Petra is the best wonder in civ 6

[elitetroops]

Yeah, Petra is very situational. Maybe sometimes you might have a really good spot with lots of desert hills and also production to get it up, but most of the time you can settle better cities. For China it's definitely better, or for other civs with unique improvements. Petra and Ziggurats would be great.

Having Petra up by t100 doesn't say anything, unless you also take into consideration what else you have accomplished by then and what you could have accomplished if you hadn't focused so much early resources on Petra. Basically you are saying that your second city became productive turn 100. That's a very slow start.

 

[Veriaqa]

I already have like 5 cities by then by the way. Build another 2 wonder (pyramid and hanging garden) in my capital. And some army to defend it (can't remeber how many but I'm sure it consist of atleast 3 archers and 3 swordsman). Is it a good 100 turns or I lagged behind because of the Petra?

I admit my second city only become productive after I build the Petra. And not immediately either, it took some time. But at the end of the game it was my most productive city. Producing unit at every turn.

 

[Onii-chan]

I think it depends a bit on what you define as a "good" Petra city as well. Like I had this city in one of my games about a week ago, now this is what I would call a quite obvious location to build Petra:
http://i.imgur.com/AOvosEK.jpg
(Ironically it ended up with aluminum spawning in the desert tile where I'd already planted the Spaceport so it could've been even better but oh well :s)

It's good because it has a lot of production both with Petra and without it. You can still get a lot of hammers from the woods whilst building the wonder itself, and then after it's done you can switch over to the desert hills. But a city which won't have any production to speak of until Petra is finished will have problems, and a city with a ton of production but only let's say 3 desert hills in range, it's not worth building. You're better off just placing districts on those otherwise useless desert tiles. It's just not worth the production investment unless it gives you at least like 5 desert hills/resources

 

[Veriaqa]

That screenshot, except for the northern part of the city is all desert bar 1-2 tiles, is similiar to what I got.

edit: And the lake beside the city.

 

[elitetroops]

I already have like 5 cities by then by the way. Build another 2 wonder (pyramid and hanging garden) in my capital. And some army to defend it (can't remeber how many but I'm sure it consist of atleast 3 archers and 3 swordsman). Is it a good 100 turns or I lagged behind because of the Petra?

I'd say 5 cities turn 100 is quite slow. I like to have twice as many cities by then. You can look at it this way: Petra is 400 production. Early on that same production can give you 2 settlers and 2-3 builders, even more if you use policies that boost settler/builder production. So instead of one desert city with Petra, you could have 3 non-desert cities and whatever these cities have produced since they were built. With 3 cities you'll also have 3 times as many districts placed at a time when they are still cheap. I'd take the three cities any time. 400 production can also give you more than enough units to take out a couple of neighbors by T100, which comes with free tile improvements, usually free monuments, sometimes free granaries, watermills or districts. And it also eliminates competition for all good city spots nearby.

I can imagine some situation where I'd want to build Petra, and when that happens I'm sure I'll be happy with the city once it's done. But most of the games, actually every game I've played so far, there has been better ways to invest early hammers.

 

[Ryika]

Petra is the "Best Wonder" in the same way this would be the "Best Wonder" if it existed:
"If the city this wonder is built in has at least 28 sources of stone it gains 2000 Production per Turn, if not, this wonder does nothing"

You can't just evaluate a wonder by its potential, you also have to take into account how frequently you will actually be able to make use of it, and how the wonder will do in the average situation.

Petra has lots of potential, but the right situation to build it and actually make use of even half of that potential is extremely rare and in most situations you will either not have a desert-city at all at that point, taken a large risk by building a city in the desert and hoping to get Petra to turn it into something, or a somewhat reasonable location with just a few desert hills that makes the wonder feel "meh".

Overall it's a great niche wonder and imho a wonder that's designed very well - extremely situational, and it rewards players who understand how to get it when they get a city where it's godlike - but the claim that it's top tier or even "the best" wonder in any tier list that's worth anything seems ridiculous to me for the reason stated above.

 

[caiman0815]

Surely not the best wonder, but upper tier with a desert city with hills - yes

 

[Brett Caton]

I'm a bit confused about how Petra works with districts; does a district conflict, by removing any value for that tile? So it would be a bad idea to put a hangar on a desert tile if you have Petra?

I tend to find other civs build it before I can, and they'll do it in some place with almost no desert, so I'm not very familiar with it.

 

[Jarms48]

Petra is great if you have a lot of hills, Lady of the Reeds and Marsh (doesn't directly buff those tiles, but has a lot of synergy), and/or a unique improvement.

 

[Aheadatime]

I don't talk about when you fail to get the wonder. You can apply that to every wonder Ruhr valley included.

That's not true. If you don't get Ruhr valley in a grassland/river city, you can still spam farms, mines, and districts. If you don't get Petra in an all- or mostly-desert city, you have a city that can't build farms, and thus can't grow to the optimal population to spam districts and make use of their citizens.

I'm curious. Did you play Civ5 all that much? Your enthusiasm over Petra indicates to me that it's new to you, meaning you didn't play Civ5. In Civ5 it was even better imo, as you could build trade posts on all desert tiles, and farms on deserts near oasises/lakes, and you didn't have to wait till mid/late game to build farms over hills.

 

[Magil]

Petra is very good but also requires a very specific layout. I don't think the output from flatland Desert is particularly impressive past the early game (and who wants to spend so many early game turns building it?). If you have lots of desert hills and oases, that changes, as those tiles are very good with Petra.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'd say 5 cities turn 100 is quite slow. I like to have twice as many cities by then. You can look at it this way: Petra is 400 production. Early on that same production can give you 2 settlers and 2-3 builders, even more if you use policies that boost settler/builder production. So instead of one desert city with Petra, you could have 3 non-desert cities and whatever these cities have produced since they were built. With 3 cities you'll also have 3 times as many districts placed at a time when they are still cheap. I'd take the three cities any time. 400 production can also give you more than enough units to take out a couple of neighbors by T100, which comes with free tile improvements, usually free monuments, sometimes free granaries, watermills or districts. And it also eliminates competition for all good city spots nearby.

I can imagine some situation where I'd want to build Petra, and when that happens I'm sure I'll be happy with the city once it's done. But most of the games, actually every game I've played so far, there has been better ways to invest early hammers.

This is how I feel about it. There might be a rare situation where it's a good idea, but mostly it's a waste of hammers. Instead of Petra I could have several cities (with workers to get them started) in locations that are viable even without gambling on a wonder in the Classical Era. Either that or I could build units and take down a neighbor. So far, to me, it's one of the least appealing wonders in the game.

 

[GKShaman]

Yup Personally I'd only go for Petra if I'm China Since I can rush it. The funny thing about it is you have to intentionally find 7+ tiles of desert wasteland. Petra makes hills and oasis OP sure, but you need MULTIPLE desert tiles since you will definitely need to build a Theatre Square and Industrial Zone/Encampment to use the city well mid and late game. At some point you'll have to use a Entertainment Complex and/or Spaceport/Campus. That takes away 5 tiles already which are the wonder plus districts.

Strategy Guide for it: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/chines-petra-pyramids.605179/

If I'm not China - I would never plan around Petra unless the game FORCED me to. Then I'd have to settle and go for it. If I fail I'm done, otherwise gravy.

Personally I think Colosseum (Saves a LOT of Dough), Forbidden Palace (Great Flexibility), and Estadio De Maracana (Helps Late Game Amenity Problems).

 

[Bigv32]

Reading all the posts here, it seems that most of you had trouble with building Petra. I don't get it. I already build Petra in my second city before turn 100? What I did different and clearly better than you then?

I respect your opinion on Petra, but it is not the best wonder in the game. In fact, I would say there is no one best wonder or even a wonder that is necessary. HOWEVER, I would agree if you had said Petra is one of if not the most (potentially) powerful wonders in the game. There are a couple situations where Petra becomes a 100% op wonder for 1 city.

1. Your usual desert city with a ton of dessert hills (though I honestly think they should be called dunes lol). You want a couple of Oasis's and/or sheep for food.

2. You get a city that is half on grassland and the rest is desert hills. Grasslands provide food and petra is obvisous.

3. A desert city location is not particularly strong (as in tons of flat deserts) but is in a strategic position. Use trade routes to rush the building to make the city at least somewhat productive (hint desert flatland are great for encampments and airfields).

 

[Sagax]

2. You get a city that is half on grassland and the rest is desert hills. Grasslands provide food and petra is obvisous.

From my experience this is not a good Petra city. There is a border expansion problem: Petra applies the bonus to the land in your territory, so when the border expansion algorithm chooses its next tile, it will give low priority to the desert ones - because it sees worthless yields and doesn't take Petra into account. So if you want Petra's effect to matter, chances are you will have to buy those tiles manually.

 

[steveg700]

Reading all the posts here, it seems that most of you had trouble with building Petra. I don't get it. I already build Petra in my second city before turn 100? What I did different and clearly better than you then?

I think what some folks are trying to explain is that in their estimation, founding a desert city that will be awful without Petra--which will, almost by definition, have its share of problems getting into a productive state to build Petra--is not necessarily all that enticing, since the end result will generally be a city that has gone from awful to decent. Paradoxically, a city that would greatly benefit from Petra by having a lot of desert tiles can find itself in a scenario where it's beaten to it by a city that will only benefit a little because it has only a few.

Petra's quality is variable, so that calls into question unilaterally declaring it the best wonder in the game. Better to extoll it as awesome under certain situations.

 

[Bigv32]

From my experience this is not a good Petra city. There is a border expansion problem: Petra applies the bonus to the land in your territory, so when the border expansion algorithm chooses its next tile, it will give low priority to the desert ones - because it sees worthless yields and doesn't take Petra into account. So if you want Petra's effect to matter, chances are you will have to buy those tiles manually.

There is a border expansion problem for every city in every game I have found. I have spent more gold buying tiles in the few weeks civ 6 has been out then I did in all of civ5 lol. Besides, a cheap tile buy early pays for itself in about 30 turns so it is not that bad. Also, at least by the time you buy the tile, your city has had time to grow and be useful for other things.

 

[Onii-chan]

From my experience this is not a good Petra city. There is a border expansion problem: Petra applies the bonus to the land in your territory, so when the border expansion algorithm chooses its next tile, it will give low priority to the desert ones - because it sees worthless yields and doesn't take Petra into account. So if you want Petra's effect to matter, chances are you will have to buy those tiles manually.

Well you're just gonna have to suck it up and spend some gold on buying tiles. Border expansion in general is much slower in Civ VI compared to Civ V so that's something you normally have to do for pretty much any city anyway

 

[Sagax]

Well you're just gonna have to suck it up and spend some gold on buying tiles. Border expansion in general is much slower in Civ VI compared to Civ V so that's something you normally have to do for pretty much any city anyway

Sure thing. But in relation to Petra in a half-desert city this is one more thing to take into account.

 

[Kougar7]

As others have said it's highly situational. If you can't get a city going early and provide it with early production then great, all the better if ya can rush an engineer on it. But the AI in Emperor games is reasonably fast at rushing petra if it has the option to build it. Not sure if it's because I'm in industrial era but I don't have the ability to construct anything in dessert hexes, not even a farm next to an oasis. So even though I have Petra all desert hexes are basically useless unless they are hills, or the Civ has a special building it can make.