How about incresing cost of wonders in rank?

A WONDER(FUL?) IDEA

I would like to propose an idea of my Hungarian friend Söör
(co-creator of Roads and Lands - a mod plan...)

Why not cut back the leader civs (snowball effect) a little bit?
Why not give wonder building a bit more decision-situation?

IDEA:

Let's make every coming wonder after a FINSHED and posessed wonder
cost gradually more than the basic value:

so

1. wonder needs 100% of original hammer cost
say the civ has the wonder under its belt, fine. then:

2. wonder (would) need 100 + X % of original hammer cost

3. wonder: 100 + 2X % and so on!

x might be as wished...
or even the + can be * of whatever

opinions?

As I said before, I like it, even if just as an option.

IMHO - a bad idea - why bother building early wonders if they increase the cost of later ones make very little sense - a lot of the early wonder bonus ( other than culture) tend to go obsolete leaving you in this case with a building which actually inhibits you

well, it make you face decisions

(and the plus % not need to be THAT big )

it's more a case of logic - say you have 2 culture a and b - say A builds the pyramids , stonehenge etc while B just churns out warriors and forges etc - then fast forward to modern age - A who has organised itself to build wonders at determent of his own army / general development - finds he's suddenly stunted with obsolete wonders holding back his development due to increased cost of wonders - and B having developed in a different way finds he is able to build all the modern wonders as they cost less to him as well has having probably better developed industry due to having not built the earlier wonder which now do not really have any value other than memories.

Wel, certainly there has to be an investigation on the question whether
having significantly more wonders in the (say) first half of the game
does mean a lead that leads to more or less certain victory?

If yes, then tehere is sense in the idea of this topic...

If though we find that wonders are not REALLY WELL balanced as a concept,
then it can have some sense - just once more,
the modifier proposed does not have to be big!

V. Soma said:

just once more,
the modifier proposed does not have to be big!

Click to expand...

Actually, yes it does if it is to make any sense to bother implementing it.

How often would a 1-2% difference matter? Almost never, and if it isn't going to matter then why do it?

Do you often find youself with 10-15 wonders and still building more? If you do, you should probably be looking at moving up a dificulty level (unless you are doing a peaceful builder thing on a big map with only a small number of opponents, but that is an abnormal case). If you find yourself in a position where the AI is, then maybe moving down a level might be good.

Also, have you considered the effects on the AI and how to weight the late-game penalties in its decisions as to if/when it should try building a wonder? If you don't address that, then this would be AI-unfriendly.

Then there are the regious Shrines. Those are techincally Wonders that are set as unbuildable. Do they count towards the penalties?

And then, how about captured wonders? If I capture Stonehenge during the Modern Era would the penalty apply? Or would it count only those that I actually built myself?

well, it make you face decisions

Click to expand...

Facing decisions is not inherently good (or bad) - it depends on the nature of the decision. Additionally, this does not really add another decision, it merely changes the factors involved in an existing decision : Do I build Wonder X, Building Y, or Unit Z?