1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Losing a Wonder Race

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Duuk, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. Duuk

    Duuk Champion of Colorblindness Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,526
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Am I missing something obvious, or does losing a wonder race result in no reimbursement at all?
     
  2. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,533
    Location:
    Lucerne
    That‘s already generous. In early builds, wonders left ruins on the map and you needed a builder charge to clear the tile.
    Reimbursement is more fun for some, but I never really understood why you should be paid when you lose a wonder race or get production back to use on units?
     
    Stilgar08, BenZL43 and Ondolindë like this.
  3. comatosedragon

    comatosedragon Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Location:
    Rockingham VA {616}
    Yes, I think this is the first civilization game that does not give you anything if you lose a wonder race.
     
  4. Kyro

    Kyro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    562
    Because unlike investing production in military or settlers Wonders are very risky compared to the benefit they provide.

    There is no downside to conquering other Civilizations, why should there be a downside in building Wonders?
     
    Duuk likes this.
  5. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,533
    Location:
    Lucerne
    There is no downside in building wonders. Only in not building them. :p
    I think they should all be buffed, however, to make taking the risk more worthwhile.
     
    Phoenix1595 and ChocolateShake like this.
  6. KayAU

    KayAU Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    334
    I think it should be changed, because it make little sense that this thing you have been building for centuries should disappear, just because some far away civilization finished something similar. I don't think it is all that fun as a game mechanic either, and furthermore I don't think it makes sense that you should get a gold or production refund. What I would prefer, is if you could continue building, but the end result would not be the world wonder, it would be a "lesser wonder", giving a smaller benefit. So for example, someone else built the circle of stones which became Stonehenge, but you still got *a* stone circle which provides some benefit, for example a bit of faith and tourism.
     
    Josephias and Duuk like this.
  7. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    8,323
    Well, that question can be tackled from a number of angles. The main ones are enjoyment and balance in my opinion.

    In terms of enjoyment, it's just not fun to invest into something that then turns into nothing. If there's a wonder, and you know you'll likely not be able to get it, compensation for not getting it might be the thing that makes you decide to give it a go anyway, and every now and then, you'll get a wonder and feel good about it, and if you don't, well, at least you got compensated. Without compensation, it's almost always right to just skip those wonders, which makes you lose out on those great moments where you unexpectedly get a wonder that you thought you'd not have a chance at getting, and it basically makes most wonders less interesting.

    In terms of balance, a wonder is already of great benefit. Getting it pushes you ahead of everybody, there's really no need for the other people who did not get the wonder to also lose any progress they put into the wonder - it's just a "hidden" penalty that increases the gap between the person who built the wonder and the people who attempted to build it. Being the one who has the wonder should be what creates the power difference, completely losing ones investment just means a greater power gap for no real reason at all. I think it is much better design to have players get ahead by playing well, than having players fall behind significantly over a failed investment.

    There is some "morbid righteousness" in not granting compensation to those who lost the wonder race, but I think overall it just leads to worse gameplay.
     
  8. Arent11

    Arent11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    613
    Well, but if you really want to talk logic the actual problem is - why should a civ stop building their wonder because another civ has already completed it? I mean, the Maya didn't even know the Egyptians. They just build pyramids. No one told them they weren't allowed to ;)
     
  9. Duuk

    Duuk Champion of Colorblindness Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,526
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    This. Why would ANY human player on Warlord or higher difficulty try for Stonehenge when there is basically no chance you'll get it? It's wasted early :hammers: that could be used elsewhere. So having it refund some of the production as gold (or faith or culture based on wonder?) would be great.

    Can I also chime in saying a "consolation wonder" (as mentioned above) that is ONLY buildable if you had the World Wonder in progress when the other is completed would be amazing?

    Stonehenge -> Stone Circle (+20 GPP towards GP)
    etc
     
  10. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,533
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Thinking along those lines in civ does lead to insanity.
     
  11. ggalindo001

    ggalindo001 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    207
    I would like to see it go back to having an "abandoned" wonder that you have to clear out. Almost like ruins. But to the points made in this thread, I think it would be interesting to see a situation where if you at least had completed half or a third of the wonder, that hex gets maybe an extra culture and science for the "ruin" vs. destroying it. Maybe depending on the wonder, some would be maybe a little extra faith, some a little extra gold. At least a -little- tangible benefit for attempting the wonder. And maybe 1 tourism as well?!?
     
    kaspergm and Duuk like this.
  12. Duuk

    Duuk Champion of Colorblindness Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,526
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    I could live with this. Maybe give them the tourism bonus they would have as if they were the real wonder, with no other benefits?
     
  13. Arent11

    Arent11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    613
    Simply do it as in Alpha Centauri: If you switch builds, you get a penalty, for example 50% of the hammers/cogs. This simulates that you can salvage some of the raw materials. If you build the pyramids & have to abandon it, you can still use the stones you hauled from far away to build a nice temple.
     
  14. Ogro

    Ogro Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    75
    I think they should rollback to them lefting ruins, but those ruins should be choppable by workers to salvage from your investment.
    How much cogs (1:1 or 1:2, etc) should be balanced out.
    I already see people building wonders and not finishing them to profit from chop overflow... But if this is already in the game I don't see why it would be a problem.
     
    Siptah likes this.
  15. ggalindo001

    ggalindo001 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    207
    I think simply allowing for ruins that cannot be "chopped" or otherwise salvaged would be suitable. Should be a penalty for not getting the wonder -- if not, it will get abused.
     
  16. Ondolindë

    Ondolindë Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La Paz, Bolivia
    Yes, but there are different pyramid wonders you can build.

    The main point for me is that if everyone can build them all, then what is the real unique civ advantage in that. It would only be about the timing, I guess, meaning who builds them first, but it would take away the challenge and the uniqueness of the wonder. For one, it would have to change from WONDER :clap:to a simple WonderCopy :dunno:, or something less outstanding. I mean, I don't want to go conquer a city (albeit I am not a domination kind of player usually) and find the other city has the same wonder. My army would say something to the effect of, "After all the trouble, barbarians and long journey, we came here to conquer this; another Potala Palace." I would not know what to say and I would lose credibility as their leader. Who wants that? We won't be in awe finding another. In the next city we conquer, we would be, "Meh, another Cristo Redentor over here. Big deal. Let's go home. I have a better one at home. Why? Because it is HOME."
     
    Siptah likes this.
  17. Duuk

    Duuk Champion of Colorblindness Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,526
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Well, the WonderCopies would obviously have limited advantages. Much like a participation ribbon, they're not worth much, but at least it's not a total loss.
     
  18. Cliven Sobieski

    Cliven Sobieski Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    You may be able to find a mod that will partially reimburse you for losing a wonder race.
     
  19. kaspergm

    kaspergm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,953
    I totally love this idea. If the "ruin" actually becomes an improvement with a bit of yield, this would be really cool. Could be something like:

    * +1 culture if finished between 25 % and 50 %
    * +2 culture if finished between 50 % and 75 %
    * +3 culture if finished between 75 % and 100 %

    These yields would be decent tokens, but would not be overly great, and you would still have to remove the ruins to build a district/another improvement instead.
     
    Ondolindë and Duuk like this.
  20. Kyro

    Kyro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    562
    The downside is the risk of losing all production invested in it. Also the opportunity cost in building them is so high most of them aren't worth it.
     

Share This Page