Stone without Stone Circles SUCK...

[GKShaman]

So Stone is 2 Food 1 Production.

Improved Stone is 2 Food 2 Production.

A Forest hill is already 2 Food 2 Production. Add a lumber mill - 2F 3P. Chop the Forest and Get Production then Mine it 2 F 3P.

Shouldnt Stone be 2 F 2P from the start? and then 2 F 3 P after that? I honestly miss STONEWORKS where u got a happiness and ur grassland stone went from 2F 2P to 2F 3P.

Also endgame stone all that happens is a point of gold is added 100 turns in somewhere and I think 1 hammer total. So in the super end game stone is 2 F 3 P 1 G. How is this a good tile???

 

[Photi]

Stone grassland is 2F 1P
Stone grassland hill is 2F 2P
Add a quarry for 1P, and get 1 more at rocketry for 2F 4P (stone hill)

For grassland hill you need a mine to get 2F 2P
2F 3P at apprenticeship
2F 4P at industrialization

So if you ignore the gold, you could harvest stone on a hill and build a mine at apprenticeship and still get same /turn yield, and industrialization comes sooner than rocketry so at that point you'd be ahead (plus the added boost from harvesting).

Flat grassland stone is good for production boost harvesting if city already has hills or river lumbermills for production.

 

[Leyrann]

You're comparing flat land with hilled land now, which isn't really fair. Compare flat with flat and hilled with hilled. The Civ 6 metric for yields is actually really straightforward:

Standard plains, grassland grants 2 yield, tundra grants 1, snow and desert grant 0.
Hills add +1 production.
Forests add +1 production.
Jungles add +1 food.
Marshes add +1 food.
Resources add +1 yield, excluding certain luxery resources, which may grant 2 food or gold on top of their bonus yield and some strategic resources, which may grant more than one production (or, for Niter, 1f1p).

And improvements grant +1 yield too, either food, production or gold, though they do have different techs where they improve and different adjacencies.

So you can consider everything to equally improve a tile compared to one another. And simply said - the more you stack on a tile, the better it becomes, so you want a hill+forest/jungle+resource for the best possible tiles. Think banana's which may grant 3f2p unimproved, or spices which can even grant 4f2p unimproved.

 

[c4c6]

You're comparing flat land with hilled land now, which isn't really fair.

Hills add +1 production.

I liked how in the older versions Hills added +1 production on the cost of -1 food.

Probably flatlands shall be now less attractive resourcewise, because Districts & Wonders prefer them(?)

 

[Victoria]

Stones are good for religion but are not as good as mines for production and so the real bonus is harvesting the stone unless you are a religious type. I will get my first one for the eureka then later will remove the quarry and harvest the stone and buld a mine for a little more production and a little value in cogs. Worth doing when you are running a cascade of builders (a builder chops in the next one) normally after Feudalism
Of course if I have no hills then I will keep my grassland quarries... at least until I can get a factory up and fully populated.

 

[Smity2k1]

it does seem that hills are waaaaaaaaaay better than flatland. if your start location has no hills you are going to be very far behind regardless of the other features.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

That's the only start I will restart. Flatland without hills

 

[GKShaman]

Based on the advice - Ive been harvesting stone on hills unless im religious. A point of gold 300 turns into a game isnt going to really do much. And it means a commercial hub is coming 10 turns quicker than it pays for it.

On flatland I'm more inclined to keep it. Since mines add to adjacency bonuses I keep flatland stone unless its really in the way.

I think the easy fix to this is to bring stoneworks back OR makes quarries and Mines go +1 production AT APPRENTICESHIP not just mines. In the end game stone should be 5 production and its only 4 total.

 

[Tacgnol]

In the end game stone should be 5 production and its only 4 total.

I don't really think so, I mean it's stone, not exactly the most useful production for your Mars reactor...

 

[Leyrann]

While hills are better than farmland, I do want to nuance that you don't want too many hills either, because it means you can't build farms, which means you can't grow - after all, to really grow you need to have tiles that grant 3 food, or else you just keep needing more and more turns with just the +2 because you work the city center for free.

 

[king of nowhere]

If we look at the total, with future technology a quarry gives 2 production and 2 gold, plus 1 gold for the stone itself, so 3 production 2 gold, against 3 production of the mine. So it is sligtly better than a mine, but only just. if you have lots of flatlands, though, it allows you to have production you would not have otherwise. yes, when you are in the modern era you can plant woods and make sawmills on it and get +3 production (+4 on river) AND +1 appeal, which is great for neighborhoods and national parks. but until then, you are better off keeping that stone and working it. if instead you have plenty of hills, you can farm it.

While hills are better than farmland, I do want to nuance that you don't want too many hills either, because it means you can't build farms, which means you can't grow - after all, to really grow you need to have tiles that grant 3 food, or else you just keep needing more and more turns with just the +2 because you work the city center for free.

after civil engineering you can, but it comes rather late in the game to start growing a city from scratch. there is also the housing problem.

 

[bite]

I've never realised how bad stone was sort of, won't feel as bad when I cull it in the future

 

[kaspergm]

I actually like that stones lose their value in late game, because as others have pointed out, stones are not a great resource in modern day society. When that's said, I wouldn't mind that their early game bonus was slightly better, but comparing them to lumbermill forests (+/- hills) is not entirely accurate, because you won't get the tech for lumbermills before renaissance era - which would probably be around the time you'd want to harvest your stones, so in that sense, it makes pretty good sense.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I think I still think of them as "shield grasslands" of the older games although they are completely different. Harvesting seems like the reasonable thing to do. I think I'm too afraid of removing something from the map which may result in less than optimal play. Of course the fact that all features are beneficial and I have limited builds makes me even more worried.

 

[kaspergm]

If we look at the total, with future technology a quarry gives 2 production and 2 gold, plus 1 gold for the stone itself, so 3 production 2 gold, against 3 production of the mine. So it is sligtly better than a mine, but only just. if you have lots of flatlands, though, it allows you to have production you would not have otherwise. yes, when you are in the modern era you can plant woods and make sawmills on it and get +3 production (+4 on river) AND +1 appeal, which is great for neighborhoods and national parks. but until then, you are better off keeping that stone and working it. if instead you have plenty of hills, you can farm it.

I pretty much agree with this. Problem with stones on flatlands is that they'll block for your farm and district adjacency bonus, which often makes it meaningful to remove them if you have just moderately good alternatives for production. And if you have absolutely no other source for production than the stones, you're pretty screwed anyway, because stones are only a mediocre source for production as they are. In that sense, stones as a resource would be more meaningful if they could only appear on flatlands (like it was in Civ5) but then gained another production. If that was the case, they'd be a good compensation for the production loss of not having hills (which, in Civ6, is absolutely crippling!).

 

[GKShaman]

So now I keep stone on grassland for any industrial zone adjacency bonuses. Also I will harvest stone on hills now since with apprenticeship its the same yield with a mine.

My main criticism is if stone is a ancient classical era resource - why does the quarry improvement happened at Rocketry? Thats dumb. They should bring back stone works OR give stone a boost in powerplants or with Machinery.

 

[Leyrann]

Not all resources are meant to be equal.

 

[PYITE]

I actually like that stones lose their value in late game, because as others have pointed out, stones are not a great resource in modern day society. When that's said, I wouldn't mind that their early game bonus was slightly better, but comparing them to lumbermill forests (+/- hills) is not entirely accurate, because you won't get the tech for lumbermills before renaissance era - which would probably be around the time you'd want to harvest your stones, so in that sense, it makes pretty good sense.

Stone is still a greatly used resource in modern society.
Concrete is made of stone. The foundation material for the majority of all human made structures.
All roads are made of stone.
It is used in numerous manufacturing processes, including the production of steel.
It is said that concrete is the second only to water as the most used product on earth.
3 tons of concrete is produced per year for every person living on the planet.

 

[agonistes]

My main criticism is if stone is a ancient classical era resource - why does the quarry improvement happened at Rocketry? Thats dumb. They should bring back stone works OR give stone a boost in powerplants or with Machinery.

Because modern quarries are more gainful? Its not the stone upgrading... its the quarry. A rocketry boost is no more dumb than a powerplant or machinery boost.

Stone is a good resource... +1 shield > + 0 shield. Then when a mine or mill is better ... free boost from harvesting.

I suspect you really don't want a game where all resources have the same yield.

 

[GKShaman]

Because modern quarries are more gainful? Its not the stone upgrading... its the quarry. A rocketry boost is no more dumb than a powerplant or machinery boost.

Stone is a good resource... +1 shield > + 0 shield. Then when a mine or mill is better ... free boost from harvesting.

I suspect you really don't want a game where all resources have the same yield.

I dont want all resources to have the same yield. Thats not what I said. I just want stone to not be improved at the very end of the game (Rocketry) since stone has been used in the BC Era.

Stone can have a crappy yield - but why is it +1 production at the very end game tech when one is building Spaceports??

And as another poster pointed out Stone is used in concrete. Concrete was developed in the 1800s. Well before Rocketry. Also arguably Romans back in there era enhanced Stone to be Concrete. All in all stone should be "boosted" earlier than when we built NASA and flew to Mars. That's not when we magically discovered how to improve stone.