Worst Wonder Ever!

[CharlieChuck]

I've never really played much on deity, so Hanging Gardens has never really been needed. I've won on emperor a few times. My main arguement for pyramids is that to get a good score you need to maximise population, in communsim/fundy/monarchy every city will grow roughly twice as quickly. In republic/democracy the pyramids value is lessened, but new cities will grow to size 3 twice as fast so they can celebrate quicker.

I would agree though, that colossus in a good science/trade city does give a massive benefit, probably of more value than pyramids. But, I'm still gonna build pyramids first

 

[neutrino]

Attitude improving wonders become more important in more difficult levels. (Emperor and Deity in particular.) I have experienced situations in which my cities grew faster than I could build attitude improving wonders and improvements. Researching trade as soon as possible is probably a good course of action, so one can build caravans to speed up building such wonders.

I think the Pyramid would be the most worthwhile, if one starts in a large continent with a wide space to plot several cities. Once it is in place, he does not have to bother build and maintain a large number of granaries.

The nice thing about the Colossus is that its benefits do not expire until the discovery of Flight. Other than the Pyramid, the rest of the ancient wonders have rather short shelf-life.

 

[Ace]

In Republic/Democracy, you can start new cities at size 3 if you like. Instead of one engineer, send 3 to found the new city. Build city as usual, than build in the other two engineers and, presto, a size 3 instant city. Than with the right luxury settings, in 6 turns, you have a size 8 city. Repeat until you reach 254 cities.

Yes, it uses a lot of engineers, but, if your cities are celebrating, the citizen can be replaced on the same turn you build a new engineer. And if you add an aquaduct and a marketplace, the city can grow to size 12 in 5 more turns! This way, granaries really are not needed.

 

[Clausewitzian]

Ah, so we're discussing the best wonders in the worst wonders thread, heh heh. Lots of interesting points have been made here, so let me add some of mine.

Well, first off, the worst wonder, hands down imho, is the Great Library, since it actively hurts my gameplay like no other wonder can or does.

The top must have wonders are Michelangelo's Chapel and Bachs Cathedral with little to choose between 'em. I must have both. I'll usually give up if I can't attain them, they are so dear to me.

The best of the ancient wonders is a hard one. You'd think it would be Hanging Gardens since I love MC and BC so much, but as I consider pottery to be a low priority tech it isn't. Which leaves Marco Polo's Embassy and Pyramids, which I both consider to be highly desirable get 'em if you can wonders.

I never used to mind having Oracle, since the first city improvement I made was always a temple. However, a change in my playing style is starting to make this obsolete.

Colossus and Lighthouse are iffy. Lighthouse is only a contender if you are engaged in an early sea campaign, and Colossus is only a contender if you think you're far enough ahead to get a Super Science City going, which requires a considerable amount of planning ahead with no certainty that you'll make it. I consider achieving a well planned SSC to be a game winner, so if I think I'll be able to get one going, Colossus becomes as close to being as desirable as MC and BC as it gets.

For me it all depends on the context of the game, you see...and thinking about it sets my head spinning...yet you guys have lots of interesting ideas and opinions for me to think about as well. Thanks for your contributions, I really enjoy reading them.

 

[Sharkbait]

I've voted for Great Library above, but think that Oracle and Eiffel Tower are just as bad. Of the others on the above list, I can see instances where I might be tempted to build any of them.

I haven't build the Pyramids for ages since at deity there are other higher prioirities and the AI always race for this one.

Of the others that have elicited a fair amount of discussion - Lighthouse is pretty important in the latest GOTM75, Great Wall may be handy to deprive the AI of it in a conquest game (if you have the vans free) in order to speed up victory. e.g. if part of your forces are on the way to a distant civ, it may suit to get the GW to improve your odds of success and reduce the need to send another force all that way.

I haven't built KRC for ages either - actually I struggle to see the value of using vans for it rather than for delivery or another wonder that is around at the time. Hmm - I haven't read the whole thread but I know some people have reasons for building it - I'll have to ponder this further.

I understand the thoughts on Manhattan, but nukes are fun! You just need plenty of engineers to clean up the mess in 1 or 2 turns. Especially when the AI doesn't have Rocketry so they can't retaliate.

I don't usually build many temples, so Oracle would be worthless to me, and the GL just makes me acquire off-path techs, so I would never ever build it, unless to get points right at the end of a game. Ditto for Eiffel - get it for points mongering only.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Of the others that have elicited a fair amount of discussion - Lighthouse is pretty important in the latest GOTM75...

I haven't built KRC for ages either - actually I struggle to see the value of using vans for it rather than for delivery or another wonder that is around at the time.

Funny you should mention this in conjunction with a GOTM 75 reference. Funky maps force you to make funky choices. When I replayed GOTM75 as an OCC game, KRC became a pretty high priority for me because that little island was so shield-starved. I held it for 59 turns before it expired, and for most of that time, it got my production up to/over 20s per turn so I could build either cheap 2 turn vans or 100g 1 turn vans while I still had warriors. There were only 7 sheilds available in that city otherwise, so it represented a massive savings in turns (and/or rush-buying costs) to build the more important wonders for my city over that time. It was well worth the investment of 300s in that situation.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Funky maps force you to make funky choices. When I replayed GOTM75 as an OCC game, KRC became a pretty high priority for me ...

Good point. In fact, most of these kinds of arguments depend heavily on 2 factors: the map and your strategy. The strategy part is obvious to most players as most do not always play the same strategy; the map part is not so obvious since it seems that most players always play game-generated 'random' maps (which are anything but random).

Interestingly enough, in GOTM75, Oracle is playing a big role for me. I do not like Oracle and seldom build it. In this game I got it when I took over a Spanish city. But ever since I lost t the race to build Michelangelo to Persians, Oracle has gained prominence.

 

[Clausewitzian]

I don't often build KRC, but what I like about it is that it gives you options. The city that has it can choose whether to shield acquire or RB (or mix) whatever it is you want it to make.

If you can shield acquire, you can do more RB'ing in your other cities. Which allows you to do more in parallel in a highly focused way in a shorter period of time, and that usually around the time when the race for the best Wonders is really kicking in and growth related problems start biting you in the ass. This flexibility is the value KRC gives you, as far as my experience with it goes, and is a difference that noticably affects my gaming experience. This flexibility is especially appreciated with KRC in my SSC, where a lot has to be done and coordinated in very short order while at the same time I'm developing the rest of my empire and non SSC wonders.

But then again, I'm usually far more strapped for cash and make far less use of vans than many more capable players do in the early game...so my problems are probably not your problems...

 

[simpeter]

it seems that most players always play game-generated 'random' maps (which are anything but random).

I'm intrigued by this. Care to elaborate?
(Sorry if it's off topic, but I wanna know this.)

 

[Sharkbait]

When I replayed GOTM75 as an OCC game, KRC became a pretty high priority for me because that little island was so shield-starved.

Of course - I forgot about OCC as I rarely play it! It can certainly be a very useful wonder in those circumstances.

Which reminds me - I must try another OCC one of these days...

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I'm intrigued by this. Care to elaborate?
(Sorry if it's off topic, but I wanna know this.)

I notifced very early on (when the number of Civ2 games that I had ever played was less than 10) that the so called random maps are anything but random and follow certain patterns. I started playing with the map editor and soon confirmed my suspicion. Before long I had created dozens of custom maps the likes of which you will never get from the map generator.

As I started playing some of these maps it became evident that the usual mindset is not always applicable and you have to adapt to the map. The most typical example is that of playing on a pangea versus playing on an Archiplego. In the first case, ships, naval techs (Seafaring, Navigation, ..), Lighthouse, and Magellan are useless. In the second case they are crucial. Furthermore, in an extreme Archipelago King Richard becomes a must have wonder because of the scarcity of shields. The map generator never gives you a real Archipelago, like the one we are dealing with for GOTM75.

Another example of how a map can affect game play is a map I have created and called Haftaab which means 7 rivers. These are not your ordinary rivers, they are long, very long. And every civ starts near one. The extra mobility gained right at the begining because of the rivers has some interesting effects on the game play.

We have played a number of custom made maps in the GOTMs. Check them out: 75, 72, 67 (ring world), 58 (Gauntlet), 57, 55 (Butterfly), 53 (HaftJazire). Also look at the thread in the GOTM forum titled "Future GOTM map suggestions".

 

[Sharkbait]

Another example of how a map can affect game play is a map I have created and called Haftaab which means 7 rivers. These are not your ordinary rivers, they are long, very long. And every civ starts near one. The extra mobility gained right at the begining because of the rivers has some interesting effects on the game play.
QUOTE]

I'd be interested to see that map - care to post a save?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I'd be interested to see that map - care to post a save?

I will post it next week in the Future map suggestions thread in the GOTM forum. Send me a reminder private message if you do not see it by the middle of next week.

 

[Kumquat]

The Great Library isn't so Great

 

[Clausewitzian]

What amazes me is the people who have actually voted Leo's as the worst. The thought of them at a polling station is kinda frightening.

 

[Jerrymander]

Great Library.
I used to make love to this wonder.
And then I realized how the techs really work in CivII.
Now I discard it. Beelining > Getting a few techs that mess up reserach time.

 

[Ace]

What amazes me is the people who have actually voted Leo's as the worst. The thought of them at a polling station is kinda frightening.

Yeah, there is no way it is the worst wonder, but, one can make a case for it not being the best. Some posters in this thread have pointed out that Leo's can be a bad thing if your in a war and your veteran Knights (6-2) suddenly become non-vet crusaders (5-1)!

 

[Clausewitzian]

rookie Crusaders are (5-1), if the second number is defense.

I would not designate Leo's as the best wonder either, but not for the reasons you mentioned. To be honest, the argument doesn't impress me much. If you know you're going to go for Leo's you should be investing all the shields that went into turning your units veteran differently. In war Leo's means going for quantity. You make loads of cheap dud units and presto, suddenly they get upgraded into something awesome. You shouldn't have knights, but horsemen. Vets mean going for quality. Just a few, but they kick ass. A vet knight represents a ridiculous bang for the buck. These are different doctrines, and you plan your strategy accordingly.

But a fact is a fact. A quality army will get screwed by Leo's time and time again, and there Leo's definately might be held in low esteem.

A quantity army upgrading from horsemen (2-1) to knights (4-2) should be doing pretty well and won't be complaining about an upgrade to crusaders (5-1) either, and should create enough vets in battle to be interesting.

As Stalin is supposed to have said, quantity has a quality all of its own.

It might make for an interesting scenario, pitting both doctrines against one another in the same game.


cheers

 

[Ace]

Exactly. It all depends on your goals.

You can make the point the Knights give you a slight edge on defense when your moving in on an enemy. The 2 defense is much better than the crusader, especially on a hill or forest hex.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Some posters in this thread have pointed out that Leo's can be a bad thing if your in a war and your veteran Knights (6-2) suddenly become non-vet crusaders (5-1)!

Knights do not upgrade to Crusaders. They are independent lines till the discovery of Leadership when both Knights and Crusaders upgrade to Dragoons. Before that I think horsemen upgrade to Knights, where as chariots become elephants and then crusaders.

If you know you're going to go for Leo's you should be investing all the shields that went into turning your units veteran differently. In war Leo's means going for quantity. You make loads of cheap dud units and presto, suddenly they get upgraded into something awesome. You shouldn't have knights, but horsemen. Vets mean going for quality.

Very good argument. Similar arguments apply to pretty much all wonders. You pick the wonders that suit your circumstances and strategy or you adapt your strategy based on what you can get.
In GOTM75 I lost Michelangelo to Persians, but got Oracle through conquest. I adapted my strategy accordingly. I avoided Theology and instead built temples in every city earlier than I would have otherwise.