Avoiding the building of Wonders!

[mintyfreshdeath]

This is in reference to Ision's excellent post regarding Wonders and how they can play a part in hindering your ability to improve as a player.
Here 'tis http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71238

OK! Just a bit of background on myself so you know where I'm coming from.
I started playing Civ2 in '98 and have been a slavering fool to the game ever since. My girlfriend has learned to accept it. I've developed a genuine interest in world history as a result. Blah blah blah.

I've been playing Civ3 (I have Conquests now) for about three months or so and I'd say I'm doing fine. What wins I have had so far have been on Regent level and have been cultural victories. So far, I have done quite well!
In fact, almost all games I've played so far I've dominated the map.. the cultural victory is somthing of a disappointment for me as I am progressively gutting my opponents. Disappointing as in.. I'm disappointed that I forgot to turn that victory condition off.
OK... thanks for being patient! Here is the crux of my point.
The only reason I've done well is because I've been a RABID reloader and rely on building wonders is if I needed them to breathe. This is a habit formed from my earlier days as a Civ2 player and have been carried over effortlessly to my Civ3 experience (I was delighted when I discovered the option of turning off the Random Seed).
Things have changed, thank you Ision! Truly benevolent are your words! haha
I'm playing a random *everything* map, with those militia jungle farmboys the Aztec - militaristc, agricultural. There is a real pleasure in *discovering* with whom you are playing as opposed to carefully selecting beforehand your civ of choice.
I'm doing quite well so far too! No reloading and no wonders. I have made the exception for small wonders although for all intents and purposes they really ought to count as well. I'm not gonna beat myself up over it.
To keep this post from becoming a novel, I've learned two important things. The value of trading for tech and the value of a large offensive force (I thought catapults were crap up until this point).
Thanks again Ision! Has anybody else taken this advice on board? What are your experiences?

 

[h4ppy]

In my experiences it is best to reply in the topic when you are repling to the topic.

 

[Commander Bello]

As I already posted in that respective thread, I don't regard Isions hints as really helpful.
With the same argumentation I could advise any new player to avoid building swordmen, or temples, or whatever... If he learns to survive without that given feature, he will do better later on.

Ision advised new players to get rid of their assumed extreme wonder-orientation, which would make them build wonders all the time, at all the wrong places, by adopting an extreme playstyle. So, just replace one extreme by the other.

Since wonders are part of the game, the advise to disregard a certain part of the whole concept is like advising somebody to close his eyes, when going from one room to the other. This may help in making better use of your ears, or your sense of touch, but I really don't see, why you are expected to do better in using colours, later on.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

In my experiences it is best to reply in the topic when you are repling to the topic.

__________________

Thanks h4ppy but I'm not replying to the topic, I'm making my own topic, in reference to it. Is that ok?

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Commander Bello, I can't imagine not building wonders would be an ongoing strategy. However, and maybe I should have been more specific in my original post, it IS an excellent way to learn how to play without relying on the huge advantages many of the wonders give you.
The game I'm playing now.. with the Aztecs, is on Regent and I'm competing against a remaining total of 13 civs. Since I can't build wonders I am relying on conquest in war to gain power. It's the only meaningful way I am going to gain any foothold in this game.
Anyway, I'm really enjoying trying something different. Having played the Civ series for years I've found my strategies have become entrenched and inflexible.
So yeah...

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by mintyfreshdeath
Since I can't build wonders I am relying on conquest in war to gain power.
Anyway, I'm really enjoying trying something different. Having played the Civ series for years I've found my strategies have become entrenched and inflexible.
So yeah...

You've given me a fresh look at my progress as a player. Moving up to more challenging levels has made me pretty much despair of getting the Wonders I want, so I've compensated by relying on war and conquest. (My revenge, I think!)

But that's a good insight: strategies do tend to become intrenched and inflexible (especially when they work!) so try something different. You're bound to grow as a player, and maybe have more fun, too.

For a fresh start, try randomizing your starting choices. Letting it pick which civ YOU will play really opens up your creativity. (Like, "How in the world can i win with these traits?? And this UU? And this position?" etc.) The best part is when you do manage to pull off a win that you didn't think was possible...

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

You've given me a fresh look at my progress as a player. Moving up to more challenging levels has made me pretty much despair of getting the Wonders I want, so I've compensated by relying on war and conquest. (My revenge, I think!)

hahaha.. thanks, but I don't take credit for that idea and as far as I know, it's quite common among very skilled players.
I make mention of Ision's post because he wrote it well, which often makes all the difference for me. That, and the fact that I had never thought to play a game without the benefit of wonders..
I totally agree about the random thing. There really is something cool about finding out who you are playing as rather than making that careful, thoughtful choice beforehand. Playing a random size and type map is fun too. Having little clue as to what awaits you makes it alllllll the sweeter

 

[TerraHero]

not build wonders?

its a part of my strategie and the way i build my empire.

inner ring wil grow obsolete when the second ring can take over settler and milirairy production...

so why waste my time in building more units that i don't need if i can build a wonder tat makes my units stronger/faster/more usefull.

Universal suufrage is usefull as well, stops a good portion of war weariness, so not switching all the time.

not building wonders is pure DUMB, if u can afford it and do it..DO IT. Like in my Rise of Rome scenario, i got so many legions and already pushed Cartage to the wall i'm building ToA, gives nice temples everywhere making my borders expand, so why go without that?

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Yeah.. but can you win without building wonders? Have you ever tried?

 

[Yumbo]

I think that the argument is being misrepresented here.

Ision's argument is that new players are often obsessed with building wonders, and that at the easiest levels, you can pretty much build them all. However, as you move up in dofficulty, that reliance on wonders can be fatal.

If you focus your opening on expansion and infrastructure and a few well-chosen wars, you will have a much stronger foundation for your middle and end games.

Choices you make in the opening have substantial ramifications for the later game. For example, spending 35 turns with yor most productive city building the Oracle, instead of cranking out settlers, workers, and improvements.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by mintyfreshdeath
Yeah.. but can you win without building wonders? Have you ever tried?

Did you ever try to win without creating swordmen? That is, when you were not playing a civ with a replacing UU for it.

Or, did you ever try a cultural victory without building libraries?

As I already have stated: to abstain from something, which just belongs to the game, may boost your personal confidence in you and your playing abilities. If it really helps you, could very well be discussed.

If a new player were to follow this advise from the very beginning, then he probably ends up at Monarch or Emperor and there, has no clue what to do with wonders. All he knows is, that his playing style so far doesn't help him anymore.

If there is anything correct in that advise, then just that nobody should rely on a wonder, which he gets almost everytime at a lower level. This can easily be proven by reading the many postings about how decisive the Great Library (or the Pyramids)seems to be.
But that, you learn just automatically.

I really think, the assumption that somebody at a certain point is no longer able to proceed and that this fact is based on him having used wonders before, is somewhat one-dimensional.

 

[TerraHero]

wonders are great, being obsessed with building them doens't make u a bad player.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Yumbo
[...]
For example, spending 35 turns with yor most productive city building the Oracle, instead of cranking out settlers, workers, and improvements.

Although I agree that one shouldn't stick to THAT (THAT = meaning any wonder, that seems to be a MUST) wonder, why not getting the Oracle early in the game? It could give you a good start for your race towards cultural victory. And it helps your commerce, making your civ more stable by this.
The expansion of your civ is limited, due to mapsize, location you come up and neighboring civs...
So, the assumption that you could "crank out" those settlers almost infinitely, most times doesn't stand the test of the game. At least at a certain point their marching would just last to many turns. The same spot, they would reach, could have been reached with other settlers from cities more nearby much easier.

If I play on a certain level and my fifth citizen already is an entertainer automatically, there really is the question, whether I should build the colosseum or the cathedral at that town, only to have six contents in, later. With the same amount of shields I can easily send out some settlers from that town!

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I've not tried winning in the absence of swordsmen or temples or whatnot. Playing without wonders is the first game I've played in which I've deliberately put myself at a handicap.
But yeah, these are great ideas since doing so will almost invariably force you into making up for these self imposed disadvantages with new strategies.
But you are right, in that, when making reference to Ision's post I should have pointed out that it was intended as advice against relying overly on one or two key wonders. Certainly, it's something I've done with almost every game of Civ2 and 3 I've played. Often, if I am pipped at the post by another civ when building a wonder I really want, I'll end the game and start again in frustration. I've never really learned how to play without relying on a science city or Sun Tzu's.
Anyway, in some ways it's probably more accurate. I mean, when the Egyptians built the Pyramids, they didn't get free granaries.

 

[TedJackson]

Playing any variant game will strengthen your general gameplay as nearly all variants reduce the scope of the game.

So try an AW (Always War) game - where trading is only allowed on the first contact with each AI. Or a Spaceship Launch with no self research allowed - Almost the direct opposite, as you need to hone your trading skills to stay up in tech.

These variants effectively remove one of the major game mechanics, simplifying the game somewhat. Perhaps, allowing you the opportunity to discover more about what remains.


Ted

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Thanks Ted, those are excellent suggestions. It's good to be reminded every once in a while that I am playing a strategy game, if you know what I mean...

 

[frank_mosta]

Originally posted by Commander Bello

As I already have stated: to abstain from something, which just belongs to the game, may boost your personal confidence in you and your playing abilities. If it really helps you, could very well be discussed.

If a new player were to follow this advise from the very beginning, then he probably ends up at Monarch or Emperor and there, has no clue what to do with wonders. All he knows is, that his playing style so far doesn't help him anymore.

I allow for the fact that reasonable people can disagree, but it seems you're either missing or misrepresenting the point. It's fact that when a player moves up a level, she's presented with a new set of challenges. Some are quantitative (for example, one less naturally happy citizen), and some are qualitative (for example, not being able to beat all the AIs to all the good WoWs). All these challenges at once might be overwhelming.

Ision's suggestion could be phrased generally as imposing on yourself some of the qualitative challenges that you would see on that next level, but keeping the quanitative challenges of the current level. You could think of it as a way of increasing the difficulty half a notch.

You sarcastically suggest not using swordsmen, but that's not really so far-fetched. Because of the resource scarcity in C3C, I can easily imagine a player who consistently gets iron early on Regent and proceeds to dominate, but often can't get iron on Monarch (due to more rapid AI expansion) and proceeds to get clobbered. A reasonable prescription would be to play on Regent with the self-imposed no-swordsmen handicap. This would give the chance to explore no-iron tactics in an otherwise safe environment, and develop skills useful for going and seizing iron in the harsher setting.

Isolating a specific phenomenon (no iron, or fewer WoWs) for study is the essence of science, and the benefits go far beyond increased self-esteem. Good work, Ision.

@Yumbo: Yeah, you already said that.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by frank_mosta

I allow for the fact that reasonable people can disagree,[...]

Isolating a specific phenomenon (no iron, or fewer WoWs) for study is the essence of science, and the benefits go far beyond increased self-esteem.
[...]

a) Thanks a lot in the name of the reasonable people
b) with the second paragraph quoted by me, we seem to be not the far from the other's point of view.
But, and this is my deepest opinion, with staying abstinent from wonders, I don't isolate a specific phenomen.
There is a great variency of wonders available, some give me benefits in technology, some propel my people's growth, some help my military, others improve the speed of some units and so on....

So, as far as I see it, whenever I don't go for wonders I leave a huge variety of possible positions of points.
This becomes obvious at the very beginning of the game, already. Under the assumption, that I start my first wonder in a city which has access to the sea, I might be outraced for the Colossus, I even don't get the Pyramids, but maybe I get the Oracle instead. And at last, maybe I don't get any of them.
I'm pretty sure that you will agree to the statement that any of those four possible outcomes will have an influence to the further path of the game. As not getting any of those wonders will not make me automatically loose my game, none of them will make me win, either.
But, there are now four different paths open for me to explore (in principle).
That is, four additional paths to the just one, of not going for wonders at all.
As increasing in skills is something we could name "gamers evolution", we are dependant on the "environmental influences" we encounter. If we reduce those influences, we specialize ourselves. Specialization may help in a given environment, but may severely hinder us in another one.

It is my absolute confirmdness that in a game as complex as Civ3, we have to be generalists to be able to cope whatever the game offers us as a test for ourselves.
So, I'll stay to my opinion: make use of any chance which the game offers, but don't rely on your divine right to get this chance under any circumstances. This will propel your improvement, not the limitation.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

Indeed, to be a generalist is to be flexible and capable of dealing effectively with most situations. A civ without wonders of any kind is something of a generic civ. There are precious few modifiers to this civ - save for a few luxury resources.

In this Aztec game I'm having... I'm preparing for a massive middle age war... there are civs *everywhere* cluttering up the place. Soon they're going to have Economics and will be racing to build Adam Smith's. Considering that's one of my favorite wonders, it's going to be hard resisting the temptation, particularly as my civ's economy is faltering under the weight of a huge army.

 

[frank_mosta]

Originally posted by Commander Bello

b) [...] we seem to be not the far from the other's point of view.
But, and this is my deepest opinion, with staying abstinent from wonders, I don't isolate a specific phenomen.

Ah, I think I understand. In fact, there are two WoW issues when moving up a level, which are difficult to disentagle. One issue is that you don't get as many (or any) of them. The other is that, of the ones you do get, you have less choice among the "desirable" ones. This is a valuable comment.

So now it is a matter of taste which is the more serious issue. If the first, clearly Ision's suggestion is pertinent. If the second, well, a different experiment is in order.

I think I agree with your point b).