The Great Wall and Dynamite

[kaspergm]

I'm bemused by the statement "I don't think adding free stuff to those who fall behind is the correct way to solve the problem." Exactly how is the Great Wall "free stuff"?

The civ that built it sunk a bunch of hammers into it and has to make the choice to stay away from Dynamite to preserve its benefits, potentially crippling its ability, e.g., to pursue a science victory or upgrade gatlings to machine guns and eventually mech infantry, since Railroad is now required for Ballistics.

You could have done the same, and chose not to. Frankly, it's not clear to me why the GW should ever go obsolete (do any other wonders go obsolete?).

But it's not free!!! There's a huge investment on the part of the defensive player to build the wonder in the first place. There's no adding free stuff here.

How is the tech leader being punished? Is anything being taken away from him? The only one being punished is the defensive player for investing in the wonder.

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.

 

[Browd]

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.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

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.

 

[smallfish]

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.

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...

 

[jddods]

Or should become a tourist attraction after dynamite and produce some culture for all the cities that were within the wall when it was built.

That would be consistent with the real world ...

That's a great idea.
John

 

[iamdanno]

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?

 

[Gimasag3]

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.

 

[General Tso]

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.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

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?

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.

 

[sufficiency]

Napoleon and Steam Power say hi.

 

[Cajamarca]

I think the Colossus used to... or maybe that was in Civ IV.

As for why the Great Wall goes obsolete, I guess that is meant to simulate the fact that to a modern military, a large stone wall would be essentially meaningless. Somebody who has tanks, explosives, helicopters, and bombers would not be hindered even slightly by the Great Wall.

Technically the Great Wall could very well become "obsolete" even earlier, such as at Chemistry or Gunpowder. That would make building it almost pointless, though, so the game's creators compromised by making it obsolete at Dynamite (a tech that would logically remove the usefulness of a stone barrier).

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.

 

[Zezima]

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

This is an amazing idea.

 

[Cedbird]

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.

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 ....

 

[Cedbird]

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.

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 .

 

[dpunk]

I've always thought that the great wall should go obsolete once dynamite is researched by any civ in the game.

 

[IkM]

I've always thought that the great wall should go obsolete once dynamite is researched by any civ in the game.

I thought same.

 

[Jelster]

Well I disagree then. From a game perspective, I also think it should be when the offensive person researches it. That will give him an incentive for researching it and rewarding him for his progress - and remove the absurd case of penalizing the defensive player for tech progress.

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.

 

[gladoscc]

Yeah, I think someone said it was made this way because having a check the other way around - each time an offender moves in your territory, it has to check whether they have discovered Dynamite - would consume a lot of computing capacity, but really it's just so dissatisfactory. Surely there must have been ways to work around this.

No, it won't. It would take about 0.002 ms for that check.

 

[CrispyCritter]

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.

 

[Vintage Port]

Or should become a tourist attraction after dynamite and produce some culture for all the cities that were within the wall when it was built.

That would be consistent with the real world ...

Great idea.

Once the builder discovers dynamite and it goes obsolete it should add extra culture. Maybe +6 culture total after dynamite? The person sunk a bunch of hammers and time into it, they should keep getting rewarded for it.