to make wealth instead of war, probably enough to question your chances of winning.

Actually it's the opposite. You build wealth to accelerate a win when your position is already strong (this has the nice side benefit of reducing play time + micro too, but it also increases absolute tech pace).

How are speed games that go 100% perfectly relevant to general play? Hall of Fame trolling is different from a normal match.

Many of the games I referenced are gauntlets, XOTM (standard maps in that case), random/fractal starts, etc. Surely, you don't think a mass seafood start with HRE on normal land is the stuff "freak"ishly fast tech paces are made of. Still, they can make it work. Part of it is that they're so good that they blast through the tech tree fast enough; city spam with SP workshops/watermills already available or within the next 30ish turns means that you can afford to place cities differently; keeping them smaller while health still matters and actually gaining on net empire hammers. That kind of stuff isn't easy to pull off, but the players that do it can do it consistently. It's scary, and I can only sort of mimic it when I try.

The Parthenon also comes to mind. It's much easier to get than the hanging gardens.

That just depends on your early priorities; early calendar resources or tons of forests might merit earlier-than-usual math. I've even seen obsolete oracle math so that he could boost his chops...in that scenario + stone you can get HG.
 
Anecdotal "evidence" using what is probably suboptimal play that still works does not make for a strong argument. I can just as easily say I swept maps using coal plants everywhere...and that would also mean nothing. You're free to say things like this of course, but don't go thinking anybody with sense is going to buy this as an argument against power.

Cherry picking Hall of Fame games where everything goes perfectly well doesn't mean that they involve consistently effective strategies. They're high risk, high reward games where everything worked out, giving a survivor bias. I have more than a dozen good anecdotes, enough to be called data. ;)

And it works on immortal, so it can't be *that* bad.

Then why are you even waiting for infantry? Why bother with factories? You can come up with faster/better kill approaches. If you're playing defense (which is valid by the way, and the investment to repel invasions is far less than capturing cities when coasting a winning position to space).

If you're already post-conquest and consolidating cities for a space win, then you already have the necessary military most likely...unless you're just going to finish the game right there.

Infantry are probably the most cost effective unit against the AI's mounted fetish, and last just about forever, and they come online when military academies encourage war. That's not to say the rifleman is a bad unit. It's situational.

Medieval wars favor the defender very heavily, and are good for grinding up generals. The only really nasty spot is when some AIs will get cuirassiers a bit before you get rifles.

Hehe. Hiding behind that instead of talking about timeframes that neither of us have attained. I understand though, it's not like I routinely launch ships in the 1500's (I can launch in the late 1700's AD sometimes with good cottage spam micro, usually 1800's).

Whether one decides to slow down the AI is a factor of whether or not that AI is a realistic candidate to win the game. If it isn't, hurting one's own position to slow down someone materially behind doesn't make sense; just out-race it if you're in front.

A win is a win, and sometimes you take a punch to deliver two of yours. Playing for score (a stupid, arbitrary measure) misses the drama of bad starts, AI war rolls, and other subjective, lucky events that make the game so interesting.

Unfortunately, most industrial-age positions have already settled a likely W or L by that point; rarely is the outcome actually decided later.

I don't think modern amphibious/nuke wars are that uncommon.

Actually it's the opposite. You build wealth to accelerate a win when your position is already strong (this has the nice side benefit of reducing play time + micro too, but it also increases absolute tech pace).

I dunno. Getting fission and rocketry ASAP can be crucial.

Many of the games I referenced are gauntlets, XOTM (standard maps in that case), random/fractal starts, etc. Surely, you don't think a mass seafood start with HRE on normal land is the stuff "freak"ishly fast tech paces are made of. Still, they can make it work. Part of it is that they're so good that they blast through the tech tree fast enough; city spam with SP workshops/watermills already available or within the next 30ish turns means that you can afford to place cities differently; keeping them smaller while health still matters and actually gaining on net empire hammers. That kind of stuff isn't easy to pull off, but the players that do it can do it consistently. It's scary, and I can only sort of mimic it when I try.

A lot of things can make an ordinary game extraordinary, and uber players have a knack for predicting the AI. Is coal typically a priority in multiplayer? I would think the higher level of conflict there gives units much more weight. And more generals.

That just depends on your early priorities; early calendar resources or tons of forests might merit earlier-than-usual math. I've even seen obsolete oracle math so that he could boost his chops...in that scenario + stone you can get HG.

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever picked math from the oracle, usually code of laws or metal casting. I'll try it sometime.
 
Cherry picking Hall of Fame games where everything goes perfectly well doesn't mean that they involve consistently effective strategies.

Nope, you can't use this argument any more. Any continued use of it results in an instant failed argument; I've already provide adequate examples of games that had absolutely nothing to do with HoF or anything beyond random starts. Your continued insistence that all of the examples I've cited (with many more possible) are somehow unusual or cooked starts is getting beyond plausibility. You can do better than this.

I have more than a dozen good anecdotes, enough to be called data.

Your "data" does not consist of consistently run #s in a typical city, and mysteriously refuses to cite its timeframes.......

A win is a win, and sometimes you take a punch to deliver two of yours. Playing for score (a stupid, arbitrary measure) misses the drama of bad starts, AI war rolls, and other subjective, lucky events that make the game so interesting.

Again, a lot of the deity games involving power were played to win, not for score., including some of the best space times in SGOTM, QUITE a few of the best times posted in strategy and tips, pretty much all of them in XOTM of which I'm aware. These are *not* cooked starts, and you're starting to get repetitive...repetitively wrong.

Also, I think you're confusing "optimal ROI analysis" with "playing for score". You do realize that picking the optimal ROI has a correlation (even if not 1.0) AND causality when it comes to score, right? Right now your argument seems focused on ignoring evidence present (literally every fast space ship launch I've seen in any format that exists) to the extent of pretending it's something else while pointing that since suboptimal play works on immortal, it's OK.

Any play is ok. That doesn't work as an argument, though, when you're attempting to make a case that a very standard building is overrated to the extent of not being a worthy investment on a consistent basis. If you're going to dolphin dive into that argument, you have a much higher burden than "i can win immortal using this". I can, on occasion, win immortal while building nothing but granaries, barracks, courthouses, and units. Does that make doing so optimal play? Does it make a case that forges suck? That libraries suck? That national wonders suck? No, and neither does this anecdotal nonsense you call "evidence".

I don't think modern amphibious/nuke wars are that uncommon.

Your ability to set them up in time, however, is usually determined long before industrial. Nukes/marines won't save you when 2 AIs are within 20 turns of culture and a 3rd is 30 from space (while 2 of them have their own nukes). Winning positions on high levels are, for the most part (we'll skip over the broken AP), determined by the amount, quality, and skillful use of land available. Failing to take enough land to compete with AI bonuses in time or to spam deny them wonders = loss. You might use that nuke war to finish the job, but you'll never get into that position in a vacuum.

A lot of things can make an ordinary game extraordinary, and uber players have a knack for predicting the AI.

In other words, I'm somehow an uber player because I can predict the AI as well as anyone (nevermind that my deficiencies elsewhere hold me back :p), and you're basically admitting that you're wrong and that these uber players know something about cap management and power that you don't (hence making the ordinary look extraordinary).

MP is dangerous waters. I haven't seen a game last long enough in player vs player for coal or power plant decisions to be the deciding factor; usually a tech lead = military lead = someone dies = too large a land advantage (or in games with strangers, someone spawns next to an awful player who gets rushed and killed right away, suddenly inheriting twice anybody else's land). Also note that on more coastal maps astro opens up the game BIGTIME; unlike the AI, humans can't afford to put 8 units in every city, so galleons fork and RAZE cities. You also get crap like guerilla II longbow chokes, skirmisher ASAP chokes (good luck getting rid of those w/o a strategic resource), rushes, dogpiles, etc. The outcomes can be quite drastic...but it doesn't change the general reality of power, just that it rarely comes into play.
 
Presenting, Civilization's :
TheMeInTeam, aka Phil
THIS WEEK IN RAGE, february 2011
Tip: listen to one of his clips while you're reading his response

I'M ANGRY

I don't know if I should be angry. But I feel like I should be angry, I feel like you should be angry, too, I feel like everyone should be angry.
Gentlemen start your anger.

Number 5
Nope, you can't use this argument any more. Any continued use of it results in an instant failed argument; I've already provide adequate examples of games that had absolutely nothing to do with HoF or anything beyond random starts. Your continued insistence that all of the examples I've cited (with many more possible) are somehow unusual or cooked starts is getting beyond plausibility. You can do better than this.

WHAT A DI... censored. I PAY TAXES. WHAT?

Number 4
Your "data" does not consist of consistently run #s in a typical city, and mysteriously refuses to cite its timeframes.......

NO! NOTHING!
ARE YOU HIGH?
I HATE THAT!

Number 3

Also, I think you're confusing "optimal ROI analysis" with "playing for score". You do realize that picking the optimal ROI has a correlation (even if not 1.0) AND causality when it comes to score, right? Right now your argument seems focused on ignoring evidence present (literally every fast space ship launch I've seen in any format that exists) to the extent of pretending it's something else while pointing that since suboptimal play works on immortal, it's OK.

Any play is ok. That doesn't work as an argument, though, when you're attempting to make a case that a very standard building is overrated to the extent of not being a worthy investment on a consistent basis. If you're going to dolphin dive into that argument, you have a much higher burden than "i can win immortal using this". I can, on occasion, win immortal while building nothing but granaries, barracks, courthouses, and units. Does that make doing so optimal play? Does it make a case that forges suck? That libraries suck? That national wonders suck? No, and neither does this anecdotal nonsense you call "evidence".

You hypocrites! Kiss my ... something.
I'm sorry, I'm p. off.

Number 2

Your ability to set them up in time, however, is usually determined long before industrial. Nukes/marines won't save you when 2 AIs are within 20 turns of culture and a 3rd is 30 from space (while 2 of them have their own nukes). Winning positions on high levels are, for the most part (we'll skip over the broken AP), determined by the amount, quality, and skillful use of land available. Failing to take enough land to compete with AI bonuses in time or to spam deny them wonders = loss. You might use that nuke war to finish the job, but you'll never get into that position in a vacuum.

IDIOTS ALL OF YOU
Would someone get a defibrillator?

Number 1

In other words, I'm somehow an uber player because I can predict the AI as well as anyone (nevermind that my deficiencies elsewhere hold me back :p), and you're basically admitting that you're wrong and that these uber players know something about cap management and power that you don't (hence making the ordinary look extraordinary).

MP is dangerous waters. I haven't seen a game last long enough in player vs player for coal or power plant decisions to be the deciding factor; usually a tech lead = military lead = someone dies = too large a land advantage (or in games with strangers, someone spawns next to an awful player who gets rushed and killed right away, suddenly inheriting twice anybody else's land). Also note that on more coastal maps astro opens up the game BIGTIME; unlike the AI, humans can't afford to put 8 units in every city, so galleons fork and RAZE cities. You also get crap like guerilla II longbow chokes, skirmisher ASAP chokes (good luck getting rid of those w/o a strategic resource), rushes, dogpiles, etc. The outcomes can be quite drastic...but it doesn't change the general reality of power, just that it rarely comes into play.

Until next time - hold on a second - this week - oh, what an a... - in rage.

Disclaimer: not saying TMIT is calling people names, that's just some Carolla "this week in rage" regular soundbits inserted in to establish the proper mood for reading the responses.

---

Technically I have to write something topical, so: players gain advantages over the AI at different periods. Some people leverage different eras of the game better than others. If you get enough of an advantage early, you may not need power or infantry or even rifles. But sometimes you haven't built up enough of an advantage to win earlier, through playstyle or difficulty/handicaps.

If you can leverage late game units well, they're not useless because they're so late. They're useless if you've already won, but maybe a really good late game player can turn a tied from last position into a domination win with late game tactics, which would make it better than many early game tactics.
 
Painful reading here, that much is sure.

1. Using coal plants rather than building factories and not caring about power and/or waiting for 3GD WILL speed up your spaceship date. This is true whether you play with State Property workshop spam or corporations. Arguing otherwise is somewhat equivalent to arguing that worker first is rarely a good idea. You can do it, and you can be adamant about it to the point where only TMIT will still argue with you, but that does not make it more correct.

2. Space races are sometimes true races against AI spaceships or culture. Hence, a win or loss can be determined by your spaceship date. Nothing to do with game format, we are simply talking about winning or losing a game.

3. No more points needed.

4. Off Topic: How can The Space Elevator not be winning this poll?
 
Painful reading here, that much is sure.

1. Using coal plants rather than building factories and not caring about power and/or waiting for 3GD WILL speed up your spaceship date. This is true whether you play with State Property workshop spam or corporations. Arguing otherwise is somewhat equivalent to arguing that worker first is rarely a good idea. You can do it, and you can be adamant about it to the point where only TMIT will still argue with you, but that does not make it more correct.

2. Space races are sometimes true races against AI spaceships or culture. Hence, a win or loss can be determined by your spaceship date. Nothing to do with game format, we are simply talking about winning or losing a game.

3. No more points needed.

4. Off Topic: How can The Space Elevator not be winning this poll?

Well put 1-3.

On 4, I can offer two answers. One is people remembering when it was a good wonder. Two is that in VERY specific circumstances it can be good. OCC with a GE and Robotics from Internet comes to mind. Very seldom useful, true, and the appeal of the SE leads players to try to build it when they shouldn't.

I voted Chichen Itza, but based on semantics I'm probably wrong. I think Chichen is the most useless wonder. SE might be the worst because so many players are seduced into going for it when it hurts them. A number of the other votes make me wonder.

I remember when TMIT started a thread explaining why SE was so bad. He got about 4 pages of argument from players trying to justify it.
 
OCC with a GE and Robotics from Internet comes to mind. Very seldom useful, true, and the appeal of the SE leads players to try to build it when they shouldn't.
I'd probably settle the GE :p

Why SE is bad is evident to anyone who has tried to do competitive space races. It is the only wonder that actually has a negative effect on your empire (though indirectly, and for space race only of course).
Chichen Itza can be used for fail gold, which is more than enough to make it handily better than SE. Oh well.
 
Off Topic: How can The Space Elevator not be winning this poll?

It was an old as dirt poll which was made before a lot of people had seen the math on how bad the SE was. I voted for Hagia Sophia before I saw the math behind SE and became a believer.
 
I'd probably settle the GE :p

Why SE is bad is evident to anyone who has tried to do competitive space races. It is the only wonder that actually has a negative effect on your empire (though indirectly, and for space race only of course).
Chichen Itza can be used for fail gold, which is more than enough to make it handily better than SE. Oh well.

I think you're taking a once-size fits all approach. As I said, it takes specific circumstances. I've done a number of OCC competetive space races. Even in those, SE is seldom a good idea. I do generally settle GE's in an OCC. If you read my final summary, I agree with your statement that it is generally damaging to go for. This may qualify it as worst because of the lemming-like love some players have for it. It gives players an option that they often take wrongly.

Most of the cases where players build it it does hurt them, true. What really surprises me in the poll is the number of players who voted Internet.
 
You'd probably vote internet if you only ever play the late game on easy mode and overrun the world with rifles/cavalry/infantry/tanks, meaning no one else can compete with you post computers.

Like me.
 
Some people see needless Great Prophet pollution, other people see an easy Liberalism bulb and super priests. I really don't understand the 15 votes for Angkor Wat. That's a solid wonder.

IMO, the (BtS) Space Elevator, Chichen Itza, Eiffel Tower, and Hagia Sophia are all much worse, and there are several other wonders that are often weaker than AW, depending on the game.

The BtS Space Elevator and Chichen Itza I think have been discussed in depth here. Bottom of the wonder barrel.

The Hagia Sophia is obsolete very quickly, so the real draw is that it gives you slightly improved odds of a future Great Engineer. That's good, but not as good as running engineer specialists in your cities, which can give you a better chance at a GE sooner while actually providing a good immediate benefit (production, Rep bulbs, etc.) The Hagia is usually just a lot of hammers wasted -- you're better off simply building more workers with those hammers if you really want the wonder benefit.

Building the Eiffel Tower is rarely important. In culture games, you only care about your three legendary cities, and three broadcast towers are cheaper than the Eiffel Tower, even with the iron doubler, and the extra culture from the wonder is only of marginal value that late. What if somebody's crushing your borders while pursuing a culture victory? You should probably take that AI out, then, instead of building weak-sauce wonders. The Eiffel Tower may be of decent utility if you're hurting badly for happiness in a lot of cities, and have access to the Hits resources or are Charismatic, but that's a fairly limited case. Even then, you can frequently build the broadcast towers in just the cities that need them and come out ahead or close to ahead. In almost every case I just let the AI spend their hammers on this one, the return on investment is really low.

That's what it really comes down to: opportunity cost, what you could have been investing your hammers in instead of a weak wonder. As a bonus, skipping the weaker wonders entirely means the AIs will waste their time and energy chasing them. I like to think of many of the wonders in the game as traps -- traps that, if I don't fall into, the AIs will. Avoiding the traps by necessity improves my chances of winning each and every game.

I love it when I see the AI build the Space Elevator. It means they weren't building their engine or stasis chamber or docking bay with those hammers, and they spent the beakers on Robotics instead of tearing straight for Fusion -- too bad, because I was bee-lining my parts the whole time and they'll have to stare slack-jawed at my hind end as I rocket toward Alpha Centauri and their certain defeat at relativistic speed. Ha ha ha. If the AI went Eiffel Tower it means they chose that instead of Rock 'n' Roll or, even better, Cristo Redentor. Silly AI. (How did Cristo get 9 votes in this poll, anyway?) For that matter, if an AI builds any wonder but the very strongest early wonders, all it means is that they built something they are unlikely to get good use from instead of building units to defeat the human with, or building infrastructure to compete better in the GNP race (where the game's going to be won or lost anyway). When they build the Statue of Zeus I'm just glad they weren't building elephants with that ivory. Brr, that might have been scary. When Stonehenge is built in a distant land I know they decided to arrange rocks in a pretty formation instead of putting out another early settler or worker or two. Good for them, we'll see how it works out.
 
Technically the internet/manhattan project are not wonders :lol:.
Okay... so, let's rephrase the question:
Out of all of the World Wonders and World Projects, which do you think is the worst?


How can The Space Elevator not be winning this poll?
I not only don't tech Robotics, but I don't tech it's pre-requisite, Computers. To me, the Space Elevator isn't even on the table as an option. Therefore, I ignored it when I voted as much as TMIT ignored voting on The Internet (which is a World Project), since I felt that the Space Elevator, while it is a World Wonder, is not even a valid build option in my Space games. For my non-Space games, such as in a Time Victory where I might actually have access to build it, it isn't really worth the trouble to mention since its only real effect there would be as a Denial Wonder (which is a discussion for a different thread), so once again, it wasn't even a worthwhile voting option in my mind.
 
Power and the space elevator aside, can anyone show me a game where AW was a decisive wonder? Challenge: Not involving Arabia or Egypt?
 
Not a decisive one, but that applies to most wonders. Angkor Wat is quite useful when you have many cities without natural production, e.g. on small islands.

Similarly to the Hanging Gardens when used for immediate whipping, it's not so much about a net gain as it's about transferring production to where you need it most.
 
Mercantilism AP temple priests come to mind, I guess. Many commerce cities don't benefit much from a forge or they're loaded with food, so they might make a priest. But I still don't see any more than 4-5 total raw hammers coming from AW. The raw commerce from a customs house carries more weight. :mischief:
 
Ataxerxes said:
I think you're taking a once-size fits all approach. As I said, it takes specific circumstances. I've done a number of OCC competetive space races. Even in those, SE is seldom a good idea. I do generally settle GE's in an OCC. If you read my final summary, I agree with your statement that it is generally damaging to go for. This may qualify it as worst because of the lemming-like love some players have for it. It gives players an option that they often take wrongly.
Yes, and I have played my fair share of competitive OCC space races too. I have never had a situation where SE was even close to being a good build. But of course it could be techinically possible in some bizarro map.
What lures most people is that the +X% spaceship production (forgot what percentage it gives :lol:) seems good, but in reality, it is a very minor boost since you already have forge/factory/power/IW/aluminium bonuses.

codehappy said:
Some people see needless Great Prophet pollution, other people see an easy Liberalism bulb and super priests. I really don't understand the 15 votes for Angkor Wat. That's a solid wonder.
Yes, again this is easy to argue really.
1. Do you sometimes use priest specialists? Yes
2. Are they run for large enough parts of the game to pay back the hammers invested in AW? Yes
3. No more points needed. But AW priests are plain better than engineers (no, not in a city that can pop a great person, duh), and people use them all the time.

Higher Game said:
Power and the space elevator aside, can anyone show me a game where AW was a decisive wonder? Challenge: Not involving Arabia or Egypt?
What do you mean decisive? Again, same logic:
1. Are wins sometimes obtained with very few turns to spare? Yes
2. Does AW sometimes improve the finishing date? Yes
3. No more points needed.
 
Cristo Redentor is coming too late and is ineffective for spiritual leaders, bottom of the list this too. Internet is somewhat better if you are behind in the technology development.
 
Top Bottom