Should wonder cost modifier only account for wonders built by the player ?

[SuperNoobCamper]

I think this is a somewhat impactful balance decision that occur in most of my games by the Renaissance era.
To clarify the situation i play on Emperor/Immortal difficulty and i find that "spamming" wonders as human player is not practical or doable due to the increasing cost so i get to pick few key wonders that would benefit me the most which is an impact of a well designed system to hinder snowballing so as long as i build few wonders i won't have to deal with wonders costing more than 2X the original cost.
What usually happens is during the medieval and early renaissance era when most of the wars occur i usually aim to secure my borders and eliminate/cripple my neighbors i have an easier time which make the cost of Renaissance wonders skyrocket.
I think it'd be better if the cost modifier for wonders was calculated only for wonders built by the player not the ones in cities captured during a war.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I agree, but I understand it's another mechanism needed to help contain snowballers. As it stands, there's really only one downside to conquering, that being unhappiness, and I can see the argument for the wonder penalties to still apply as another little drawback.

It has diplo ramifications as well though, if I'm correct @Recursive ? Now that I think about it, that might've been something you fixed already concerning receiving a big negative diplo modifier "they believe you're building too many wonders" applied from wonders you conquered instead of built.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I don't agree.

Any modifiers (production or diplomatic) should be based on wonders owned, and not wonders built. Unbalanced circumstances could emerge otherwise.

 

[Recursive]

I agree, but I understand it's another mechanism needed to help contain snowballers. As it stands, there's really only one downside to conquering, that being unhappiness, and I can see the argument for the wonder penalties to still apply as another little drawback.

It has diplo ramifications as well though, if I'm correct @Recursive ? Now that I think about it, that might've been something you fixed already concerning receiving a big negative diplo modifier "they believe you're building too many wonders" applied from wonders you conquered instead of built.

Diplo ramifications are based on Wonders built, not owned. The reason for this is that it specifically punishes spamming World Wonders and neglecting other parts of your development. If you conquer Wonders, you haven't made yourself more vulnerable in the same way as if you expended resources constructing them.

Construction cost penalty is based on Wonders owned, though.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Absolutely all wonders should apply. Even if you didn’t build it yourself you’re still getting the benefit of the wonder under your control, in fact the conquerer has a net benefit since they didn’t have to sink hammers into it. Why do we want to make it easier to snowball?

 

[DeAnno]

I agree that diplo penalty should be Wonders built and construction cost should be based on owned. Seems reasonable to me on both sides.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Absolutely it should apply. Even if you didn’t build it yourself you’re still getting the benefit of the wonder under your control, in fact the conquerer has a net benefit since they didn’t have to sink hammers into it. Why do we want to make it easier to snowball?

Because there are many wonders that confers local yields or instant bonuses that truely only benefits the player that built them;
Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Hanging gardens, Roman Forum, St. Basil Cathedral, Hagha Sophia just to mention a few.
Neither of these really help the new owner of the city (yeah, Hagha Sophia got me a free church for a cost of +10% hammers on every renaissance wonder so that's cool, i'd definitely want that) but actually hinders the construction of key wonders and inflates both the overall score and wonder cost modifier for no good reason.

 

[Gizmoman]

Because there are many wonders that confers local yields or instant bonuses that truely only benefits the player that built them;
Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Hanging gardens, Roman Forum, St. Basil Cathedral, Hagha Sophia just to mention a few.
Neither of these really help the new owner of the city (yeah, Hagha Sophia got me a free church for a cost of +10% hammers on every renaissance wonder so that's cool, i'd definitely want that) but actually hinders the construction of key wonders and inflates both the overall score and wonder cost modifier for no good reason.

Actually, think the church can be destroyed in city capture.

But all the wonders you mentioned do have base yields, and most of them have abilities that would be inherited through conquest.
Don't have the game open so correct me if I'm wrong on these:
Pyramids gives you GAP whenever you expend a great person.
Roman Forum gives some kind of buff to diplomatic units
St Basil gives the same -5% requirement to reform
Hagia Sophia gives a strength bonus to missionaries (or something like that).

Yeah the Stonehenge and the Hanging gardens don't provide anything beyond their base stats, but honestly their instant bonuses aren't exactly noteworthy so I don't believe conquering them would be much worse than building them.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Actually, think the church can be destroyed in city capture.

But all the wonders you mentioned do have base yields, and most of them have abilities that would be inherited through conquest.
Don't have the game open so correct me if I'm wrong on these:
Pyramids gives you GAP whenever you expend a great person.
Roman Forum gives some kind of buff to diplomatic units
St Basil gives the same -5% requirement to reform
Hagia Sophia gives a strength bonus to missionaries (or something like that).

Yeah the Stonehenge and the Hanging gardens don't provide anything beyond their base stats, but honestly their instant bonuses aren't exactly noteworthy so I don't believe conquering them would be much worse than building them.

The secondary yieds you mention are extremely nieche and pretty lackluster compared to the cost, 50 GA point per greatperson is cool but i really would not waste hammers to build a normal building to get that let alone build a wonder and suffer increased cost for it .... We all know the pyramids are built for the free settler, the same could be said about the roman forum and hagha sophia; you build these to get the free Diplomat/prophet respectively for a CS alliance/enhanced religion earlier not for the +10 influence or the free church anyway.

 

[looorg]

So the option then is to hope your enemy build them and just instead of building wonders you build an army and get free wonders. Nah. If anything should be changed by wonders, to minimize the spam or that you have that ONE city that builds all of them would be to add more requirements to the wonders such as requiring certain geographical conditions -- this is already in the game for some wonders such as being near the desert, next to mountains, on the coast etc. Add more of that and you'll have to plan cities according to wonders instead of just having that one mega production city that can crank out most of them. That would imo make a lot more sense for fixing the wonder spamming.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

The secondary yieds you mention are extremely nieche and pretty lackluster compared to the cost, 50 GA point per greatperson is cool but i really would not waste hammers to build a normal building to get that let alone build a wonder and suffer increased cost for it .... We all know the pyramids are built for the free settler, the same could be said about the roman forum and hagha sophia; you build these to get the free Diplomat/prophet respectively for a CS alliance/enhanced religion earlier not for the +10 influence or the free church anyway.

Okay, don’t capture those cities then. The very few examples of wonders that don’t confer permanent buffs don’t undo the huge majority that do...