• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

World Bank as a great wonder?

Warlord Sam

2500 hours and counting..
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
379
I was thinking that this would make a killer wonder for the modern age...

Basically, it would work in game terms much as it does in the real world; for underdeveloped nations, it would provide assistance in developing healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Obviously, this can be translated to game terms.

Nations that are deemed underdeveloped... I'm not sure how we could judge that, that's the hard part. If the game engine already supports the ability to judge and compare developed terrain in the world's various nations' territories, then that would be pretty easy, but I haven't read anything to indicate that is a part of the engine. Perhaps we could assume a technology lag would equate to being underdeveloped? Like, say, take the most advanced nation/nations (depending on number of active civilizations), average together their technologies, and then anyone who is four or more techs behind on the tech tree would be deemed underdeveloped?

The benefit to being underdeveloped would go like this: once the World Bank wonder is completed by any nation, underdeveloped nations get a reduction on the shield cost for building health and education city-improvements, and a reduction in the number of turns it takes for workers to improve the terrain.

Benefit to building the World Bank would probably be something along the lines of the Eiffel Tower from Civ2, I suppose (i.e. all nations' view towards yours is increased to be more favorable.)

Requirement might be that you have to be one of the top nation/nations technology-wise, and maybe also you have to have a certain surplus in your treasury?

What do you guys think?
 
Although it is a good idea... picking off the underdeveloped nations is much more fun, and I would argue more productive as well. So I'm a no.
 
I was rather hoping Civ 4 wouldn't be a war game, but a true civ game, in which war is only one of many options. Besides, wouldn't it be nice if when picking off those weaker civs, they already had railroads built for ya? =D
 
Warlord Sam said:
I was rather hoping Civ 4 wouldn't be a war game, but a true civ game, in which war is only one of many options. Besides, wouldn't it be nice if when picking off those weaker civs, they already had railroads built for ya? =D
Indeed. I like the idea.
 
A great idea , it could bring hope to weak nations in the game and improve game balance. loaning mechanisim could be added by a world bank wonder, in which priority is given to underdeveloped nations . And the owner of that bank will not be the only one to pay , because a world bank will hold the money of all powerfull nations and each one will pay a fraction of the whole loaning amount. What will be the benifit of owning that wonder? It will increase happens in all cities , and I suggest it to be a prerequisite for diplomatic victory (so you have to build both the UN and World Bank ).
 
Brian Mc said:
Although it is a good idea... picking off the underdeveloped nations is much more fun, and I would argue more productive as well. So I'm a no.

Some people aren't warmongers. I, for one, pride myself on having won a game on Monarch level without a single turn in war.
 
Sounds great to me. I always have the problem where I have a series of wars in, like, 500 B.C., and end up paying for it up until the U.N. is built. I think that a reputation improving wonder is just what this game needs.
 
It wouldn't make sense to increase happiness in the cities of the person who built it. Reputation increase, however, would make a ton of sense and seems like a proper reward. I wasn't really thinking of making the World Bank actually require payment by the developed nations, as that's not really how it works in real life nor is that really possible to impose on a disagreeable first world nation.

I definately like the idea of this being part of the diplomatic victory, however, I don't think it should be a prerequisite as much as it could be a very powerful bonus. I just tend to stay away from things that are black and white, as restrictions are part of what makes the game less fun (and realistic) imo.
 
Hmmm.
World Bank:
Cost: 1000 shields
Required resources:
Gold
Silver
Lawyers

Increases corruption in city where it's built.
All smaller nations hate you automatically for using it to play political games with their national finances. Increases chance of terrorism. Citizens in the city may become unhappy, i.e. protest against World Bank policies.

Benefits:
Small nations will break trade deals with other nations to sell you resources and luxuries. Banks in your civ generate an additional 20% increase in gold.
 
That's quite cynical of you, Ivan. :p
 
I like the idea in fact; I would like to see other foreign aid available for underdeveloped countries. The more aid you give the more favorable you are with the rest of the world, but it will take from your own economy! Making difficult to decide who you will get aid and how much.
 
The benefit of giving aid to underdeveloped country will not only improve your reputation, it will increae your power and domination. for example you will guarantee that nations that benefit from your support will not declare war on you , and they will support you in any war you declare. which will make it easy to you to make alliance with them.
So actually your not wasting your money but increasing your domination in the world in a peacful way.
 
Warlord Sam said:
I was thinking that this would make a killer wonder for the modern age...

Basically, it would work in game terms much as it does in the real world; for underdeveloped nations, it would provide assistance in developing healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Obviously, this can be translated to game terms.

Nations that are deemed underdeveloped... I'm not sure how we could judge that, that's the hard part. If the game engine already supports the ability to judge and compare developed terrain in the world's various nations' territories, then that would be pretty easy, but I haven't read anything to indicate that is a part of the engine. Perhaps we could assume a technology lag would equate to being underdeveloped? Like, say, take the most advanced nation/nations (depending on number of active civilizations), average together their technologies, and then anyone who is four or more techs behind on the tech tree would be deemed underdeveloped?

The benefit to being underdeveloped would go like this: once the World Bank wonder is completed by any nation, underdeveloped nations get a reduction on the shield cost for building health and education city-improvements, and a reduction in the number of turns it takes for workers to improve the terrain.

Benefit to building the World Bank would probably be something along the lines of the Eiffel Tower from Civ2, I suppose (i.e. all nations' view towards yours is increased to be more favorable.)

Requirement might be that you have to be one of the top nation/nations technology-wise, and maybe also you have to have a certain surplus in your treasury?

What do you guys think?

Great idea, half baked for the time being, but a great idea
 
Things that improve reputation are a dead end. The ideal for an AI is that it play like a human would. Who among us would care if our opponent built the World Bank or some other reputation-enhancing wonders, beyond that it meant that we couldn't? Reputation is basically hack, a poor simulation of inter-personal relationships. A mechanism that reaches into the AI's guts and fiddles around will be utterly useless in an MP game and should have no place even in an SP game.
 
Apatheist, that's a very good point, and one I had forgotten to address, considering Civ 4's inclusion of multiplayer. I think that it wouldn't be hard to translate to multiplayer games, however; if it provides the same benefit to player controlled nations as it does to computer controlled, then wouldn't it logically make the player thankful to the player/nation that built it?

If I was falling behind in a multiplayer game, and someone went to the trouble of building that, I would certainly be much more willing to support them/listen to them/offer a good deal to them, than I would otherwise. What do you think?

Deep Blue and Phoenix, I like both of your ideas as well. If it did take from your own economy, that might make it interesting, however what would be the difference between doing this through a wonder and just offering them 100gp for nothing, "for aid of developement". On the other hand, it is a really good idea to have an entire aspect of the game be a way of peaceful domination, integrating it with culture to make the cultural victory path a lot more fun? I for one would enjoy more peaceful *but interesting* and *fun* ways to win the game. Because as things stand in Civ3, sure it is fun to win through space race or cultural victory, but to most players I think its a lot more fun to win through war, and I think that is one of the biggest problems in the Civ series; too much focus on improving the war game aspect, not enough creativity put forth to improve the peaceful aspects.
 
Warlord Sam said:
If I was falling behind in a multiplayer game, and someone went to the trouble of building that, I would certainly be much more willing to support them/listen to them/offer a good deal to them, than I would otherwise. What do you think?

I'd think they were a sucker and I'd laugh all the way to the HoF. Diplomacy in Civilization is pretty simple, assuming you're not meta-gaming (making a private agreement with someone outside the game). It's all about what you can do to/for me and how much I believe you will follow through on your threats/promises. That's basically all that matters. If you build the some "reputation" Wonder and want it to affect how I see you, it needs to increase your ability to help me or hurt me in a tangible fashion, or it needs to somehow constrain your behavior so that you are less likely to break your promises to me. The former is true of most Wonders, while the latter would make the World Bank useless if it didn't have some seriously good other benefits.
 
apatheist said:
Things that improve reputation are a dead end. The ideal for an AI is that it play like a human would. Who among us would care if our opponent built the World Bank or some other reputation-enhancing wonders, beyond that it meant that we couldn't? Reputation is basically hack, a poor simulation of inter-personal relationships. A mechanism that reaches into the AI's guts and fiddles around will be utterly useless in an MP game and should have no place even in an SP game.
In multiplayer there is no place for deplomatic victory , because simply it can not be achieved. you cant make human players vote for you in the UN (it will be stupid if they do :D). But still this not a dead end , this can be improved. for example if reputaion is included in the score, this will encourage players who are after cultural victory to improve their repuation to get higher score. And the world bank could become a worthy bonus here.
 
Perhaps the World Bank could act as a late-game Great Library.

I think the idea is that it should help less developed civs, so like the GL it could be a tech catch-up wonder, giving the player that is behind techs that have been discovered by other civs.
 
Top Bottom