Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by bakshi, Mar 26, 2010.
Is it worth the hammers to build Stonehenge even without stone as sitting bull / Ethiopia/ Egypt?
Sure, aren't totem poles made out of wood usually anyway?
I think being able to build strong city defenders in any city and get gpp rolling early with a phi leader, coupled with it's role in helping you expand after you've built it makes it very worthwhile
and the extra cash from an early settled great prophet is nice. Keep in mind I play on monarch at the moment I don't know if it's worth it on higher difficulties, and not starting with mysticism is a downside
egypt leaders are industrial, they dont belong to the same category as SittingBull/Zara.
Rarely it worths the effort, although the fail gold w/ a chop w/ industrial leader can be an ok compensation.
Unless you really know when you need early wonders (thus not asking about), you'd be better off skipping them altogether.
>>and the extra cash from an early settled great prophet is nice.
Yeah, but an academy is a much better option. Early great prophet unless going for the cheesy AP win is a bad great person.
I love Stonehenge. It is cheap and easy to build (the AI likes great wall). Like Ryan said the free monuments pop borders allowing improved defense. I don't remember off hand how much stonehenge cost but think about the production saved on monuments across the map. This can be signifigant on larger maps. Also on the topic of great prophets. They are great early but not as favorable later on. The early production/gold can fuel expansion and if you found a religion a shrine can boost the science slider 10-30%.
As Sitting Bull? Yes, if you're planning to Crossbow/Longbow rush.
As anyone else? No.
Its pretty tough to get on immortal / diety, unless you have stone in BFC and start with mysticism or mining. I guess the real question is why does your strategy hinge so much on monuments and not building them independently? "Worth building without stone" is a very subjective thing, are you not in danger of getting boxed in land-wise, or from barbs? Are you going the religious route instead of alphabet? Are you going to spread the shrined religion? Sometimes there just isn't time in those early turns for anything but settlers, workers, and defense - even if you have stone.
In the middle/lower difficulties you can pretty much go for any wonder you want!
Its just the 3 civs I listed all have monument for UB.
Building UBs is always a good bet but monuments are not they best build unless you need to pop early borders because you're on a crowded map or looking for cultural victory. Some of those leaders get a happy face from monuments also I think (I don't use them often) and this could be a small boost pre-monarchy. The one neat thing is this is the only wonder that will put a UB in every city and that alone should make it worthwild, but I don't play above monarch and think stonhenge is useful particullarly on large maps. There is lots of people who dissagree with this assesment though.
The value-over-base for all three Monument UBs is very situational and only likely to be useful in a couple of cities. None of the 4 available leaders (unless Unrestricted) are Charismatic, and in fact two are Creative and don't need monuments for border pops anyway. And none of these civs starts with Mysticism either.
I wouldn't consider it any better than a Stonehenge build with any other (non-Charismatic) leader.
On lower difficulties it is an asset, on higher ones a drain. Typically you need to build it when you barely know where the opposition is still and therefore you need to commit to it really early. This matters little when you are playing noble because there you can catch up easely, but on the higher difficulties you may miss one or two prime spots and a lot of land for the meagre returns of a free monument in the two decent city spots there will be left...
I like to build stonehenge, for culture expansion and for GP. Gp's are great to build shrine if holy city available or research tech founding a religion, or simply settle in city. The production boost along with 5 gold per turn is nice.
There's your answer. Well, combined with the other "Sometimes" answer. Heh.
I happen to really like Stonehenge as long as it's not going to cost me in some other way. If I've got more pressing needs, such as settlers or military, then I won't even consider it. If I've got a decent shot at building it, and a strategic reason for doing, I might make the extra effort. (For example, lets say the Dutch start really close to me and found an early religion: Creative border pressure+Holy City+rarely defends himself very well = Obvious early target+Reason to want an early Great Prophet.) Of course, it's a lot easier to pull that off at a lower difficulty level.
I should also state that in addition to the civs with monument UUs, a monument in each city is pretty darn useful for Charismatic leaders as well. Especially in a peaceful land grab early game, where you are trying to gain power organically instead of at the expense of your competition. The extra happy everywhere might let you skip out on Monarchy for a little while longer, giving you a shot at researching down a more lucrative path.
I don't know about Monarch+, but I play on Prince and Stonehenge is very easy to get. You don't really need to make any concessions for it, and the AI doesn't go for it very early (if at all). I often build it just before or just after my first Settler, and it's almost always chopped.
I will go for Stonehenge if I think I can get it, which usually means decent production tiles + forest. Doesn't matter if I have stone, or what my traits/UB are. Because, on Prince, you don't have to give anything up for it, why not?
I agree with this. Stonehenge comes along so early and is so cheap that stone is irrelevant. Just get Bronze working and chop it. Industrious does matter, as it lowers the opportunity cost. But I won't tech Masonry ridiculously early just to get a cheaper Stonehenge. Stonehenge should be chopped, not dug.
I don't agree with this. Charles de Gaulle, for example, can hardly be ignoring his double advantage in building stonehenge. I'm sure SB can use it well, as can the Egyptians if you're planning to run a lot of specialists (presumably if you have stone and will go for the pyramids as well). I've never used Zara's UB much. I'm sure it's useful if your neighbours are creative too, but otherwise it seems like overkill. Sure, if you're playing a Charismatic leader and have very few forests, building stonehenge is still a bad idea. But if you're creative, to me it doesn't matter how many forests you might see as stonehenge is irrelevant.
Don't forget to build Angkor Wat, the University of Sankore, and the Spiral Minaret in this situation too. The holy economy can be a blessed thing for father Ramsses.
I've been quite surprised by how often I've found myself building the Henge on Immortal. I've never regretted it either. I wouldn't prioritise it by any means (not even as a civ with a Monument UB, or as a CHR leader) but sometimes you can pick it up very cheaply and without much sacrifice and it's almost as good as being CRE...
I almost never build Stonehenge anymore. Even for civs where it provides me with the UB everywhere, it simply isn't worth it. I could pop out another settler and a half with the hammers it takes to pop out Stonehenge.
Note that I said "almost never." If I find a close early military city (high production city) before I want to make military units, AND I'm settling lots of cities, I'll settle the production city fast, fast enough that there really isn't anything else to build, and have it set to build Stonehenge. Usually it won't be fast enough, but sometimes I make it to Stonehenge. Even if I don't complete it, the early hammers to gold income is always welcome.
If I am Charismatic, have stone, or want an early great prophet, then yes I will generally go for Stonehenge. Otherwise, no.
Separate names with a comma.