Has anyone ever played a game without building any wonders?

[Bast]

Just wondering and is it a good strategy?

 

[Elandal]

I've tried, but didn't work well for me. Maybe I should try a few more times in case I just had bad luck in the two tries I did.
General reasoning seems to be "how many <unit type>s can you build for the same hammers?" which indicates that I should be building units then, and take cities from other civs with those units. I'm just not a big warmonger, so I probably didn't go aggressivelly enough in that.

 

[futurehermit]

I do it all the time. Works great for conquest/domination victories. Not so good for cultural victories

 

[Bast]

I'm thinking about trying it with Victoria.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Just wondering and is it a good strategy?

A One City Challenge, with the variant rule that no Great Wonders may be built. (Of course, in a 1CC, you aren't going to capture very many wonders, so they are pretty much taken completely out of play).

By itself, it's not a good strategy. Styling the rest of your game to that approach can redeem it, though. What is your civ doing instead of building wonders? The hammers can go to military, which is useful if you use the military for something. Or you can trade some of your production capacity for more commerce. Or....

 

[aelf]

I think it's the wrong question to ask. Ask the reverse, or have a poll. You might be surprised.

 

[futurehermit]

What is the reverse? Have you ever played a game where you built a wonder? Or have you ever played a game where you built every wonder?

It depends on a number of factors imo. Victory condition? Cultural will have far more than conquest. Starting conditions. Low production? Not gonna be building early wonders at least. Leader. Industrious? Gotta be building them wonders. etc.

 

[cabert]

I did it (more than once) with great success. Domination is easier with a bunch of axes than with an oracle.

 

[weimingshi]

I had games like that. Its not something I choose though, I was forced into it. Playing deity on huge map with 18 civs, I pretty much needs a stone or marble right beside to have any chance of building any wonder. when I don't have them, no wonder. I never finished those games though, abandoned them around renaissance. its kind tough to play without any wonder.

 

[Paeanblack]

Great Wonders can frequently end up as a crutch, to the detriment of your gameplay. If you find yourself always trying for the Oracle or the Pyramids and end up in trouble when you don't win the race, your Civ-fu has definitely plateaued.

The best way to clear this hurdle is by playing games where you bar yourself from constructing any Great Wonders. Doing so will highlight the areas of the game in which you may be weak and force you to find alternative strategies.

 

[BCLG100]

I generally capture most wonders as i focus on military

 

[manu-fan]

I need to try it on my next game.

I currently try to build Stonhenge and get other wonders for Great Person city etc., but I always want to win on domination, so I think I'll try no Wonders, and just get them by capturing cities.

Cheers.

 

[popejubal]

I generally build a few wonders, but there have certainly been games where I built no great wonders (some of the national wonders are too good to ignore in pretty much any game). I did poorly in those games, but I'd say that I built no great wonders because I was doing poorly, not that I was doing poorly because I built no great wonders.

In fact, I think long and hard before I try to build a wonder. Oracle is nice. Stonehenge is nice if I need the culture and/or great person points. Pyramids are lovely for a spiritual philosophical leader, but can be very difficult to build even with stone. The Great Library is delightful and the Great Lighthouse and Colossus can be nice for a civilization that has lots of cities and is largely coastal.

Other than those wonders, there aren't too many that I actually try to build. The only other wonders I try to build are a (very) occasional Temple of Artemis if I start with Marble or a Statue of Liberty if I have a bunch of cities (and here I mean an absolute ton) and I'm about to go on a conquoring spree and want the free artists for my new cities.

Most of the wonders are great if you capture them, but not at all worth the enormous investment that they require.

 

[ArneHD]

Depends on speed and era. I did a quick game, on a duel map, in modern age. Pretty wild at the end.

Edit: Wait, just rememberd, I built the Manhatten project.

 

[carl corey]

I've done it once in Warlords, pre-patch, with Cyrus on Prince difficulty. It was pretty hard to live up to the self-imposed restriction when my Ironworks city would build the Eiffel Tower in 5 turns. There are times when I build wonders just for the cash to fuel my attacks, I'm not sure that counts as really building a wonder. Anyway, I'm playing Monarch now and still managing to build wonders. I just try to restrict myself to those I can get more easily, or to which I arrive earlier than others.

 

[aelf]

I'm under the impression that a lot of experienced players don't like to build wonders. I've nothing against that perception - play any way you like - but I think the "wonders are a crutch" camp is actually quite big.

 

[carl corey]

Well, I may not be that experienced, but I really don't think of wonders like that. Playing an Industrial civ gives you clear incentives for building wonders. If in addition you have the resource that speeds up the wonder then it just begs to be built. I've built the Pyramids while being Industrious and having stone connected, and it was pretty fast and didn't influence my unit building and early expansion. Also, for a Philosophical leader I'm pretty much inclinde to build either the Pyramids or the Parthenon, depending on what resource I have nearby. Or beeline for the Great Library if I don't have any resource. Playing to maximize the use of your traits doesn't seem like a bad thing to do...

 

[cabert]

Well, I may not be that experienced, but I really don't think of wonders like that. Playing an Industrial civ gives you clear incentives for building wonders. If in addition you have the resource that speeds up the wonder then it just begs to be built. I've built the Pyramids while being Industrious and having stone connected, and it was pretty fast and didn't influence my unit building and early expansion. Also, for a Philosophical leader I'm pretty much inclinde to build either the Pyramids or the Parthenon, depending on what resource I have nearby. Or beeline for the Great Library if I don't have any resource. Playing to maximize the use of your traits doesn't seem like a bad thing to do...

right!
I don't like to build wonders that I'm not likely to get.
I hate it when I built my strat around a specific one and I get beaten to it.
But if I'm at ease, i'll build a few amongst the most usefull for my situation.
Some are always good, but hard to get:
- Oracle
- Great Library
- Pyramids
- Great Lighthouse
- Taj Mahal
- Statue of Liberty

In some games, I just decide to build no wonders, so even those aren't considered.
But in "normal" games, I usualy go for one of the earlies, by teching hard and fast to the required tech, and possibly settling near or on the required resource + teching to masonry.
Taj and SoL come later, I'll consider them if I'm first or among the first to the tech.

 

[The Engineer]

I like waging war, so I should at least always have the pentagon and westpoint. ^_^ and perhaps the red cross.

 

[carl corey]

Well, West Point and Red Cross are both National Wonders. You're not competing with anybody to get them. It's the World Wonders you can be beaten to, so that's where you have to think before you start building one.