Arioch's Analyst Thread

[King Jason]

It's totally fair. You'll need far less units to defend given that A.) Cities do it themselves and B.) Defensive wars are easier. If the wonder has effects that'll last the entire game like Porcelain Tower's +2 beaker per specialist deal, then you would easily build it because as a warmonger, a tech lead is preferable and as a builder, a tech lead is still preferable..

Again, no it isn't fair because we have no idea how long it'll take us to produce the average unit. If we only need 5 units to defend our borders, that doesn't mean it isn't going to take us the same amount of turns to construct those 5 units as it would, say... a world wonder.

We don't know the relation of tile yield, pop growth, unit costs, build/wonder costs, to make the assesment based off of civ4 judgements.

Do you often have all your cities building wonders or something? 10 or 100 turns is subjective depending on game speed. If it takes you a 100 turns to build it in a certain city, you should probably build it in a city that's already developed and having other cities that can cover your back. If wonders are all made permanent, you're going to have to nerf them to compensate. Doing that would substract from the mystique of having them in the first place.

You know, I'm going to stop using numbers in my posts since apparently even after I said they're just random (I decided to use bigger numbers in my next post since you seemed to take issue with my smaller numbers, wondering if I played fast games). Obviously, there is specialization. You aren't choosing between wonders and building other things in all other cities. Production costs are taken into account, yadda yadda yadda.

But the reverse argument of what you're prettey much saying could also be put into place; If you had the production cost to build wonders all the time, why wouldn't you anyway? You said in a previous post; "If wonder bonuses were permanent, there'd be no reason not to build them" ~ Well when is there ever a reason not to build them? I think you'll find the answer to that question presents itself regardless of whether not wonder bonus is permanent or not. You build them if it aids your strategy, you build them if you can afford it. Etc.

So "There's no reason not to build them" is an irrelevant counter argument because due to the strategy of current circumstances, there's always reasons not to build wonders. Unless your arguing that one should always build permanent wonders. Which I would disagree with. Plus, you're still, for civ5, claiming someone could build every wonder... in which case... if one has the productive capabilities to do so one begs the question ~ why not try and build all wonders? If your response would be that one should try and build all wonders, then again I ask what is the difference between having them expire or not... if a player will theoretically attempt to build any wonder in any circumstance, anyway.

The ultimate point of that nonsense I just spat out is that It is by no means Wonder expirations that is the sole strategic decider as to whether players build the wonder or not... Nor is it even the major of many, unless a player is intending to do a specific thing with the wonder, which again, is dependant on the effect, not how long the effect lasts. I would argue the major strategic consideration always factors in whether the benefit of the wonder is greater than the immediate benefit of something else.

Think about it, it's the same reason why civilizations don't have a UU for every era. Like UUs, you have to decide when to take advantage of them.

I have thought about it, and it's similar social policies this way; Investment of a particular resources (production, rather than culture) to gain a game-wide effects. Except in this case, your productive output of that resource (production) is in competition with your opponents. As with wonders, your acquisition of a wonder denies the enemy of said wonder. Something that is strategically important regardless of how long it lasts.

Further, you need to deside if the bonus is worth allocating the resources away from other projects that could net a boost for your empire as a whole.

I won't convince you, but I don't believe the removal of wonder expiration equates to dumbing down the game. I consider this debate moot, because you won't convince me of the opposite, either.

It's all relative, really.

 

[12agnar0k]

Huh? I was referring to your post, here:

I know, and I was reffering to the few 5 science producing tiles in that screen shot, which were academies, I'm fairly sure the guy was asking what these improvements were that were giving 5 science. Which is why I answered, "The 5 science tiles are Academies".

 

[12agnar0k]

Yes, they are.

In this screenshot You can see aproximetly in middle-right of the map a hex that gives two apples and 5 science. (And it seems that academy have an abbacus as an icon. Cool)

Spoiler :

Yeah, the reason why the academies in the other screen shot were 5 science and nothing else would be because flat snow & desert tiles start off giving nothing at all... which would make them quite hard to start on. Infact you will probably never spawn next to only flat snow or flat ice, you will have some desert hills and oasis's, hills will probably give like 1 prod as standard or smth, and oasis may give like 2 food.
But anyway, Myth busted.

 

[AriochIV]

Wonders have always had expirations built in since the first Civilization, and I don't think we've been given any reason to believe that has changed in Civ V.

Now that's one cool Great Artist

I was hoping for an Elvis, myself.

 

[bjbrains]

Wonders have always had expirations built in since the first Civilization, and I don't think we've been given any reason to believe that has changed in Civ V.

I was hoping for an Elvis, myself.

There's no indication that they expire at all, if anything there are clear indications that they don't. We've seen tons of wonders built and under construction, but no 'obseletes with' that has been clearly marked in other Civ games. I like not having wonders expire, simply because it removes artificial changes in your tech progression (like SciMeth in Civ 4).

 

[Algeroth]

Wonders have always had expirations built in since the first Civilization, and I don't think we've been given any reason to believe that has changed in Civ V.

We always had squares, not hexes.
In the Azazell's screenshots weren't any mention about expiring buildings or wonders. Yes, it can possible appear in future versions, but i wouldn't believe it. Such feature would have been testing long ago.

 

[Calouste]

Now that's one cool Great Artist

Looks like a reference to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

 

[SJSerio]

There's no indication that they expire at all, if anything there are clear indications that they don't. We've seen tons of wonders built and under construction, but no 'obseletes with' that has been clearly marked in other Civ games. I like not having wonders expire, simply because it removes artificial changes in your tech progression (like SciMeth in Civ 4).

Personally, Wonders need to expire... their main effects anyway. They can still provide culture and stuff, and a later tech (say, Archaeology) could increase the culture or gold (representing tourism) from them for later game purposes. To let the effects of ALL early wonders makes no sense and, to me, is game breaking.

Oh yeah, and I don't understand what you mean about "artificial changes in your tech progression".

 

[Infiltrator]

Just wanted to say that you've done a great job. Keep it up.

 

[Theon]

Oh yeah, and I don't understand what you mean about "artificial changes in your tech progression".

I think he means deliberately postponing researching Scientific Method in order to keep the effects from the various wonders and buildings that are made obsolete upon discovery.

 

[Arkangelus]

What I was actually wondering/worried about was that if buildings cost maintanence now, what do you build if there's no attractive option for that city? Switching to research or wealth seems very inefficient (and might not even be possible at early points), but I'd guess it'll end up possible to be in a situation where you don't really want to build any building or unit in the city because you don't need it and it'll incur maintanence. Seems like then it'd be best to just stick a wonder in the queue to take up time/space...

 

[Calouste]

Personally, Wonders need to expire... their main effects anyway. They can still provide culture and stuff, and a later tech (say, Archaeology) could increase the culture or gold (representing tourism) from them for later game purposes. To let the effects of ALL early wonders makes no sense and, to me, is game breaking.

Oh yeah, and I don't understand what you mean about "artificial changes in your tech progression".

The effects of early Wonders should become more or less irrelevant over time or with growth of your empire. Doing so by expiring them is a rather crude way. For example, I don't see the need to expire the Colossus in Civ5. It only adds gold to water tiles in one city, and that will become a smaller and smaller part of your overall gold income as you add more cities to your empire and revenue from trade routes grows.

 

[Ahriman]

Yes, they are.

In this screenshot You can see aproximetly in middle-right of the map a hex that gives two apples and 5 science.

Ah, great. My bad. Thanks.

 

[12agnar0k]

I never found "obsoletion" an important aspect of Civ, if anything the only reason they became obsolete is because the wonder bonus was quite powerful to give a good boost to the owner in early stages but a tech advancement (such as calendar gives everyone the Oracle's mini map zoom out bonus) gives everyone the bonus so hence the old wonder bonus is now obsolete, (you dont want 1 civ getting the bonus twice at this point).
This isn't needed if the bonus isn't given twice (once by wonder and then by tech), though I do think the great wall is a bit too powerful to last the entire game. So for example, obsoletion should be present on that wonder.
I'm fairly sure, not all wonders became obsolete in previous titles, so perhaps we just haven't seen it yet, but it may well exist on some wonders.

 

[Algeroth]

What exactly Autocracy does?

Spoiler :

 

[Souron]

From the gamereactor.fi site:

Spoiler :

The social policy graphics are different. Regional variant? Older or newer build?

The liberty picture looks closer to what Classical liberty is about, but I don't like the blood behind autocracy.

EDIT: Realized they were using the older icons, so it must be old. Still, Why did they change liberty?

 

[King Jason]

but I don't like the blood behind autocracy.

I'd say it's confetti, not blood.

 

[bjbrains]

That looks like an older build: The icons for piety are the old ones.

 

[Algeroth]

It's weird build. The icons for piety are the old ones, but you can see that the icon for oligarchy (Tradition, upper row in the middle) is the newer. As this was published on 12.8. it is probably the newest preview that we have. IMHO the backround pictures are new.

 

[bjbrains]

It's weird build. The icons for piety are the old ones, but you can see that the icon for oligarchy (Tradition, upper row in the middle) is the newer. As this was published on 12.8. it is probably the newest preview that we have. IMHO the backround pictures are new.

There's no indication that it's a new build- more likely is that this is a middle-aged build, and the screenshot was taken long before the article was released.