Avoiding the building of Wonders!

[mintyfreshdeath]

If you abstain from building wonders you DO isolate a specific phenomonen.... if wonders are not a specific phenomonen in themselves then what are they and why build them?

 

[Ision]

A few of the readers of my wonder article have misinterpreted the intent of the article. I do not wish to go into the subject again. In my opinion both the intent and goals of the strategy are clearly stated at the beginning of the article. Nevertheless, I will cut and paste the opening statements and a post by JustBen that sums up the article:

Let me start by saying that I DO build wonders, and I think they are a wonderful part of this game. They create variety and lead to a myriad of different strategies. Having said that, had I not been a victim of ‘wonder fixation’ as a newbie I would have become a better player FAR faster. My learning curve to Monarch would have been reduced by months – my first Deity victory would not have taken over a dozen failed attempts.

Firstly, new players struggle with worker management, happiness, military tactics, and quick city expansion. Wonder building significantly detracts from a player’s ability to master these areas. Consequently, this will lengthen the time it will take for a player to advance in level. For a new player - the time, effort, and shields it takes to build an Ancient Age wonder will never make up for the benefits of having used those 400 shields to build workers/settlers/troops.

Secondly, there is a ‘crutch’ effect to certain wonders that hampers your mastering the nuances of the game. Having trouble keeping up in tech? Ah, I’ll shoot for the Great Library – every time. Do your cities take too long to grow? Ah, I’ll shoot for the Pyramids – every time. Are your people are always rioting and unhappy? Ah, I’ll shoot for Artemis or Hanging Gardens – every time. There’s just one problem here, the moment you go up in difficulty level, the strategy doesn’t work – and now your skill level is too underdeveloped to compete at the new higher level.

below is the perfectly accurate assessment of my article made by JustBen:

The trouble arises when you begin to follow a course of action that you don't even realize is a strategy -- in this case, we're talking about a mechanical obsession with the construction of wonders.

Sure, many people understand strategically how to use wonders and what wonders to build and when to build them. These people are not Ision's target audience. If you've already figured out that you don't need any particular wonder to win a game, to quote Johnny Truant, "This is not for you."

The whole thrust of this article is that there are other strategies out there. Honestly, who plays this game for 6 months on Warlord and then suddenly thinks to himself, "Oh my gosh! I just realized there are all these fantastically expensive buildings I can make that unleash a wealth of new strategic options if only I can build them before my opponent! Wow! I can finally take my game to the next level!"

This article is about taking a step backward so you can take two forward. It's aimed at a very specific sort of player (the novice) with a very specific goal (get better at the game). While you're technically correct to claim that abstention from wonders is unnecessary, you're making the point in exactly the wrong place. Anyone who needs Ision's advice and then follows Ision's advice will come to your conclusion at his/her own pace. Isn't it better to find strategy on your own than to be spoon-fed it every step of the way?

Sincerely, Ision

 

[Park Ranger]

At the risk of repeating Ision's ideas, here's how this "wonder-weaning" strategy works for me, and also extends to the selection of civ traits.

The idea of avoiding wonders to improve gameplay has merit if taken as intended: not to handicap yourself but to learn which things you can work around and which will really benefit your civ in a way that another strategy couldn't. For example: do you really need a barracks in EVERY city, or just the more productive ones? If you can specialize your cities so that some produce land units while othes focus on sea/bombard units, then Sun Tzu's becomes less critical.

Similarly, you can take the same philosophy with civ traits. Think what trait seems to you to be most important, then develop a game style that compensates for NOT having that particular trait. I used to think Scientific, Religious, and Industrious were the best traits. But now I use forestry tactics a lot more, especially when building temples in ancient era, buy/capture more workers than I build, only have about 2 revolutions per game, and buy/trade tech so aggressively that I do better when my RIVALS are scientific. Hence Agricultural and Commercial traits now seem more advantagious to me, since I can't seem to find play tactics that compensate for the benefits of those traits. (Increase in the raw input of food/commerce).

Back to wonders, I of course still like to build wonders in my games...I'm just more selective about which ones, and look at the particular context of each game. Sometimes Magellan's is crucial for shortening the ferry distance of a critical crossing by one turn. Sometimes, in a luxury-poor context with a non-religious civ, the little boost given by JS Bach's is quite nice. But rarely do I find a particular wonder, at least pre-ToE, Hoover's, and UN, is a "must-have". Which is a good thing, because on higher levels the "must-haves" are most often out of reach.

 

[Turner]

Originally posted by tomart109
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!)

Oh so very true! I found out early on in when I first started playing Regent that I couldn't get all the wonders. Especially Pyramids, which is pretty vital to early expansion. Sun Tzu's and Leonardo's are about half the time, although I have more sucess with Leo's, cuz the AI generally doesn't go that way. Well, the Dutch do, but not many others.

I got lucky on my current game, I was playing expansionist and managed to pop a city and a settler pretty early on. That, with Chasqui scouts running around, got me to the medival ages by 2000bc. A new record for me! Anyways, since I had some good early growth, I was able to get my higher production captial to build a couple of wonders I don't normally get.

I do know that in the higher levels, Emporer or higher, most people advocate taking wonders rather than building them. Personally, I'm against that, as I want the culture that comes with it. But any way you can get it, I guess. My last game, I took a bunch of wonders away, and didn't miss the culture very much. But it was later in the game. . .

 

[wilbill]

I think a couple of us mistook Ision's message. He's certainly not saying wonders are bad or that you should never build them. He is completely correct in stating that attempting to build too many wonders will make the move past Warlord/Regent more difficult.
In my first couple of Monarch games, I remember the Middle Ages being very frustrating. I'd have 3 or 4 cities building all those beautiful wonders I was used to having and get beaten to several of them by the AI's. All of a sudden I was having to switch from Leonardo's to a Colliseum and losing 100 shields in the process.
Building wonders isn't the issue - Wonder addiction is the issue.

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I don't think most people could honestly say wonders are bad... I mean, you build one - particularly in a difficult game - and it's a beautiful thing to behold.
My Aztec game.. the one with no wonder building on Regent? Well, I have a wonder now. The Sistine Chapel. But I took it from France..... a sweet, sweeeeet victory.