23-01-2004 08:37									#1
	DESIGN: Wonder limits & limited wonders Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I mentioned this a long, long time ago, but I'm strongly of the opinion that the current wonder system is a problem...

• The system mostly rewards the tech leader, allowing them to get richer, effectively.
  
• Although wonders effectively add flavor to civilizations, the players experience is very often similar, due to their aiming for (and usually/often getting) the same initial wonders, and most if not all of the later ones.
  
• Wonders aren't wonderful: to me they seem more like a very expensive city improvement, often. I think this is largely because they've been toned down, due to the above problems.
  

Last edited by MrBaggins on 23-01-2004 at 22:55

	24-01-2004 01:11									#2
	Got spare money?

I like this idea, but I'm worried that this would have a rather ironic effect wrt warmonger/builder balance - only warmongers could have multiple wonders from the same age, by conquering them. However, I don't think a good solution is to have the wonders just "disappear" if they're captured and the capturing civ has already reached the wonder cap. I also don't like the idea that once one civ starts a wonder, another civ can't - that means that the first to get a tech to a wonder AUTOMATICALLY gets that wonder (unless they've hit the limit).

	24-01-2004 01:16									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Right... the purpose is eliminating wonder races... something the AI sucks at big time... or rather... the human can exploit so much better.

The capturing wonder issue is solved by eliminating the effect of the captured wonder, but not the wonder itself, so it could be recaptured, and useful again to the initial builder.

	24-01-2004 01:19									#4
	Tired of ads?

I think this should be a speacial rule available from the rules screen where you can set the Pollution and Bloodlust.

-Martin

	24-01-2004 01:46									#5
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins Right... the purpose is eliminating wonder races... something the AI sucks at big time... or rather... the human can exploit so much better.

The wonder race has to be there - or tone wonders down a lot. It is too powerful to secure a wonder merely by starting to build it.

quote: The capturing wonder issue is solved by eliminating the effect of the captured wonder, but not the wonder itself, so it could be recaptured, and useful again to the initial builder.

The reason I didn't like the disappearance of the wonder isn't because no one can get it again (though that's part of it) but rather that the warmonger should be able to acquire wonders through conquest. However, they shouldn't have the ability to have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are IMO primarily a builder benefit (ideally).

	24-01-2004 01:56									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by skywalker The wonder race has to be there - or tone wonders down a lot. It is too powerful to secure a wonder merely by starting to build it.

Not if the effects are equivalent, and you can only build one or two. Given the current system, once a tech leading civ gets a fair tech lead and has a couple of high production cities, then they can get ALL the wonders they want, destroying game balance.

quote: The reason I didn't like the disappearance of the wonder isn't because no one can get it again (though that's part of it) but rather that the warmonger should be able to acquire wonders through conquest. However, they shouldn't have the ability to have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are IMO primarily a builder benefit (ideally).

I agree that warmongers shouldn't have more wonders than a peaceful builder. Wonders are a choice... expend the effort... get the benefit, warmonger or not.

Part of the system I'm suggesting is eliminating the wonder races. There is really no way around this... Wonder races do more to destroy game balance than any game "fun" benefit from their capture has, anyway. The loss of 1000's of shields for a number of AI opponents is unacceptable.

This system puts civs on an equal footing, thus increases competion, thus increases fun.

	27-01-2004 07:38									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It has always bothered me, in all Civ-games, that Mayas would be prevented from building a Pyramid just because the Egyptians did it before. Actually, for an isolated civ, it should make no difference whether they're the first or the last to build a wonder. In the case of conquest, the traditional handling of Wonders doesn't make much sense either : when Alexander conquered Egypt, the Pyramids had a far lesser importance to his civ than they had for the Egyptians who built it.

To translate in game terms, here's my proposition :

• Wonders can be built once by every civ = Small Wonders
  
• The first civ to build a particular gets an added bonus = Wonder of the World. For early wonders at least, this bonus should only apply to situations involving direct interactions of civ (e.g. increased religious influence,...)
  
• A wonder built by another civ has a limited effect (compared to a Small Wonder and irrespective of whether it was a Wonder of the World). This way, there is a gain if you conquer a wonder, but it's smaller you'd have if you built it yourself.
  
• For balancing, it might be better to reduce the cost of the wonders once the first one has been built. In the case of a close wonder race, the loser should be allowed to transfer the excess production to another Wonder project.
  

Last edited by _R_ on 27-01-2004 at 07:48

	27-01-2004 11:16									#8
	Remove this text

MrBaggins - how about make wonder cost increase for each wonder you build? Thus, the first wonder you build in an era may cost 500 shields, and the next would cost 5000, and the next 50000, etc. As for a wonder race, allow a city to "freeze" its shield if there are no wonders to switch too - it doesn't get any more shields in the shield box, but it doesn't lose them, either. It gets to save them for the next wonder. You could have them degrade over time, to prevent misuse.

	27-01-2004 16:32									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am siding with _R_

Inelegance Agency = CIA = MI5 = loads more

East India Company = Dutch East India Company = British East India Company

Freeing of slaves = happened in some countries first then others *

Great wall = Chinese great wall = Hadrian's wall

London exchange = pick a country

Penicillin = happened in some countries first then others



• Also it allows a civ to pick when they want to stop slavery

Well that’s my view there should be no limit however if you are a warmonger if you capture a wonder it would be cancelled out until you make the small version then it should be upgraded to the grand wonder (simulating the repairs needed to the wonder).

	27-01-2004 18:23									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Whilst there absolutely are wonders that are often built by more than one nation, they really should be "limited" or "minor" wonders anyway... except with "full wonder level powers". You might also wish to have two or three identically powered but differently named wonders so that two or three different civs could get the same kind of wonder on a first-come-basis.

As for isolation, I'm afraid its really not too viable, since contact isn't limited in the "civ" world, versus the real world. Among "known" civs there really aren't wonder races in the classic sense...

No one talks about the Collosus of Troy that almost was... or the semi finished Great Pyramids of Oslo...

I like the idea that there be limited wonder versions of the wonders (specified in each wonder,) that could be built by late comers, or reverted to when a city is conquested.

As for allowing extra wonders to be built at extra (exponential) cost, that acts as an extra one... or two, or maybe three, for the leader, essentially, with what amounts to a hard cap behind it. I'm not in favor of it.

As for saving production, I think it stretches the abstraction a little too far. I like the idea of having limited wonders you can build instead... plus as I mentioned before... why not include a couple more "alike but differently named" wonders, especially later in the tech tree?

	27-01-2004 19:45									#11
	Suffering from ads?

Well no body talks about the 1/2 finished English Eiffel Tower but it happened, no joke .

But it was a copy not a race which means that you should be able to make wonders after they have been made.

Future wonders would also be needed to be re made like the nanite diffuser. What idiot would kill there own nukes.

	27-01-2004 20:55									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

_R_'s idea is pretty interesting. making the first built a wonder and all else a small wonder. Perhaps limited even more by only allowing the wonder bonus for 10 or 20 turns (like civ3 golden age) where as a Wonder of the world (first wonder) would have it until a tech obsolecence.

As far as the uniqueness of the wonder, with the code I think its possible to make culturally unique wonders...An Aztec pyramid, Egyptian, even hypothetical viking ones OR make the wonder have a generic name like for pyramids have them called "Great Religious building" or something and once built you can uniquely name it (i.e. pyramids of Giza) and the AI's name would come from alist of cultural versions of that. (like a big viking funeral pyre or something.)


As for balance, I think Civ2 did it but they had improvements that if built in EVERY city, would equal the power of a wonder. So losing a wonder race wouldnt leave you behind you just had to put more into infrastructure. This approach may help smaller civs over bigger ones.

	27-01-2004 21:29									#13
	Support Apolyton

If you have wonder races where an AI pays full cost for a lesser version of a wonder, you have a balance problem... better for it to be building a limited wonder, at lesser cost, or building the full wonder, at full cost.

	27-01-2004 21:35									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

One word for you MrBaggins

Compensation

Have the left over go on what they are next building (baring wonders)

	27-01-2004 21:36									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc Well no body talks about the 1/2 finished English Eiffel Tower but it happened, no joke . But it was a copy not a race which means that you should be able to make wonders after they have been made. Future wonders would also be needed to be re made like the nanite diffuser. What idiot would kill there own nukes.

As I mentioned... there's no reason why limited wonder versions... with lesser effects, not be available for everyone, even after the "real" wonder has been built, subject to obsolescence, of course.

I agree that we should examine wonder effects, though.

	27-01-2004 21:43									#16
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc One word for you MrBaggins Compensation Have the left over go on what they are next building (baring wonders)

Players and AI's can already switch production (although the fact that its lossless is a big problem).

Wonders are the only game object (except for the Gaia Controller) where the building of it, is contested, and the only problem where the AI has a hard time in construction, BECAUSE its a contest, and smart contestants win... hence the AI basically won't, if the human is determined.

If you remove the contest aspect, you still have wonders, and proportional costs for proportional effects... limited, minor or whatever you want to call them, wonders give opportunities for runner-ups to build lesser versions of wonders, mimicing history, and retaining game balance (although these should be more of a consideration, with high cost and limited returns.)

	27-01-2004 21:55									#17
	Tired of ads?

Hmmm

It’s the ai that wants it head looking at then no the wonder system.

The ai use of the technology tree will always prevent them from getting wonders. So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates.

I hate the dark ages I really do the game would balance if it was not for them

	27-01-2004 22:10									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc Hmmm It’s the ai that wants it head looking at then no the wonder system. The ai use of the technology tree will always prevent them from getting wonders. So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates. I hate the dark ages I really do the game would balance if it was not for them

You'll never make an AI as sophisticated as a human player... however, so you deal with the issue in the viable way, instead.

As for the wonder system as a whole, it still rewards success with yet more success. The civ with more wonders can do yet better in constructing further wonders. "The rich get richer"

If you limit wonders you not only make them more special... of more individual consequence, but ensure that you don't get the same kind of self-sustaining improvement loops.

Also, since there will be a distribution of wonders throughout the civ opponents, that will give each civ flavor...

The civ that builds Great Lighthouse would have obvious naval power, the civ that builds Collosus of Rhodes would be an economic powerhouse, the civ that builds the Appian Way could have a far-flung empire, and so on.

Civs gain individuality, without specific traits being set, but on the choices they make, instead.

	27-01-2004 23:35									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm probably the only one, but i never build the wonders for the benefits they give me - i build them because i like to be the owner/builder of these wonderous things.

So having a choice of lesser wonders and a limit on the amount of big wonders each civ can build, would seem a nice way to counter balance the problem of the human player being able to better utilise wonders in the game.

	28-01-2004 03:52									#20
	Put an end to popups!

I think maybe Wonders should stay as powerful as they are and we might add victory conditions to the game setup so that:
hardest: turn off wonders for human and leave them available for the ai to build.
next:turn off wonders for all civs
next:human can build but gets no effects, just enjoys making the ai lose the production when it loses in a race. Also allows building wonders for spite, just so the ai can't have them. ai gets full effects if successful.
next:flipside, ai can build but gets no effects, human gets full effects if successful
next:both sides "compete" freely, like it is now
easiest:turn off wonders for the ai, leave them on for the human, who can then leisurely build them all if so desired. This is assuming that the ai learn to avoid shooting themselves in their feet by internally executing their wonder runs more efficiently.

Also consider games with 30 ai civs, just that numerical competition alone should help even the playing field.

	28-01-2004 06:15									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Limited wonders sounds like a great idea to me. I havent thought much about the balancing aspects of the wonder races. Now that you bring it up though it is rather imbalanced. Reading the comments of the others i think theres room to mix and match some of the suggestion and make something viable. Either way im looking forward to the enhancement


Heres a thought about scrubbing a wonder, instead of transferring the production to another building. What if there was an option to sell the production for gold or pw or something else like that. It could simulate a nation dismantaling their failed wonder and pawning the materials. I have figured about a third of the value should be lost, chalk it up to deconstruction costs.

	28-01-2004 14:08									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by tyrantpimp Heres a thought about scrubbing a wonder, instead of transferring the production to another building. What if there was an option to sell the production for gold or pw or something else like that. It could simulate a nation dismantaling their failed wonder and pawning the materials. I have figured about a third of the value should be lost, chalk it up to deconstruction costs.

That sounds good we could also keep some "materials" back to make the small wonder.

and a further suggestion what if the money left other goes into science that way the ai has a science advantage reedy for the next race.

	29-01-2004 22:48									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The ideas so far for dealing with "losing" a wonder race don't seem terribly elegant.

I've got another idea: add an extra requirement to building a wonder, given this system... a time to build requirement. Maybe globally, maybe on a wonder-by-wonder basis, or an age-by-age basis.

For example... say you have the Pyramids which require, say, Stoneworking. If you require just the tech to build it, and then preclude any other civs from starting it, thats a problem, since it unfairly biases wonder choices towards scientific nations, or in the case of a wonder with a tech prequisite that everyone starts with, the first player.

If you have the wonder be available to a civ on a first-come-first-basis, for tech prequesites AND a build time prequisite of, say 50 turns, then it wouldn't be instantly buildable by size 1 cities.

It becomes a race, of sorts, for any wonder, but without the messy situation of lost production.

This benefits the AI, especially, since you no longer have the problem of powergamed wonder races, through mass disband-rushing and/or rushbuying, which is difficult to strategize for the AI. It takes initial productive power to be able to start the wonder.

Thoughts?

	30-01-2004 01:13									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Come on you are trying to do far too much with wonder rebalancing.

It’s going to help some one who is builder with loads of production power at his disposal, an economist who can rush buy. A scientist because he will get to the tech first. We are not talking about wonder balancing but general AI improvements.

If we had a working AI who could keep up with a human the gap in wonders would not be so bad if we add small wonders to the that builds the owned first would only gain a small amount compared to the small wonder maker plus the small wonder maker would have an increased tech bonus to help them if they fail a wonder race.

Do we need to re think wonders of rethink the AI


Brain wave

What if when the tech for a wonder becomes available to the player the all other players get the tech too. Just say they have diplomats who look at envy at are (wonder name) . we can then stop 100% rush buying say 40% of the wonder the other 60 would have to come form production.

	30-01-2004 02:38									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Not really... At 1/50th... you only require 120 shields for a 6000 shield wonder. Hardly a metropolis. Not a size 1 either, though...

Actually... wonders wouldn't need to be as expensive in general, any more... because... they'd be limited.

This is all a side discussion anyway; the *choice* of which wonder isn't terribly important if they are about equal in power... IF you limit wonders.

The system I've suggest doesn't seriously reward the builder with loads of production power... just gives first choice... which shouldn't necessarily be so significant... in fact... much less significant than having building races.

	30-01-2004 15:46									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Interesting stuff so far

Are we(as human players) really worried if we lose all our production if we lose in a wonders race?
I can see it being a problem if the AI does, so why not just let the AI keep whatever level of production in the Wonder its got to and transfer it all to another Wonder? But if the player loses - they lose it all?

This would stop the player getting a monopoly on building most of the wonders(which happens quite often in my games).

If it seems too extreme we can always vary the amount of production the human player keeps(10%?).

This is also a simple rule to enact in game.
(I guess its also AI cheating )

	30-01-2004 18:00									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Problem is... wonders cost a lot more than regular units/buildings... generally speaking. So, if you just had left over production go to whatever... then a lot is lost, unless you incorporate some mechanism to retain it, until the "lost" production is all spent.

It may be useful, or it may not: AI Civs shouldn't *always* be building. Sometimes they build themselves into the ground. (overwhelming unit support costs and occassionally pointless city improvements, when what they should be doing is switching to more PW and improving their tiles, perhaps.)

I'm also pretty sure that unless we include some uneven mechanism for AI/humans... humans can and will exploit it... and I've even thought of one already: human player engages in a wonder race he doesn't intend to win. He effectively does a massive prebuild that gets carried over from turn to turn... that prebuild being delayed so he can rush build 5 tanks... that he *just* got the tech as he lost the wonder race.

"Raceless" wonders are the only way to ensure that the AI doesn't do stupid construction in their regard.

	30-01-2004 20:26									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates.

This was an old comment... but I just want to respond, since its an important point.

Civ3 does somewhat tie your civ to the AI's. Thats necessary for game balance, challenge, and ultimately fun. Brian Reynolds emphasised this, in his article on game balance.

The issue with the Civ3 system isn't that the "solutions" or "limitations" went too far... its that they didn't go far enough in many ways.

For instance...

• Science development relatively tough
  
• Science trading relatively easy
  

	30-01-2004 23:08									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Saving the "lost production" from a wonder to build other stuff is a weak idea if not for just the reason pointed out as its potential use as an exploit. I say the resources should be divided up into p/w, science gold, and treasurey gold. This could be on a sliding scale per instance of wonder.

So if player has 7 cities all building the same wonder and the ai builds it first only the one furthest along gets the full division.

Alternatively could have it so only city can build a wonder at a time.

The later seems ideal as it would take away one of the oldest tricks of building a wonder to switch prod to something else.

	07-02-2004 03:14									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What do you think of scriptable evolutive wonder benefits, by age.
for example pyramids initially granted spiritual power to greats leaders of ancient egypt,after what it remains a element of prestige,and in our time it's a cause of tourism