I read somewhere that they are trying to make it more difficult to come up with "best" builds/strats, so restricting Wonders to certain terrains would help with that.
Pyramids can be built only on desert tiles
- Thread starter Krajzen
- Start date
You have spoken truth Krajzen!
A requirement upon local stone would not be very realistic. Regarding the great pyramids (and other structures in Egypt), stone was not very local and required transporting the building blocks of stone from sometimes great distances. I have been watching a couple documentary series about ancient times, and have come to better realize that choice of stone was crucial and definitely affected structure design, planning, and building in many ways. However, many great structures were built with materials naturally originating in distant locations across the (known) world.
I have always found serious flaws in the approach to wonders in Civilization.
a) Only one civilization may successfully complete a specific type of wonder.
b) The wonders are based upon very specific historical structures built by a very specific historical civilization.
The notion of the English building the great pyramids does not make a whole lot of sense to me. It would seem to be much more realistic if the English have the ability to build some pyramid. After completion, it would be an English pyramid instead of the Pyramids of Giza in the desert of Egypt.
This is a very strong suggestion I am making regarding wonders in general.
Any civilization, at any point in time, has the realistic opportunity of creating a structure or great project which might eventually come to be considered a "world wonder".
There is absolutely nothing realistic at all about a great civilization beginning work on a great structure, involving years of design, planning, labor, and arrangement of materials, which instantly disappears and becomes a pile of gold, simply because a different civilization in the world completed a similar structure!
Here is the Civilization game design I would prefer:
Civilizations may construct or create projects of great magnitude and significance, which typically result in something considered a "world wonder".
All civilizations always have every possible type of structure or project available to be built. For example, a pyramid, religious building, distinctively unique structure reflecting their civilization, or world contribution (great market, library, center of science or art).
The benefits of each particular type of structure would always be received upon completion. All civilizations building a monumental religious structure would receive religious benefits which are inherent in the type of structure. In practical game terms, a specific Great Temple might bring +6 faith.
Flavors of specific monumental construction projects may be "skinned" on top of the basic structure type. An Egyptian civilization located in the desert would have their Great Pyramid "skinned" with the Pyramids of Giza. A civilization in America would have a "skin" similar to the Mayan pyramids.
These "skins" or flavors of the generic Great Pyramid may even come with their own unique benefits. The "Pyramids of Giza" "skin" might have an additional tourism benefit.
The skin is where the very unique aspects of the "Great Pyramids of Giza" should come into play. Only one civilization may build the "Great Pyramids of Giza" and receive the unique benefits of that particular historical structure. This never precludes the building of other significant Pyramid shaped projects. Any pyramid built by any civilization, anywhere in the world, out of any materials, within any terrain, would also be very significant in a more general way. The unique benefits from this new (not intended to mimic real life history) pyramidal shaped great project would have different unique aspects, influence, and benefits.
A further step would be to even include chosen attributes or focus of a particular Great Project. For example, in the ancient worlds, a building could include religious statues and be built in honor of a religious deity. Or they could be built to instill a sense of awe ("wow" factor) to foreigners. To impress upon other civilizations the military strength, scientific advances, cultural, or artistic prowess of the civilization which completed the project.
This type of game design would definitely be more realistic. Perhaps,....and only perhaps...a little more difficult to design and code. I believe game players would appreciate this significant change regarding wonders.
What would actually be the downside? What would be the harm? How would game play suffer? Would game balance suffer?
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
This change could be compared to the role stone and marble had in Civilization IV.
In Civilization IV you got a 100% production bonus for many wonders if you had stone and marble which gave civilizations who had those resources a huge advantage at building many wonders. In Civilization VI you have to get specific tiles before you can even try for the wonders but this also mean if you do have these tiles you have probably a decent chance to get those wonders if you try for them.
The cost to build wonders is still there but the big reason for the change it to stop a single city from building wonder after wonder, as each wonder cost you a tile and a city have only at most 36 tiles available. The specific tile needs encourage you to expand if you don't have the needed tile for a wonder you would like to get and the developers have said they did not like the 4 city strategy that was quite dominant in Civilization V.
In Civilization IV you got a 100% production bonus for many wonders if you had stone and marble which gave civilizations who had those resources a huge advantage at building many wonders. In Civilization VI you have to get specific tiles before you can even try for the wonders but this also mean if you do have these tiles you have probably a decent chance to get those wonders if you try for them.
The cost to build wonders is still there but the big reason for the change it to stop a single city from building wonder after wonder, as each wonder cost you a tile and a city have only at most 36 tiles available. The specific tile needs encourage you to expand if you don't have the needed tile for a wonder you would like to get and the developers have said they did not like the 4 city strategy that was quite dominant in Civilization V.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,128
No thank you , I prefer the wonder system we have now.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
People keep using the term "realistic" in a game that has never once ever been realistic.
The only source of realism was the Civilopedia that provided interesting factbits (which was even questionable for Civ 5).
I don't understand the need and desire for Civ to ever be "realistic". Sure there's no other game but to me it's asking too much. And this goes for everything, the choices for leaders, wonders, representations etc. (altough I do agree with the high level of Eurocentrism in most games).
Civ isn't necessairly designed to be a simulation. The Empire Management thing wasn't a simulation. It came out the way it came out (I can't say personally given I've only really been into the game since Civ 5 to be honest and I have very little experience in either Civ 4 and 3 and never really played Civ 1 or 2). But Civ has always come across as a boardgame style game rather than a game that uses realistic mechanics.
So for Wonders to have some restrictions if it helps balance out the wondermongering (that I personally do) is a nice challenge and welcome change.
The only source of realism was the Civilopedia that provided interesting factbits (which was even questionable for Civ 5).
I don't understand the need and desire for Civ to ever be "realistic". Sure there's no other game but to me it's asking too much. And this goes for everything, the choices for leaders, wonders, representations etc. (altough I do agree with the high level of Eurocentrism in most games).
Civ isn't necessairly designed to be a simulation. The Empire Management thing wasn't a simulation. It came out the way it came out (I can't say personally given I've only really been into the game since Civ 5 to be honest and I have very little experience in either Civ 4 and 3 and never really played Civ 1 or 2). But Civ has always come across as a boardgame style game rather than a game that uses realistic mechanics.
So for Wonders to have some restrictions if it helps balance out the wondermongering (that I personally do) is a nice challenge and welcome change.
This.
I have been playing and loving Civ since Civ 1, I have owned most iterations of the series, and I can honestly say that for me realism has always been more or less irrelevant unless it serves the interest of making the game more fun.
I don't use Civ to plan my Presidential administration, I use it to have fun. I don't want or need an accurate simulator, I want a game. The new wonder restrictions sound fun... I like the idea of there being no "good" Wonders and instead being situational... the prospect of having to figure out which ones to pursue instead of rushing the same ones everytime is a welcome change for me.
I hope not; BE's wonders were hardly worth building. With heightened restrictions and the added price of taking up district space, I would hope that wonders would be very worth building.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Definitely not realistic, but I'm fine with that.
Like I mentioned in the city districts thread putting some restrictions on what players can build where goes a long way to making choices more interesting. After all, if you can just build everything, everywhere and there's no bonus or penalty for doing so then it doesn't really matter what you choose. I probably would have gone for a softer restriction (double cost outside of deserts?), but I can definitely see what Ed is going for.
- Jon
Like I mentioned in the city districts thread putting some restrictions on what players can build where goes a long way to making choices more interesting. After all, if you can just build everything, everywhere and there's no bonus or penalty for doing so then it doesn't really matter what you choose. I probably would have gone for a softer restriction (double cost outside of deserts?), but I can definitely see what Ed is going for.
- Jon
King William I
King
I've been playing civ since II and I was a serious wondermonger up until BNW. That being said, I love the idea of these restrictions. It's obvious the devs are trying to get rid of the "so this, win every time" style of playing and I think this goes a long way toward that goal.
When people bring up realism I just think of 200ft tall troops running around on the map. Its a game, If an idea sounds like it would make for a good game mechanic then its worth trying out. It just has to adhere to the original vision of Civilization.
I would hope Wonders are at least as strong as past games with the new limitations in place.
I would hope Wonders are at least as strong as past games with the new limitations in place.
and warriors that take 500 years to walk from Paris to Rome... and Battleships that take 3 years to cross the Atlantic...
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
I can see that historically it might not fit in with how these Wonders were built, but then we might as well have a rule that says you can't build Stonehenge unless you're England.
It does sound like it will be a good change in terms of gameplay - having the availability of Wonders limited by the terrain/resources makes it harder to spam them, which fits in nicely with the idea that they will take up district hexes (which will further help to limit them). It might not seem realistic but then neither is building fifteen to twenty 'Wonders of the World' in a single city
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
The more I think about it, the more I don't like this one. If you make wonders terrain-prohibitive, you lower the competition for them. Some wonders it will be completely impossible for any but one civ to build on occasion.
The result of that setup is that civs will arbitrarily get exclusive access to wonders for free, with no risk/reward in teching for them or decision on whether the potential benefits merits a divergence on tech path.
The stronger the exclusive benefits, the more RNG-dependent you become in the relative sense on terrain generation luck. On the flip side, what strategic purpose does limiting many wonders in this capacity serve?
You could make a case that some wonders can help to offset otherwise bad terrain, but aside from that this comes off as a negative, in that it gives civs more random freebies.
The result of that setup is that civs will arbitrarily get exclusive access to wonders for free, with no risk/reward in teching for them or decision on whether the potential benefits merits a divergence on tech path.
The stronger the exclusive benefits, the more RNG-dependent you become in the relative sense on terrain generation luck. On the flip side, what strategic purpose does limiting many wonders in this capacity serve?
You could make a case that some wonders can help to offset otherwise bad terrain, but aside from that this comes off as a negative, in that it gives civs more random freebies.
lrdscorpio
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 23
Yea but you have to consider that what we have right now are a small list of Wonders that all players go for. There isn't any strategy to that really. Wonders probably shouldn't make or break any particular victory condition and if devaluing them a little helps increase the overall strategical approach to the game then I'm all for it. It looks like the strategical approach is going to be based more heavily on the terrain you are given which is very smart if all types of terrains provide a balanced path to any one of the victory types
Hail
Satan's minion
think positive - half cost on deserts.
afaik, Colossus & the Lighthouse must be on the coast. the Pyramids must be build on a desert tile. Stonehenge must be build on a flatland tile (grassland only?) adjacent to a stone resource.
btw I smell buffed wonders with unique effects.
any competition for the ancient wonders will be eliminitated. they are too early on the tech tree for a civ to afford to explore the map for a tile that satisfies the requirement(s). maybe for classical and later wonders terrain limiters (gates) make sense. anyway, this whole mechanic remainds me of the Statue of Zeus from civ3. it was all kinds of awesome.
the purpose has been stated already - to push players out of their comfort zones.
this needs much tuning, but depending on the numbers, there is a real risk that the map generator will guide the whole game to the victory date. not that this gameplay-on-rails is not the desired goal of the dev team.
stealth_nsk
Deity
1. We don't know how the land will be distributed and thus how hard it will be to fullfill these requirements. I assume on average sized map there should be always 2-3 civs capable of building specific Wonder.
2. The Wonders mentioned are early ones. At this point you don't know yet who has which land. So even if by some random you're the only one capable of building the Wonder, you'll not know it. It's totally possible later Wonders will have different kind of requirements.
3. Requiring a dedicated tile already limits the Wonder race (no more all Wonders in one city). Having additional requirements just shapes the limitations.
4. If only 2-3 civs could build the Wonder in time, this increases the chances for human players to build early Wonders at higher difficulty levels. This could be interesting.
Of course, we need to wait and see how it will work in game.
I guess I might be better served thinking of wonders as unique game items only having extremely loose relation to real world historic items.
I did release a mod quite a while back (for vanilla Civ 5 I believe), which converted all World Wonders to national wonders such that any civilization could build any "World Wonder" at any time it wished, regardless of whether another civilization had already completed the (design intended) unique "building".
I have 3 games which can be played in several different fashions, including historical recreation. Hearts of Iron (WWII sim), OOTP Baseball, and Civilizations. OOTP Baseball and Hearts of Iron can be played to very nearly re-create history. Less so with Civilization. A map with historical locations and civilization attributes can provide a historically significant snapshot in time. Civilization game mechanics trend toward randomness rather than re-visiting history.
Still, sometimes I can focus on gathering leaders and civilizations from a similar time and place in history and enjoy those aspects of the game.
I generally alternate between modes, sometimes aiming for historical relevance, other times, playing in a completely non-historical fictional world of my own. I love the freedom to switch back and forth on any particular day I start a game.
I am looking forward to all the new features in Civ 6, including wonders, whichever design choices are made! I have never been let down with experimentation in new and evolving, sometimes experimental, very significant and major game concept revisions in the Civilization series (religion, trade, spies, etc...). A very familiar environment is kept fresh and exciting, affording some comfortable familiarity, while still requiring the challenge of a new learning curve to "master everything". In my mind, this is one of the best aspects of the Civilization series. Never boring. Never the same game re-skinned with only different graphics or data.
I did release a mod quite a while back (for vanilla Civ 5 I believe), which converted all World Wonders to national wonders such that any civilization could build any "World Wonder" at any time it wished, regardless of whether another civilization had already completed the (design intended) unique "building".
I have 3 games which can be played in several different fashions, including historical recreation. Hearts of Iron (WWII sim), OOTP Baseball, and Civilizations. OOTP Baseball and Hearts of Iron can be played to very nearly re-create history. Less so with Civilization. A map with historical locations and civilization attributes can provide a historically significant snapshot in time. Civilization game mechanics trend toward randomness rather than re-visiting history.
Still, sometimes I can focus on gathering leaders and civilizations from a similar time and place in history and enjoy those aspects of the game.
I generally alternate between modes, sometimes aiming for historical relevance, other times, playing in a completely non-historical fictional world of my own. I love the freedom to switch back and forth on any particular day I start a game.
I am looking forward to all the new features in Civ 6, including wonders, whichever design choices are made! I have never been let down with experimentation in new and evolving, sometimes experimental, very significant and major game concept revisions in the Civilization series (religion, trade, spies, etc...). A very familiar environment is kept fresh and exciting, affording some comfortable familiarity, while still requiring the challenge of a new learning curve to "master everything". In my mind, this is one of the best aspects of the Civilization series. Never boring. Never the same game re-skinned with only different graphics or data.
In early game, the additional requirements will dominate.
It's later on that the tile limitation will come into play, and it might well be that if your capital's terrain is homologous enough, that you'd run out of wonders to choose from that are allowed in that type of terrain before you run out of tiles.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I'm not sure - it depends on the speed of border expansion, etc. In addition to regular improvements you'll need tiles for both wonders and districts and since not all tiles are equal, this could be a conflict even if you don't fill all the spaces. I have a feeling districts on desert tiles could be quite common practice as from what we've seen districts gain benefits from tiles near them, not under.
It's hard to see the whole picture at this point.
Similar threads
