Stone is too powerful

[DangerousMonkey]

Though I see your point about Iron being more common than stone Tarindel, I would contend that the benifits of having immidiate access to iron is, in most games, far more useful than haveing immidiate access to stone. Having fast iron (or copper) combined with a few forests can mean game over for your next door neighbor, and what will probably ammount to a commanding lead that could carry you through the rest of the game. Stone will help you pump out those early wonders, which is good, but the benifit isn't as signifigant (usually).

I know that you're making the point that everyone will probably get Iron because theres usually enough to go around, and that's true, but not everyone will get it right away. So any civ lucky enough to have some iron close by will gain far more advantage from it than they would get from having stone simmilarly close by. Of cource after the early game, when every civ probably has iron, the one or two that get stone will have an advantage, theres no doubt about that. Still, by this point the roll of wonders that benifit from stone is getting pretty short, if it isn't exhausted already.

Basicly my point is that many resources are great, and I suppose you could argue that early stone is better than early iron(or copper), though I would generaly dissagree. Though stone is really good, and somewhat uncommon, it isn't the "best" overall resource you can have, so I don't think you can claim it gives too much benifit unless you claim that many other resources give too much benifit. And maybe they do, but that's a whole other topic.

 

[xGBox]

Stone is very pleasing to have if you're rushing for Stonehenge or the Pyramids (especially with Industrious trait). If you manage to have both, the game favors you!

Stone's not really all that powerful as you might think. Besides halving production costs for some buildings and world wonders, that's really all it's good for. Now iron is needed to build 15 different units, which includes the swordsman. You better hope to get iron more than stone.

 

[sydhe]

#14
salty
Warlord

doh! I forgot about that one. Plus you need mining and possibly the wheel and roads.

Masonry. I usually build mysticism which takes you there as well.

 

[Astax]

And you have to spend 10 turns to quarry it.

Any half-wit woudl either put city ontop of the stone or use mutiple workers thou :/ Anyway I play on quick so its what liek 5 turns with 1 worker?

 

[Canuck Bill]

IMO stone is like much of the game, nicely balanced. It is powerful early on when it should be and its benefits wane later in the game as they should.

Almost anything can be made powerful in civ4 but you need to utilize what you have.

Example. Stone can be very powerful with Ind. civ + Org Religion + some chop rushing = many early wonders

 

[salty]

Masonry. I usually build mysticism which takes you there as well.

Seems kind of crazy but you are rirght. You don't need Mining to get to Manosry if you have Mysticism.

Saladin get Whieel and Myst but not Ind.

 

[Glinka]

Stone actually isn't that powerful, at all. It is very rare, and only affects a few early wonders. Iron, on the other hand, has a great impact on the game. Without it, you could well be overwhelmed by barbarians, let alone a worthy opponent.

 

[BigCMan]

I don't think stone is overpowered. It provides anyone who finds it an advantage, for sure, but it hasn't really affected any games I've played to this point. Like most people have said, iron is a must have. Also, late in the game, you definitely need to find a good source of oil. Without access to oil, you'll be toast.

 

[Canuck Bill]

I find Iron and Oil easier to find than stone though I will agree they are more powerful. But as I said in an earlier post, combined with ind. trait and certain civics, stone can pave the way for many early wonders.