Utopia Project for BNW Nuclear Fusion Wonder

[kenrickandbros]

I wanted to make a wonder for Nuclear Fusion because I thought the tech deserved one, nobody goes for it. Then I thought of how BNW came with an overhauled cultural victory and how it removed the Utopia Project. So I came up with this idea:

A futuristic pyramid-shaped super-structure that is an arcology. It contains a nuclear fusion reactor generating untold amounts of power. This solves the energy crisis and powers your entire empire.

Because it is also an arcology, it holds a small population, likely the wealthiest or most intelligent individuals in your empire. I know that it sounds overpowered but this is justified by how late game it is.

Utopian Arcology
+10 food in city
+25% production empire wide (the immense amount electricity)
+50% unhappiness in civilizations with opposing ideologies (you've built a utopia!)
+100% tourism in this city
Free great person of your choice
Production cost: 1500

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Might be cleaner to implement the unhappiness as an increased step of ideological pressure, like the world ideology resolution.

And yeah, the late game does lack for wonders. If science fiction can get into the game for buildings and units, why not wonders?

 

[adsin15]

I like the concept but I think with the bonuses you gave it amounts to essentially winning the game. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I just think if it will win the game for you it should cost nearly as much as a spaceship to build. Maybe half of the cost of building the spaceship?

 

[kenrickandbros]

half of the cost of building the spaceship?

How much production is this?

 

[Browd]

Each spaceship part has a base cost of 1500 hammers, so for the cost of one SS part you get all that -- pretty OP. As a further point of comparison, late game wonders, like CN Tower, Hubble and Sydney Opera House, cost 1250 hammers, while the ideology-unique wonders (Prora, Statue of Liberty and Kremlin) cost 1060 hammers.

Hmmm, 1 free social policy and +1 production per specialist, for 1060 hammers, or everything that an Archology is proposed to provide, for 1500 hammers? Not even a close question. 7500 hammers (equivalent to 5 of the 6 SS parts, but since you have to build it in one city, that's 30 turns at 250 production per turn in a large city), with the nail-biting risk that there can be only one? A bit more compelling, but who wants to sit around for 30 turns waiting to see if they got it, and how is that fun (no one likes end-of-game that depends on just counting down turns, which is one of the reasons why the culture victory got changed in the first place)?

A better solution would be to dramatically scale back the benefits of the Archology. For 1500 hammers, any one of your items (except maybe the +10 food, which is pretty meh) would be a fair deal.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And yeah, the late game does lack for wonders. If science fiction can get into the game for buildings and units, why not wonders?

Science Fiction is NOT required - at least not for Wonders, I think it would be nice to have some in the game besides the trickle we have now.

Here's a short list of additional Wonders and National Wonders possible just since the beginning of the Modern Era (roughly, 1900 CE) with suggested effects:

World Wonders:
Panama Canal (or "Great Canal") - (Trade, Gold)
Hoover Dam or Great Dnepr Dam (hydroelectric power, Production)
Empire State Building (Gold, Trade, Tourism)
Hollywood (Gold, Luxury Resource, Happiness)
DARPA (Research, Military)
CERN Collider (Research)
Channel Tunnel (Trade, Gold, Tourism)

National Wonders:
River Rouge Plant (Production, Resource)
Interstate/Autobahn Highway System (travel speed, Internal Trade, Happiness)
Research Park (or "Silicon Valley") - (Gold, Research)
National Training Center (Military)
Grand Casino ("Las Vegas" or "Monte Carlo") - (Gold, Happiness, Tourism)

-And that's by no means a complete list, since it leaves out variations like Three Gorges Dam (more modern 'Hoover') and Burj Khalifa (more modern 'Empire State').

 

[inthesomeday]

Well I mean it's for game balance that there are no super late game wonders, the late game has things that win you the game and wonders aren't supposed to win you the game they're just supposed to help you along. So the introduction of late game wonders would be counter intuitive to the intended flow of the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well I mean it's for game balance that there are no super late game wonders, the late game has things that win you the game and wonders aren't supposed to win you the game they're just supposed to help you along. So the introduction of late game wonders would be counter intuitive to the intended flow of the game.

BUT the result of that supposed 'game balance' or 'game flow' decision is that the game flows right into the toilet during the End Game. In the past two years, except when I ignored all other victory types and pursued a Science Victory, I've never played a game out past the Industrial or Modern Era - a Cultural, Diplomatic or Domination Victory was always a 'sure thing' by then, and there was no sense playing any further - 'end game ennui' would set in all too soon.

In other words, I firmly believe that there should be (Potentially) Game Changing Events throughout the game. This both keeps the game exciting until the very end, and is in keeping with the history that the game purports to be based on: you only have to look at the dramatic 'turn arounds' that some of the game's 'civilizations' have gone through historically:
Britain - in 1600 CE, a small group of pirates with great Theater - in 1750 CE, the military and economic Great Power of the world.
China - The Great Power of Asia for most of its history, an 'exploitable market' and Diplomatic Footstool from 1750 to 1920, since 2000 a World Great Power.
Germany - several regional states or tribes until 1870, from 1871 to 1945 arguably the military Great Power of Europe, since 1960 one of the handful of Economic Great Powers of the world.

IF the 'intended flow of the game' is as you stated, then the flow of the game is wrong from both the standpoint of history and, more importantly, maintaining Excitement in Game Play until the end of the game.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

In other words, I firmly believe that there should be (Potentially) Game Changing Events throughout the game. This both keeps the game exciting until the very end, and is in keeping with the history that the game purports to be based on: you only have to look at the dramatic 'turn arounds' that some of the game's 'civilizations' have gone through historically:
Britain - in 1600 CE, a small group of pirates with great Theater - in 1750 CE, the military and economic Great Power of the world.
China - The Great Power of Asia for most of its history, an 'exploitable market' and Diplomatic Footstool from 1750 to 1920, since 2000 a World Great Power.
Germany - several regional states or tribes until 1870, from 1871 to 1945 arguably the military Great Power of Europe, since 1960 one of the handful of Economic Great Powers of the world.

This is the paradox of strategy genre. If there are game changing events even at the end, how does that not mean the early decisions don't matter?

And catch up mechanics cannot be allowed to have elastic power levels.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is the paradox of strategy genre. If there are game changing events even at the end, how does that not mean the early decisions don't matter?

Because you have to be in a position to take advantage of a 'game changing' event, construction, Wonder, or mechanic.
Because you have to make sure your opponent - or in most games, one of your several opponents - hasn't already won the game.

Both of which require 'early decisions'...

And catch up mechanics cannot be allowed to have elastic power levels.

What in the world are you talking about? MOST elements of the game have 'elastic levels':
Buildings that effect a % factor in the city are elastic - they depend on the size and other capabilities of the city.
Wonders or Natural Wonders that effect capabilities in the city or civ depend on those base capabilities, and so the effects are 'elastic'.
Any extra capabilities of a Unit or Unique Unit depend, frequently on the terrain they are used on, the map you are playing on, and the number of units you can afford to build and maintain: the effects are ALL ELASTIC!
- And, if their capabilities are against certain units or types of units (Pikes versus Mounted, Lancers versus Mounted) they are dependent on what your opponent(s) build - again, any exact effects are elastic.

 

[Redaxe]

Its an interesting idea no doubt but the inherent problem with civilization is that the games are basically over by the atomic era (and really most are decided by the renaissance). You'd have to add in another 1-2 future era's to compensate but most players tire of games past the industrial era so it would be a lot of work for an unpredictable result. Although to the devs credit they did make the later era's more interesting with ideologies etc... but it gets to a point where most players just want to just "click next turn" until the game is over.

It would be more suited to Beyond Earth (yeah I can't believe I'm saying that).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its an interesting idea no doubt but the inherent problem with civilization is that the games are basically over by the atomic era (and really most are decided by the renaissance). You'd have to add in another 1-2 future era's to compensate but most players tire of games past the industrial era so it would be a lot of work for an unpredictable result. Although to the devs credit they did make the later era's more interesting with ideologies etc... but it gets to a point where most players just want to just "click next turn" until the game is over.

It would be more suited to Beyond Earth (yeah I can't believe I'm saying that).

You touch on a basic problem with the entire Civ series of games, in that they are essentially linear: you start at 4000 BCE with a tiny group/units and progress steadily until you achieve 'victory'. The disappearance and/or re-appearance, of 'original' civilizations, emergence of new civilizations and their rise and fall - none of this has ever been in the game, and a strictly linear advance for 6000 years means that, all too often, you have advanced to victory long before 6000 years passes.

I put it to you if that model had held historically, my ball-point pen would be wedge-shaped and we'd all be learning Advanced Cuneiform Babylonian in school, because Babylon would still be the largest and most influential city in the world!

If they could make a single Game Changing difference in Civ VI, this would be it: that your civilization and others are subject to 'ups' and 'downs' and that victory does not depend on maintaining your capital city inviolate for 6000 years, but on both an over-all 'Victory' final condition AND an on-going Historical Score: how happy did you keep your population for how long? How impressive and influential was your culture, political/economic/military power for what percentage of history? How much did your scientists discover and your Engineers build that still influences/impresses?

Now that, IMHO, would make a game in which you would have to stay absorbed from start to finish, and even if your Civilization 'started' late (built its first city 200 turns into the game?), and spent part of its history under some other state politically, and is now no bigger than an enlarged City State, your Ireland/Switzerland/New Zealand/Cuba is still distinct and unique, with its own culture and influence and 'Victory Points', just as much as an end-game United States (talk about starting 'late'!), Russia (first city: early Medieval Era), or China (multiple Revolutions, Conquests, Civil Wars)

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

That's not what I meant by elastic. I don't know what you mean by elastic. I meant resembling the energy buildup of an elastic band in tension.

I would support a rebalance of Civ: The Definitive Edition toward the Points victory. I blame this largely on my love of 7 Wonders and 7 Wonders: Duel. Perhaps they could take a page from the European style too and inject the game with "Points-scoring trigger conditions" instead of necessarily waiting until turn 500 or an omega event (e.g. conquest).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I would support a rebalance of Civ: The Definitive Edition toward the Points victory. I blame this largely on my love of 7 Wonders and 7 Wonders: Duel. Perhaps they could take a page from the European style too and inject the game with "Points-scoring trigger conditions" instead of necessarily waiting until turn 500 or an omega event (e.g. conquest).

In this we are agreed: the game needs Victory Conditions that do not depend entirely on the condition of the civilizations at Turn 500 or at the moment of a single-Civ's Cultural, Diplomatic, or Military Pre-Eminence. Cumulative Points from on-going conditions or individual 'Points Triggers' or even Self-Defined Victory should be possible.

I have played games in which, for instance, my 'Victory' playing the United States was to build a Transcontinental Railroad from one side of a Pangaea continent to the other, regardless of what else was going on. Why not? Adding to the 'conventional' victories just increases the potential Replay and enjoyment of the game, doesn't it?