Yield value discussion (food vs others)

[Gazebo]

Right. But we need for gazebo to chime in before doing anything. We don't know if it's even possible.

Also remember that this would require a whole new "Wonder Window" so that players have an interface to see which wonder requires what.

Building pre-requisites are fairly easy to add - the key is making them simple enough that they're natural and AI-friendly.

Right now for Wonders, we have:

National population requirement
City population requirement
Holy City requirement
Tech requirement

I'm going to add:

Policy requirement

G

 

[Wodhann]

Building pre-requisites are fairly easy to add - the key is making them simple enough that they're natural and AI-friendly.

Right now for Wonders, we have:

National population requirement
City population requirement
Holy City requirement
Tech requirement

I'm going to add:

Policy requirement

G

Isn't Building requirement also a thing? (Needs X building(s) of Y type(s) for this)

What other things could be added, if anything?

 

[Gazebo]

Isn't Building requirement also a thing? (Needs X building(s) of Y type(s) for this)

What other things could be added, if anything?

Not an X/Y thing in terms of number, but buildingclass needed is possible. I'm talking about specifically-wonder requirements (wonders requiring a buildingclass would be odd).

G

 

[Atlas627]

I think special requirements is a fine system. They can't be too complicated for the AIs sake, but it should again help out with every single AI rushing the Colossus for no apparent reason!

We should make a new thread where we list potential tech, culture, and special requirements for each Wonder.

 

[Gazebo]

I think special requirements is a fine system. They can't be too complicated for the AIs sake, but it should again help out with every single AI rushing the Colossus for no apparent reason!

We should make a new thread where we list potential tech, culture, and special requirements for each Wonder.

Let's keep it to the things listed above, and ideally have it be formulaic.

G

 

[Wodhann]

Again I stress the fact that if we divorce wonders from tech requirements as the norm, we will need a special new window for wonders. In vanilla players can just check the tech tree to see existing wonders, but now we will need an interface in which players can check what wonders exist and what they need to be built.

I would say that at least Era requirements should be the norm, though. Not saying that someone will be able to build the Big Ben in Classical but we should keep things organized at least.

(And yeah, we've digressed waaaay too much from the original topic, maybe a new thread is due)

 

[Gazebo]

Again I stress the fact that if we divorce wonders from tech requirements as the norm, we will need a special new window for wonders. In vanilla players can just check the tech tree to see existing wonders, but now we will need an interface in which players can check what wonders exist and what they need to be built.

I would say that at least Era requirements should be the norm, though. Not saying that someone will be able to build the Big Ben in Classical but we should keep things organized at least.

(And yeah, we've digressed waaaay too much from the original topic, maybe a new thread is due)

All Wonders will have both an era requirement and a policy # requirement. Reaching either will grant access to the wonder. We can add further exclusions later, but that's the current 'core' of the system. Wonders will stay in the tech tree this way, and it's simple enough to limit confusion.

G

 

[Guynemer]

Again I stress the fact that if we divorce wonders from tech requirements as the norm, we will need a special new window for wonders. In vanilla players can just check the tech tree to see existing wonders, but now we will need an interface in which players can check what wonders exist and what they need to be built.

I would say that at least Era requirements should be the norm, though. Not saying that someone will be able to build the Big Ben in Classical but we should keep things organized at least.

(And yeah, we've digressed waaaay too much from the original topic, maybe a new thread is due)

Perhaps there's a way to show the wonders available in each era where it says Ancient Era, Classical Era, etc., at the top of the tech tree? I honestly don't know.

 

[Atlas627]

All Wonders will have both an era requirement and a policy # requirement. Reaching either will grant access to the wonder. We can add further exclusions later, but that's the current 'core' of the system. Wonders will stay in the tech tree this way, and it's simple enough to limit confusion.

G

Oh that's completely different from the 'and' suggestion. Much better. Still prefer some Wonders being uniquely cultural and other being uniquely technological though.

 

[Gazebo]

Oh that's completely different from the 'and' suggestion. Much better. Still prefer some Wonders being uniquely cultural and other being uniquely technological though.

All unlocked wonders from policies are going to move to the finisher, instead of the opener, thus making them 'policy only' in a way (as more culture = faster to end of trees = better rewards). The rest in the tech tree will be either/or.

G

 

[attorneyatlol]

All Wonders will have both an era requirement and a policy # requirement. Reaching either will grant access to the wonder. We can add further exclusions later, but that's the current 'core' of the system. Wonders will stay in the tech tree this way, and it's simple enough to limit confusion.

G

So will wonders still require specific techs to unlock, or you just have to be in the right era?

 

[Atlas627]

All unlocked wonders from policies are going to move to the finisher, instead of the opener, thus making them 'policy only' in a way (as more culture = faster to end of trees = better rewards). The rest in the tech tree will be either/or.

G

While you're at it, would you consider changing which Wonders are tied to the policies? Parthenon has never struck me as being Progress or synergistic with the infrastructure playstyle. Same goes for the University of Sankore. I would suggest replacing with Angkor Wat and Borobodur, respectively.

 

[Gazebo]

While you're at it, would you consider changing which Wonders are tied to the policies? Parthenon has never struck me as being Progress or synergistic with the infrastructure playstyle. Same goes for the University of Sankore. I would suggest replacing with Angkor Wat and Borobodur, respectively.

I think that's a matter of opinion, personally.

G

 

[Atlas627]

I think that's a matter of opinion, personally.

G

About it being synergistic with an infrastructure-heavy playstyle? I don't see any way in which it helps with that any more than any other playstyle.

 

[tu_79]

Not true.
I thought about other wonder requirements apart from science and culture, too.
For example, the Great Lighthouse could require the builder to own at least 3 coastal cities. This would prevent it from being "accidentally" built by an AI that doesn't really need it.

I suggest opening a separate thread and discussing the requirements for each individual wonder. Some should be left as rewards for the tech leader like before, some for the culture leader and some could get special prerequisites.

If we do it right, we could even improve the AI - if the prerquisites assure that only players truly focusing on a certain field may build a related wonder.

I was going to suggest the same thing. Open a subforum for this beta development. A threat for wonders and other thread for science.

 

[tu_79]

I see that we have here three schools of thinking.

1. People that will equate benefits for all play styles so in the end it won't matter which path you choose. You could decide the last turns what type of victory you're going to achieve.
2. People that prefer to be able to build everything just when they see fit to the conditions of the current game play. Adjustment is key and wrong choices will make you fail.
3. People that want every play style to feel different, strengthen every strength, but with equal chances of winning. You can win with any play style or victory condition in mind, but at the end you are committed with that victory condition and others are unlike.

Let me illustrate.
People from the first group will give sources of culture for scientific civs and sources of science for cultural civs, gold for militaristic civs and improved defence for pacific ones. They want to secure some wonders for civs that are late so they can catch up. In the end, players do different things but they arrive to the same point.
People from the second group prefer to let the choice free. If they think they are going to need money, they will rush for the Colossus. Side effect is that tech leaders get first to every wonder.
People from the last group will secure the Great Library for scientifically focused civs, and Oracle for culture focused ones. But a level 3 ideological tenet should be as powerful as being technologically one era ahead. Being a diplomatic power should be a threat to everybody all by their diplomatic advantages (more friends, defence pacts, gifts). Militaristic civs get their advantage by highly experienced units and generals (and a weak AI). The problem is that currently nothing compares to be to technologically advanced.

Before locking wonders for play styles, we should decide if those wonders are to enhance the strengths further or to make up for weaknesses. All suggestions to the date go to enhancing strengths, and restricting freedom of choice.

Additionally, if a wonder doesn't get built in its time window, it could be opened for every civ, instead of nobody building it.

 

[tu_79]

Not true.
I thought about other wonder requirements apart from science and culture, too.
For example, the Great Lighthouse could require the builder to own at least 3 coastal cities. This would prevent it from being "accidentally" built by an AI that doesn't really need it.

If we do it right, we could even improve the AI - if the prerquisites assure that only players truly focusing on a certain field may build a related wonder.

While I like the idea of securing wonders with specific conditions that match the game play, owning 3 coastal cities can be troublesome. You could be denying Venice the possibility for a Great Lighthouse. Your map could be sea intensive, but get a inland start. Your civ can have a special naval unit (is it still possible?) or naval advantage and only get to position 1 or 2 cities by the coast.

G is only adding policy requirements, so we'll need to pick the tree (or get # policies of that tree or finish the tree or pick a specific Social Policy) that allows for the Great Lighthouse, research Navigation, and that will ease the likeliness of building it. There will be less contenders.

 

[Tomice]

While I like the idea of securing wonders with specific conditions that match the game play, owning 3 coastal cities can be troublesome. You could be denying Venice the possibility for a Great Lighthouse. Your map could be sea intensive, but get a inland start. Your civ can have a special naval unit (is it still possible?) or naval advantage and only get to position 1 or 2 cities by the coast.

G is only adding policy requirements, so we'll need to pick the tree (or get # policies of that tree or finish the tree or pick a specific Social Policy) that allows for the Great Lighthouse, research Navigation, and that will ease the likeliness of building it. There will be less contenders.

Good point.
We should generaly try to not overcomplicate things, so I think it's wise that G focuses on culture only/mostly regarding wonder unlocks. My example above and your valid concern shows how easily we could create more problems than we solve.

Still, there might be special cases where other unlock requirements make sense, but this should be reserved for just a few wonders that are otherwise hard to balance (if any at all).

 

[tu_79]

Good point.
We should generaly try to not overcomplicate things, so I think it's wise that G focuses on culture only/mostly regarding wonder unlocks. My example above and your valid concern shows how easily we could create more problems than we solve.

Still, there might be special cases where other unlock requirements make sense, but this should be reserved for just a few wonders that are otherwise hard to balance (if any at all).

Well, Great Lighthouse require the city to be coastal, isn't it? I believe you mean that kind of requirements.

 

[supracseduch]

I don't like the era requirement for wonders. We'll experience beelining all the time, just to get to the next set of wonders. I assume we players wouldn't actually slack off getting the right amount of SP's to make this possible. The era-scaling bonuses from a myriad of sources are already enough of an incentive for this. I find the early eras very short-lived as it is.

Also, how would the wonders in the tech tree look like? Will their icons still be show on techs in their corresponding eras, or will there be a sub-panel which shows all wonders unlocked in which eras? The former would be hideously unaesthetic and inconvenient for new players.

I thought the idea of introducing the SP requirement for wonders was to prevent the tech leader from hogging all the wonders? Players with disproportionate tech levels relative to their culture should have to wait a bit until they meet the policy requirements. Players who have a good balance of tech and culture should still have access to the wonders by the time they reach its tech requirement. And culturally sophisticated ones will get the finisher wonders faster.