Wonder Stackers

[Duke of Marlbrough]

So in MP it's easier to protect a couple of cities rather than one, or there is just no reason to have that much riding on one city?

I have always put my wonders in one city, MP and SP. It is in the middle of my territory and the best defended.

Mainly because I found that in MP if someone wants to take a city with a wonder, they are going to go for the one that hurts you the most (becasue you now have to fuction without the wonder, ie, happiness or troop support, etc) or the one that benefits them the best (Leo's, even if only held for a couple of well timed turns can upgrade your entire army) it is very hard to defend them all well all the time.

 

[SlowwHand]

I think surely that WOnders should be located in inner cities, I just question the wisdom of stacking in one city, as a general rule.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.
I could be as wrong as anyone.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I completely agree that each person has their own style, that is why I'm trying to see what people's reason's are for what they do. I am always open to adapting my play style for new stuff I find out about.

In SP it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of difference since there should not really be a problem with the comp taking a wonder city. But I always thought it to be easier to protect one key city rather than a couple. The thought that arises then is 'do you want to have all your eggs in one basket?'.

A human player can usually take at least one city if they try hard enough, so maybe having them all in one spot does present too large an opportunity for most people to pass up trying for....?

 

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough:
In SP it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of difference since there should not really be a problem with the comp taking a wonder city.

Well I don't know about you, but I'd be mightily pissed off if the AI managed to capture the city with Michelangelo's in and ruin my democracy. I'd then have to change my government and risk anarchy for ages or try to win it back with loads of unhappy people in a democracy. Not something I'd really fancy doing.



------------------
in vino veritas

 

[SlowwHand]

Exactly, and while you may feel safe in SP against an ignorant AI, don't bring it into an MP game.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Dreadnaught]

Hey on Emperor and Deity that AI Ain't so "Ignorant". Maybe it was just serendipty or just my fault, but on my last game on Emperor, I built bach's theadral and 2 turn later the Vikings were kocking my walls down...literlly

They ended up taking that city...but not for long.

------------------
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the the size of the fight in the dog."
- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[spycatcher34]

Yeah i think they were programmed to come after cities w/ wonders.Cause that happens to me alot cept my cities dont fall

------------------
Somewhere between war and diplomacy is the realm of the spy

[This message has been edited by spycatcher34 (edited August 08, 2001).]

 

[SlowwHand]

In an SP game they don't fall.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Atreidis_42o]

trying to point out the stacking nature of wonders if you get 2 or more that benefit in the same area, ie Lighthouse & Magellan's = awesome navy.

Light house (like Manhattan project & Appolo program) affects ALL civs, not just the civ who builds it (accourding to the manual), so it doesn't matter who builds it, this is why I never bother.

~Q

 

[Smash]

More than once I wished The Lighthouse worked for all but it doesn't.Just for the civ that has it.

 

[Magnus]

with Apollo, does every civ see the whole map? I have always been the first to build it.

 

[allan]

I never thought of this before--build Shakes in your SSC (as long as that SSC is on the coast--mine usually is). Then, when it maxes (no more effect of WLTP days in democracy), change all those entertainers (extra citizens with no more land to work) into scientists--no unhappiness, and increases the science output tremendously! Don't know why I didn't think of that before....

I tend to spread out my wonders to different cities (to have all five of the top 5 early on, and also because different wonders--especially Shake's, KRC, and SSC wonders--work better in certain geographic locations). At some point in the game I usually move my capital anyway (to a better defense location, inland if it was on the coast, etc.)--especially if I have a big city on a mountain (+200% defense) surrounded by plains and grassland, which I often build at least one of in a game....

[This message has been edited by allan (edited August 18, 2001).]

 

[allan]

On second thought--building Shake's in your SSC may not always be your most viable option. Since you build an SSC in a location with lots of trade (rivers and coast, but also lots of flatland), the flatland squares (grassland and plains) don't yeild lots of shields, and you want Shakes in a high-shield coastal city to support all your "unhappy" units and your navy. I suppose I've never built Shakes in my SSC because of that--until you get miniaturization and build a platform, an SSC usually won't have that high of a shield output....

But if you can have both (maybe a good SSC with an iron mountain along with whales), Putting Shake's there can be very good for late-game science, after your city is maxed and you convert all the extras to scientists....

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Magnus:
with Apollo, does every civ see the whole map? I have always been the first to build it.

Yes, once Apollo is built every civ gets to see the entire map.

 

[History_Buff]

Its perfectly fine to do that, but as said before, you better stack whatever defensive units you can get there.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

I don't know. I haven't played MP yet, but it seems logical that sometimes drawing a big target on your city could have its benefits. It is always preferable to be able to predict one's enemy's motives.

If one knows where the enemy is most likely to attack, one can defend that spot more readily than spreading oneself out over a large territory. There is a risk of losing, obviously, but one's advantage would be greater by eliminating the possibility of surprise.

No strategy can be 100% effective all the time.

PS: Sorry for continuing this digression. For the record, my favourite combo is G.Wall & Pyramids followed by something happy. Boring I know, but then I tend to sprawl all over the place given half a chance

.

------------------
<center><FONT COLOR="blue"> Did you ever stop to think that, if gh stood for p as in hiccough; ough for o as in dough; phth for t as in phthisis; eigh for a as in neighbour; tte for t as in gazette; and eau for o as in beau; then the correct spelling of potato would be ghoughphtheightteeau?</FONT c></center>

 

[Rife]

Actually, I was going to say the same thing. The specific question was "why put a big target on one city?" Well, so you know exactly where he is going and why. That is a HUGE HUGE tactical advantage. To me much better than not knowing if he will go after one of many cities. I would actually wonder more the other way, just why do you think it would be such a horrifyingly bad thing? A big target combined with a good tactically defensive war on that front can gain you a lot of advantage I think.