City vicinity dependent wonders

Nimek · Apr 22, 2015

Background

I hate artificial limitations for wonders in civ because it so unrealistic. In the other hand unlimited wonders option can be easily exploited and makes game out of balance.

Solution

Lets make national and great wonders dependent on city vicinity resources and unlimited by default.
Example
Let Collossus require coastal city and copper in city vicinity
Let Pyramids require stone in vicinity

Note

If you like this idea please consider below change.

Lets expand city vicinity to three plots fat cross by default. Now it requires City administration building available on later game. It will make city placement a lot easier.

45°38'N-13°47'E · Apr 22, 2015

Nimek said:
Background

I hate artificial limitations for wonders in civ because it so unrealistic. In the other hand unlimited wonders option can be easily exploited and makes game out of balance.

Solution

Lets make national and great wonders dependent on city vicinity resources and unlimited by default.
Example
Let Collossus require coastal city and copper in city vicinity
Let Pyramids require stone in vicinity

Note

If you like this idea please consider below change.

Lets expand city vicinity to three plots fat cross by default. Now it requires City administration building available on later game. It will make city placement a lot easier.

I don't understand what you mean by "artificial limitations" ? Requiring something in city vicinity sounds like an artificial limitation to me, especially if you have to change city vicinity rule.

Rezca · Apr 22, 2015

45°38'N-13°47'E;13786429 said:
I don't understand what you mean by "artificial limitations" ? Requiring something in city vicinity sounds like an artificial limitation to me, especially if you have to change city vicinity rule.

I think he's referring to limiting the constructable wonder count in a city by its culture level as the limitation.

45°38'N-13°47'E · Apr 22, 2015

Rezca said:
I think he's referring to limiting the constructable wonder count in a city by its culture level as the limitation.

I wouldn't call that artificial. When a city grows, and culture in game is a measure of civ size, it acquires knowledge, ability and power to build some (more) wonders which it couldn't have been able to build before reaching that level.

aggri1 · Apr 22, 2015

45°38'N-13°47'E;13786497 said:
I wouldn't call that artificial. When a city grows, and culture in game is a measure of civ size, it acquires knowledge, ability and power to build some (more) wonders which it couldn't have been able to build before reaching that level.

I think that those factors you mentioned are represented more or less explicitly in Civ as Technologies and hammers. My opinion is that explicit factors like that are much more interesting: if a town is too small, it'll take too long to build a wonder, which makes sense and is clear and unambiguous, unlike the case of the wonder button simply being "greyed out" for no apparent reason.

I agree with Nimek that the arbitrary limit of X wonders is artificial - and I too dislike arbitrary artificial limits, like *three* Special Forces, or *ten* caravans; why? The ones I hate the most are those stupid "You need X of building Y in order to build each Z", because there's no straightforward way of knowing how many Zs you can build until you reach the limit. Which cities get Steelworks? How to prioritise, when there's no feedback until you reach the limit. Stupid.

I don't understand what you mean by "artificial limitations" ? Requiring something in city vicinity sounds like an artificial limitation to me, especially if you have to change city vicinity rule.

I think Nimek means that requiring e.g. stone in city vicinity in order to be able to build Pyramids (which are made of stone) would be much less artificial than saying, "right-o, fancy city, you've built three wonders, no more for you!"

Definitely worth discussing I reckon!

Cheers, A.

Sindy · Apr 22, 2015

aggri1 said:
I think Nimek means that requiring e.g. stone in city vicinity in order to be able to build Pyramids (which are made of stone) would be much less artificial than saying, "right-o, fancy city, you've built three wonders, no more for you!"

Definitely worth discussing I reckon!

Cheers, A.

No, it's way too restrictive.

Rezca · Apr 22, 2015

Sindy said:
No, it's way too restrictive.

And immensely frustrating. As it is, everyone's got a shot at landing the Pyramids, the person with Stone just happens to be able to produce it faster - not guaranteed, just faster.

With this suggestion it'd lock everyone but people who plant their city next to a Stone resource out of getting that wonder no matter what - no matter how productive or how glorious their city is. And if it's misplaced so it's not within the city vicinity but you can't place a city nearby, so out of luck for you! Owning Stone would be useless unless your city was right next to it, which would pretty much guarantee your landing that wonder this time instead of just increasing your odds.

If anything, this would be even worse than the Wonder Limit. C2C's got something like this going with their 'founding' a Culture, and I've been given the short end of the stick by it so many times and more often than not in an unfair way.

aggri1 · Apr 22, 2015

Sindy said:
No, it's way too restrictive.

OK.

While the original idea of this thread seems to have been to suggest that access to Wonders could be limited through the use of in-city-vicinity resource requirements, it perhaps could be re-framed more broadly as a search for a mechanism to replace that arbitrary and artificial 3(?)-Wonder limit. If we consider in-city-vicinity resource requirements as being too restrictive, what else could be used instead?

Just as an idea, I'd suggest we could make more use of infrastructure requirements, i.e. required buildings, like the Statue of Liberty requires a Forge (if I remember correctly). There must surely be numerous Wonders which have logical building pre-requisites (Stoneworker for Pyramids

).

Or population size: surely some wonders require a vast number of people - at least by ancient standards.

What else?

Cheers, A.

Rezca · Apr 22, 2015

aggri1 said:
OK.

While the original idea of this thread seems to have been to suggest that access to Wonders could be limited through the use of in-city-vicinity resource requirements, it perhaps could be re-framed more broadly as a search for a mechanism to replace that arbitrary and artificial 3(?)-Wonder limit. If we consider in-city-vicinity resource requirements as being too restrictive, what else could be used instead?

Just as an idea, I'd suggest we could make more use of infrastructure requirements, i.e. required buildings, like the Statue of Liberty requires a Forge (if I remember correctly). There must surely be numerous Wonders which have logical building pre-requisites (Stoneworker for Pyramids ).

Or population size: surely some wonders require a vast number of people - at least by ancient standards.

What else?

Cheers, A.

I don't think population size means anything other than it just being a more time-consuming task.

Honestly, I think that any new limitations we might come up with would end up making things needlessly complex and overall un-fun.

Vokarya · Apr 22, 2015

Rezca said:
I don't think population size means anything other than it just being a more time-consuming task.

Honestly, I think that any new limitations we might come up with would end up making things needlessly complex and overall un-fun.

I agree. Let me say that as a general rule, I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hate ANY proposal that limits access to Wonders. There is a sense of competition that I consider to be absolutely vital to World Wonders. This is why I would not support any new religion-specific Wonders; I think they give the founding player far too easy a path to the extra bonuses.

I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they are. I think compromises with "realism" are necessary to make a good game, and this is a game, not a history textbook.

Afforess · Apr 23, 2015

Vokarya said:
I agree. Let me say that as a general rule, I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hate ANY proposal that limits access to Wonders. There is a sense of competition that I consider to be absolutely vital to World Wonders. This is why I would not support any new religion-specific Wonders; I think they give the founding player far too easy a path to the extra bonuses.

I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they are. I think compromises with "realism" are necessary to make a good game, and this is a game, not a history textbook.

Agreed. Players who want to play Civ-style history should go and check out RFC. It's a great mod and built for exactly that style of game. RAND is not a historical mod and it doesn't intend to be one either.

Nimek · Apr 23, 2015

Stoneworker for Pyramids

I like that idea even more than my. Wonders should be projects that entire civ is involved

So for example

Collosus will require 5 forges
Pyramids 5 stoneworker huts

Even now we have buildings that requires. X number of other buildings. So if normal buildings with greater bonuses have that kind of requirements than much more powerful wonders should have it also.

What about this idea?

dbkblk · Apr 23, 2015

I totally agree with the team. I also think than allowing the player to have more wonders by changing the limit would make the game totally unfair from a competitive standpoint. If a player have a really productive city, he can get many wonders before others, so, where is the balance?

Nimek said:
Collosus will require 5 forges
Pyramids 5 stoneworker huts

It will generate a balance problem. If a 3-city civ is productive enough to build Pyramids, it won't be able now. Not to say that these wonders are early ones, so the civ are rather small by that time.

45°38'N-13°47'E · Apr 23, 2015

dbkblk said:
I totally agree with the team. I also think than allowing the player to have more wonders by changing the limit would make the game totally unfair from a competitive standpoint. If a player have a really productive city, he can get many wonders before others, so, where is the balance?

Same opinion here. I'd say this is not going to change.

nionios · Apr 23, 2015

dbkblk said:
I totally agree with the team. I also think than allowing the player to have more wonders by changing the limit would make the game totally unfair from a competitive standpoint. If a player have a really productive city, he can get many wonders before others, so, where is the balance?

So do you think that unlimited wonders option is unfair or unbalanced?

45°38'N-13°47'E · Apr 23, 2015

nionios said:
So do you think that unlimited wonders option is unfair or unbalanced?

Yes, definitely.
Anyway you can easily solve the problem: you can put again the same limit for every city, 4 wonders, as it's been in the beginning, for every cultural level. It's an easy XML change.

Vokarya · Apr 23, 2015

dbkblk said:
It will generate a balance problem. If a 3-city civ is productive enough to build Pyramids, it won't be able now. Not to say that these wonders are early ones, so the civ are rather small by that time.

Agreed here too. Little civs need chances at the big wonders, especially if they are lucky enough to generate a Great Engineer. So I think is a terrible idea as a general rule; for the cases we already have, I won't mess with it, but I did specifically remove the Paved Roads requirement from Via Appia because it was too much trouble.

aggri1 · Apr 25, 2015

In relation to Nimek's idea about requiring a number of buildings in order to construct a Wonder...

dbkblk said:
... If a 3-city civ is productive enough to build Pyramids, it [wouldn't] be able now. Not to say that these wonders are early ones, so the civ are rather small by that time.

I too particularly dislike the "requires X of Y buildings" type requirements (e.g. the stupid limit on Steelworks requiring some unspecified number of Forges at the moment).

There are, however, several Wonders which require a certain number of <b>cities</b>, still. Edinburgh Castle, Pont du Gard, for example. Can we eliminate those requirements, as was effectively done for Via Appia (by removing the requirement to have a certain number of Paved Roads)?

Rezca · Apr 25, 2015

aggri1 said:
I too particularly dislike the "requires X of Y buildings" type requirements (e.g. the stupid limit on Steelworks requiring some unspecified number of Forges at the moment).

Does Steelworks require an increasing number of Forges? I didn't really notice... *Double checked - it's Foundry's the Steelmill needs, not Forges*

In my opinion, that's good. +40% production even without power and providing a resource AND increasing commerce while being available in every city for absolutely no detrimental effect other than a small health impact? Just seems a touch strong to me, even for the Industrial where it shows up

IPEX-731BA5DD06 · Apr 25, 2015

I agree, a steel works should require a base load of buildings to support it, its rational economics. You can't have a 2ndry industry with out the Primary industries to support it.

As long as its scaled to map size, I have no problem with it.

City vicinity dependent wonders

Emperor

Deity

The Greatest Jaggi

Deity

Prince

Chieftain

The Greatest Jaggi

Prince

The Greatest Jaggi

Deity

The White Wizard

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Prince

Deity

Deity

Prince

The Greatest Jaggi

Deity

Similar threads