Stonehedge with no Stone tile

KaptainK714

Warlord
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
194
playing game as Rome conquers Spain and found they built Stonehenge with no Stone tile. Is this a slip by game or an unknown Spanish quirk
 

Attachments

  • Spain Stonehedge.docx
    1.9 MB · Views: 180

Banazir864

Warlord
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
158
Which is ironic given that the real-life builders of Stonehenge didn't have adjacent stone (depending on how large you consider the tiles to be; they certainly wouldn't have considered it adjacent). Kind of like how Petra has to be built on flat land despite its core concept being the fact that it was built into the cliffs; in Civ VI, those hills were man-made!
 

Melliores

Warlord
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
137
The Petra is a compromise from gameplay point of view - there are not that many desert hills and by definition deserts are mostly flat. It would have been extremely difficult wonder to place if there was only one rare type of tile you could use (Desert hills).

Concerning the Stone, yes, the AI might have harvested the stone, most likely it just built a wonder or district over it, thus removing the resource altogether. Since Stone is often located next to mountains and take prime spots for Holy Site or Campus, that would be a really likely outcome.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
11,575
Location
Las Vegas
by definition deserts are mostly flat

My home state disagrees with you. :)

We actually have the 2nd highest number of mountains in the country, only behind Alaska.

There are enough desert hills in game that Petra requirement should be desert hill. I guess they just wanted to make flat desert useful for something.
 

Banazir864

Warlord
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
158
I don't really mind the Petra requirements (I'd definitely rather use up a flat desert tile than a desert hill in my Petra city); I just find it amusing, especially when the scaffolding for the hill goes up.
 

Depravo

Siring Bastards
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
1,320
Location
England
Which is ironic given that the real-life builders of Stonehenge didn't have adjacent stone (depending on how large you consider the tiles to be; they certainly wouldn't have considered it adjacent). Kind of like how Petra has to be built on flat land despite its core concept being the fact that it was built into the cliffs; in Civ VI, those hills were man-made!

Stonehenge is weird. It's not like any culture in the British Isles was responsible for founding a major religion, though we're great at sectarianism.

And it was built so early, and by a culture that wasn't civilised in the literal sense and of which we know almost nothing, that it might even work better as a natural wonder with a greatly reduced effect. Move the free prophet to a 'Great Temple' wonder or something.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
a culture that wasn't civilised in the literal sense
In what sense? The Megalith Builders had bronze, "cities" (by Bronze Age standards), ceremonial burial, pottery, archery, agriculture...They didn't have writing, but neither does your civ at the start of the game...

of which we know almost nothing
Archaeology can actually tell us a fair amount about the Megalith Builders, and we can (cautiously) learn more from Irish folklore. Not enough to build a civ out of, mind you, but I wouldn't call it "almost nothing."

it might even work better as a natural wonder with a greatly reduced effect.
"Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
..."Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.

I'll second that thought: I have a Tech/development data base/Timeline I've been playing with for over a year, and have two full pages of 'events' and developments that all happened before 4000 BCE, 'Start of Game'.

Among the terrain features I'd add would be ancient monuments like the henges, dolmen, mounds and kurgans you mentioned, but also city ruins (several were abandoned in the middle east after the drought caused by the Lake Ojibway Event), stone tower/monuments like the ones at Tel Qaramel, the Gobekli Tepe complex, and even 'roads' - trails produced by trade caravans between, for example, copper working areas and population areas or between population centers on the coast and inland.

The map should be a lot more interesting right from the start of the game...
 

Tech Osen

Emperor
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,926
Which is ironic given that the real-life builders of Stonehenge didn't have adjacent stone (depending on how large you consider the tiles to be; they certainly wouldn't have considered it adjacent). Kind of like how Petra has to be built on flat land despite its core concept being the fact that it was built into the cliffs; in Civ VI, those hills were man-made!

Also ironic that you need stone for this wonder but not for the pyramids.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Also ironic that you need stone for this wonder but not for the pyramids.

I think in Civ VI they ran themselves into a bit of a corner on requiring certain Resources to build Wonders. Having already put terrain and sometimes adjacency requirements for many of them, adding a requirement for Marble, Gypsum, Stone, etc. would have made many of them virtually unbuildable in many games.
Specifically in the case of the Pyramids, how often do you find Stone on desert tiles? Also, there's the historical argument (which applies to Stonehenge as well) that much of the stone for the Pyramids was quarried somewhere else and hauled (usually floated on riverboats) to the site. And the earliest 'Pyramids' were actually made largely of mud brick, which is as close to a 'universal resource' as you can find.

Civ V had a good mechanism, in that Marble resource gave you a boost to building, but was not a requirement for it. In Civ VI, I would have been tempted to 'losen up' requirements something like this:
Stonehenge, Pyramids both require Access to Stone - either a Stone resource within the city radius where the Wonder is being built, OR a Stone resource within the radius of one of your other cities, which is connected to the building City by a Road (Trade Route, either Active or Inactive) - because Stone is Hard To Move before you get railroads and other transport heavy machinery.

Other Wonders like Hanging Gardens, Temple of Artemis, Great Lighthouse, for example, would get a Boost to their construction (10% - 15%) if similar access is available to Stone or Marble (but not 'stacking bonuses' for having both!)
Colossus should obviously get a Construction Boost from having Access to Copper - the statue was one of the largest Lost Wax Bronze castings ever made!
Some Wonders would get no bonuses from a specific building material, because they don't depend on them: Great Zimbabwe and Terracotta Army spring to mind immediately: clay is clay unless you're trying for fine Porcelain.

All in all, I'd like to see Wonders require a little more planning and be a little more 'exclusive'. There is something a little peculiar and 'gamey' about having half a dozen countries in the world all competing to build a Stone Circle or a temple to the same God...
 

earlc

Warlord
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
113
"Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting.

Archaeology in general could be expanded into a more broad feature that could really benefit the late game. Ruins of destroyed cities could have graphics that represent the civs rather than all white classical ruins. Battle sites could have their own graphics, and then add in these megaliths and tombs. Odd corners of the world could have 'lost civilizations'. There are a lot of possibilities that I think would be quite fun in the game.
 

UWHabs

Deity
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
4,983
Location
Toronto
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting.

Archaeology in general could be expanded into a more broad feature that could really benefit the late game. Ruins of destroyed cities could have graphics that represent the civs rather than all white classical ruins. Battle sites could have their own graphics, and then add in these megaliths and tombs. Odd corners of the world could have 'lost civilizations'. There are a lot of possibilities that I think would be quite fun in the game.

I miss the old way of handling archaeology, where you either got an artifact or had your archaelogical zone. Would be kind of awesome to see something like that return and be able to discover a hidden wonder.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting.

Archaeology in general could be expanded into a more broad feature that could really benefit the late game. Ruins of destroyed cities could have graphics that represent the civs rather than all white classical ruins. Battle sites could have their own graphics, and then add in these megaliths and tombs. Odd corners of the world could have 'lost civilizations'. There are a lot of possibilities that I think would be quite fun in the game.

Raze a City with Rain Forest terrain around it, have the Rain Forest 'grow back' over the site after X Turns, get a graphic of mounds/pyramids rising out of the jungle...
In the desert, city ruins/razed city graphic would disappear under dunes, then reappear...
In Forest terrain, razed cities produce Mounds for archeologists to explore...

Have 'Ruined District' and 'Ruined Wonder' graphics that appear on appropriate tiles instead of simply wiping the city radius clean when a city is Razed. Such tiles should also have a (faint) possibility of producing something useful if searched by an Archeologist.

For that matter, some Wonders should become functionally obsolete and thus Archeological Sites (Pyramids, Stonehenge, Colossus, for instance) after X many Eras - 'Ruined Wonder' graphic again unless you spend Gold to Maintain them as Tourist sites (again, Pyramids, Stonehenge spring to mind as 'real world' examples)

So many possibilities for both game play and graphics that have been missed...
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,022
Archaeology can actually tell us a fair amount about the Megalith Builders, and we can (cautiously) learn more from Irish folklore. Not enough to build a civ out of, mind you, but I wouldn't call it "almost nothing."

Irish folklore? If one is going to "cautiously" follow folklore, Welsh/Cornish/Breton would be a far more reliable source. The Gaels and the Brytons were culturally VERY distinct from each other, despite both being Celtic- in fact, as much so as both were separate and distinct from the Gauls, Celtiberians, Leptons, and Galatians - and they were, in pre-Sub Roman times, separated by the formidable physical boundary of the Irish Sea.
 

steveg700

Deity
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
3,838
I think in Civ VI they ran themselves into a bit of a corner on requiring certain Resources to build Wonders. Having already put terrain and sometimes adjacency requirements for many of them, adding a requirement for Marble, Gypsum, Stone, etc. would have made many of them virtually unbuildable in many games.
Specifically in the case of the Pyramids, how often do you find Stone on desert tiles? Also, there's the historical argument (which applies to Stonehenge as well) that much of the stone for the Pyramids was quarried somewhere else and hauled (usually floated on riverboats) to the site. And the earliest 'Pyramids' were actually made largely of mud brick, which is as close to a 'universal resource' as you can find.
Moreover, there's some abstraction here. We can't assume that deposits of stone, copper, iron, coal, or what have you represent the sum total amount of these, otherwise civilizations without access to these would not be able to accomplish many things taken for granted in the game. Instead, I think we have to assume that the resources represent mother loads.
 
Top Bottom