 |
| |
|
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
Heck yeah, CivIII should try and balance the wonders. Having too much strength in one wonder imbalances the game, as evident in the Cloudbase Academy or whatever it was called in SMAX. With the power and utility of air units (protecting land units from attack, long range) receiving free airports at all cities was a huge windfall, combine that with the satellite improvements soon researched afterwards and a civ almost becomes too powerful in SMAX with that wonder and the final nail in any opponents coffin.
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun on 04-08-2001 03:15 PM
If I ever get back to my CTP2 modification project, I will be implementing a new aspect of wonders.
With the wonders I plan on creating (someday), I will have positive effects that will be for ALL civilizations. For example:
Arybhata's Mathematical Treatise - gives equivalent of one free scientist in every city for host civilization, and all other civilizations.
This is what happened in history -- one civilization did NOT have eternal, exclusive benefits because of their achievements. The achievements/discoveries spread throughout the world, causing other cultures and civilizations to expand on others' achievements.
I'm not sure if this relates with your equality in wonders question, but this concept might help improve equality in wonders.
|
Wonders did not benefit all civilizations. Did the Colossus increase trade to Persia, no, only Rhodes. Did the Pyramids benefit England?
Although this can be said about more recent wonders, such as women's suffrage and the united nations, these wonders do initially provide strength to their primary owner. Women's Suffrage, (begun in England ??) took years to spread to other nations and still doesn't exist everywhere today, look at the more fundamental Muslim nations. If your idea for universal impact of wonders would have to be weighted with a period of exclusive benefit for your civilization, otherwise why build it? Over time, other civilizations would benefit, but not immediately.
I myself prefer though to keep wonders as they are, exclusive, but instead of having them become obsolete by a technology, make them active for only a certain number of turns, say 150 for Leonardo's Workshop. With the effects becoming longer or shorter depending on difficulty.
An aside thought. How about wonder building warnings longer in advance. In Civ II, you received warning of a wonders emminent construction one turn before it was built. Even if you rush built a wonder, the opposing civ would still build first. How about a warning at 2 and 5 turns with no warning for rush builds, but acknowledgement that it was rush built, such as the decleration being, " and the peoples of Babylon in gathering all efforts and resources of their civilization endeavered to rapidly construct their glorious Lighthouse " or whatever, something like that.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SerapisIV
|
|
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
Where is the impetus to construct them then? I can see allowing some impact on everyone, but you should have a stronger benefit that a civilization on the other side of the globe.
Currently the Manhattan Projects and Apollo Programs already have universal benefits. The only benefit received is that you keep the wonder score for yourself. Every civilization gets a view of the earth and you recieve no bonus military for building the Manhattan Project first. Personally, I always build the Apollo Program when I can cause it eliminates further exploration and AI already sees everything anyway, so it just levels the playing field a little. The Manhattan Proj. I avoid like the plague only building to keep it out of other hands. I don't like opening the nuclear genie. I don't like polution and don't like using nuke weapons, they're too powerful. But the AI uses them like candy.
I don't object to universal benefit, but they're must be some kind of stronger impact on your civ, otherwise, why build it? Let some one else do it and you gain the benefit. It's this kind of reasoning, which is why commuism doesn't work. No matter how nice the theory is, the greed of man overcomes. They're must be something in it for the player if its gonna be a useful improvement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
me_irate
|
|
I personally dont want wonders balanced, i think it adds strategy to the game. Should i use all my resources to build the pyramids, or should i invest in my entire civ and go for a less desirable wonder. I also believe some realy beneficial wonders should expire, but some weak wonders even very early in the game should last for its intirity. I might even be in favor of wonders never expiring if they weakend or removed a couple of them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
Wonders should not be taken out of the game. That said, they must be significantly changed.
1. no ultra powerful wonders like Leonardo's Workshop. Additionally, no fake wonders such as 'build a lab in every city', or Magellens Expedition (its not even a building)
2. make some wonders have negative effects as well as positive. For example, the War Academy could strengthen your troops, but reduce trade. Wonders would then play a role in how you develop your civ. Seafaring, or trading etc. Wonders therefore should have general effects similar to the built-in bonuses to factions in SMAC. The result: would create a system of civ specific bonuses (eg Romans might be a technological civ because they have built a few tech wonders) but the civs could change these bonuses during the game to meet changing requirements. (eg. Romans might build a few military wonders to increase military power, decrease technology, in order to meet barbarian hordes where the dark ages would begin)
ESSENTIALLY: I'm arguing for a complete revaluation of the role that wonders play in the game from 'cookies', to becoming an intrinsic part of the game - Sid has already decided to place an emphasis on culture, this would further complement it and solve the civ-specific bonus problem.
(Check my complete ideas on this subject in the thread 'last time no civ bonuses' - bottom page 1!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I think the benefit for wonders needs to be more historical. The pyramids were never used as granaries. They were tombs.
So this is where the whole culture thing fits in. Stuff like the Pyramids should have less of a bonus that does not include culture and possibly trade from people visiting your wonder. Past that it just makes the game more unrealistic and hard to balance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-15-2001 04:08 PM
Keep wonders, keep all wonders, balance them somewhat, but they are an essential part of gameplay and should be kept. Make the benefits primarily help one Civ, so there is an incentive to build it.
Hey! Here's an idea: Certain wonders that ordinarily benefit only their owners could also benefit the owner's allies... new reason to ally, new twist to diplomacy!
To balance out such "worldwide" wonders like Manhatten and Apollo, make it so for 10-15 turns only the owner can build the new units/improvements granted, and after that time everyone can build them.
|
Whoa,Cyclo, you are right on the money here. I especially like your idea about allies being able to share benefits for a wonder you build. (This makes sense, since America's allies were first to share benefits of things like internet, nuclear power, etc.) You're right, it would be a great way to convince nations to ally themselves with the human player.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2001 00:06
|