Wonders coming too late

[Surtur]

Well I think this is a general civ4 problem but it really bothers me. And because this mod is starting 3000 BC and we have only 3 civs at the beginning the wonders are built way to late.
From my latest game as Rome:

- Stonehenge 1225 BC (in reality built between 2500 - 2000 BC or earlier)
- Oracle 30 BC (don't know really )
- Pyramids 50 AD (~2500 BC)
- Collosus 530 AD (292 - 280 BC)
- Parthenon 710 AD (~500 BC ?)
- Hanging Gardens 760 AD (600 BC)
- Great Library 900 AD (~300 BC ?)
...
The Great Lighthouse has not been built until now (1100 AD).

Just some ideas:
I think cost should be lowered for all early wonders. For Collosus remove forge as a prerequisite. Hanging Gardens shouldn't need an aqueduct, Great Library not a library etc.

 

[Blasphemous]

Another good way to make wonders appear realistically would be to add several "half-price" factors that should likely be available to the civ that would historically create the wonder. Then it wouldn't be so cheap that just anybody will build it, but the right civ is likely to get a good shot at it at the right time.

 

[Barak]

Well the old 1/2 price factor was an industrious leader.

 

[Bolleque]

But now it could be specifical for a civ - like Pyramid for Egypt; Parthenon for Greece etc.
However distribution of such bonus is not even - but as history went. It might require some more balance fine tuning but it is rather feasible.

 

[HÄI]

But now it could be specifical for a civ - like Pyramid for Egypt; Parthenon for Greece etc.
However distribution of such bonus is not even - but as history went. It might require some more balance fine tuning but it is rather feasible.

One civ could get one wonder bonus, so that Greece would get the Parthenon easily but not the Oracle, and Egypt the Pyramids but not the Lighthouse... or vice versa. Or the civ could have a random sized bonus to all of it's historical wonders, though then Persia might need one of it's own. The Royal Road?

 

[Blasphemous]

Civ-specific prices for wonders is too deterministic if you ask me. The right way to do it is to use seemingly non-specific requirements for a few cost cuts, but choose requirements that are all things that the right civ is likely to have.
For example, the Pyramids. Give them half-price for each of the resoruces in the area that Egypt should have with its first city once-expanded. Then, let's say we decide to make Egypt's UP, as suggested, that they can build an Egyptian Temple in cities where there is no religion (so they are the first to have religiosu buildings), then we can make the Pyramids require at least three temples in your empire. Nobody else will have that until religion starts spreading, and by then Egypt will use its other cost-cuts to build the Pyramids. We can also add other cost-cut factors or even requirements, like the city must have a desert tile in its radius to build it, and half-price if there's a river in the city's radius, and stuff like that. You will get a combination where anybody can build the wonder, but only civs with the right conditions (the conditions the right civ had) will be able to do it easily.

 

[Eddiit]

Civ-specific prices for wonders is too deterministic if you ask me. The right way to do it is to use seemingly non-specific requirements for a few cost cuts, but choose requirements that are all things that the right civ is likely to have.
For example, the Pyramids. Give them half-price for each of the resoruces in the area that Egypt should have with its first city once-expanded. Then, let's say we decide to make Egypt's UP, as suggested, that they can build an Egyptian Temple in cities where there is no religion (so they are the first to have religiosu buildings), then we can make the Pyramids require at least three temples in your empire. Nobody else will have that until religion starts spreading, and by then Egypt will use its other cost-cuts to build the Pyramids. We can also add other cost-cut factors or even requirements, like the city must have a desert tile in its radius to build it, and half-price if there's a river in the city's radius, and stuff like that. You will get a combination where anybody can build the wonder, but only civs with the right conditions (the conditions the right civ had) will be able to do it easily.

I dont know about the whole wonders thing. Of all the suggestions I like these the best but I just dont feel wonders need to be any easier to make.

 

[dh_epic]

I would avoid anything too hardwired. Civ-specific costs is going to be pretty annoying. Resource-based bonuses are something worth fiddling with, however.

It might even be a good idea to give Greece a trait similar to Industrious, since so many classical wonders are Greek.

If you make a wonder cheaper, you have to make its effect smaller. Vice versa, if you make a wonder more expensive, you have to make its effect bigger. Game balance is EXTREMELY important.

The final word: trying to get timeline realism in Civilization is DAMN hard. You can drive yourself crazy trying to get it just right. At the end of the day, if you're within a few dozen turns of the right year, you're doing okay.

 

[Eddiit]

I would avoid anything too hardwired. Civ-specific costs is going to be pretty annoying. Resource-based bonuses are something worth fiddling with, however.

It might even be a good idea to give Greece a trait similar to Industrious, since so many classical wonders are Greek.

If you make a wonder cheaper, you have to make its effect smaller. Vice versa, if you make a wonder more expensive, you have to make its effect bigger. Game balance is EXTREMELY important.

The final word: trying to get timeline realism in Civilization is DAMN hard. You can drive yourself crazy trying to get it just right. At the end of the day, if you're within a few dozen turns of the right year, you're doing okay.

My point exactly. As he said we need to avoid too much hardwiring.

 

[Arkaeyn]

On the other hand, if indeed wonders are ALWAYS showing up later than when they were build, something in the mod isn't working. The best way around this is more turns in the Ancient World.

 

[dh_epic]

More turns isn't a bad idea.

Here's a radical idea, but something that would be much more effective: get rid of the year entirely. Simply display "Ancient Era", or "Classical Era" or "Medieval Era", in the bottom right hand corner along with the number of turns passed. And the Era would be defined relative to the tech leader, or the tech loser, or the tech median.

That way you would never have to worry about a single timing issue ever again.

 

[SilverKnight]

I would avoid anything too hardwired. Civ-specific costs is going to be pretty annoying. Resource-based bonuses are something worth fiddling with, however.

Agreed. And resource-based bonuses are already present for building/wonder construction; you mean you would want to edit them, right?

The final word: trying to get timeline realism in Civilization is DAMN hard. You can drive yourself crazy trying to get it just right. At the end of the day, if you're within a few dozen turns of the right year, you're doing okay.

That's what we should strive for; the wonders being built a little before or after they were IRL, unless it'll totally break the gameplay.

SilverKnight

 

[Eddiit]

More turns isn't a bad idea.

Here's a radical idea, but something that would be much more effective: get rid of the year entirely. Simply display "Ancient Era", or "Classical Era" or "Medieval Era", in the bottom right hand corner along with the number of turns passed. And the Era would be defined relative to the tech leader, or the tech loser, or the tech median.

That way you would never have to worry about a single timing issue ever again.

Actually I dont think thats too bad of an idea.

 

[V. Soma]

More turns isn't a bad idea.

Here's a radical idea, but something that would be much more effective: get rid of the year entirely. Simply display "Ancient Era", or "Classical Era" or "Medieval Era", in the bottom right hand corner along with the number of turns passed. And the Era would be defined relative to the tech leader, or the tech loser, or the tech median.

That way you would never have to worry about a single timing issue ever again.

I like this idea!
But still, I would keep the "candy" of counting years

 

[Rhye]

More turns isn't a bad idea.

Here's a radical idea, but something that would be much more effective: get rid of the year entirely. Simply display "Ancient Era", or "Classical Era" or "Medieval Era", in the bottom right hand corner along with the number of turns passed. And the Era would be defined relative to the tech leader, or the tech loser, or the tech median.

That way you would never have to worry about a single timing issue ever again.

!!!! Great idea if modded a bit...

I would show the years as soon as Calendar is discovered

 

[dh_epic]

Glad people think it's a basically good idea. Any adaptation might still be good. I leave it to Rhye to figure it out, once he's taken care of other priorities.

 

[Elhoim]

Yep, but still some more ancient turns wouldn´t hurt...

 

[Rhye]

on topic, is wonders distribution more appropriate to the civs that are building them in 093?

 

[SilverKnight]

Is this a feature?

SilverKnight

 

[Arkaeyn]

Speaking of wonders, one that comes too early is The Sistine Chapel. I usually see that someone's made it when I'm still Classical.