1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Great Wall and Dynamite

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by blackcatatonic, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. ahawk

    ahawk King

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Messages:
    935
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    I think they made GW go obsolete at the point of dynamite because otherwise the builder of GW could park artillery a tile back from his borders and shoot into any adjacent border with relative impunity, even without any units in front guarding the artillery. The only units that would be able to come thru and attack on the first turn would be horse-units, which at that point aren't going to necessarily do enough damage to kill an artillery unit before getting blasted by the GW-owner's artillery first.

    It's the same reason France's UA goes obsolete at Steam Power: if France could get 2 extra culture per city all game long, then they could rob cultural victory from people by simply using quick moving modern units and their late-game UU to quickly conquer and puppet a handful of cities. Part of the reason France's UA is balanced in the early game is that it's a relative risk to try and go out and rush neighbors, and even if successful in the early game, there's no way France can cover enough distance quickly enough to make their UA overpowered. But once they have tanks, planes, battleships, paratroopers, and all other sorts of fast-moving units, their UA would become a little broken because they'd easily have a shot at cultural victories just by conquering and puppeting cities, which might be a bit too much for small cultural civs that played for cultural all along to overcome.
     
  2. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,937
    Just want to clarify here, you completely misunderstood what I wanted to say when I spoke about the person who is behind on technology getting "free stuff". When I refered to "free stuff", this was not the Great Wall I mentioned - quite on the contrary, let me illustrate my point with this example:

    1) Let's say I build Great Wall.
    2) Let's then roll time foward to Industrial Era, and let's imagine I'm at this point tech leader.
    3) I have now the choice between either:
    a) Researching Dynamite, making my own Great Wall obsolete, or
    b) Not reseaching Dynamite, thereby preserving my own Great Wall, but not taking the advantage of getting early access to Artillery, which should be my privilege as tech leader.

    Thus, no matter whether I choose a) or b), it's a lose-lose situation: If I pick a), I give "free stuff" to all those who are behind me in tech, because I basically hand them over the Great Wall for free; if I pick b), I give them "free stuff" in that I don't get Artillery and come kick their @$$€$ as I would otherwise have. On the bottomline, no matter what I do, the current mechanism punishes the tech leader by taking away an advantage that was rightfullly his, thereby indirectly rewarding those who are behind in tech.

    The scenario is the same if I'm the tech leader and I did *not* build the Great Wall. Even though Dynamite *should* overrule Great Wall (by blasting holes in it or whatever) I don't get that privelege, whereas the one with the Great Wall can hide in relative safety behind it in spite of falling behind on tech.
     
  3. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,802
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    I get the first scenario, although you knew about that future trade-off when you built the GW. You may not have been the tech leader when you built the GW (particularly at higher difficulty levels), so it was a form of insurance you bought to give you time to develop your empire. But as you "outgrow" the need to hide behind the GW, yes, you are faced with the choice you describe. But that's a luxurious choice to have to make (win by turtling behind the GW or win by more easily puppeting my neighbors). And if you're the tech leader and in a position to roll out carpets of artillery, I'm not convinced that giving up the GW is much of a gift to your opponents -- are they really in a position to threaten you? Hasn't the GW done its job?

    To me it's not much different from outgrowing your UU. If you lose a unique capability when you upgrade your UU to the next era unit, is that a "gift" to your opponents? Well, maybe from one perspective, but that's a choice you make -- stick with your UU for 20-30 more turns, or upgrade now.

    The second scenario was the one I was reacting to. I have little sympathy for the aggressive tech leader who complains about the continued effectiveness of a target civ's GW as he gears up for conquest. I can't recall the last time I built the GW and I don't resent its continued existence--it just forces me to either (A) wait for artillery, (B) resign myself to higher than usual casualties or (C) if the target is a coastal city, regrouping for a naval assault. OK. That's the game.
     
  4. Xiao Xiong

    Xiao Xiong Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    In fact you can sit behind the wall spamming cannon until you have a mass of them while hoarding cash for upgrades, then research dynamite and come out the next turn with guns blazing.

    Also, the wall encouraging you to right primarily defensive war to preserve your empire is historically correct... It is a wonder built by an empire that hasd already expanded and decided it was now big enough.
     
  5. smallfish

    smallfish Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,968
    The funny thing is, its primarily used by aggressive civs like Nappy to expand their territories with their early gunpowder UUs and then dominate everyone else when more powerful units like aircrafts and nukes start appearing.

    Actually, Nappy. God it'd be a pain if I had to start on a continent with him doing that...
     
  6. jddods

    jddods Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    488
    Location:
    New Zealand
    That's a great idea.
    John
     
  7. iamdanno

    iamdanno Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK, USA
    If the intent is to be "realistic" as referred to (turtling behind your wall), then it should not affect areas added to you empire after it is built. Since that is not how they coded it to work, how can that be their intent?
     
  8. Gimasag3

    Gimasag3 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I can see both sides. I'm more of a defensive player who likes to get the GW, so I like it as is. Is it unrealistic? Absolutely. Is a more balanced game mechanic to keep it as is? Probably.
     
  9. General Tso

    General Tso Panzer General

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,547
    Location:
    U. S. of A.
    I like to go for the great wall when I'm going for a culture victory or something similar where I don't want to spend a lot of resources on my military. The AI seems to shy away from attacking when I have it.
     
  10. Xiao Xiong

    Xiao Xiong Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    I agree, that would seem to be a better tradeoff. Keep it past dynamite but it only ever applies to the original tiles, excluding even cultural border growth post wall and certainly not applicable to subsequently captured cities.
     
  11. sufficiency

    sufficiency King

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    682
    Napoleon and Steam Power say hi.
     
  12. Cajamarca

    Cajamarca Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Depends on how tall and wide the stone is. Demolishing enough of the wall in enough places to allow free movement past it (plus clearing the debris) is a serious engineering feat.

    But what gets me is, the whole point of the wall wasn't to stop invasions, it was to make raids unprofitable because bandits and barbarians couldn't carry their loot back over the wall.

    Honestly, I'd spend good hammers to disallow barb pillaging in my cities.
     
  13. Zezima

    Zezima Professional Troll

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    United States
    This is an amazing idea. :lol:
     
  14. Cedbird

    Cedbird Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Point taken . I feel that the way the creators set it up was fine because by the time you get dynamite and everyone else is in a similar tech position it makes sense that you lose your GW benefits . Or if another player is ahead of you and gets it first . Makes sense cause they can simply blow your GW up and keep on trucking . But in your scenario you are correct . Maybe there needs to be another benefit added at that time such as the culture producer in BNW . BUT I will say this . The GW is a early wonder . AND if is pretty useful especially if you have a large territory to defend and have any kind of defensive know how you will be just fine . So you get so many benefits for a long period of time maybe its ok for it to go away with no benefits . Maybe it is OP already and the end dynamite tech is the way you even things out a bit . I mean the Oracle gives you one Social policy and thats it . Its gone ....
     
  15. Cedbird

    Cedbird Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Although I agree with your premise here is another thing I just thought of . Great Empires always have an achilles heel . Something other than invasion by an outside force being the direct force bringing them down . So as far as balance goes in your scenario . That GW choice is one thing that a great power has to deal with . Makes things interesting as someone else said .
     
  16. dpunk

    dpunk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    84
    I've always thought that the great wall should go obsolete once dynamite is researched by any civ in the game.
     
  17. IkM

    IkM King

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages:
    861
    I thought same.
     
  18. Jelster

    Jelster Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    London
    Think of it in terms of the Wonder being a defence. If you are a defensive based civ you will have little use for Artillery, and you certainly won't be the most advanced civ in terms of units.

    So, it gives you the chance to control when it becomes obsolete, not your enemy. It is best used when you have a tall civ with wide borders, as it slows down the movement of enemy units, making it hard work for them to get to your cities.

    Artillery is the answer though, or take the city via the sea if it's on the coast.
     
  19. gladoscc

    gladoscc Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    125
    No, it won't. It would take about 0.002 ms for that check.
     
  20. CrispyCritter

    CrispyCritter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    65
    There are no perfect answers.

    offensive per civ option: nightmare for both humans and ai when defending. You don't know which civ in your territory can move fast or slow. And a force that has been in your territory for centuries might suddenly start moving twice as fast without warning.

    Any civ inventing dynamite invalidates GW: same problem but worse. An undiscovered civ on some other continent can cause units in your territory to all of a sudden move faster than expected.

    No options are realistic; the current one at least has the advantage in game play of both sides being able to plan.
     

Share This Page