Sonehenge

[mariogreymist]

It was TMIT (not me) who brought up opportunity cost, but he is absolutely right about it. Just because I end up building 6-8 monuments doesn't mean I should have built SH. I may have only gotten four extra cities had I gone for SH rather than pumping settlers/workers/escorts early on. In such a case, the four "free" monuments don't really demonstrate the value of SH.

Chopping it out in a blocking city, then getting granary first builds in the backfill space? That's a quality use of SH. When it makes sense, it's powerful. When it's not, an attempt at SH will cripple your game.

 

[drlake]

It was TMIT (not me) who brought up opportunity cost, but he is absolutely right about it. Just because I end up building 6-8 monuments doesn't mean I should have built SH. I may have only gotten four extra cities had I gone for SH rather than pumping settlers/workers/escorts early on. In such a case, the four "free" monuments don't really demonstrate the value of SH.

Chopping it out in a blocking city, then getting granary first builds in the backfill space? That's a quality use of SH. When it makes sense, it's powerful. When it's not, an attempt at SH will cripple your game.

Oops, my mistake on attribution. Sorry, TMIT!

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Yea everyone wants to put in their 2 cents, as I said Malchar already adequately covered this territory.

 

[noto2]

this is my view on stonehenge: If I am planning on getting an early religion, I might build it for the early great prophet, but it's rare that I would opt for that strategy, I might do it with a leader that starts with mysticism, and a great commerce boost in my capital, like if I start with furs or gold, etc. due to the extra commerce I might gun for an early religion.
Another situation where I would want to build it is if I'm playing a charismatic leader. In that case I'll want a monument in every city anyway, and since SH costs about the same as 4-5 monuments, it can often save hammers. Of course if I have stone in the BFC I might consider it, but if I dont need an early great prophet and if I'm not charismatic, the benefits of SH are pretty slim. It does help with expansion, I suppose, since you save some hammers in your startup cities.

 

[Malchar]

I just meant that once one assumes the costs of Stonehenge, the benefit would be free monuments. I could just say that you get monuments in all cities. It's not really necessary to say that they're free.

The issue of relocating/delaying your hammers is an interesting one. Sometimes if I expand really quickly without much teching, I find myself with nothing to build in my new cities except useless military. The problem with that is that extra military just increases support cost and slows down an already struggling economy. If I have stonehenge, then I'm not allowed to build monuments in my new cities anymore.

The other interesting thing is that it effectively lets you build two buildings in a city at once. That is, in a new city, you can build a granary while at the same time your capital is building a monument for the new city (stonehenge). You can basically give hammers from your capital to your small cities, where the hammers might be more valuable. Assuming that the capital is "finished" and there's nothing else to build, it could be useful to give the capital hammers to another city. However, this may be somewhat rare because you would usually want to keep building settlers.

On the other hand, with stonehenge then I can start building a granary in my new city right away. Also, it allows you to get more culture into a city than would be possible normally. Since you start with a monument right away, you get that 1 culture each turn starting from the time it's built. You can win a culture war against a city that was built before yours was.

Also, with the early GPP, it lets you get one of the first great people in the game, especially if you started with mysticism. And like we know, an early settled GP is much more valuable than one settled later. Finally, at the beginning of the game, it can be kind of fun to build worker first, then stonehenge right away while your capital grows to 4 or 5. Assuming you started with mysticism and are tying for a religion, you could be off to a great start.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I just think that a perception of general overuse is a poor reason to go after an individual poster, especially one with a fleshed out argument.

EDIT



Any doubts about his use of 'free' should be gone by sentence 2.

Again, you're misreading intent. I'm calling out the line in the poster's post (which looks all the more silly as the leading sentence of an otherwise solid argument), but at the same time pointing out that this mistake, while not truly made here (except for looking a bit comical), is ACTUALLY made quite often.

If you think that is complex, you'd be correct, but the point I made stands.

It's not really necessary to say that they're free.

Indeed, that's what I was driving at, although you understand that quite well .

The issue of relocating/delaying your hammers is an interesting one. Sometimes if I expand really quickly without much teching, I find myself with nothing to build in my new cities except useless military. The problem with that is that extra military just increases support cost and slows down an already struggling economy. If I have stonehenge, then I'm not allowed to build monuments in my new cities anymore.

I'll leave the OP intention just a wee bit here to point out that this shouldn't be happening. Workers, settlers, and military are the absolute key early builds most of the time. If you're running into situations where all you can build are these things, and you actually don't want more of them, it is time to re-think some combination of your worker count, tile improvements, and tech path.

On the flip side, many a player will use partial-built stonehenge for money, and this is a good hammer ----> wealth conversion for IND.

The other interesting thing is that it effectively lets you build two buildings in a city at once. That is, in a new city, you can build a granary while at the same time your capital is building a monument for the new city (stonehenge). You can basically give hammers from your capital to your small cities, where the hammers might be more valuable. Assuming that the capital is "finished" and there's nothing else to build, it could be useful to give the capital hammers to another city. However, this may be somewhat rare because you would usually want to keep building settlers.

Note that missionaries and several other wonders give this effect too, but it *is* a nice effect when used in the right situations.

On the other hand, with stonehenge then I can start building a granary in my new city right away. Also, it allows you to get more culture into a city than would be possible normally. Since you start with a monument right away, you get that 1 culture each turn starting from the time it's built. You can win a culture war against a city that was built before yours was.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Don't forget that while you do get the monument sooner, the culture doesn't double AFAIK, and it actually goes away post-astro. Also, you won't culture press CRE out of the way. Early border wars are usually won with some combination of CRE and religious buildings + religion, or using a wonder (stonehenge itself is a vicious culture wonder if it's IN the border city). Sistine religious buildings will absolutely swamp anything SH can do in seconds.

 

[CHEESE!]

I just ran a WB test to check this: irregardless of which way you get your obelisks, you lose the ability to hire priests at Astro.

Anyway, back on topic. Anyone else think Zara's UB is inconsistent with his traits?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Anyway, back on topic. Anyone else think Zara's UB is inconsistent with his traits?

It definitely is, but it can help towards a culture victory if you are willing and able to skip astronomy. It can also be nice for culture raping the AI...it's a boost that only 1 other civ has available without using wonders.

 

[kolhite]

Back off topic...

I don't see anything comical or by implication self-contradictory about the statement that Stonehenge costs 120 hammers and grants free monuments.

Let's say there's a coffee shop that will sell me ten cups of coffee for $1.50, and I get my eleventh coffee "free." We could say my eleventh cup is not really free, because in order to get it 1) I've had to become a regular patron of this coffee shop; 2) perhaps, pursuing this meager incentive, I've bought more coffee over a few weeks than I would have otherwise; 3) I've had to keep track of the damn punch card; and 4) I've spent $15.00. We could also say that I've simply payed a slightly reduced cost for 11 cups of coffee, and that this even this slight discount is reduced in value because it's been deferred as opposed to being applied purchase by purchase.

But of course I can be aware of all this and still ask for my "free" cup of coffee; all I mean by the word is that, at this particular time, I don't have to lay down $1.50, as would be typical, for this particular cup of coffee. I can legitimately and without cognitive dissonance say "free" here even even though I'm perfectly aware that getting the "free" coffee has had a cost.

The word "free" is used all the time in this limited sense, and the reasonable statement that, in civ or otherwise, "ain't nothing free" (any supposedly free benefit comes with investment cost and/or opportunity cost, and maybe there are strings attached) doesn't really contradict that usage. The meaning of "free" is context-dependent, and varies in either case.

So while I agree completely with the overall point about the need to take into account opportunity costs in the game, to make this point by attempting to eradicate a well-established understanding of the word "free," one which is used sensibly and consistently all the time in natural language, is a Quixotic quest.

 

[mariogreymist]

Yes, that's the way capitalist institutions want you to think of "free."

 

[JoeHollywood]

I remember an interesting story from a few years back about "free"

I'm sure you're all familiar with contests, like monopoly at mcdonalds.

Different raffles and whatnot, that in the fine print say, no purchase necessary, just drop a letter to such and such address.

This guy sued one of the big fast food chains because he wanted his "free" game piece. The manager told him it was "no purchase necessary" he just had to send a letter to a certain address.

The mans response was...Well give me a stamp then...If I have to purchase one myself, then it's not "no purchase necessary" is it.

This became a somewhat lengthy lawsuit that the guy eventually lost, but thought the definition of "no purchase necessary" was humorous.

 

[Malchar]

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Don't forget that while you do get the monument sooner, the culture doesn't double AFAIK, and it actually goes away post-astro. Also, you won't culture press CRE out of the way. Early border wars are usually won with some combination of CRE and religious buildings + religion, or using a wonder (stonehenge itself is a vicious culture wonder if it's IN the border city). Sistine religious buildings will absolutely swamp anything SH can do in seconds.

What I was referring to is the fact that as soon as you plant a city, it starts making one culture per turn, as opposed to planting a city, building a monument, and then starting to get culture. Particularly, one could plant a city next to an existing enemy city (supposing that there isn't a monument built there yet) and then proceed to win the ensuing culture race.

Also, keep in mind that this is all highly theoretical. When combining these strategies with other elements of the game, it would be necessary to also analyze those elements in a similar way, which quickly becomes extremely complicated. Also, keep in mind that I can only win the game on monarch difficulty...

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I think Stonehenge is usually constructed before Sistine comes into play TMIT, that point was overkill.

You have a point Malchar, obviously every game strategy has a counter, which our dear TMIT will be sure to make us aware of.

 

[jabberwalkee_]

Back off topic...

I don't see anything comical or by implication self-contradictory about the statement that Stonehenge costs 120 hammers and grants free monuments.

Let's say there's a coffee shop that will sell me ten cups of coffee for $1.50, and I get my eleventh coffee "free." We could say my eleventh cup is not really free, because in order to get it 1) I've had to become a regular patron of this coffee shop; 2) perhaps, pursuing this meager incentive, I've bought more coffee over a few weeks than I would have otherwise; 3) I've had to keep track of the damn punch card; and 4) I've spent $15.00. We could also say that I've simply payed a slightly reduced cost for 11 cups of coffee, and that this even this slight discount is reduced in value because it's been deferred as opposed to being applied purchase by purchase.

But of course I can be aware of all this and still ask for my "free" cup of coffee; all I mean by the word is that, at this particular time, I don't have to lay down $1.50, as would be typical, for this particular cup of coffee. I can legitimately and without cognitive dissonance say "free" here even even though I'm perfectly aware that getting the "free" coffee has had a cost.

The word "free" is used all the time in this limited sense, and the reasonable statement that, in civ or otherwise, "ain't nothing free" (any supposedly free benefit comes with investment cost and/or opportunity cost, and maybe there are strings attached) doesn't really contradict that usage. The meaning of "free" is context-dependent, and varies in either case.

So while I agree completely with the overall point about the need to take into account opportunity costs in the game, to make this point by attempting to eradicate a well-established understanding of the word "free," one which is used sensibly and consistently all the time in natural language, is a Quixotic quest.

Stonehenge doesn't really grant free monuments. The whole point of building stonehenge is that it acts as a monument in every city. That's like saying you get a free car when you buy a car from a dealer.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

No... no it's not.

 

[slobberinbear]

RE: Stonehenge and Zara

I respectfully disagree. Since Zara's UB is the Stele, which is the earliest cultural multiplier known to man, SH gives Creative Zara the biggest cutural output on the planet. This is great whether you are grabbing land or going for culture, or just keeping another creative leader's culture at bay.

Zara is a beast. Cheap workers, tons of useful cheap buildings ... "free" Steles in every city just adds to the synergy.

 

[Valynor]

I have a doubt about SH, that I always forget to check when I'm playing, so that I never build it when I have a civ with a monument based UB.
When it expires, monuments disappear. Does the UB special abilities expire anyway with Astronomy or there is a difference between 'real' monuments and SH based ones?

 

[azzaman333]

I have a doubt about SH, that I always forget to check when I'm playing, so that I never build it when I have a civ with a monument based UB.
When it expires, monuments disappear. Does the UB special abilities expire anyway with Astronomy or there is a difference between 'real' monuments and SH based ones?

I just ran a WB test to check this: irregardless of which way you get your obelisks, you lose the ability to hire priests at Astro.

There's your answer.

 

[Valynor]

Sorry, I should have read the thread more carefully.
Thanx

 

[Bandobras Took]

RE: Stonehenge and Zara

I respectfully disagree. Since Zara's UB is the Stele, which is the earliest cultural multiplier known to man, SH gives Creative Zara the biggest cutural output on the planet. This is great whether you are grabbing land or going for culture, or just keeping another creative leader's culture at bay.

Zara is a beast. Cheap workers, tons of useful cheap buildings ... "free" Steles in every city just adds to the synergy.

Er . . . cheap workers? He's Organized and Creative, isn't he?