View Poll Results: Would this idea be an improvement?
YES, its a fair tradeoff 5 13.51%
MAYBE if you didn't eliminate pre-builds 2 5.41%
NO, the punishment fits the loss 24 64.86%
YOU SUCK! I always beat the AI to Wonders 6 16.22%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old August 1, 2002, 15:19   #1
Jawa Jocky
Prince
 
Jawa Jocky's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 555
A better policy for losing Wonder Races?
I'm really annoyed by the lost shields associated with losing Wonder races. If you don't have a fall back build, you can get screwed out of a lot of shields. I'd be willing to forgo pre-builds in exchange for no lost shields.

For example you get beat to a wonder:

You can now switch to another wonder (the only time it would be allowed). Switch to a small wonder (the only time it would be allowed), or switch to a city improvement.

The extra shields would carry over to your next turn and you would be allowed to put them toward another build. You could even build 3 or 4 turns in a row if you had that many shields going.

IMO this system would be better. It would get rid of the pre-build exploit, and not punish you so severely for losing the wonder race.
Jawa Jocky is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 15:55   #2
dunk
Prince
 
dunk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 978
How does this get rid of "pre-builds"?

I don't think you should get all those shields right into your next build. Maybe 33-50% of leftovers each build would be appropriate... come to think of it, this should happen with everything.
dunk is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 16:01   #3
delsolsi
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 82
I have no problems with the way it works now. The way it works now is if you know its going to be a close race you have to decide if the risk of losing the shields is worth the beneifits of the wonder. If you lose its just something you have to deal with it. The AI has to deal with it when you beat them to a wonder, so it is fair the way it is now.
delsolsi is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 17:04   #4
GI Josh
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 21
system works fine the way it is now. my only suggestion is to make the penalty even *worse*. right now you get "cascading" wonders when several civs are in the wonder race . . . when you switch from one particular wonder to something else (whether another wonder or not), you should get a 50% shield penalty. right now with the cascading, you have to watch not only the cities building your particular wonder, but any cities building any wonder, which is quite a few in the middle ages. shields should be specific to a specific wonder.
GI Josh is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 17:15   #5
ChrisiusMaximus
Civilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameC3CDG Blood Oath HordeC4DG The HordeC4BtSDG Rabbits of CaerbannogCiv4 SP Democracy GameCivilization IV PBEMC4WDG éirich tuireann
Emperor
 
ChrisiusMaximus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Staffordshire England
Posts: 8,321
I like things fine the way they are.
__________________
A proud member of the "Apolyton Story Writers Guild".There are many great stories at the Civ 3 stories forum, do yourself a favour and visit the forum. Lose yourself in one of many epic tales and be inspired to write yourself, as I was.
ChrisiusMaximus is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 17:45   #6
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
To generalize the matter somewhat...
The Civ Games alter on excess production. Most of the Civ games burn the excess, but allow free switching. (CIV I, II, III, MOM). Some allow carry over and free switching (MOO, MOO II). SMAC allowed carry over but penalized switching.

The Great wonder production loss occurs because the original CIV has it. I believe that the variation as these games come out is an indication that this is a very changeable aspect to the 4X genre and thus does not possesss one right way to do it.

Personally, I like the 'Prebuild/always have an open wonder strategy' the major loss engenders. I rarely lose one or two turns of production due to a lost wonder race, (and I lose a lot of races)
ShuShu is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 18:06   #7
PGM
Prince
 
PGM's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 334
I don't have a problem with the way the game works now, nor do I object to playtesting the following concept:

Excess shields add to the next build project(s). Of course, maybe not all shields, due to specific costs, but some. Playtesting is essential to find the proper value.

Regardless, I'm sure there's much more important improvements to be done to the game for the next patch and PTW. (Unit trading/commerce, anyone? )
PGM is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 19:15   #8
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 19:30   #9
GhengisFarb™
lifer
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG Glory of WarCivilization II Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamCiv4 SP Democracy Game
Deity
 
GhengisFarb™'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11,289
Quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.
Does that work after the latest patch?
GhengisFarb™ is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 19:52   #10
PGM
Prince
 
PGM's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Does that work after the latest patch?
No man, we're just talking here...
PGM is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 19:59   #11
steven8r
Prince
 
steven8r's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: of Central Texas
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
expolits! expolits! expolits!

start buildig a womder you dont really want, and when you get a new tech, switch out and pump out 10 infantry in 1 turn.
It would be very cool, (at least for me, I don't know about the AI) to be able to pump out multiple units per city per turn.

I mean if you had, say an 80 shield per turn city, you 'should' be able to get 8 - 10 shield units. I know my example isn't perhaps the best--by the time cities can generate 80+ sheilds/turn, I don't think there's anything that can be built for 10s. However, the concept would be kinda cool--at least for me
__________________
"...Every Right implies a certain Responsibility; Every Opportunity, an Obligation; Every Possession, a Duty." --J.D. Rockerfeller, Jr.
steven8r is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 20:18   #12
Sargoth
Settler
 
Sargoth's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 12
workers cost ten.
__________________
What an ugly city. Lets burn it down and build a magnificent forest.
Sargoth is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 20:32   #13
steven8r
Prince
 
steven8r's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: of Central Texas
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Sargoth
workers cost ten.
I, then, stand corrupted, err, corrected. It would be cool to produce 8 workers from 1 city in 1 turn. It could be used to get rid of all those 'dissident' citizens. But if it were possible, it would probably only take your Happy folks and as soon as it was completed, your city would descend into Anarchy and probably just spontaneously combust or something.
__________________
"...Every Right implies a certain Responsibility; Every Opportunity, an Obligation; Every Possession, a Duty." --J.D. Rockerfeller, Jr.
steven8r is offline  
Old August 1, 2002, 21:19   #14
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
O.K, I answered "Maybe" to this question, with the following Caveat!
My feeling is that, if you try and build a Great Wonder, then swap to either another wonder, or a Small Wonder or improvement, even if you get beaten to it, then you should lose only as many shields as it would take to get you "Half-way" towards completing your goal! Example, let's say you're building the Pyramids, you are half-way there, then you decide to build a Library, 'cause you just got the requisite tech. In civ2, you would have been more than finished the library, and would recieve it the very next turn. Instead, I think that, if the library would have taken a total of 8 turns to build, then you should only get to keep 4 turns worth of shields (thus leaving 4 turns left to build the library!).
If you switch to units, though, you should lose all but 1 shield!!
Anyway, that's just my view! I should point out, though, that it's not that big a deal to me!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline  
Old August 2, 2002, 10:36   #15
Zizka
Chieftain
 
Zizka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Fantasy land
Posts: 94
IT woul dbe nice just to rather get some gold for teh loss of shields since the "investment" of shields/ie manpower may generate derivitive benefits. Ok so i didn't build the hoover dam.. but dammit i must have built SOMETHING!! (or did it all go to "consultants" LOL) Perhaps if each wonder was tied to an improvement or unit which would spin off if teh wonder failed.. say a failed great library may create a university, a failed great wall = city wall, a failed manhattan project = nuclear power station..etc

Z
__________________
"Capitalism is man exploiting man; communism is just the other way around."
Zizka is offline  
Old August 2, 2002, 10:40   #16
Richelieu
Apolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
Richelieu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Everybody writes a book too many.
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally posted by GI Josh
system works fine the way it is now. my only suggestion is to make the penalty even *worse*. right now you get "cascading" wonders when several civs are in the wonder race . . . when you switch from one particular wonder to something else (whether another wonder or not), you should get a 50% shield penalty. right now with the cascading, you have to watch not only the cities building your particular wonder, but any cities building any wonder, which is quite a few in the middle ages. shields should be specific to a specific wonder.
I agree. And i would even wipe out all shields assigned to that specific wonder. You don't win the race: you lose the shields.
__________________
What?
Richelieu is offline  
Old August 2, 2002, 10:50   #17
ACooper
Prince
 
ACooper's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In a dark and scary hole!
Posts: 728
Keep things the way they are. You lose the race, you lose the investment. There are many parrallels in real life.
__________________
Sorry....nothing to say!
ACooper is offline  
Old August 2, 2002, 10:52   #18
ACooper
Prince
 
ACooper's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In a dark and scary hole!
Posts: 728
In fact, I think all shields should stay with what's being produced and not carry over when you switch production.
__________________
Sorry....nothing to say!
ACooper is offline  
Old August 2, 2002, 11:56   #19
Yit
Settler
 
Local Time: 23:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 9
Off the top of my head thought.

How about a 'wealth' counterpart, called 'investment' or something. It costs a billion shields, so all you are doing is 'investing'. If you are investing and you have more than enough to complete the improvement, you get automaticly get 1/2 of the shields needed to complete the wonder. However, if you don't have enough stockpiled to complete it, your shields get divided by 2.

Example:

Say you are investing, and you have 1000 shields stockpiled. Something spiffy comes up and you want it, say Sun Tzu's thing. Lets say it costs 400 shields. You convert from 'investment' to Sun Tzu's, and you start off with 200 shields towards it. However, if you only have 150 shields stockpiled, you would only get 75 when you cross over.

So, if you have 399 and someone beats you to Sun Tzus...just switch to invest ment, and wait until something else comes along.

Anyone like this idea?

Last edited by Yit; August 2, 2002 at 12:45.
Yit is offline  
Old August 4, 2002, 02:17   #20
Zylka
Civilization II MultiplayerDiploGamesApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Local Time: 05:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hidden within an infantile Ikea fortress
Posts: 1,054
What a sad state of affairs the policy is now though
Zylka is offline  
Old August 4, 2002, 15:59   #21
sabrewolf
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV CreatorsC3CDG Desolation RowCivilization IV PBEMCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
sabrewolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: turicum, helvetistan
Posts: 9,852
i don't like the shield transferring either.
say, you're building the pyramids and get beaten by the AI short before completion... how should your workers be able to change all into something completly different (e.g. hanging gardens).

also, if i'm building a colosseum for 20 turns and then can just change to a unit? seems a bit strange.

but anyhow... it would suck even more if you'd always lose the shields, so i guess it's part of the game
__________________
- Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity
- Atheism is a nonprophet organization.
sabrewolf is offline  
Old August 4, 2002, 16:05   #22
Hagbart
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Prince
 
Hagbart's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 835
This would probably be exploited very much, I don't think it's a good idea...
__________________
Try my Lord of the Rings MAP out: Lands of Middle Earth v2 NEWS: Now It's a flat map, optimized for Conquests

The new iPod nano: nano
Hagbart is offline  
Old August 4, 2002, 18:43   #23
candybo
Warlord
 
candybo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NC
Posts: 129
I think part of the point is to try to get players to keep tabs on what the other civs are doing via the embassies. If you wanna spend enough money after Lit, I think, you can see what any city is doing, and if you're behind..



OOPs! Forgot to vote

Last edited by candybo; August 4, 2002 at 18:54.
candybo is offline  
Old August 4, 2002, 21:00   #24
YC4B4U
Warlord
 
YC4B4U's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 110
Zizka's suggestion is the best idea I have heard in yonks. Even if no appropriate building exists - I am sure one could be created.

From the top of my head:-

Wonder - Second prize
Hanging Gardens - Gardens (increase happiness in city)
Great Wall - City Wall
Oracle - Temple with double effect
Great Library - Library with double effect
Sun Tzu - Hmm, I have no idea...
Magellans -

Okay maybe it needs a little bit more thought... but the idea still sounds good!
YC4B4U is offline  
Old August 5, 2002, 08:53   #25
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I'd prefer a complete step back from major wonder races that goes even further. Everyone should be able to build them, just like the small wonders, but there should be a modest extra benefit for being the first to do so. I.e. everyone can build a wonder that will decrease the cost of upgrading their military units, but only the first one to complete will be known as Leonardo's and carry a culture and commerce bonus. This would allow them to be useful without people scrabbling around to find ludicrous benefits to bestow for using them and no wonder would then become a game breaker.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old August 5, 2002, 09:59   #26
vondrack
lifer
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization III PBEMCivilization IV PBEMPtWDG Legoland
Emperor
 
vondrack's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Praha, Czech Republic
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
I'd prefer a complete step back from major wonder races that goes even further. Everyone should be able to build them, just like the small wonders, but there should be a modest extra benefit for being the first to do so. I.e. everyone can build a wonder that will decrease the cost of upgrading their military units, but only the first one to complete will be known as Leonardo's and carry a culture and commerce bonus. This would allow them to be useful without people scrabbling around to find ludicrous benefits to bestow for using them and no wonder would then become a game breaker.
Grumbold, you've just won my vote!

I have been thinking about something very similar for quite some time. Let's have - for every wonder - a certain benefit everybody will enjoy after finishing it. However, let only the first one to finish it be awarded with a reasonable extra (culture/commerce sometimes, a little bit stronger effect of the wonder at other times).

And then, do not allow switching production from/to a wonder. This way, the problem of wasted shields is gone and the strategy of "prebuilding" (which is a logical nonsense, forced only by the current game mechanics) as well. I guess it would make for a more fair/believable game.

It would be okay to get rid of the system of small/great wonders as they are now. There would be pairs of great/small wonders, like:

"Shakespeare's Theatre"-"National Theatre"
The former makes X citizens content and generates Y culture beakers, the latter makes X/2 citizens happy and generates Y-2 culture beakers. A really nice touch would be to have the great wonder named according to the nation that built it (like the current Shakespeare's Theatre would remain for the English, but become the Metropolitan Opera for the Americans, Bolshoi Teatr for the Russians etc.). It might be pretty difficult to find suitable names for every single combination though, I know...

Everybody would start with building a "National Theatre" (a small wonder, or "unique building"), however the first one to finish it would get the great wonder title and the small extra benefit.

Good point about making wonders less unbalacing from the gamepoint view then.
vondrack is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team