Underrated UUs/UBs

[kochman]

I didn't say it allows you to REX better, I said you should REX once you have built it to get more free Steles, bigger borders (which kind of answers the question, in that your borders pop faster you can then fill in the gaps with more cities later).

[dirtyparrot]

^ Well then, there's no need build Stonehenge, just REX. I agree that Zara is a good leader to REX with, just not for the reason that you're using.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by TheLazyHase

And it actually IS very costly. I don't see how you can say otherwise.

Look it another way : most of the time, a stele in mid game is about 1 turn and usually delay nothing that I couldn't build elsewhere. Stonehenge delay settlers at the moment where expanding is critical. Or eat some axe I can use to definitely put Shaka out of commission. When you build stonehenge you have 2 city, max 3, so it IS one of the most expensive thing you can build.

It make sens, you loose culture with losing stonehenge. Why ? Because regular stele give +1 culture that never disappear. Stoneheneg give you stele, and the stel diasspear with astornomy, meaning even the +1 culture dissappear, so you DO loose culture. A small amount.

The arguments you make for SH being expensive... Oracle is more expensive, and being built at the same time period roughly. The expansion period. Its just not a good argument. Its cheap as dirt... I understand your point, but, if I am playing as Zara, and can realistically go for 1 wonder without hampering my growth too much... I am going for SH. With just about any other leader, I am going for the Oracle.

So, you are saying the free Stele from SH lose the +1 but regularly built Stele don't? Are you sure about that?

[kochman]

Originally Posted by dirtyparrot

^ Well then, there's no need build Stonehenge, just REX. I agree that Zara is a good leader to REX with, just not for the reason that you're using.

Well, yeah, if you don't get the SH, might as well REX anyhow. I am just saying, if you do get it, its that much better for REXing. Its not an absolute need, but it is cool to get a bunch of free Stele when you are REXing because you can put your cities further apart, your borders pop better, and you fill in the gaps later...
2nd pops have to be considered here too... and 3rd pops, because you can start popping over the enemies lands, and now you might just have more space to put down a new city... and now his cities are fighting to maintain their culture while you push into theres.

For the cost of a mere 120 hammers... its a damn good deal... I get 20 free Stele from it, at least... do the math... in the end, I save 480 hammers (probably wouldn't have built Stele in all 20 cities, but its a nice freebie).

I really don't see the logic in arguing against it... its cheap as dirt, and it does help, whether you MUST have the help or not, its nice to get it.

[TheLazyHase]

Originally Posted by kochman

So, you are saying the free Stele from SH lose the +1 but regularly built Stele don't? Are you sure about that?

The free stele disappear entirely when stonehenge go away, so it does not give +1 culture. It's the same thing as for regular monument.

And oracle is very different from stonehenge because it's effect, for Zara, is much greater, and it came way later. Some leader can build stonehenge from turn 1, when priesthood tend to be later. I usually have one more city abnd some troop by that point, so instead of delaying settler it give work to worker on a secondary city usually.

But I agree : Oracle IS expensive. But it's a free tech, possibly a religion wia CoL, possibly an excellent trade bait with metal casting, possibly something even better (machinery in some rare case, but more realistically something very nice like currency can happen easily). Stonehenge give you ... a little bit of culture when every city give you culture from day one. And if you happen to need that extra bit of culture, you only have to build the cheapest building possible to get it again, meaning that on a particular city you loose at worst a little culture and 30 hammer. It's hardly the same as beoing the first at metal casting.

Edit : you will never get 20 free stele from it, bvecause out of the 20 you think you gain, about 3 would have had a purpose. SO you gain 3 stele. Yepee !

For a creative leader, stonehenge give a very situationnal building, because no every city will be culturally challenged - in fact very few will be usually, vecause with 2 culture, cheap library and theater your city will already be strong enough to ward off a lot of problem, and stele will never be enough to avoid problem with a city planted here 1000 year before you came, or to make a cultural bomb cause no trouble.

[dirtyparrot]

The cost isn't only hammers, but potential city sites and great person pollution. In almost all circumstances I would rather have a GS than a GP. Shrines are much nicer when someone else uses a GP to build them for you.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by TheLazyHase

Edit : you will never get 20 free stele from it, bvecause out of the 20 you think you gain, about 3 would have had a purpose. SO you gain 3 stele. Yepee !

So, are you just making up circumstances?
If I have 4 border cities, which I usually have several more than that... I have already gotten past your 3. Where did you get the three from? Seems like a random number to fit your argument. On average, I have probably 10 border cities (until I start crushing civs and thereby eradicating borders), so that is a saving of at least 180 hammers.
Dude, I am sorry, but you will never convince me that 120 hammers is expensive. So, its pretty futile to try.

I didn't realize that free stele/monuments go away. That is kind of stupid... I mean, on the day Astronomy is invented, the statues all come down simultaneously? I believe you, I just think it is stupid from the design point of view.
Anyhow, regardless, by that time, my border cities are less numerous (due to me killing of certain civs, or at least vassalizing them), so losing the free steles isn't a big deal anymore.

Anyhow...
@ dirtyparrot - free steles for 120 hammers, plus the GP points (of course a GS is better, most of the time, but sometimes you just need to found your own shrines. Settled GPs are awesome... and, a GP can start a golden age, whereas I won't use a GS to do so a lot of the time.)

[TheLazyHase]

Originally Posted by kochman

On average, I have probably 10 border cities (until I start crushing civs and thereby eradicating borders)

So, you are talking about made up number, and say that you have 10 city culturally challenged ? Seem like a random number to justify the laziness of thinking about the real value of stonehenge. If you want to know everything, I have taken the number 3 from ... you. Without an actual situation, saying that even one city will put a stele from stonehenge to good use can be difficult, it's just that finding one or two city that happen to be near a big cultural city, or that are being culturally bombed with the music GA can happen. It does not happen often, because of the AI unability to pop border efficiently. And in multiplayer I highly doubt that stonehenge can retain any kind of value as opposed to more army to keep your city in your empire.

I don't talk about border city. I talk about city where a stele actually make a difference, i.e. near none, because you are creative, and have won already most of your cultural battle even before they began, the other being most of the time lost well before they began (for example, a stele won't elt you shake a 1000-year advance from another civ). Napoleon of Ethiopa can put Stonehenge to very good use ; Zara yaqob have better to do in the beginning part of the game. You may actually have games where stonehenge is essential for a creative civ ; I have never seen such a game, simply because the effect of even the stele is so tiny in the great scheme. For a creative leader, settling 3 turn before will usually make the same difference as stonehenge

[UWHabs]

It's situational. On some maps, rushing SH with Zara would be amazing to push out borders. If you play large maps, lots of space, lots of opponents, sure.

But if you play islands maps where borders matter less, or even on a continent where you only have 1 or 2 neighbouring civs, then it's less important.

But definitely, if I were Napoleon (or even better De Gaulle) of Ethiopia, I'd rush for Stonehenge every game. There it'd be great to have. But as a creative civ, I'd put it more in terms of a building useful in border cities, and not a priority early. I'd rather put those hammers into another settler or another 3 axes to help extend my borders.

[Silu]

Stonehenge is always a waste on CRE Civs for border culture - its only function is to pop borders without building anything, which CRE Civs already have. For the border culture war cities, you can just singlebuild them later and have lost about 100 culture which hardly makes or breaks culture wars. Early hammers matter a LOT more than later hammers - you should be thinking how many % of your empires total output is used towards it rather than absolute values. You can't just calculate that building this and that many Monuments throughout the game is worse than building SH.

Having to research Mysticism is also a big opportunity cost especially when REXing, those beakers could be used towards something like Currency instead to dig you out of the economic problems faster.

That said, I've seen situations where SH with a CRE Civ is viable - for me these have always meant popping Mysticism from a hut and having to fight a culture war with my capital. SH culture is culturally very helpful for the actual city that builds it. For others it's very neglible, even so on CRE Civs.

[naterator]

When i think REX, i think beeline for economic techs, not stop and smell the roses along the tech tree. A mysticism detour coupled with a wonder would have to produce serious results to be worth the time and effort. Even with a non-creative civ, i avoid stonehenge altogether; seems to me you'll gain more tiles building settlers than with the extra 1.75 culture.
Monuments are 1 pop whips, hardly an inconvienance to build where needed, which for creative civs is usually nowhere. The +2 culture is enough that early, Stonehenge is overkill. The best way to defend your cultural borders is by eliminating the cultural pressure, not by pressing back; build chariots, axes, etc...
I thought that stele sounded good for cultural victories, but TheLazyHase says the +25% obsoletes with astronomy, so now i kind of think they suck altogether.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by TheLazyHase

So, you are talking about made up number, and say that you have 10 city culturally challenged ? Seem like a random number to justify the laziness of thinking about the real value of stonehenge. If you want to know everything, I have taken the number 3 from ... you. Without an actual situation, saying that even one city will put a stele from stonehenge to good use can be difficult, it's just that finding one or two city that happen to be near a big cultural city, or that are being culturally bombed with the music GA can happen. It does not happen often, because of the AI unability to pop border efficiently. And in multiplayer I highly doubt that stonehenge can retain any kind of value as opposed to more army to keep your city in your empire.

I don't talk about border city. I talk about city where a stele actually make a difference, i.e. near none, because you are creative, and have won already most of your cultural battle even before they began, the other being most of the time lost well before they began (for example, a stele won't elt you shake a 1000-year advance from another civ). Napoleon of Ethiopa can put Stonehenge to very good use ; Zara yaqob have better to do in the beginning part of the game. You may actually have games where stonehenge is essential for a creative civ ; I have never seen such a game, simply because the effect of even the stele is so tiny in the great scheme. For a creative leader, settling 3 turn before will usually make the same difference as stonehenge

Nice try, but this is not a made up number. This is a conservative guesstimate at how many I have averaged through all my games.
Usually, I play on huge maps, and have many civs (often 18, sometimes the standard amount) on the map, meaning, lots of border cities.
The point being, your 3 is way too low... my point being, anything more than 3 and building SH is an equal sum game (4 x stele/monuments = 120 hammers, SH = 120 hammers) or BETTER.
Border cities are cities specifically where stele make a difference... so its nice that you don't want to talk about them, but that is the whole essence of the argument. That is where they are most useful (there, and the 3 cities you might want a cultural victory with). Anyhow, if you are going for cultural, and have one of more other cities that have borders, SH is a great option, mathematically speaking.

Settling 3 turns earlier will make the difference of SH... uh... your point? That doesn't even make sense. We are talking about many cities, you are talking about settling in one 3 turns earlier.

Keep in mind, with stone, SH is 60 hammers, that is the same price as a worker... that is pretty damn cheap and definitely worth getting a few free stele (or monuments even if you play someone else).

[kochman]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

It's situational. On some maps, rushing SH with Zara would be amazing to push out borders. If you play large maps, lots of space, lots of opponents, sure.

But if you play islands maps where borders matter less, or even on a continent where you only have 1 or 2 neighbouring civs, then it's less important.

But definitely, if I were Napoleon (or even better De Gaulle) of Ethiopia, I'd rush for Stonehenge every game. There it'd be great to have. But as a creative civ, I'd put it more in terms of a building useful in border cities, and not a priority early. I'd rather put those hammers into another settler or another 3 axes to help extend my borders.

w/ stone SH costs 60 hammers, you can't even get 2 axemen for that price (70 hammers for 2 axes)... and definitely not a settler (100 hammers)

But, yes, of course, as with almost all options, this is map situational.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by Silu

Stonehenge is always a waste on CRE Civs for border culture - its only function is to pop borders without building anything, which CRE Civs already have.

False.
1) Centers the map
2) Gives GP points

Thanks for playing though.

[kochman]

Originally Posted by naterator

When i think REX, i think beeline for economic techs, not stop and smell the roses along the tech tree. A mysticism detour coupled with a wonder would have to produce serious results to be worth the time and effort. Even with a non-creative civ, i avoid stonehenge altogether; seems to me you'll gain more tiles building settlers than with the extra 1.75 culture.
Monuments are 1 pop whips, hardly an inconvienance to build where needed, which for creative civs is usually nowhere. The +2 culture is enough that early, Stonehenge is overkill. The best way to defend your cultural borders is by eliminating the cultural pressure, not by pressing back; build chariots, axes, etc...
I thought that stele sounded good for cultural victories, but TheLazyHase says the +25% obsoletes with astronomy, so now i kind of think they suck altogether.

Mysticism is needed to get to Monarchy, as far as I know, a pretty important thing for REXing and of course can also be used to get to COL, which is of huge importance when REXing. If you also intend on going for the Oracle, you will need it... so, this point is hardly noteworthy.
Whether you pop a whip to get your monuments, or otherwise, the hammer total is the same, so that is also an irrelevant point.
w/ stone SH is worth the cost of 2 monuments...

And, of course, once again, we are neglecting the GP points and centering the map.

You guys seem kind of shortsighted here.

Anyhow, I have tired of this debate at this point... its getting very repetitious. Most of the points being made here are either weak (such as the huge tech cost of mysticism, which you will need anyhow) or based on arguments with situations to suit the point, in which cases no one would build the SH or Stele anyway.

I did learn that free monuments/stele disappear at Astronomy, so thanks for that point Lazy Hase. Even in that case, the impact of the buildings is pretty much already complete at that point, and other buildings are now in place to easily take up the slack of the loss of the culture.

So, in closing... Zara + SH = good if you think that, before astronomy, you will want 4 or more monuments/stele (or 2 if you have access to stone)

Thanks for playing all. Now back to our regularly scheduled nitpicking.

[naterator]

Originally Posted by kochman

So, in closing... Zara + SH = good if you think that, before astronomy, you will want 4 or more monuments/stele (or 2 if you have access to stone)

Thanks for playing all. Now back to our regularly scheduled nitpicking.

So you make a point, nobody agrees, you repeat your points until you get sick of the repetetivness, still nobody agrees; and you declare victory (and the argument closed)?
You really haven't convinced anyone that the relatively small culture bump is worth the hammers at the time. It's not about the 120 hammers, it's about the 120 hammers at that stage of the game vs. the benefits at that stage of the game.
The benefit is basically the same 1 culture a regular monument gives, until you start building libraries, theaters, or temples; and being creative assures that you: 1)have a cultural head start to that point, and 2) can get those buildings up quicker than your neighbor. The cost/benefit is out of whack, no matter how little you think it costs.
It is usually more efficient to build 3, 5, how ever many monuments you need to border pop with a non-creative civ than build stonehenge because you occupy a 1 pop city for a bit instead of hogging your capital when it has better things to do; for a creative civ, it's better to skip monuments (and of course stonehenge) altogether for more pressing needs (unless you're smashing through a difficulty level below where you should be and have the hammers to waste in the opening stages of the game) If you want an early prophet, the obelisk is far superior.

So... in closing, Zara + Sh = OVERKILL. Stele = Overrated UB (even though most agree it sucks, they don't think it sucks enough).

[TheLazyHase]

Originally Posted by naterator

So... in closing, Zara + Sh = OVERKILL. Stele = Overrated UB (even though most agree it sucks, they don't think it sucks enough).

I agree. I don't have seen any true point for Stonehenge, apart from the claim that a lot of city need the extra culture from stele (without anything baking that up, and in direct opposition to what I see in game).

Making an early wonder is alway a significant investment,and usually a not so good idea. Stonehenge is the earliest of them, and his effect is greatly reduced for creative civ. Since the stele is just an upgraded monument (that add no utility beside what a monumnt do, it just do the monument turf better), you'd better have a map that justify it, and they are pretty rare in about every single mapscript I have seen.

(and you may add that Zara begin with 0 tech related to stonehenge, or that he's not industrious, or that 119 failgold can be a boon at the start of the game ...)

On a side note, I would not say that the stele is overrated, but it's one of the UB that make people make mmistake because they want to milk it too much. Astronomy is too powerful to be delayed in a lot of case, and the effect of stele is modest at best.

(BTW, I don't care about centering the map. The north / south position is easy enough to guess, the west / east is just useless. Laybe if you can't find a good way to know the size of what you have explored to the actual map size, it can be good to know. The GP point are not that hot too, because temple exist, founding religion is not so hot, and GP without religion are less useful - all that added to the already big number of wonder existing)

[kochman]

ok, you guys win, you are smarter than me.

[TheLazyHase]

Originally Posted by kochman

120 (or 60) hammers is never many... period.

120 hammer IS many at the beginning, period. you should go on deity, and look what the AI can do with an additional settler at the beginning. Also, if you have anybody to rush you simply cant spare 120 hammer, and then again an early rush does help you more than culture when you get some already

And researching mysticism early, along with road and masonry if you want to have stone, all of that before stonehenge being built, it's not automatic, nor does that is a typical game.

Your argument about price mean nothing, because it's flawed at the start. It suppose hammer are the same at the beginning and the end. In -4000, 6 hammer per turn is godly ; in 1500 a city with 6 hammer produce nothing. Especially when time is of the essence, and it's far more often the case at the very beginning, because of rush, early expansion, and early wonder being all at the same time with few city and hammer to work. Stonehenge hamper significantly your ability to rex or invade your opponent, and you call that cheap ?

[champ82]

I didn’t want to get dragged into this but I feel compelled to…

1.) Hypothetical situations where one builds Stonehenge with stone online are VERY hypothetical. It demands 4 techs and workers doing tasks other than feeding the capital.

2.) % multipliers, whether they are , , or whatever else excite some (ahem, new, cough cough) players, but often, this is not where it’s at. They used to excite me. % amplifiers are often insignificant, especially early game.

Take the Pavilion – let’s say you even built it in a city with a library and a uni. 2+2+3 = 7 +25% of 7 = 8.75 or 9. If this happened next to a CRE civ who had the same buildings which add up to 2+2+2+3= 9. Congrats, you almost matched them with your amazing % multiplier building. Except they have the momentum because of the initial 2 and the half priced libraries and theaters so not really.

And the Steele tends to multiply less base than this for most of it’s life.

The Pavilion gets huge and quite significant if you add it to wonder cities, hermitage, cathedral or corp cities.

The Steele will never make it to corp cities.

Nor will it make it to era where building or turning up on the slider is advisable.


Think the Stock Exchange will make a big difference unless you have a religion, a corp, settled priests or merchants, or Spiral Miranet? Think it will make a big difference if you never mess with the slider to bring up to 100%? Think again.

In my noble/prince days I loved factories and coal plants so much all my cities would get mad and shrink in population. This is a prime example of thinkng % multiplier exceeding base production fallacy.

Still a fan of factories and coal plants, but bio and sushi will increase population, giving more squares to work, which can improve total as well or almost as well. Or better yet, it can provide an opportunity to build base first, which will make the factories/coal plants get up sooner AND have your cities be able to deal with the better.

3.) CRE + Stonehenge is most often redundant. In some strategies, the great prophet points might be worth it. Combined wth a cultural victory mindset, caste system and possibly Sistene Chapel it MAY be worth it.

4.) Otherwise, Stonehenge is sometimes worth it. Obsolete just did it on a deity game on a challenging map with Gandhi. I’m playing a team co-op game where we’re 2 (Lincoln & Sitting Bull) vs. 3 coalitions of 3. Seemed to make sense for Lincoln to chop it, as we share wonders, and there were lots of trees to chop.

5.) Centering the globe is not usually a big deal and it can most likely wait until calander. Rough position on globe can be safely assumed through terrain types. Thorough exploration of unclaimed and rival territory is key, however. In terms of just base exploration, chariots or even warriors, scouts, galleys, workboats will give the player more important reconnaissance knowledge than Stonehenge.

6.) Conclusion – SH is very niche and most likely more so with Zara.

7.) Oh god…what did I do…now I’m in this argument…kochman it’s not personal, just my 2 cents. This is the forum, yo. If people don't speak their minds here, it won't add +25% to anybody's game.