Duplicating Wonders

[CaptainPatch]

This is something that I've wondered about going back to even earlier Civ versions. (And for all I know, it works differently in BE.)

Why just ONE? As the FIRST of its kind, I can easily see why the significant bonus it provides. But (using Civ terms) Just because someone else got there first building the Pyramids, NOT having _any_ Pyramids of my own deprives me of the benefit it provides. I can also see that as a Johnny-come-lately, my 2nd set of Pyramids won't seem nearly as impressive. So whatever a Wonder's benefits, scale down that benefit until benefits hit a minimum baseline.

Sort of like the Transcontinental Railroad. BOTH the CP and UP were winners, even though UP (1032) laid more track than CP (742). Since they were "paid" with with land grants per mile they built, the overall "winner" had more to show for it.

 

[Catalytic]

After losing out on key wonders enough times, like Petra or Chichen Itza, I've often had the same thought you did. Just design the wonder so you get a base bonus, then an additional bonus based on how early you built it. That way, if you lose a wonder by one turn, it doesn't hurt so much.

The only concern with this is that wonders lose their uniqueness. Make this change and wonders become essential strategic elements, and the gameplay gets reduced to a build order. There's no decision-making weighing the risk of building a wonder against the lost opportunity for whatever else you need and the risk of losing it. You don't have a unique bonus. Every culture-based civ will get the same handful of key wonders. Every warmonger gets theirs. Trade-boosting wonders like Petra and Colossus become mandatory for their trade routes. We have buildings and national wonders that function like that.

The wonders are supposed to be unique. They're supposed to be high-risk, high-reward. If you strip that away, you lose an entire set of meaningful strategic choices from the strategy game.

 

[cazaderon]

I agree with catalytic. Wonders need to remain unique and require a risk\reward assessment when you need to decide wether or not you try getting them.

Otherwise, point is lost.

You already have national wonders acting a bit like that.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Make this change and wonders become essential strategic elements, and the gameplay gets reduced to a build order.

Buuuuttt if you reduce the reward significantly, the drive to be FIRST would still be there. For example, if First gets 100%, then Second gets only 50%. Then Third gets 25%. After that, everyone else gets only 10%. Of course, trying to apply percentages to most of the bonuses will most likely be difficult -- if not impossible to do.

As for uniqueness, most Wonders aren't. Egypt isn't the only nation to build Pyramids; so did the Mayans. The Colossus of Rhodes is actually in a _class_ with the Statue of Liberty. "Tallest Building In The World" has candidates that were erected (and then surpassed) all around the world. Angkor Wat is actually in a class with the Forbidden City, Luxor, and a bunch of other temple cities.

First builder WILL get ALL the recognition and prestige. Why should others get _nothing_? Or even NOT be allowed to build their own version? The pyramids of Latin America may have been built later, but they're still damn impressive.

 

[cazaderon]

Hummm... isnt the chichen itza already in Civ V to represent american pyramid ? Oh well yes it is ^^

There is just one eiffel tower (except those in vegas), one taj mahal, one colossus, one forbidden city (except a very similar thing in vietnam in Hué), one pentagon, etc..

The main thing about wonders is that there can only be one. How ridiculous would it be if there were 5/6 eiffel tower in one game ?

Anyway, this is more a gameplay over logic kind of thing.

 

[CNightwing]

What bothers me with the Civ5 Wonders is that for instance, you get a free library with the Great Library, but if you don't complete it first you don't even have a library to show for it! That's when things become a bit too much game-rules and not intuitive enough.

I think future iterations of the game should consider two options. The first building of its kind could be treated as a wonder - so the very first library is the Great Library, for instance. This is still a bit unintuitive, there were certainly burial monuments around before the Pyramids, so the alternative is that something other than technology unlocks the ability to construct a wonder - dabbled with in Civ5 with social policy links and that one ancient world scenario. I see the virtues from Civ:BE as a prototype for cultural development in the next Civ game - something that's parallel to technology, so that you can lead your people as a god-king and thus have the opportunity to construct the Pyramids to further cement your devotion to those particular cultural traits. Perhaps instead you become a great nation of traders, your virtues granting you more gold and naval prowess and offering the chance to build the Colossus.

 

[3of5]

Building a wonder usually prompted huge advances in engineering, research and the propaganda effect (culture) was enormous. For anyone else just replicating it, the effects were negligible. Sure in Civ5 the handling of that has been somewhat eroded. It just counts the food the citizens might be able to harvest from the hanging gardens and when someone beats you to the great lighthouse (boosting the morale and experience of his naval troops) you don't get awarded a normal lighthouse upon finishing your construction. That does indeed seem strange. Thats for realism.

But gameplay wise i have absolutely nothing to complain about, constructing a wonder is a high risk/high reward endeavor, and for more mundane feats thers always national wonders. You'd just have to see the benefits oof the wonders as knowledge gained through construction and cultural awe generated.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

If a particular wonder is necessary for your strategy, make sure you get it. Prioritize the required tech. Change the city to production focus.

It's a competition, so compete. Don't complain about losing. Win.

 

[CaptainPatch]

The main thing about wonders is that there can only be one. How ridiculous would it be if there were 5/6 eiffel tower in one game ?

That's why emphasized _class_. Further, just like the difference between the Egyptian and the Mayan Pyramids, there very probably should be different graphic versions for each Wonder. That way you wouldn't have 5/6 _Eiffel_ Towers. Each civ would have its own label as well as own graphic representation.

BTW, I fully realize that for BE, this ain't never gonna happen. I just want to put it out there for future consideration. Maybe it could be a consideration for an expansion. Call it The Wonders Beyond Earth Expansion or something of the sort.

 

[GenEngineer]

In that case, they're fully separate wonders, like with Chichen-Itza and the Great Pyramids. And they shouldn't have any duplicates of abilities, because then you're missing the entire point of them being wonders; they'd just be fancy buildings. Wonders as they are (key-mechanics wise) do the job they are meant to do, and do it well.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It would be nice if losing gave some benefit other than cash... ie like Great Library loss puts all those Hammers lost into getting a Library (any overflow is then converted to gold)

Perhaps losing a wonder could trigger a quest.. where you get to choose from some buildings. (depending on the Wonder..and what buildings are already in the city)

 

[3of5]

Perhaps losing a wonder could trigger a quest.. where you get to choose from some buildings. (depending on the Wonder..and what buildings are already in the city)

Thats a good idea. It would even out the loss especcially in the early game. But it would have to be scalable, just 2 turns into the wonder should not really award a whole building. Maybe a quest that lets you convert the progress into progress towards a building just once.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Thats a good idea. It would even out the loss especcially in the early game. But it would have to be scalable, just 2 turns into the wonder should not really award a whole building. Maybe a quest that lets you convert the progress into progress towards a building just once.

That's what I would assume..only if you lost the wonder and the production you have is converted into production for the building. (excess cashed out)

Or perhaps Each Wonder would be cased out differently
When you lose each Wonder you get 2 choices for 'cashing it out' from
Energy
Science
or
Culture

 

[bhavv]

What if all civs could build the same wonder and get the same effects, but they cost 50% more per completed same wonder?

 

[Acken]

I prefer the uniqueness for flavor and risk it implies.

However in Civ5 the fail gold is just too low.

 

[Lucius_]

I miss Civ III pre-building.

 

[CaptainPatch]

It would be nice if losing gave some benefit other than cash... ie like Great Library loss puts all those Hammers lost into getting a Library (any overflow is then converted to gold)

Perhaps losing a wonder could trigger a quest.. where you get to choose from some buildings. (depending on the Wonder..and what buildings are already in the city)

One of the things I could never reconcile was the losers in a Wonders race. Say Egypt wins the Pyramids building race. Next door in Babylon, they had erected all but the cap stone at the top. What? They are NOT going to finish it? When they were that close to completion? I (obviously) am saying that they _would_ finish it. But since Egypt already has raked in all the fame and glory and prestige, what Babylon gets would only be a fraction -- like say 1/2 -- of those benefits.

And to retain at least some exclusivity, no civ is allowed to start to build a Wonder that has already been completed. That means that only civs that at least started the project are allowed to finish it after someone else has already come if 1st place. [Since, generally speaking, it seems like only a few civs ever actually start the same Wonder project.

 

[Browd]

So, put one turn into every wonder you can, and then finish them at your leisure for 50% of the benefit?

Frankly, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Yes, Civ V wonder-fail gold is a paltry consolation prize, and could be increased a bit (although it seems (emphasis on "seems"--I haven't specifically tested it) to yield about what you would get if you had put the city to produce wealth instead of trying to build the wonder), but it is just a risk-mitigation device to encourage players to at least try for wonders. I would be content if they eliminated wonder-fail gold altogether.

 

[CaptainPatch]

So, put one turn into every wonder you can, and then finish them at your leisure for 50% of the benefit?

Is a city able to have multiple projects all going at the same time? Can't remember; been awhile. Last I recall it was ONE project per city. If you switched projects you'd lose the project that was displaced.

No matter. Since we're talking about making changes anyway, just add another rule: If a Wonder project gets halted in lieu of something else, the Wonder gets cashed out. There, no "Wonder reserved parking".

 

[m15a]

One of the things I could never reconcile was the losers in a Wonders race. Say Egypt wins the Pyramids building race. Next door in Babylon, they had erected all but the cap stone at the top. What? They are NOT going to finish it? When they were that close to completion? I (obviously) am saying that they _would_ finish it. But since Egypt already has raked in all the fame and glory and prestige, what Babylon gets would only be a fraction -- like say 1/2 -- of those benefits.

This makes sense to me except why does a fraction like 1/2 make more sense than a fraction like 0/1? I could see how for certain wonders built in certain situations something like 1/2 benefit makes sense, but for others, closer to 1 or 0 make way more sense (plus some benefits can't be split in half). I think to make this system of fractional benefits for multiple wonders actually be any more realistic than the current system would require considering the wonders on a case-by-case basis. Or else the benefits of all the wonders would have to be redeveloped so that the fractional rule made sense.

If we're talking about gameplay rather than realism, that's a completely different discussion, but the risk involved in building a wonder is there on purpose.

Also, this conversation doesn't have anything to do with BE in particular, does it?