Wonders: Build vs. Capture

[6K Man]

Also semi-capturable:
- Spiral Minaret
- University of Sankore
Because they require a state religion AND planning ahead (temples + monasteries, possibly cathedrals in your state religion) for them to work properly.

You're misunderstanding the criteria I'm using.

These two wonders are absolutely capturable, because:
- placement is irrelevant to their utility.
- being the builder is irrelevant to their utility.

A wonder is "uncapturable" when its principal benefit only applies to the builder (like Oracle).

A wonder is "semi-capturable" when its principal benefit is somewhat less useful (or substantially less useful) if it's in the wrong city or wrong landmass (like Great Library or Notre Dame).

Hanging Gardens is an unusual case, because it has 2 benefits: The + applies even if captured, but the +1 population only applies to the builder.

 

[Bibor]

You're misunderstanding the criteria I'm using.
...

A wonder is "semi-capturable" when its principal benefit is somewhat less useful (or substantially less useful) if it's in the wrong city or wrong landmass (like Great Library or Notre Dame).

If you stick to a strict definition then yes, they are capturable. But if you're running free religion (or no religion due to diplomatical reasons), or have no religious infrastructure to speak of, the benefits of capturing them are not much higher than benefits from Oracle.

Wrong City, wrong landmass, wrong religious politics, wrong civics. Same category in my opinion. (The chances of you running no state religion and capturing a Statue of Liberty on another landmass are about the same)

 

[mirthadir]

Bibor: The key difference being you can change your civics, it may be annoying but you can do it (you may need to flip to OR but the UoS and SM can be swapped around). The SoL may end up being built by an AI on their pitiful little island instead of the pangea the rest of the world is on. You can't change that later. The AP is less extreme, you can spread the religion from the AP city itself and run OR to build temples and gain votes ... but you can't restrict the religious spread to a tame religion if you want to game the votes.

Further, I'd even say that building the UoS or SM has the same restrictions as capturing it - you need to make the same sacrifices to get the benefit. If you build the UoS in FR it is exactly the same as capturing it in FR. The AP, SoL, etc. are all wonders where that symmetry doesn't exist.

 

[stefista]

2 Points:

1) Sistine Chapel's religious building culture bonus suffers from the same issue as univerity of sankore and spiral minaret. The specialist culture bonus is not so limited, so the Sistine Chapel should not only be semi-capturable, but also considered like the Hanging Gardens because it gives two different bonii.

2). Isn't this whole buid vs capture discussion just dancing around the point that any wonder...both its effects and how it is to be obtained...must fit into your overall strategy? I mean, if you want early diplo, declaring war to capture AP is probably going to make the vote harder to manipulate. Can you capture Sistine Chapel if your culture win involves forsaking all military beyond city garrison? Obviously, if you are warring, you can capture many useful wonders, but the bottom line is that no wonder is strategically critical to winning militarily, so what's the point? Then there's the issue that any wonder is uncapturable if you want it in a particular city for the GPP as with a GSpy or GE farm. Finally, we need to remember that any pre-astro "capturable" wonder (e.g. Pyramids, GLH) can be built on the wrong continent...because your 10 axemen can't get there! I guess the conclusion has to be that if a wonder is critical to your goals, you should probably build it, if it isn't critical, then it's no more than a nice goodie.

 

[6K Man]

If you stick to a strict definition then yes, they are capturable. But if you're running free religion (or no religion due to diplomatical reasons), or have no religious infrastructure to speak of, the benefits of capturing them are not much higher than benefits from Oracle.

But that’s not the point of this exercise, which was to list the wonders you need to build yourself if you want to get any benefit from them (and secondly, to list the wonders that are less effective if you don’t build them yourself). Capturing Sankore and/or Spiral Minaret is as good as building them (equally useful to build or capture if you have a state religion, and equally useless to build or capture if you don’t). Maybe you should start a separate thread for your list, because otherwise, we’re talking at cross purposes…

I would venture to say that there are circumstances in which virtually any wonder becomes only marginally useful, e.g.:

Stonehenge (if you’re Creative or Inca)
Great Lighthouse (if you’re on a Great Plains map)
Great Wall (if you have turned off Barbs and are isolated, or playing Always Peace)
Pyramids (if you already are in Hereditary Rule and can’t switch due to happiness issues)
Pentagon (if you’re seeking a Diplomatic or Space win)
Mausoleum of Mausallos (if you settle all your GP and Taj Mahal is already gone)
Etc, etc.

 

[stefista]

I would venture to say that there are circumstances in which virtually any wonder becomes only marginally useful, e.g.:

Stonehenge (if you’re Creative or Inca)
Great Lighthouse (if you’re on a Great Plains map)
Great Wall (if you have turned off Barbs and are isolated, or playing Always Peace)
Pyramids (if you already are in Hereditary Rule and can’t switch due to happiness issues)
Pentagon (if you’re seeking a Diplomatic or Space win)
Mausoleum of Mausallos (if you settle all your GP and Taj Mahal is already gone)
Etc, etc.

Wow...you need to brush up on some major alternative wonder uses:

Great Wall: spawn an early great spy
Pyramids: usually for running representation for extra specialist beakers; using them for hereditary rule is a waste; also for early rush-buy or making great engineers
Masoleum of Mausallos: culture bomb/AI denial...and if you get it, but settle GPs, just burn one because it will be worth it
Pentagon: Space race and diplo wins are often violent (defend your ship; raise rival's capital before ship arrives; defeated rival gets no votes; vassals vote for their master)

But I agree in general...wonders' usefulness depends on the circumstances. This thread is about wonders whose usefulness is made less by having it built by someone else, not situations that make wonders useless.

 

[6K Man]

Wow...you need to brush up on some major alternative wonder uses:

Great Wall: spawn an early great spy
Pyramids: usually for running representation for extra specialist beakers; using them for hereditary rule is a waste; also for early rush-buy or making great engineers
Masoleum of Mausallos: culture bomb/AI denial...and if you get it, but settle GPs, just burn one because it will be worth it
Pentagon: Space race and diplo wins are often violent (defend your ship; raise rival's capital before ship arrives; defeated rival gets no votes; vassals vote for their master)

Wow… I’m well aware of the alternative uses for most Wonders. Hence my statement that the Wonders I cited become marginally useful in certain circumstances. For example, building something for the sole purpose of denying it to the AI means its value to you is, at best, marginal.

 

[mirthadir]

The question of marginal useage brought to mind three additional wonders:

Broadway, Rock and Roll, and Hollywood.

First, there is the obvious that you lose the bonus multiplier you might want either at an important cultural border or might not be in any of your big three cities for a cultural victory.

Second, the city can be disconnected from your trade network. For instance if you sieze an inland Broadway, make peace, and then have hostile AI culture nab all the tiles around the city it won't connect to your trade network until flight.

 

[Derakon]

On the other hand, by the time you have those wonders, you should be able to build airports, which make extending trade networks pretty trivial. And they come late enough that I'd be surprised if they were particularly useful in culture wars.

 

[mirthadir]

Derakon:

I've found them to be useful in late game culture wars on deity; if you have IW near a border you can nab a few tiles and that can mean a freebie resource or two. If you stack all of them in the IW city on the border with some Sushi culture, you can get good results.

As far as air transport. Well it is a pretty good haul from electricity to flight, particularly if need to gun fission/rocketry instead of going down the flight path.

 

[champ82]

I agree with the OP that capturing a wonder as an integral part of you strategy, especially early game, is most often not advisable.

First off, are you even sure the landmass you’re on is going to grab it?

The exception may be a shrine or a convenient pyramids you can grab quickly enough before devoting yourself to cottages.

Otherwise, build what you think will make you stay competitive if you can, whether it’s Great Wall, Great Lighthouse, Pyramids, Great Library, Oracle, whatever. I’m not saying you should necessarily build any of these things, although I personally do build one or two great early wonders. Which one(s) I build depend on the map of course.

And now, onto some nitpicking.

Versailles: Not always in the optimum location, but you can always move your Palace

I have to disagree with this completely. Why why why would one ever build this thing? Research a dead-end tech that unlocks the last and largely useless religion? Pour heeps of into a great wonder that is mostly the same as a national wonder? Running FM it may be nice to have two of these suckers but are you going to be that big or on 3 different land masses by the time you can build this thing?

On the contrary, Versailles is a perfect wonder to capture and a terrible one to build. You’re at war, you’re invading land, some of the cities you are taking over are not likely to have courthouses, how could Versailles possibly be in a bad location in this instance? It’s reducing maintenance in new land – perfect. I see it as highly doubtful that building two Forbidden Palaces in your land before the war would have been better.

Notre Dame: May be on wrong continent.

If you’re invading a new continent, those cities will be unhappy at first. Better to keep them happier and prevent them from shrinking to tiny populations. This may not be where you would have chosen to build Notre Dame, but man, you just captured a wonder, it’s a nice bonus.

Statue of Liberty: May be on wrong continent.

Who is building this on a small, useless continent? Whoever built this thing probably has lots of land, take over all their cities. Maybe it’s not where you would have built it, but man you just captured a wonder.

Three Gorgeous Dames: May be on wrong continent.

Again, a backwards civ did not build this thing. The civ that built this thing probably has some good land to take over so finish them off. The production cities on your continent should have coal plants a century ago anyway. This wonder being on a new continent can be ideal as now when captured cities build factories they get a huge bonus. And man, you just captured a wonder.

In conclusion, yes some wonders are almost useless to capture (Taj, Oracle.)

And if a wonder only has partial benefits like Hanging Gardens, embrace the benefit it did give you. You didn’t build it after all.

And don’t plan on your neighbor to build a particular wonder – it might not happen. If you want Great Lighthouse and you can afford to build it, build it.

 

[champ82]

The question of marginal useage brought to mind three additional wonders:

Broadway, Rock and Roll, and Hollywood.

Second, the city can be disconnected from your trade network. For instance if you sieze an inland Broadway, make peace, and then have hostile AI culture nab all the tiles around the city it won't connect to your trade network until flight.

But AIs seeking a cultural victory didn't get it. And you can probably trade some of those musicals, singles, movies for resources or gold. If the city is completely surounded by a hostile civ and you call for / accept peace, you f'ed up your war plan. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war while defeated warriors...

 

[mirthadir]

I agree with the OP that capturing a wonder as an integral part of you strategy, especially early game, is most often not advisable.

First off, are you even sure the landmass you’re on is going to grab it?

The exception may be a shrine or a convenient pyramids you can grab quickly enough before devoting yourself to cottages.

Otherwise, build what you think will make you stay competitive if you can, whether it’s Great Wall, Great Lighthouse, Pyramids, Great Library, Oracle, whatever. I’m not saying you should necessarily build any of these things, although I personally do build one or two great early wonders. Which one(s) I build depend on the map of course.

The point is that a lot of players often say that capturing a wonder is just as good as building it yourself, if not better. While you don't plan to take specific wonders, you can often get a lot more bang for the buck by building units and just capturing.

I have to disagree with this completely. Why why why would one ever build this thing? Research a dead-end tech that unlocks the last and largely useless religion? Pour heeps of into a great wonder that is mostly the same as a national wonder? Running FM it may be nice to have two of these suckers but are you going to be that big or on 3 different land masses by the time you can build this thing?

1. There are no dead end techs if there is trade. DR is the longest lived trade bait in the game and can be bulbed by a GPr (which may not have all that many other options). Also if you are in EE it makes an excellent target to steal as the wonders are just that good.
2. For culture shots a new religion you control is worth more than just about anything else in the game. Getting another source of cheap FR happiness, more cheap temples (especially if SPI), and more priest slots (if you are running AW priests in rep).
3. Yes you can easily get that big. Suppose you do an early mounted rush and get up to around 12 cities more or less all in long line, that makes the FP pretty much a gimmee. Trading for Astro is certainly possible at this point and you can now look at having a whole new landmass which your wonder really helps you maximize (particularly if you have a killer shrine and are heading towards corps).

On the contrary, Versailles is a perfect wonder to capture and a terrible one to build. You’re at war, you’re invading land, some of the cities you are taking over are not likely to have courthouses, how could Versailles possibly be in a bad location in this instance? It’s reducing maintenance in new land – perfect. I see it as highly doubtful that building two Forbidden Palaces in your land before the war would have been better.

You do an early mounted war and get to around 12 cities (normal size map with standard AI count) and build the FP in an old AI cap at the other end of your long, narrow empire. You opt to get astro (early double bulb shot) and start settling the new world, getting 7 cities on an island. A quick run to Physics and arty gives you the needed firepower to take the civ next to the FP ... which has versaille in it. Which would be better Versaille on the island directly adjacent to the immobile FP? If you are Ind/OR/have marble this can make DR a pretty good tech to research or steal.

If you’re invading a new continent, those cities will be unhappy at first. Better to keep them happier and prevent them from shrinking to tiny populations. This may not be where you would have chosen to build Notre Dame, but man, you just captured a wonder, it’s a nice bonus.



Who is building this on a small, useless continent? Whoever built this thing probably has lots of land, take over all their cities. Maybe it’s not where you would have built it, but man you just captured a wonder.

Big and small map with the small guy being a stone wielding HC. In his cap, with fish, cows, cu, and his three hills, he builds Notre Dame and it serves 3 cities. HC is strong here because he has settled a lot of high resource islands, he oracled MC, built the Colossus and the GLH and works a lot of 2 4 tiles. Notre Dame is in a crappy position but HC is in a strong position.

Again, a backwards civ did not build this thing. The civ that built this thing probably has some good land to take over so finish them off. The production cities on your continent should have coal plants a century ago anyway. This wonder being on a new continent can be ideal as now when captured cities build factories they get a huge bonus. And man, you just captured a wonder.

Look the whole point of semi-capturable isn't that the wonder is "useless", it is that you don't get as much out of it. So let's say a nice AI, like MM, has an island separated by a narrow 2 tile straight. He mostly cottages his empire and gets a strong tech position (he has all overseas TR all game, he's fin, he as a strong economic UB, and he trades tech like a wild man). You are Spain and opt to keep the citadel alive while spamming arty and rolling your land. This, of course, tanks your tech rate, but with enough arty, SAMinf, and ATs you elect to invade MM. Because you are running PS you will have virtually no on the island, making the factories not worth the investment cost, particularly given that you have to also build buildings to keep the population up to work the cottages. As compared to having 3GD on your landmass with the next 3 victims (who also are running a lot of SP WS like you).

But AIs seeking a cultural victory didn't get it. And you can probably trade some of those musicals, singles, movies for resources or gold. If the city is completely surounded by a hostile civ and you call for / accept peace, you f'ed up your war plan. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war while defeated warriors...

Umm ... no. First off let's say I take the city with Broadway 1 tile off the coast (because the AI settles dumb that way). I begin marching my stack inland to take more cities ... but boom the target AI gets a second DoW where another AI rolls tanks in. Before I can take the next city, my caps to the other AI. I'm now stuck with a city that is culture locked and has no trade access out. I could maybe war the overlord, but if they have better tech than I do ... that gets dicey fast.

Second off, let's say I take Broadway which is 4 tiles from the legendary cap of a third AI (say QSH). Both AIs where gunning culture which made the city viable for my victim. I start with 0 culture vs legendary. Without corps I can't generate more than a pittance and a legendary city will engulf me in culture on all sides.

Now yes there still are good things about capturing these wonders even if they are in horrid locations where you quickly get culture locked. I'm just saying you can lose a LOT of potential value from those wonders if the AI builds them in a stupid (for you) place.

 

[champ82]

You do an early mounted war and get to around 12 cities (normal size map with standard AI count) and build the FP in an old AI cap at the other end of your long, narrow empire. You opt to get astro (early double bulb shot) and start settling the new world, getting 7 cities on an island. A quick run to Physics and arty gives you the needed firepower to take the civ next to the FP ... which has versaille in it. Which would be better Versaille on the island directly adjacent to the immobile FP? If you are Ind/OR/have marble this can make DR a pretty good tech to research or steal.

...7 cities settled peacefully on a new landmass before State Property...this doesn't kill your economy how? Maybe with Greatlighthouse it doesn't, otherwise it is. And 1 of these newer cities (how much time did you have inbetween astro and Divine Right?) has enough production to build Versailles, which is really expensive? Yeah, I don't see it.

I did see someone do something like this with a Great Engineer on a Prince game...and that's cool and everything, for Prince.

Big and small map with the small guy being a stone wielding HC. In his cap, with fish, cows, cu, and his three hills, he builds Notre Dame and it serves 3 cities. HC is strong here because he has settled a lot of high resource islands, he oracled MC, built the Colossus and the GLH and works a lot of 2 4 tiles. Notre Dame is in a crappy position but HC is in a strong position.

OK. I could see that. I suppose my fractal ways did influence much of what I said.

Look the whole point of semi-capturable isn't that the wonder is "useless", it is that you don't get as much out of it. So let's say a nice AI, like MM, has an island separated by a narrow 2 tile straight. He mostly cottages his empire and gets a strong tech position (he has all overseas TR all game, he's fin, he as a strong economic UB, and he trades tech like a wild man). You are Spain and opt to keep the citadel alive while spamming arty and rolling your land. This, of course, tanks your tech rate, but with enough arty, SAMinf, and ATs you elect to invade MM. Because you are running PS you will have virtually no on the island, making the factories not worth the investment cost, particularly given that you have to also build buildings to keep the population up to work the cottages. As compared to having 3GD on your landmass with the next 3 victims (who also are running a lot of SP WS like you).

So the player wants to avoid economics but get 3GD and then complain if it's not in the perfect spot? Cueing the world’s tiniest violin…

Umm ... no. First off let's say I take the city with Broadway 1 tile off the coast (because the AI settles dumb that way). I begin marching my stack inland to take more cities ... but boom the target AI gets a second DoW where another AI rolls tanks in. Before I can take the next city, my caps to the other AI. I'm now stuck with a city that is culture locked and has no trade access out. I could maybe war the overlord, but if they have better tech than I do ... that gets dicey fast.

You don't have open borders with or plan on taking over the tank AI? Seems like you might lose that city.

Second off, let's say I take Broadway which is 4 tiles from the legendary cap of a third AI (say QSH). Both AIs where gunning culture which made the city viable for my victim. I start with 0 culture vs legendary. Without corps I can't generate more than a pittance and a legendary city will engulf me in culture on all sides.

If you're building from scratch next to a legendary city, you'ld be screwed even if Broadway kept it's +50% when taken over.

Now yes there still are good things about capturing these wonders even if they are in horrid locations where you quickly get culture locked. I'm just saying you can lose a LOT of potential value from those wonders if the AI builds them in a stupid (for you) place.

So then you agree with me.

And don’t plan on your neighbor to build a particular wonder – it might not happen. If you want Great Lighthouse and you can afford to build it, build it.

 

[mirthadir]

...7 cities settled peacefully on a new landmass before State Property...this doesn't kill your economy how? Maybe with Greatlighthouse it doesn't, otherwise it is. And 1 of these newer cities (how much time did you have inbetween astro and Divine Right?) has enough production to build Versailles, which is really expensive? Yeah, I don't see it.

Well for a start with GLH it is easy to keep the economy going. For another 7 cities normally means a good number of unique resources; these can push up happy and health caps letting your work more tiles in your core (and perhaps get more gold in trade from higher pop sizes). Then let's remember that there is plenty of commerce to be had at astro - dye, spice, gems, Au, Ag, marble. Even if you just get a few more horses and cows you can normally sell those for some pretty nice gold.

As far as production umm there is this civic called OR that gives you more , there is resource called Marble which gives you yet more and there is this mechanism called chopping which gives you 30 base . You can easily get half the out of chopping and it really doesn't take that long to get good production up. At this point you can ship over idle workers and quick build a lot of improvements. Give me two wet corns and this place will be a production powerhouse in no time at all.

I did see someone do something like this with a Great Engineer on a Prince game...and that's cool and everything, for Prince.

Well it is among the best uses of a GE for certain setups outside of founding a corporation. If I have a strong GE pump lined up (future IWs cap with the mids, HG, HSophia) I will ship out a GE to make insta-verseille as that is FAR more profitable in the mid and long terms than a GM mission. I've done it twice on deity (IND with stone)



OK. I could see that. I suppose my fractal ways did influence much of what I said.

So the player wants to avoid economics but get 3GD and then complain if it's not in the perfect spot? Cueing the world’s tiniest violin…

Oh please, take any late game war mongering strat you like that doesn't beeline industrialism (e.g. the massively overpowered flight option). On higher difficulties you can either gun plastics and build 3GD or you can gun other options and let an AI build it. There a massive number of viable strats where you don't get coal plants everywhere before 3GD becomes viable, particularly if you are having health issues (like say when SB is next door and is someone's vassal you can't yet afford to attack)

You don't have open borders with or plan on taking over the tank AI? Seems like you might lose that city.

If you're building from scratch next to a legendary city, you'ld be screwed even if Broadway kept it's +50% when taken over.

Huh? You have a large stack with snaps back into the city. With enough garrison the place will never revolt and your are good to keep it forever. More often the trouble is your stack is now stranded. The real problem is the city not being connected to your trade network.

So then you agree with me.

No, you are completely missing the point of the thread. The point is to delineate when this is an assymetric opportunity cost of acquisition vs building. Just because you can afford to build GLH, doesn't make it a good option. Instead you should look at the opportunity cost of building the GLH (what could you do with the instead), and what are the odds that it will be built by an AI near you (this can actually get quite high if you have two wonder whores next door who have resources needing fishing and masonry). What this thread is looking at is when do you need to discount the value of capture, after you have made the trivially obvious step of discounting the chances that it will be built far away. The try to build it vs try to capture it comparison requires a component considering the assymetry of some wonders; this in turns effects the calculation of cost effectiveness for building a huge pile of axes or trying to build a wonder.

Why you persist in reiterating a trivially irrelevant point is beyond me.

 

[champ82]

Well for a start with GLH it is easy to keep the economy going. For another 7 cities normally means a good number of unique resources; these can push up happy and health caps letting your work more tiles in your core (and perhaps get more gold in trade from higher pop sizes). Then let's remember that there is plenty of commerce to be had at astro - dye, spice, gems, Au, Ag, marble. Even if you just get a few more horses and cows you can normally sell those for some pretty nice gold.

OK well the problem is we are not talking about any particular game. I suppose it could be possible to make some money off of this 7 city island before Versailles/Forbidden Palace/ State Property but it is by no means guaranteed. But then you see, my statement that you shouldn’t build Versailles was a general statement, influenced by the map type I play, which I freely admitted. And I stick to it as such.

As far as production umm there is this civic called OR that gives you more , there is resource called Marble which gives you yet more and there is this mechanism called chopping which gives you 30 base . You can easily get half the out of chopping and it really doesn't take that long to get good production up. At this point you can ship over idle workers and quick build a lot of improvements.

Oh yeah I forgot about OR and chopping and resource bonuses. All of the wonders are actually easy to put up. The next game I play I'm going to put up all the wonders by using OR, resources and chopping. Thanks for the tip.

Well it is among the best uses of a GE for certain setups outside of founding a corporation. If I have a strong GE pump lined up (future IWs cap with the mids, HG, HSophia) I will ship out a GE to make insta-verseille as that is FAR more profitable in the mid and long terms than a GM mission. I've done it twice on deity (IND with stone)

Sending a GE to build Versailles could very well be a good idea. I am intrigued by these GE specific GPFs. If you have a game with one, I’d love to see it.

Give me two wet corns and this place will be a production powerhouse in no time at all.

I'm sure you could. Now, what place are we talking about? Oh yeah your made up island...

Sorry, I’m not buying that Versailles could be easily put up without a GE on an island settled after astro. You would need a lot of chops. But of course we magically have a lot of forest on this island that also has ample sellable resources (dye, gems and spices are usually found in jungle) and two wet corns because that’s what your argument needs.

Oh please, take any late game war mongering strat you like that doesn't beeline industrialism (e.g. the massively overpowered flight option). On higher difficulties you can either gun plastics and build 3GD or you can gun other options and let an AI build it. There a massive number of viable strats where you don't get coal plants everywhere before 3GD becomes viable, particularly if you are having health issues (like say when SB is next door and is someone's vassal you can't yet afford to attack)

Sure, coal plants are not always your friend. But if we are deliberately avoiding industrialism or even economics like your other example, we have decided not to pursue 3GD. It would stand to reason then that we should not feel gyped if we conquer it in a bad location. It would also be fair to say that in this instance 3GD was not an integral part of your strategy.

I agree with the OP that capturing a wonder as an integral part of you strategy, especially early game, is most often not advisable.

No, you are completely missing the point of the thread. The point is to delineate when this is an assymetric opportunity cost of acquisition vs building.

And my position, which was made quite clear, is that you should rarely count on acquisition.

Just because you can afford to build GLH, doesn't make it a good option. Instead you should look at the opportunity cost of building the GLH (what could you do with the instead),

This is what I meant by afford, not that you should build it if you could litereally do it or not, but IF it's worth your hammers. This is often what people mean when they use the word afford.

Q: Hey man, want to buy a $100 shot of whiskey?
A: No, I can't afford that.

and what are the odds that it will be built by an AI near you (this can actually get quite high if you have two wonder whores next door who have resources needing fishing and masonry). What this thread is looking at is when do you need to discount the value of capture, after you have made the trivially obvious step of discounting the chances that it will be built far away. The try to build it vs try to capture it comparison requires a component considering the assymetry of some wonders; this in turns effects the calculation of cost effectiveness for building a huge pile of axes or trying to build a wonder.

Why you persist in reiterating a trivially irrelevant point is beyond me.

Here's a hypothetical...Say you're on a landmass with 2 AIs, there's one wonderwhore, HC...and Hammurabi, why not? You think that maybe it would be a good idea to build the Great Lighthouse on this map and that you can afford it (as in, you know, it's worth your s) Then you see that HC has a stone and clam. What does one do?

Some might number crunch and decide that it is mathmatically optimal to build units instead of GLH and keep their fingers crossed. But when a player is praying for HC to build GLH so they can do something with their army, where do they put their setter, on the coast, or not on the coast? The player doesn't know what to do. Their plan is a little too loose. In favor of "optimal play," they have lost the big picture.

Not this guy. I am going to build the GLH. My biggest reason being the X factor of I don't know who the other 4 civs are and they could very well build it instead of HC. There's a ton of other things to consider as well.

I make armies when I want more land or want to bring down another civ. If they have a key wonder, a juicy shrine, maybe mids, UN...this is something to consider...but to wait for your neihbors to build wonders, then take them, then build a strategy off of whatever they built seems unoptimal.

Sorry if my logic is too obvious or trivial or trivially obvious or whatever but it just seems like common sense. As a general rule, you build the wonders that are integral to your strategy and the rest are just goodies that you may be able to bring into the fold.

 

[mirthadir]

OK well the problem is we are not talking about any particular game. I suppose it could be possible to make some money off of this 7 city island before Versailles/Forbidden Palace/ State Property but it is by no means guaranteed. But then you see, my statement that you shouldn’t build Versailles was a general statement, influenced by the map type I play, which I freely admitted. And I stick to it as such.



Oh yeah I forgot about OR and chopping and resource bonuses. All of the wonders are actually easy to put up. The next game I play I'm going to put up all the wonders by using OR, resources and chopping. Thanks for the tip.



Sending a GE to build Versailles could very well be a good idea. I am intrigued by these GE specific GPFs. If you have a game with one, I’d love to see it.

Look the islands I'm talking about don't show up often on fractal. They do however come out to play on other map types (e.g. Terra ALWAYS has more land in the "new world" than exists in the old world and frankly isn't that hard to send a settler into the temperate/cold zone to find a half dozen trees to chop; some of the ice age maps also give rise to several nice size islands with a good bit of tree cover). Further it is not like you have to FINISH verseille quickly, just before the AI does. If you are really hard up, just build Ver next to the cap (or even in a slightly better location in your core) and then build the palace on the island. The problem comes about that Ver and the FP are immobile and hence you CAN do a lot better if you build it than the AI does.

As far as a GE farm. Okay here is the ready bake recipe:
1. Build the mids, HG, and HSophia in one city
2. Build a forge.

This gives you 9 GE GPP if run the engineer, 18 GE GPP if you go NE. You can count on farming a GE about every 20 turns. Later in the game you can add a factory and normally the IW xor industrial park which can let you get GEs for corps and quick building other wonders (e.g. space elevator, SoL, etc.)

I'm sure you could. Now, what place are we talking about? Oh yeah your made up island...

Sorry, I’m not buying that Versailles could be easily put up without a GE on an island settled after astro. You would need a lot of chops. But of course we magically have a lot of forest on this island that also has ample sellable resources (dye, gems and spices are usually found in jungle) and two wet corns because that’s what your argument needs.

You do know that the map script for Terra is exactly that, right? Lots of land, novel resources, and even the odd wet corn often spanning everything from tundra to tropics. And no you don't need anything mythical, I'm just tossing out examples of something that is a surefire bet. I'm trying not to undershoot just how a good a place needs to be to build the thing, depending upon the AIs you can sometimes get away with one food resource and a few hills; others you will need some resource help. Two food resources with plenty of chop and caste + guilds is pretty common all told.

Sure, coal plants are not always your friend. But if we are deliberately avoiding industrialism or even economics like your other example, we have decided not to pursue 3GD. It would stand to reason then that we should not feel gyped if we conquer it in a bad location. It would also be fair to say that in this instance 3GD was not an integral part of your strategy.

Gods, who the frik cares if it is "integral"? Sheesh learn to be flexible, NOTHING is "integral" to victory - it is all a question of marginal utility.

You approach the industrial era and you are faced with several choices which is better - gunning flight and curb stomping a few AIs or gunning plastics and snagging 3GD? Well, if one of your targets is HC who happens to be the AI tech leader (and the next nearest AI has already begun culture whoring) who already has AL odds are pretty good that he will build 3GD. WHERE HE BUILDS IT makes a pretty big deal in determining if it is more cost effective to tech tanks and on to build 3GD yourself or to gun air + arty and take it from him. If HC is across the water from your main landmass a tank war gets a boost, if he is on your main landmass then arty + air gets a boost.

You see, reality isn't a BS binary choice between "integral" and not "integral"; real strategy is about saying choice A (teching to plastics, fighting a tank war, and building 3GD yourself) is better than choice B (teching to air and arty and capturing 3GD) - each choice has to be weighted against the effects in game and little things like which landmass the AI will build 3GD (or if you cannot tell which landmass will get 3GD) can be rather important.

And my position, which was made quite clear, is that you should rarely count on acquisition.

We shall call this the "simplistically wrong" answer. If one or two AIs start running ahead you can count on them to build the wonders, most often in their caps (or maybe IW cities) as they get them. A good half of the time I can call exactly which AIs will build which wonders. It is completely appropriate to count on acquisition if you have strong signs showing the AI will build a specific wonder (e.g. HC with stone in the BFC = mids in most cases, particularly if you are playing one of the traditional wonder whores).

This is what I meant by afford, not that you should build it if you could litereally do it or not, but IF it's worth your hammers. This is often what people mean when they use the word afford.

Q: Hey man, want to buy a $100 shot of whiskey?
A: No, I can't afford that.



Here's a hypothetical...Say you're on a landmass with 2 AIs, there's one wonderwhore, HC...and Hammurabi, why not? You think that maybe it would be a good idea to build the Great Lighthouse on this map and that you can afford it (as in, you know, it's worth your s) Then you see that HC has a stone and clam. What does one do?

Some might number crunch and decide that it is mathmatically optimal to build units instead of GLH and keep their fingers crossed. But when a player is praying for HC to build GLH so they can do something with their army, where do they put their setter, on the coast, or not on the coast? The player doesn't know what to do. Their plan is a little too loose. In favor of "optimal play," they have lost the big picture.

Not this guy. I am going to build the GLH. My biggest reason being the X factor of I don't know who the other 4 civs are and they could very well build it instead of HC. There's a ton of other things to consider as well.

I make armies when I want more land or want to bring down another civ. If they have a key wonder, a juicy shrine, maybe mids, UN...this is something to consider...but to wait for your neihbors to build wonders, then take them, then build a strategy off of whatever they built seems unoptimal.

Sorry if my logic is too obvious or trivial or trivially obvious or whatever but it just seems like common sense. As a general rule, you build the wonders that are integral to your strategy and the rest are just goodies that you may be able to bring into the fold.

We all get that if the map just begs for some specific wonder (e.g. archipeligo with GLH) that the opportunity cost is going to weight heavily to build it. On the other hand most games are not such that any one wonder is absolutely key to winning. Now we start getting into murkier water - say you've teched mathematics is it better to build it yourself or try to capture it?

Well if we lack stone, have no religion and aren't IN, but HC is next door with stone and founded Judaism odds of us completing the HG are pretty low to start with. In this case it is a more reliable bet to dump your into swords(and counters), tech construction, trade HC mathematics (if you can), and then go for a pult war to nab the sucker. Depending upon the map you might know that your side of the world has more AIs (and hence tends to tech faster) or perhaps even ALL the AIs (which means you can spot if anyone can come close to finishing the HG first). Adding to this little wrinkle is the assymetry of capturing vs building HG; the + pop in all cities can easily come out to be more than the in building the thing, particularly if you can nab stone in trade. And this is the real point - which wonders do you need to weigh differently for build vs capture.

"Integral" vs not "integral" is a BS oversimplification of an honest continuum. Even if it weren't, there are times where it is more reliable to build to conquest the wonder than to TRY to beat the AIs bonuses on the wonder itself.

 

[champ82]

First off, I do put an asterix next to my anti-Versailles building statement that states "on fractal maps." Then again, this is why I put my difficulty and map type in my signature - what advice one gives has everything to do with these things.

And no, I am not familiar with Terra maps. I've never played one or been interested in doing so.

Gods, who the frik cares if it is "integral"? Sheesh learn to be flexible, NOTHING is "integral" to victory - it is all a question of marginal utility.

This is what integral means to me. You play a game, a hard fought game where you responded to the RNG with some crafty tactics. It doesn’t have to be building a wonder. It could be taking a wonder, gifting a city, isolating someone with diplomacy, getting in good with particular AIs, taking down what would have been a run away civ at the right time, whatever. You did what had to be done at the time it had to be done in a way you best saw fit – this was your strategy. Maybe some of the things you did weren’t integral, but surely some were, as in if you did not do this, would you have gotten the W? If it seems like there was a good chance that you wouldn't have, or you honestly don't know how the game would have panned out if you did something different, then this was integral.

This is not to say there probably wasn’t a different way you could have won, but that too would have had different integral components, not none.

Having integral components of a strategy does not translate into a lack of flexibility. Plans should be flexible but the answer isn't no plan.
On the contrary, I would say building an army in anticipation of a civ building a particular wonder in the early game before you even know what 7 civs are out there seems entirely rigid, hence foolish.

But here you go - there may be some exceptions to this general rule.