Pyramids can be built only on desert tiles

[TheMeInTeam]

the purpose has been stated already - to push players out of their comfort zones.

I meant a legitimate purpose, not a purpose you could serve by replacing the mechanic with "real time strategy instead of turn-based", "no workers", "hard limit to 3 cities per civ", "technology doesn't matter", and so on.

Those all push players out of comfort zones too, but that doesn't make them good. It also doesn't make this particular mechanic good.

You also failed to answer my question: from a strategy standpoint, how does this change add to meaningful choices made across the game? At least when wonders are contested, you have to make some degree of risk/reward evaluation with incomplete information.

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.

We don't have strong evidence either way, but what evidence we do have (previous civ titles) suggests this assumption to be mistaken.

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.

Aside technology or resources, what requirements? Requirements aren't made equally, some would actually force you to use strategy. Spawning near desert does not use strategy.

3. Requiring a dedicated tile already limits the Wonder race (no more all Wonders in one city). Having additional requirements just shapes the limitations.

Doesn't address my point at all, skipping.

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.

"You might get a freebie wonder. This could be interesting" --> what is this doing to make the game better?

Earlier in this thread I posed a question:

what strategic purpose does limiting many wonders in this capacity serve?

As I have now been quoted multiple times without answering this question, let me rephrase it:

What meaningful decisions do you anticipate terrain restrictions on wonders to add, and how do they weight against the urgency and planning required to secure wonders without the restriction?

 

[stealth_nsk]

We don't have strong evidence either way, but what evidence we do have (previous civ titles) suggests this assumption to be mistaken.

You're saying in previous civ games usually only 1 civ had access to desert? Or I misunderstood you?

Aside technology or resources, what requirements? Requirements aren't made equally, some would actually force you to use strategy. Spawning near desert does not use strategy.

Planning your expansion is a strategy. Taking into account potential places wonders could be a part of it.

"You might get a freebie wonder. This could be interesting" --> what is this doing to make the game better?

I still don't see how such soft requirement could be a "freebie". Requirements for city to be near in Civ5 mountain are heavier, and still there's always some competition for them. Hell, even Big Ben founds it's builder eventually.

What meaningful decisions do you anticipate terrain restrictions on wonders to add, and how do they weight against the urgency and planning required to secure wonders without the restriction?

1. Planning expansion with possible wonders in mind.
2. Picking strategies based on available wonders.
3. Actually in previous civs securing wonders on high difficulty levels was more luck than planning, at least before you could watch all other civs. Harder requirements could improve this.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Earlier in this thread I posed a question:



As I have now been quoted multiple times without answering this question, let me rephrase it:

What meaningful decisions do you anticipate terrain restrictions on wonders to add, and how do they weight against the urgency and planning required to secure wonders without the restriction?

I can take a crack at this TMIT. Nice seeing you around BTW, its been a long time.

Anyhoo...

"what meaningful decisions do you anticipate terrain restrictions on wonders to add"

It will add the meaningful decision of whether to pursue a strategy based on a particular Wonder or not. I'm thinking about the last MTDemogame we played together, years back, and all the discussion that went into what leaders to pick and how that would affect our ability to get certain Wonders. Im thinking about all the thought that we as players put into the best way to rush particular must-have Wonders. I think that if you spawn and see that your favourite Wonder simply isn't available, period... well that means you have to develop a whole new dimension to your game. You have to make decisions that you never even considered before because your prior approach was all about getting certain Wonders, maybe a specific combination of Wonders. I see a lot of meaningful decisions added by this change. I do get the point that the restriction reduces competition, but TBH, in a Wonder race, there are only 2 competitors that ultimately matter. The guy that gets it, and the guy that misses it by 1 turn.

"how do they weight against the urgency and planning required to secure wonders without the restriction"-

See above... Less people able to compete for the wonder might decrease urgency in a purely theoretical sense, but I mean... if your strategy depends completely on a certain Wonder, and you have no idea whatsoever how many of your 4, 8, 10 competitors have access to it, are you honestly going to delay getting it because the probability is lower that they have the desert tile needed? Really? You aren't going to beeline for that vital Wonder as fast as possible and figure out all the ways to shave points off the build time etc?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're saying in previous civ games usually only 1 civ had access to desert? Or I misunderstood you?

No, I'm saying 2-3 "always" having it would not be accurate based on previous track record.

Planning your expansion is a strategy. Taking into account potential places wonders could be a part of it.

This consideration exists regardless of the mechanic, and as such does not serve as an argument for or against it.

If anything, it's a point against terrain-restricted wonders, because the choices of where to build one is made for you.

1. Planning expansion with possible wonders in mind.
2. Picking strategies based on available wonders.

Still not answering my question unfortunately. I'm asking for meaningful decisions the mechanic adds, not existing decisions. #3 doesn't have much relevance to this discussion. Adding more RNG luck to wonders only to still have it be impossible to build them if deity AI also has your conditions doesn't change your strategy one bit; you delay the wonder. Except now if you're lucky maybe you still get it.

- It will add the meaningful decision of whether to pursue a strategy based on a particular Wonder or not.

You don't add meaningful decisions by removing meaningful decisions without replacing them. What your example is telling me is that such discussion is gone. No point in discussion, the map will tell us what we can build, so why think about which option suits us best?

See above... Less people able to compete for the wonder might decrease urgency in a purely theoretical sense, but I mean... if your strategy depends completely on a certain Wonder, and you have no idea whatsoever how many of your 4, 8, 10 competitors have access to it, are you honestly going to delay getting it because the probability is lower that they have the desert tile needed? Really? You aren't going to beeline for that vital Wonder as fast as possible and figure out all the ways to shave points off the build time etc?

So, from what you're telling us the urgency is similar, but you have fewer possible choices given a starting position than previously. There are fewer options to pursue, fewer opportunities for improvement or mistakes, and less odds of doing a risky strategy backfiring.

That is not a viable sell for *adding* meaningful decisions to the game!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14273716&postcount=33

Based on this, the challenge may not be a race to complete the Wonder but to meet the qualifications to build the Wonder. And it could still be a race, to get the right tiles, the right resources, the right districts and buildings before a rival does. It will probably be harder in MP than SP.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Let's put it in more details.

Classical Civ wonder race consists of:
- Researching required tech.
- Having enough production.
The general approach to do so on high difficulty levels is to beeline to tech, build and pray. That's strategy, but not quite interesting. Also, it doesn't support any variation, i.e. if you try to do classic Civ5 start of Great Library - Philosophy - National College, you'll be always beelining for Writing to build the Great Library.

Of course, there were additional things to make strategy a little more complex. Ancient Civ versions had Caravans, which could be gathered and used for instant build. Civ3-4 allowed tech lead through tech trade, but neither enrich the issue.

So, what we have with more restriction on Wonders:

1. Different paths depending on the terrain. If you have Desert nearby, you could try Pyramid-based strategy, if not - you need to try something else.

2. Limited number of players able to build wonder allows participating in race even without tech lead. Yes, there's a small chance what you're the only one with early access to the given terrain, but since you'll not know that before meeting everyone, you'll participate in race as usual.

3. Wonders take part in city planning. As districts and improvements are better on specific tiles, Wonder tile requirements are part of the early strategy. If the desert tile is the only tile where you could build Campus with bonuses for your city, that's a big question and may force you to avoid pyramid-based strategy.

That's how I see it. Also:

1. We don't know whether all Wonders have additional restrictions or just some of them.

2. We don't know what kind of restrictions late-game Wonders have.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14273716&postcount=33

Based on this, the challenge may not be a race to complete the Wonder but to meet the qualifications to build the Wonder. And it could still be a race, to get the right tiles, the right resources, the right districts and buildings before a rival does. It will probably be harder in MP than SP.

Adding extra factors as given in the link makes it complex enough that I can't make an evaluation of anticipated experience with enough confidence to be useful. Devil's in the details on this.

1. Different paths depending on the terrain. If you have Desert nearby, you could try Pyramid-based strategy, if not - you need to try something else.

Fundamentally, this does not offer any new choices whatsoever. It is not useful to rehash it.

2. Limited number of players able to build wonder allows participating in race even without tech lead. Yes, there's a small chance what you're the only one with early access to the given terrain, but since you'll not know that before meeting everyone, you'll participate in race as usual.

From a meaningful decisions standpoint, you're adding nothing with this either. You're conceding that the change won't materially alter the player's decision-making process in this context. That's not supporting the change, it's neutral and irrelevant in the instance of comparing the two.

3. Wonders take part in city planning. As districts and improvements are better on specific tiles, Wonder tile requirements are part of the early strategy. If the desert tile is the only tile where you could build Campus with bonuses for your city, that's a big question and may force you to avoid pyramid-based strategy.

This has legitimate potential and I want to see its effects in practice.

 

[dexters]

@TheMeInTeam pushing out of confort zone in this context means rejigging the early game so that different strategies are viable. I think you're examples of capping at 3 cities, no research, TBS to RTS, while technically qualifying for pushing out of confort zones, lacked the nuance of what the devs are trying to achieve.

The suggested change (if we're to use school as an example) is akin to pairing people up with someone they don't know , as opposed to doing the homework/project with their friend yet again for the nth time.

You're examples imply we throw the kids out of the class room and tell them to complete their assignments with a kid from another school in another country without any support or structure around it.

It's really extreme. I understand to make a point, but it misses the nuance of the change.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@TheMeInTeam pushing out of confort zone in this context means rejigging the early game so that different strategies are viable. I think you're examples of capping at 3 cities, no research, TBS to RTS, while technically qualifying for pushing out of confort zones, lacked the nuance of what the devs are trying to achieve.

I was simply giving examples of your rationale as-stated. I doubt you have insider knowledge of what the devs are trying to achieve, and what matters in practice is what it does achieve...something that can be different from developer intention.

It's really extreme. I understand to make a point, but it misses the nuance of the change.

As stated, the rationale had no nuance. That was my point. Actual stating of that nuance seems to have fallen off the edge somewhere in this thread. I don't like that, so I'm giving extreme examples (that nevertheless fit the criteria as stated!) and refuting universally applicable statements precisely because they lack any detail that justifies one implementation from the other.

When I ask "why is x better than y", it is irrational to state a reason that applies to both x and y, yet that's already happened a few times in a row.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When I ask "why is x better than y", it is irrational to state a reason that applies to both x and y, yet that's already happened a few times in a row.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue you are raising. The particular restriction we are discussing is "different", but nobody can prove to you that the change is "better" 1)because "better" is subjective and 2)it can't even be measured subjectively until we actually play the game.

I admit that I don't know if the restriction will be better. It does at least seem like it will make things a little different. Your view may be that difference for it's own sake is pointless, but even that is a very a subjective thing, and not really useful to argue about. Especially since, again... until we all actually play the game with the changes in place, there is no way to say... even subjectively... that the change makes the game better.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This seems to be at the heart of the issue you are raising. The particular restriction we are discussing is "different", but nobody can prove to you that the change is "better" 1)because "better" is subjective and 2)it can't even be measured subjectively until we actually play the game.

I'm not asking for "proof" of something based on a feature we haven't used yet and lack complete information about its specifics. I'm asking why, in principle, it can improve the game. Presumably there are meaningful decisions to be had as a result of doing so, but it's just not being stated and I'm not seeing it, unless the more nuanced requirements make wonders onerous to achieve anyway and alters their role in the game.

Your view may be that difference for it's own sake is pointless, but even that is a very a subjective thing, and not really useful to argue about.

It's not just a question of difference by itself. In restricting previously important abilities, the idea is that it causes the players to use more strategy rather than equal or especially less. However, at best I'm seeing it just present a scenario where 1) your options are more constrained and 2) pursuing those options against alternatives is less risky.

Neither of those carry any inherent extra decision making, and one of them makes otherwise context-useful wonders not buildable (IE no choice can be made, you simply can't build it so you don't consider it at all).

For new wonders model to come out ahead, they have to serve a different role from previous titles outright and depend on significantly more factors than terrain, possibly to the point where you'd not necessarily want to build them even if you're the only person that could, depending on context.

It's too early to say if VI will do a good job of it, but in principle the terrain limitation specifically doesn't seem to add much in most cases, especially where historical flavor doesn't apply. Deciding between two or three useful wonders in your situation is inherently less challenging than deciding between eight, assuming they're all useful. To compensate that, there needs to be more consideration...but why have that particular block in the first place?

For wonders like a great lighthouse, a terrain restriction makes sense from a flavor/theme perspective, but that only makes sense to a fraction of the wonders.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not asking for "proof" of something based on a feature we haven't used yet and lack complete information about its specifics. I'm asking why, in principle, it can improve the game.

But again, "improve" is just another way of saying "better" right? And that brings us back to the subjectivity problem, coupled with the fact that we haven't played the game yet. I'm not trying to be difficult, and it does seem that you are open to the possibility that you may end up liking the change (as opposed to making a pre-decision to hate it), but I worry that you are asking for an explanation of something that may be intangible at this point.

I will give you an example. One of my favourite games of Civ 5 SP to-date was a time that I got a tundra start on Deity and decided, "Pffft, whatevs... I'll just play it out." Long story short, I discovered that the faith bonus that you get from the tundra tile Pantheon actually made the start playable, fun and competitive, and I easily had one of my most enjoyable and challenging games of Civ 5 SP ever... on a Map that you would almost expect to be an insta-reload... but I had to play it out to discover this.

 

[Rupe]

I don't understand the big deal. This adds plenty of strategy to the game. It's simple. Many players get into a groove of playing and this will upset that and make them change. This change in play to adapt to the new reality of the facts on the ground is known as strategy.

If someone plays Civ 5 and always goes for a religion early they might rush to get Stonehenge and then maybe another religious wonder. Now this might not be open to them. They will have to change how they play if they still want to get that religion, or maybe they forgo the religion and focus on a science path, or military.

Those are all choices that have come about because they had a known path taken away and replaced with an unknown or maybe just a different path via the map. Strategy is adapting to your environment and environments change. This new feature is nothing more then a changing environment that we all will have to adapt to.

I think this will upset the deity crowd that prides themselves in getting high scores and winning in a limited number of turns. This could seriously wreck their day if they are not well versed in playing with multiple terrains.

I think its fantastic and will welcome it. The more restriction on things in game the better. No one should be able to get everything. Anytime you withhold something from one person and give it to others you force the guy that's going without to improvise or quit. Anyone playing this game should be into strategy and improvisation. Anyone playing to get a high score is not someone they should be catering to imo.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

but I worry that you are asking for an explanation of something that may be intangible at this point.

It's hard to --- pull something tangible from a mechanic where we don't know the details! I'm sticking to the terrain aspect exclusively as a result. If wonders wind up completely different in scope to other civs and you're making trades between them and other useful buildings on tiles this whole thing is going to be moot.

I mean "better" from a context of strategy. Strategy games at their core force players to make choices that are meaningful to the outcome; IE the design and execution of their strategy. A game can be dumbed down when the number, importance, or impact of these choices get reduced.

Obviously, that's not necessarily happening here. There are too many unknowns to make a sound conclusion, or even a modest confidence one. That said, in principle the terrain limitation does not look promising.

Many players get into a groove of playing and this will upset that and make them change.

If it's so simple, then please answer the question rather than ignoring the question and repeating previous posts with the exact statement that was already addressed.

I think this will upset the deity crowd that prides themselves in getting high scores and winning in a limited number of turns.

I think the deity crowd can speak for themselves, whoever fits into that loose definition.

 

[Hail]

You also failed to answer my question: from a strategy standpoint, how does this change add to meaningful choices made across the game? At least when wonders are contested, you have to make some degree of risk/reward evaluation with incomplete information.

the short is answer is "none".

frankly the phrase "meaningful choice" is too subjective. conflict and tradeoff are more objective terms. I will use those.

the long answer:
some may say that there will be conflict over regions/tiles that satisfy the requirements for wonders. I dunno: one desert tile per continent. hm....not likely.
for early wonders the logic is simple - they will be build by those blessed by the map generator. for industrial (Napoleonic) era and beyond the terrain reqs do not matter. those wonders will be build by those that prioritize the tech as is in earlier civ titles.

so... you are looking for depth were there may be none by design. see a desert tile? build the Pyramids! very straight-forward logic that the casual gamer (the one the civ series aims and will aim at) will understand and appreciate. much like the "low happiness? build a colosseum!" logic from civ5. see a forest tile? build a faith district near it! go ahead! good boy! here is half of Theology worth of bulbs for your efforts!

 

[dexters]

I was simply giving examples of your rationale as-stated. I doubt you have insider knowledge of what the devs are trying to achieve, and what matters in practice is what it does achieve...something that can be different from developer intention.



As stated, the rationale had no nuance. That was my point. Actual stating of that nuance seems to have fallen off the edge somewhere in this thread. I don't like that, so I'm giving extreme examples (that nevertheless fit the criteria as stated!) and refuting universally applicable statements precisely because they lack any detail that justifies one implementation from the other.

When I ask "why is x better than y", it is irrational to state a reason that applies to both x and y, yet that's already happened a few times in a row.

I agree with the rationale for a change. The goal is to limit set starts, encourage exploration of alternative paths in the beginning even if strategies eventually converge in the later half of the game (i'm having a hard thing thinking how strategies won't converge, as Civs with no harbour access early on, could well have it by the middle game and researched some of the seafaring techs by the late game)

The goal is to make the early game less formulaic recipe based start by tying tech/wonder/specialization with the starts. Think of Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel and how he posits starting locations of the various world civilizations imbued each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Taken to its logical conclusion, Guns Gerns and Steel argues some starts held back some civilizations unduly (the meso-American civs) while giving others immense advantages (those of the fertile crescent) ; a real 'simulation' of Civ would determine winners and losers just by starting locations. But thankfully we're playing a game and not a simulation. I am certain the developers would create a set of starts that would guarantee different paths to open but give everyone a fair shot at winning.

Personally, I love my stonehenge open in Civ5. It's reliable about 80% of the time on Emperor, 50% on Immortal. Even when I go non-religious and not particularly going for religion, I like opening with it. The GE points early on really overpowers a lot of alternative wonders and the faith helps me get an early pantheon which could quickly snowball into an early religion if I can get faith producing pantheon benefits.

See where I'm going? If I can't reliably build Stonehenge, and that reliability isn't limited by the AI getting 300% build bonuses over me, then I may choose another wonder instead. So everyone get's a slice, and I vary my strategy game to game but I know if I get a desert start, I have a fair shot at the Pyramids, no matter the difficulty. That's good for the game, because Civ on diety play somtimes feel like an exercise in masochism in the amount of Civvy things (like building wonders) players ignore and skip in the early game because it's completely pointless. Better to build swords and some ranged to capture the wonder instead.

A lot of times, you see comments like 'build everything on X difficulty, but don't think about getting the Library on X difficulty or above' or ' no early wonders, hit this tree, then grab that tech'

That's bog standard Civ advice. I've always wondered why, but I play like that too. I'm willing to give this a chance especially if the game doesn't need to rely on insane AI bonuses to deny early wonders to humans, or even better, humans can reliably hit up a few early wonders even on the higher half of the difficulty setting without the AI being squeezed out of the 'Wonders'market since they'll have their own to build.

 

[Rupe]

If it's so simple, then please answer the question rather than ignoring the question and repeating previous posts with the exact statement that was already addressed.



I think the deity crowd can speak for themselves, whoever fits into that loose definition.

I think the question has been answered many times. Perhaps you can ask it again in some new way. And I never claimed to speak for the deity crowd, I was stating my opinion on them. Far as I know I don't need permission to do so and I have no intention of stopping them from speaking for themselves.

The new feature adds strategy to the game. Many have stated why it does so. That's the only reason for it to be. If you don't understand how by now then I guess it's really not going to be something that you are going to get.

 

[manu-fan]

It's another piece of the 'We don't want every game to be played all the same lines'. So, you'll now need to decide (based on your start and land around you) what Wonders you want to go for or don't want to go for. Rather than just going for the same Wonders every game.

 

[Ikael]

The designer's objective is doable: to make you "Play with the terrain", and to specialize your cities, but this is certainly NOT the way to archieve it.

By making building wonders a simple "YES / NO" proposition you are:

- Killing the "wonder race", one of the best classic aspects of civilization
- Artificially limiting player options
- Artificially limiting strategies

I think that a much better design would be terrain dependant wonder production bonuses. For example:

Pyramids
-1/3 building costs if placed on a desert district
-1/3 building costs if the city works a quarry

The colossus
-1/3 building cost if placed on a single island tile
-1/3 building cost if the city works a copper mine

Taj Majal
-1/3 building costs if placed next to a lake
-1/3 building costs if the city works a marble quarry

This way:

- You still preserve a wonder race, since every civilization can still build them
- You reward strategic city positioning
- Wonders become even more of a "risk VS reward" proposition
- You are incentivized to spread out your wonders
- You can still accumulate wonders in one single city, but with a higher risk of missing them

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think that a much better design would be terrain dependant wonder production bonuses

It's a matter of actual game balance. It's highly possible what with AI production bonuses, on high difficulty levels this will not work as intended.