Mysticism / Stonehenge, Is it worth it?

[grommit5]

How important is Stonehenge? I'd much rather have mining and bronze working but just can't seem to get past the urge to build stonehenge for the culture value. I know I could build monuments everywhere but that takes many more turns when building them everywhere vs just building stonehenge once. I seldom go for a cultural victory but I still like to pad my borders with as much culture as possible.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Joshua368]

I rarely find myself taking it unless I'm playing a wonderspam game. Yes the free monuments are nice but usually that early in the game those precious hammers have to go into units/workers/settlers. I might if I'm industrious, or if I'm running a religious empire for the Great Prophet points, but otherwise the hammers saved aren't worth it to me. Monuments are extremely cheap and I can usually just chop them out right away, a single forest tends to finish them.

When it comes to cheap hammer-saving early wonders, I think I prefer the Great Wall instead. You can delay it long enough to hook up stone, and you'll save a lot more hammers on anti-barb police than monuments. Though I still don't pick it up in many games, just depends what the priorities are at the time.

 

[hecubus]

Stonehenge tends to get built by the AI during a time when I'm prioritizing workers/settlers/defenders. I'll research mysticism for monuments if I need the border pops very early, but as noted they're very cheap (I tend to whip them when the city hits 2 pop). After the first few cities there are so many ways to pop borders anyway (State religion, chopped library, 1-turn artist specialist under Caste System) that it's very rare I'm struggling to pop the border.

 

[Iranon]

I like it. It's not that expensive, it makes new cities come online a little faster and an early Great People are wonderful... while an early shrine can be game-changing, settled Prophets aren't bad either: I often go for breakneck expansions near 100% gold, and prophets help enormously here.

However... above Emperor I usually feel I have to bend over backwards to have a stab at it, if I don't succeed I will have slowed my expansion for nothing and I'm not likely to get all that many initial cities that it's worth it.
Also, the Great Wall can save many headaches and early Great Spies become more valuable so if I want an early wonder the competition becomes fiercer.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I only like it if I am charismatic, or have a monument UB.

 

[nbcman]

I try to get Stonehenge if I am playing a Civ that has a monument UB or a charismatic leader for the + 1 from the monument.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Good with a charismatic leader, a monument UB or if I want to generate a Great Prophet early on

 

[azzaman333]

If I have stone and a spare city before its built, I'll try to build it.

Suffice to say, it rarely happens.

 

[Supr49er]

I only like it if I am charismatic, or have a monument UB.

I try to get Stonehenge if I am playing a Civ that has a monument UB or a charismatic leader for the + 1 from the monument.

Good with a charismatic leader, a monument UB or if I want to generate a Great Prophet early on

If I have stone and a spare city before its built, I'll try to build it.

Suffice to say, it rarely happens.

I agree with the bolded words in the above posts.

 

[Turquoiside]

I build a Settler from the start and use two cities for GW and Stonehenge. Unless I'm Creative, which of course I ignore it. This on Prince.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Yikes no worker???

 

[Willem]

Yikes no worker???

Building a Worker first is overrated. In most cases it will take just as many turns to build a Warrior/Settler as it will to build a Worker/Warrior/Settler. Unless I have something special in my BFC, like a Gold resource, I don't even bother with a Worker but get my second city up and running first.

 

[grommit5]

Thanks everybody. Keep it coming. I like to hear the different stratagies.



I have to get ready to go to Seattle tomorrow and my wife doesn't want me to take the laptop. Something about quality time with the kids doesn't include all of you. I just don't get it.

Hopefully I'll have time to pop in later again tonight. If not, then looking forward to all the different opinions to read when I get home on sunday.

 

[JujuLautre]

Building a Worker first is overrated. In most cases it will take just as many turns to build a Warrior/Settler as it will to build a Worker/Warrior/Settler.

So you are saying that you basically gives up a free worker?

If you have some resource that you can improve quickly (mostly food) (and forgetting to consider the imperialistic trait), building a worker first is clearly the way to go to get the quickest development. Not even considering chopping, just resources.

 

[azzaman333]

Building a Worker first is overrated. In most cases it will take just as many turns to build a Warrior/Settler as it will to build a Worker/Warrior/Settler. Unless I have something special in my BFC, like a Gold resource, I don't even bother with a Worker but get my second city up and running first.

If going worker/warrior/settler gets the settler in the same time, why would you go warrior/settler?!

 

[Fastjack]

Stonehenge is a must. I always build it regardless of starting situation or strategy. My reason is this: Theology. The great person popped early for theology is always a game changer. Not only do I get the culture bonus, but I have my own religion- and regardless of strat, a religion is incredibly valuable. I just make sure to have all of the preceding techs by a fairly early time and I can get a religion - and the ai loves to trade for it. If I am defensive, that +1 culture can do a lot to grab territory quickly, and if I am offensive, I can get theocracy which is always good. This works so well that I can often get christianity to be a one of the major religions on a pangea map if I hustle. I usually build it while gaining pop for my city early, then switch to settler when I hit 3. Switch back afterwards while chop hacking and it gets done very quickly - and you don't really have much to build anyway.

 

[afa2000]

I always build it because of the great prophet, it's a cheap wonder. It's usually nice to have theocracy before everyone else.

 

[Willem]

If going worker/warrior/settler gets the settler in the same time, why would you go warrior/settler?!

If you have two cities running, you have double the production. Going with Warrior/Settler gets that second city started about 30 turns sooner, at least on Marathon. And since on Marathon it takes only twice as long to build a Worker, but three times to research a Worker tech, quite often you have a Worker standing around with nothing to do if you build it first. By going with Warrior/Settler, you can research a number of Worker techs plus Archery so you can start building your Barb defences right away and not have to worry that your Worker has nothing to do when you do build it.

 

[Willem]

So you are saying that you basically gives up a free worker?

What are you talking about? You don't get your first Worker for free, you have to invest production on it.

If you have some resource that you can improve quickly (mostly food) (and forgetting to consider the imperialistic trait), building a worker first is clearly the way to go to get the quickest development. Not even considering chopping, just resources.

No it's not, at least not always. As I mentioned, if you have two cities up you have double the production.

 

[Dresden]

In most cases it will take just as many turns to build a Warrior/Settler as it will to build a Worker/Warrior/Settler.

Going with Warrior/Settler gets that second city started about 30 turns sooner, at least on Marathon.

Those 2 statements appear contradictory. JujuLautre was referring to that first quote with regards to the "free" worker. If, as stated, you could build Worker + Warrior + Settler in the same amount of time as you could build only Warrior + Settler then the worker is essentially free in terms of turns expended.