Mysticism / Stonehenge, Is it worth it?

[JujuLautre]

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

You said, I quote "In most cases it will take just as many turns to build a Warrior/Settler as it will to build a Worker/Warrior/Settler.". If that is true, why not build a worker since it takes as many turns?

I am quite sure you were mistaken somewhere, thus my "" smiley.

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

Well, let's take the case of the least productive resource you can get in the beginning: non-irrigated rice, or a mine, or irrigated sugar, or... whatever. You will always at least get that. And you can get irrigation or mining in time for the worker.

Case one: settler first. Built at turn 25. Let's say it will settler on his second turn (quite early).
Net gain specific from this setup at turn 34: one turn of food/production at +4 (turn 25), 8 turns at +8 (two cities), and 8 commerce (perhaps 24 if you have a river thanks to trade routes). Total: 68 food/production and 8/24 commerce

Case two: worker/settler while improving rice; worker built at turn 15. Let's say he has to spend one turn to get to the rice (worst case). Improve in 4 turns, which makes 4 turns at +4 production for the settler and the rest at +6. Settler is out at turn 33, settles at turn 34.
Net gain specific from this setup at turn 34: a worker (60 food/production), and one turn of production (at turn 33) at +6 food/production. Total: 66 food/production and 14 worker turns. Not to mention chopping (the settler), the speedup of the second city (there is a worker around) and the few more turns that the first city will spend at +6 compared to the first setup.

I will happily trade 2 production and some commerce for all that. In the worst case. In the best case (irrigated corn, pigs), there is really no match. In fact, I am not even sure that imperialistic will change that too much, because unless you begin with a plains/hill/forest or settle on a plains/hill, the imperialistic will gain only 1 hammer/turn whereas in the second setup he is almost always assured to get a mine, or even better, a chop.

That is, of course, unless I made a mistake somewhere, in which case feel free to correct me.

I just notice that I am talking about normal speed when you are talking about marathon. Since I am only guessing that you will get mining or irrigation as your first tech before the worker, I do not see that changing much things. You can get it in 45 turns in Marathon, right ?

 

[Willem]

Since I am only guessing that you will get mining or irrigation as your first tech before the worker, I do not see that changing much things. You can get it in 45 turns in Marathon, right ?

Less than that, I can research Mining before the Worker is completed. But that doesn't mean that he will have anything to mine. If all the Hills in the BFC have Forests on them, which happens quite often, then he has to wait until Bronze Working to be able to do anything with them. Even if I start with Mining, I can't research Bronze Working in the time it takes to build the Worker. With the discrepancy between tech times and unit times on Marathon, it's not always possible to have your Worker keep busy. The best you can do sometimes is get The Wheel and just have him build roads that go nowhere. And you need to sacrifice techs that will reveal resources, like Copper, in order to give him something to do. If I build a Warrior/Settler first, I don't have that problem. The Worker can get busy right away and stay busy until the end of the game when there's nothing left to do. And since there's no advantage turn wise between building a Warrior/Settler first, then it's an advantage to get that second city up and running instead. Then I can have two cities producing Workers and have most of the techs they need to actually work when they're both complete.

It's all very situational of course. There are times when I do build a Worker first. For instance if I have a Gold resource in my BFC, I'll definitely build a Worker to speed up my research. But most of the time I see no clear advantage to having a Worker first, I'm usually better off getting that second city going instead. I guess that approach is one of the quirks of playing on Marathon. I wouldn't know about Normal speed as I've played nothing but Marathon since it became available.

Oh, and as for your case studies, there's no way I would build a Settler and just send him off without an escort. It's just way too easy to get him eaten like that. That's a very bad policy IMO.

 

[grommit5]

JujuLautre / Willem
Great discussion. I usually build warrior/settler/worker or worker/warrior/settler depending on the start location and what's available to work. I refuse to send out a setter unprotected. Unfortunately I don't see where either one of you have answered my original question.

Is it worth the time it takes to research mysticism and build stonehenge vs building multiple monuments or is it a waste of time?

In the long run it seems to me that building stonehenge once would be better than multiple monuments.

By the way. I rarely play above prince and still play a lot of games at noble. To me the game begins to lose its fun factor above prince and isn't that why we play games. For fun!

 

[JujuLautre]

Your two arguments together do not really make sense imo. If you want to build an escort for your worker, then you give yourself the time to tech the worker techs you need, like AH or BW. And if you don't have the prerequisite and have only forested hills/pigs around, you do the same in marathon and normal speed: you build something in between.

Just to be sure, I tested my two cases with your setup. Worst case possible for worker first in terms of techs: the food resource is a pig, with Saladin (no agriculture, no hunting).

Case 1: built a warrior while growing to size 2, built a worker, waited for AH, built a pasture, did nothing for the remaining of the test with the worker; at turn 98, I had two cities (size 2 and 1), 1 worker and 34 excedent production/food (154 production/food), and 516 beakers in HBR.
Case 2: built a warrior while growing to size 2 (exact same procedure, I started the test from this point), built a settler, settled on the same spot as case 1; at turn 98, I had two cities (size 2 and 1), 122 excedent food/production, and 516 beakers in HBR (the city cost me the gold it was gaining; otherwise, I would have gotten around 20 additional beakers)

For the sake of it, I also tested with the worst possible food resource you can get: unirrigated rice. The 2nd city was out at turn 105, with a defender. This means something like 65 food/production loss compared to the second case.

If you get a +3 food/production resource, I believe that the 4 food/production that you gain from a new city are way too late from the 3 food/production that you gain buy building a worker and just working ONE improvement, in the time you are getting your first settler out. In the case of a +1 resource, clearly worker/settler gives you your city in more time than settler first. But don't forget that I wasted many worker turns, and that I do not count the headstart that the two cities have because of the presence of the worker (capital will grow faster - rice - and second city also - worker will be busy). As for a +2 tile, I believe that the food/production will be similar, but the worker turns once again will be unilateral.

All in all, just to say that saying "worker first is overrated" is complete nonsense imho. Worker first is clearly very strong, even in non-favourable setups. (I do not count fishing starts, which call for a workboat in most cases)

Now how about getting back on topic?

 

[JujuLautre]

So, getting back on topic: stonehenge is often a no-no for me. In terms of raw hammers, it is good if you build it instead of at least 5 monuments, or 3.6 if you are industrious (let's say 4). It is easier to build it in your capital than to build monuments in fresh new cities, and the latter come slower, but they are cheap anyway (a chop and some, or a whip). So considering that it also slows down your first workers and settlers, I pass. Getting a prophet is also sometime a hindrance more than a benefit (if you want a quick great scientist).

I will consider it more if I am industrious, charismatic, if I want to play cultural, if I am native america, or if I want an early Great Prophet. Otherwise, usually no.

 

[Charonicus]

If I have the 2 culture per turn trait (creative?) then the Henge gets ignored. Otherwise it depends. If there are civs nearby then it gains attractiveness for early border popping land grabs. If I have plenty of space I may ignore it.

 

[nNemethon]

On Noble (and maybe soon Prince) level, I leave it to the enemy to build for a few reasons:
1 - In the time it takes to build, I can pump out settlers/workers/axemen/buildings etc. and make my empire that little bit better/bigger/stronger early on.
2 - Usually by the time I get around to looking to build it, I can build my libraries which also means my new cities can build a monument prior if needs be.
3 - I'm focusing heavily on an SE economy of only farms for scientists and prod/farms for prod cities so my priorities for me is the contentious Great Wall and the pyramids.
4 - I like to 'Great People Specialise' my cities. Super Science city gets all the great scientist wonders, production gets the engineer gw's etc. so that I have (what seems) a larger amount of great people popping out and the types that I am after. Although they are all useful, for some reason I never have a great prophet city but nonetheless, I usually get one or two around mid-game.

5 - Why build when you can take what is rightfully yours by force?

So for me, greedy land grabbing and improvements mad seems to wrok exceptionally well at the moment. Current game Noble, 6 civs so far on a strangely small landmass. I have now crushed 4 of them with axemen and only 2 remain (Sitting Bull and what remains of the Persians as I took thier Capitol and a minor city ). All Civs had just reached thier second city and the Persians thier third. Here I'll stop as I have all my non-Capitol cities in enemy Capitols. Now I'll consolidate by getting my needed wonders/workers and when the economy picks up, go on a second expansionist explosion. Libraries will be on soon and monuments in all cities are just a whip or a forest away.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Cheers, nNem

 

[Stoney the I]

i always chop it before i chop my settler.

my usual monarch/aggro AI strat if i have plenty of forests:

tech:
(mining if needed / fishing if needed) bronzeworking / mysticism
Build: (1 or 2 workboat if possible) worker / chop next worker/ slave third worker/ chop stonehenge with 3 workers/ chop/slave settlers

yes yes yes i play without barbarians.

when charismatic stonehgne is a must for me, but also for any non creative civ its great for the border pops. also i tend to use oracle for CoL slingshot and the prophet comes around the time i pop CoL . usually i build the shrine the same turn i get the religion, thx to stonehenge.

offcource all this is nuts if your neighour is a madman or if you have just a few forests.

 

[Turquoiside]

I forgot to mention in my previous post, I usually Warrior rush the A.I. with my starting warrior. This works more than you would exoect, as Huts give him experience or an extra warrior. Heck, yesterday I was going to be boxed in my Greece and Holy Romw. One warrior destroyed both. Which, can give you that worker if it is all that important.


@ Willem: If you have a coastal start as a non-fishing-or-mystic civilization, the idea would be to either pop Fishing :no or give up Henge because likely you won't have another food resource. So, building a Warrior first would not then increase your turns to Settler, meaning you might as well switch them.

@ Stony_The_I
If you get Stonehenge, why can't you manage The Great Wall, seeing as the A.I. build the latter first?

 

[Stoney the I]

@ Stony_The_I
If you get Stonehenge, why can't you manage The Great Wall, seeing as the A.I. build the latter first?

i dont know what diff level you play, but in my experience the AI builds stonehenge before the GW.

One warrior destroyed both

i guess. prince?

I dont build GW basically because i play without barbarians. I turned them off a few weeks ago and never looked back. no worries about fishing boats, no frustration on monarch/emperor that the barbs come soon and kill yr scout, warrior, or even capital city before you have linked yr copper etc. i love it and dont care what ppl think

(i also love the fact when you found a religion yr missionary can just walk to the neighbours, without escort)

Also, i think its an either/or deal. If i build stonehenge first, it has to be in the capital, because if i build a settler and then chop stonehenge, the AI beats me to it, if i am not industrious. same for the GW. if i manage to build stonehenge AND the GW, I end up with 3 cities where the AI has 14....

and i rather have stonehenge without barbarians, then have the GW and barbarians.

PS: i also play without goodie huts.

 

[Willem]

Your two arguments together do not really make sense imo.

Either do yours frankly. First of all I would never start with Animal Husbandry if I started with Saladin. That's a complete waste of the Mysticism tech. I would either go with Meditation or Polytheism for the religion. In that case I would most definitely go with Warrior/Settler first.

All in all, just to say that saying "worker first is overrated" is complete nonsense imho.

You play your game your way and I'll play it mine. You seem to have the opinion that there's only one correct way of doing things. I'm just trying to point out that there are alternatives and you don't need to lock yourself into a set pattern. You have to look at the situation and judge accordingly. Sometimes it's simply not an advantage to have a Worker first. I've seen this over and over again in my own games.

 

[JujuLautre]

Either do yours frankly. First of all I would never start with Animal Husbandry if I started with Saladin. That's a complete waste of the Mysticism tech. I would either go with Meditation or Polytheism for the religion. In that case I would most definitely go with Warrior/Settler first.

You play your game your way and I'll play it mine. You seem to have the opinion that there's only one correct way of doing things. I'm just trying to point out that there are alternatives and you don't need to lock yourself into a set pattern. You have to look at the situation and judge accordingly. Sometimes it's simply not an advantage to have a Worker first. I've seen this over and over again in my own games.

Well, I must say for the first one that I took Saladin just because it was the first I thought of which was without agriculture, hunting and mining; I could have taken tokugawa. My point was just to show that if you can/want to tech worker techs first (obviously if you do not want then this changes completely things), then a worker first is optimal for an early development. Much more than settler first. And since this is very often possible, I don't find worker first being "overrated", but rated as it should be, since it allows for the most efficient development in the early game. Sorry if I was not clear and if I detailed a lot, that was a little bit too much I agree; but I saw no other way to explain my point than to give examples

As for the ways of playing, you are perfectly right. To each one his own.

I think I should not have started this argument about your way of saying things, it derived too much. I hope you do not mind

If I have the 2 culture per turn trait (creative?) then the Henge gets ignored. Otherwise it depends. If there are civs nearby then it gains attractiveness for early border popping land grabs. If I have plenty of space I may ignore it.

I still remember the Saladin ALC, where Zara built stonehenge; free steele in each city + creative: there was some border tensions

 

[Willem]

I think I should not have started this argument about your way of saying things. I hope you do not mind too much

The reason I put it that way is because I keep seeing posts by people mentioning that starting with a Worker first is the only way to start a game. It's not, getting a scond city going first might sometimes be the optimal choice. The game was designed with choice in mind, there's no right or wrong way to play, at least not on that issue. You just need to examine the situation and respond accordingly. In that sense then yes, starting with a Worker is overrated. You can still end up with a strong empire by not building one right away.

 

[Emiliano]

I personally get Stonhenge IF:

I'm Industrius OR There is stone near

AND

I have mysticsism without researching it (it come with the civi or I found the tech in the goody cottages)

It ussually take like 9 turns to build it in normal speed... so sometimes its a deal.

 

[Phoenician]

I almost always build it. Invaluable towards a cultural victory and if your a Wonder whore like me.

 

[bob_x]

JujuLautre / Willem
Is it worth the time it takes to research mysticism and build stonehenge vs building multiple monuments or is it a waste of time?

In the long run it seems to me that building stonehenge once would be better than multiple monuments.

The value of the Stonehenge is not just in the the free monuments, but in the early Great Priest it generates. 2 hammers 5 gold make a big difference early in the game.

 

[UWHabs]

Especially if you have stone, it's almost crazy not to try to build it (even moreso if you start with mysticism). I mean, I think it's like 120 hammers, and a monument is 30. If you have stone, since early on you never have other modifiers, it's down to 60 hammers to build it. You're talking 2 monuments here. Plus the fact that your capital will almost always have more production that a dinky city out in no man's land. If you're industrious and have stone, it's down to 48 hammers to build, or basically 1.5 monuments to build.

That being said, if you have neither, it may not go as well, especially if you go up against an industrious leader or someone with stone.

 

[batavier]

Especially if you have stone, it's almost crazy not to try to build it (even moreso if you start with mysticism). I mean, I think it's like 120 hammers, and a monument is 30. If you have stone, since early on you never have other modifiers, it's down to 60 hammers to build it. You're talking 2 monuments here. Plus the fact that your capital will almost always have more production that a dinky city out in no man's land. If you're industrious and have stone, it's down to 48 hammers to build, or basically 1.5 monuments to build.

That being said, if you have neither, it may not go as well, especially if you go up against an industrious leader or someone with stone.

I almost never built stonehenge with the help of stone. You need it in your
capitals BFC or with your second city on top of it, or it will be gone. Even on prince it often goes before 2000BC.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I hate to see bad advice, so I'll say that delaying a worker is almost (but not quite) always a bad idea.

Citing extra hammers from a settler's new city is iffy. There's things that route hurts with:

1. The most yield you'll get from a typical starting, unimproved tile is 3.
2. Improved tiles go up to 5-6 for specials, and at least 4 for grassland mines.
3. Early commerce/research will be down as you settle your first city, as it will cost upkeep.

Going settler first usually COSTS you production, not gives you production, as your city will sit at size 1 for longer, and you will be working unimproved tiles in both cities for much longer. Compared to growing, working improved tiles, and then settling the new city (which also works improved tiles), this tends to be much slower.

Exceptions would be civs with foul starting techs or an imperialistic settled on plains hill (or working forested plains hill)...for example as Justinian or Charlie you might want to research a religious tech while working a hammer tile for the fast settler...the long term benefit of having the religion may well be worth it.

Most of the time though, settler (or anything but worker) first is a poor move. Worker first is indeed NOT overrated - rare will be the start where it isn't optimal (outside fishing + seafood starts...especially say coastal fish, that is)

 

[6K Man]

I like Stonehenge, and I'll usually build it IF I'm not playing a CRE leader (I can't remember the last time I played a CHA one) or don't otherwise have an early culture-producing building (hello, Incas).

It may well be that it's a waste of hammers to build a very early wonder, when said hammers could go to a fleet of Axemen or to Settlers/Workers. But the effects last for a while (leading to long-term hammer savings on big maps), and the alternative is building a lot of Monuments or (a little later) Libraries or Missionaries for the . Either one of those methods leads to some delay - and hammers aside, cities built after Stonehenge will still obviously pop borders faster than would a city that has to grow to size 2 and then whip/chop a Monument.

Stonehenge lets me put cities in better places, too - I don't necessarily have to worry as much about settling next to that key Corn tile that I need to grow the city for whipping, because I know I'll have access to that Corn in 10 turns anyway.

On the off-topic: I like starting on the coast with seafood and Sailing and building a WB first. It's painful to build a Worker at size 1 with no improved tiles, but I'll do it anyway if the WB is not an option AND if the Worker will have something to do when it's built.