5 Lowest Priority Early Wonders

5 low priority wonders:

  • Angkor Wat

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Chichen Itza

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Colossus

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Great Library

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Great Lighthouse

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • Great Wall

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Hagia Sophia

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Hanging Gardens

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Himeji Castle

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • Machu Picchu

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • Mausoleum of Halicarnassus

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Oracle

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Porcelain Tower

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Pyramids

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Statue of Zeus

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Stonehenge

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • Temple of Artemis

    Votes: 7 25.0%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .

Thalassicus

Bytes and Nibblers
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,057
Location
Texas
Which five early World Wonders are a low priority, even when the circumstances are favorable?


For example:

  • The Pyramids are always available, so if you rarely build them, that wonder is a low priority.
  • If you get the Colossus whenever you have marble on a coastal start, it is high priority.
 
Tough to say, there are often opportunities when I might have the opportunity to start a wonder, but won't try to build it because the chance of losing the race is high and the opportunity cost isn't worth it.

I find the new Stonehenge to be weak (I preferred the culture-boosting version), and the Great Wall isn't that useful to me.

But on many others, I'm still not familiar enough with their new effects after all the various changes.

Also note, many people don't have the extra wonders DLC.
 
I don't build most wonders.

I restricted my vote to truly early wonders.

I included all 3 of the new ones, but may change my mind about them.

And to stress what I've said elsewhere, I've never even thought of building the new Stonehenge until the GotVEM, and think I've changed my mind even in that picture-perfect location (because of America's UA). But I will think about it more often in the future.
 
I voted for Stonehenge and the two ocean wonders. The ocean ones are actually pretty good now, but typically ocean-side cities have lower production and hard-building them carries a *strong* risk of losing to an AI and I don't feel the gold compensation is sufficient to warrant the risk.
 
I voted for Stonehenge and the two ocean wonders. The ocean ones are actually pretty good now, but typically ocean-side cities have lower production and hard-building them carries a *strong* risk of losing to an AI and I don't feel the gold compensation is sufficient to warrant the risk.

That's how I voted, and for the same reasons.
 
Part of the problem with Stonehenge; if I am going for it or other early wonders, I am probably playing a "Tall" strategy with Tradition (otherwise I'm probably building more military or settlers). But if I'm using Tradition, I already have faster border spread from the policy, so the border capture from Stoneghenge has terrible synergy.

Basically, with a Tradition start, the science bonus from Great Library or the expansion bonus from Pyramids are probably much more useful; Pyramids makes up for the fact that I'm not building more workers/settlers early (because I'm building a wonder), library makes up for the fact that my science is lower (because I'm not building multiple cities) and that I'm probably going to be building a science-capital super-city [in my current Ottomans game where I wonder-whored and went tall/specialist economy, my Great Library capital has 5 academies and brings in ~200+ science per turn - I think the Great library probably needs its GPP output cut down.].

I'm not sure about the idea that Great Lighthouse or Colossus have stronger risk of losing the race. If my capital is on the coast, then I have a pretty strong chance of getting them if I beeline; I have to compete with every other civ for the Great Library or Pyramids, but I only have to compete with civs with a coastal capital for the coastal wonders. And if my capital has less production because it is coastal, chances are so to do theirs.
 
Part of the problem with Stonehenge; if I am going for it or other early wonders, I am probably playing a "Tall" strategy with Tradition (otherwise I'm probably building more military or settlers). But if I'm using Tradition, I already have faster border spread from the policy, so the border capture from Stoneghenge has terrible synergy.

Bingo.
 
Whereas in contrast; when I am playing a Tall strategy, an early wonder that gives a significant culture income is very valuable in kick-starting my policy acquisition - particularly towards Monarchy which can help me get a second early wonder.
 
I said Angkor Wat, Statue of Zeus, Temple of Artemis, Stonehenge, and the Great Wall.

My comments on each, and why I didn't pick some others:
Angkor Wat- If I am playing for CS, I probably already have many allies and the rest are bought up. This makes this bonus rather useless, like the Aesthetics policy. Besides, the one time I did build it it didn't do anything. That hasn't helped lol

Statue of Zeus- Its nice, but if I'm playing tall/conquest (which would be why I want a conquering wonder), I would probably rather have a different wonder (Great Library?)

Temple of Artemis- Same as Status of Zeus.

Stonehenge- As Ahriman said, terrible synergy with a tall, wonder-building civ.

Great Wall- If I have the tech edge to build the wonder, I will have the tech edge that makes it obsolete really early.

Great Lighthouse- Actually kinda nice for the free lighthouse without having to research Optics. Not worth it, but not as bad as these others.

Colossus- If I have the tech for Colossus, I can't build workboats and lighthouses. Still good otherwise though.

Machu Pichu- It isn't clear what the special tile provides, so I can never gauge if its worth it.

Mausoleum of Halicarnassus- Better for the gold per marble/stone than for the gold per GP. I think it should be more about the GP.

Porcelain Tower- Doesn't seem like it actually gives that much...
 
I think I didn't word this poll very well. :crazyeye:

What I was trying to ask is when we do build wonders (peaceful games, or marble + expansionist/militaristic) which wonders are least valuable out of choices that support our circumstances? Obviously we're not going to build a peaceful wonder in a military game or vice versa. For example, with coastal marble starts I always beeline for the Colossus or Great Lighthouse, even in expansionist games. Do others leave marble unused in these situations?
 
I think I didn't word this poll very well. :crazyeye:

What I was trying to ask is when we do build wonders (peaceful games, or marble + expansionist/militaristic) which wonders are least valuable out of choices that support our circumstances? Obviously we're not going to build a peaceful wonder in a military game or vice versa. For example, with coastal marble starts I always beeline for the Colossus or Great Lighthouse, even in expansionist games. Do others leave marble unused in these situations?

Did we not answer this question? I was pointing out why I do not use certain wonders, and why some wonders are passable under certain circumstances. Is this not what you want to know?
 
What I was trying to ask is, when we start with marble in wide or conquest games:

  • Do you feel the Temple of Artemis worth investing in for leaders with archer UUs like Elizabeth and Genghis Khan?
  • On coastlines do you get the Colossus or Great Lighthouse?
  • Etc...
Never try to explain things late at night after a long day's work! :lol: I didn't phrase the question well, which gave poll results more along the lines of "which wonders are specialized," information we already know. I talked with my brother a while to come up with a different way to phrase the question... if I explained it better now, what are your thoughts on the subject?
 
If I explained this better... what are your thoughts on the question I was trying to go for? If you start with Marble in wide or conquest games, which wonders do you prioritize?

Having already said, like others, that I don't set any sort of priority for Stonehenge, I would say that I tried the Lighthouse on your advice in the right circumstances, and found it useful. Also the Pyramids (in one iteration) and Hanging Gardens.
 
In wide or conquest games with powerful resources in the 2nd to 4th rings from the capital, it takes a long time to expand there naturally. Purchasing things in the 3rd ring costs about 200-300:c5gold: per tile, so immediately acquiring those tiles is worth 2000-3000:c5gold:. There might be a connection between these:

  • Stonehenge
  • Great Lighthouse
  • Great Merchants
  • Colossus
What these have in common is they give 1000s :c5gold: of gold in the very early game. I've been adding more and more gold, yet they're still rated poorly. Great Scientists only give ~300:c5science: from lightbulbing, yet are considered more important. In previous versions of civilization 1 gold equaled 1 science, and it seems detaching gold from science in Civ 5 broke the balance somehow. I'm not sure how to fix this... anyone have ideas?
 
In wide or conquest games when there's powerful resources in the 2nd to 4th rings from the capital, it takes a long time to expand there naturally. Purchasing things in the 3rd ring costs about 200-300:c5gold: per tile, so immediately acquiring those tiles is worth several thousand gold... in theory. Why is is the value perceived as lower in practice?

Well, there are several reasons why I wouldn't use Stonehenge in wide or conquest.

1. I probably only need one or 2 of those tiles. I can afford to just buy 1 or 2 tiles, they don't cost that much.
2. If I went wide, I would just build a new city near those resources.
3. During the time I construct Stonehenge, I'm not building a worker to work the tiles I claim with Stonehenge anyway.
4. If I go wide, I won't have the population to work those extra tiles at my capital anyway. Usually the capital has enough good resources that it doesn't matter if I wait a bit to grab the last ones.
5. I would rather build a different wonder.


Personally, I rarely go wide (and never conquest). I almost always go tall, and Stonehenge is totally useless for that.

EDIT: Gah, you edited your post so now I feel like I didn't answer your question.

The Colossus I build because the +8 gold per turn works without population, and the +1 gold/tile is useful later. Great Lighthouse is the same way, the free lighthouse is nice now and later, and the Merchant is pretty sweet.

Stonehenge gives you bonuses now, when you really aren't ready to use them. Usually by the time you're ready to use them, you would've grabbed the tiles normally anyway, through new cities, culture, or purchase.
 
Yeah... I'm editing a lot because it's late at night and I'm trying to figure out how to put the thoughts in my head down on paper, without it turning into gibberish. I should probably get some sleep! :lol:
 
Out of curiosity: Have any of you guys actually *built* Stonehenge? I thought it lackluster when Thal made the change ... and then I tried building it, and it easily proved itself one of the best early wonders. Switching between food and production focus makes incredible changes with 20+ tiles to choose from. And let's not forget, it won't be long until those luxury and strategic resources in the fourth and fifth rings will become available!

The pyramids are the biggest loser for me: why should I pay twice the hammer cost for a settler? If I'm going wide, the settler and the worker speed are given through Liberty, so I don't see the utility. If I'm going small/tall I'll take it if it's still around when it'll cost <10 turns. My suggestion here is that it provide a settler and a worker.
 
In wide or conquest games with powerful resources in the 2nd to 4th rings from the capital, it takes a long time to expand there naturally. Purchasing things in the 3rd ring costs about 200-300 per tile, so immediately acquiring those tiles is worth 2000-3000.
That is a weak argument IMO. In a wide or conquest game the opportunity cost of building a wonder early is very high. In a wide game, resources in the third ring will probably be in the second ring of another city. There is no way that I am ever going to buy more than a couple of tiles, so claiming that it is "worth" 2000-3000 gold is absurd. It isn't worth the amount it would cost to achieve effect X when effect X isn't something I go for. Cost != value for something that you don't buy.

What these have in common is they give 1000s of gold in the very early game. I've been adding more and more gold, yet they're still rated poorly. Great Scientists only give ~300 from lightbulbing, yet are considered more important. In previous versions of civilization 1 gold equaled 1 science, and it seems detaching gold from science in Civ 5 broke the balance somehow. I'm not sure how to fix this... anyone have ideas?
I'm not sure that a fix is needed (except for stonehenge). Thousands of gold early on is *incredibly* powerful for purchasing some food or culture buildings or CS alliances, I just think people don't necessarily realize it yet.
I think the main reason people are leery of colossus/lighthouse is because of the coastal requirement, not because of the
I'm playing a game as England now where I snagged both colossus and lighthouse, and London is an insane gold producer, especially in midgame now that I have market/bank/treasury and 3 customhouses (and have finished commerce tree).

But there is a huge difference between something that actually gives lots and lots of gold, and something that gives something "worth" lots of gold - that in practice isn't really worth lots of gold.
 
Top Bottom