stonehege: worth building or not?
- Thread starter Heroes
- Start date
Belboz
Necromancer
I always skip Stonehenge and try to get the Oracle as my first world wonder, but I also like to play Creative Civs, which give every city a +2 culture bonus, so the culture bonus from having an Obelisk in every city is not as significant to me.
Mujadaddy said:To further complicate the issue---Scientific Method obseletes Monasteries, right? Well, I was building a monastery and then researched Sci Method...and teh monastery continued building until it was done
You can still build monastaries even once you learn scientific method. They are still good for cultural boosts and happiness, they just lose the small amount of research they provided. Obsolete buildings don't disappear, they just stop providing certain benefits.
The manual does say that a wonder benefit is lost when any civ gains the technology that obsoletes it. But I've heard a number of people say they've kept bonuses which should have become obsolete. I haven't personally investigated this so I can't really refute such claims. It could be a change made after the manual was printed, it could be a bug, or just could be that the bonuses still appear to the wonder owner until they themselves get the tech, while the bonus will appear at it's true value to the person who has the tech that obsoletes the wonder (see, I've only heard this in conjunction with wonders that add defensive bonuses).
As for stonehenge, is making it obsolete such a bad thing? Not in my mind, it still provides culture, and that is really the reason to build it in the first place. If I'm not playing a creative leader and bent on expanding quickly, I'd consider this a must since alternatives come later and cost more.
...120 Hammers - stonehenge
with stone (note this doesnt cost nothing)
1 Stonehenge = 2.5ish archers = 4 warriors
with industrial
1 stonehenge = 3 archers = 5 warriors
with both stone and industrial
1 stonehenge = 2 archers = 3 warriors
in short, if i were an agressive civ without stone nearby i wouldnt go for it untill i do have stone and atleast 10 hammers/turn
if i were industrial id give it a go if i dont have people bordering me closely.
ofcourse all situations depend
- -free obelisk in citys (30 Hammers/Obelisk)
- -8 culture p and 2 GreatProphPoints
- -a great prophet 50 turns after you build it (if you dont distort the great prophet points)
- -the risk that someone builds it before you
- -absolutely nothing untill you actually build it
- - still nothing untill you build your next thing
- -the ability to secure your area and safequard it against barbarians (any visible squares dont spawn barbs) this also goes for warriors
- -the ability to suck the lifeblood out of people that need their 4f squares
- -the ability to suck the lifeblood out of your rival(s)
- -take stonehenge!
- -free promotion for units and another promotion after your unit kills another unit.
- -if you count the remaining 60 hammers, half the amount of units you could have produced without
- -(agressive civ) three quarters of the units you would have produced otherwise, but promoted with strength one and other promotion of choice
with stone (note this doesnt cost nothing)
1 Stonehenge = 2.5ish archers = 4 warriors
with industrial
1 stonehenge = 3 archers = 5 warriors
with both stone and industrial
1 stonehenge = 2 archers = 3 warriors
in short, if i were an agressive civ without stone nearby i wouldnt go for it untill i do have stone and atleast 10 hammers/turn
if i were industrial id give it a go if i dont have people bordering me closely.
ofcourse all situations depend
MrCynical
Deity
I'll generally build stonehenge if I'm playing an industrious civ, or if I can get it built quickly by chopping a couple of forests. It saves building an obelisk, which effectively knocks a fair bit off the price. The culture is very handy and it practically guarentee's you an early great prophet for a religious shrine. Odd though it may seem, the presence of stone nearby is basically irrelevant to building stonehenge, because by the time you've researched masonry, built a quarry and connected it up stonehenge is probably built anyway.
Stonehenge isn't that much of a drain to build, since the city can still grow while it is in production, unlike with a worker or settler. It does slow the land grab a bit, but this phase is far less important in civ 4.
Stonehenge isn't that much of a drain to build, since the city can still grow while it is in production, unlike with a worker or settler. It does slow the land grab a bit, but this phase is far less important in civ 4.
Sadan01 said:
I disagree. The whole reason to build Stonehenge is to get your first 6-10 cities to expand their radii to get full use out of their resources and to better block the AI from building in your territory. Stonehenge lasts plenty long enough for that. I keep it until all of my early cities have expanded at least once and then I get Calendar. If you play a creative leader then there's not much reason to build it.
Waiting for your religion to spread is generally either really slow or really expensive.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
In a single player game, when you are not creative, I can't imagine why you wouldn't chop rush Stonhenge, the addition of the creative trait to whatever two traits you already have is just far too good to pass up.
Now in multiplayer. Well this is a whole other story, then it completely depends on your starting position. Are you going to sit back and boom? How quickly were you able to pop out that worker--and are there enough trees to chop rush? Have you founded a religion, and how many people are you playing against (is someone else likely to chop rush it faster), so many things to thinks about. It's so damn good, very damn good to get if you found a religion, but believer me if you try to chop rush it, and see 3 forests go to waist for a 100something gold, well that sucks (although of the two times this happend to me, I capitalized on it by upgrading a warrior to an axe, very quickly and was able to gank a city from another player). Also given your situation, often times it's far more worth it to chop rush that first setter, or barracks to control a vital point. Personally I find Stonhenge in MP to be a very balanced wonder, certainly not a must have, but very nice and so temptingly cheap and early. In SP, as a non creative civ, it is a must though.
Now in multiplayer. Well this is a whole other story, then it completely depends on your starting position. Are you going to sit back and boom? How quickly were you able to pop out that worker--and are there enough trees to chop rush? Have you founded a religion, and how many people are you playing against (is someone else likely to chop rush it faster), so many things to thinks about. It's so damn good, very damn good to get if you found a religion, but believer me if you try to chop rush it, and see 3 forests go to waist for a 100something gold, well that sucks (although of the two times this happend to me, I capitalized on it by upgrading a warrior to an axe, very quickly and was able to gank a city from another player). Also given your situation, often times it's far more worth it to chop rush that first setter, or barracks to control a vital point. Personally I find Stonhenge in MP to be a very balanced wonder, certainly not a must have, but very nice and so temptingly cheap and early. In SP, as a non creative civ, it is a must though.
knupp715
King
I usually build it for these reasons:
1. I play as Napoleon which means I get the Industrious trait, great for building wonders.
2. If I have stone, (and I'm playing as Napoleon as I always do) then you can get it done in 7-10 turns in your capital
3. Even if you have stone (or not) chopping down a forest or two can really cut the amount of turns it takes to grab that wonder
4. Free obelisks means, I don't have to build them in other cities, which would waste much more production than just 120 hammers (even though it is only 30 hammers when playing as Napoleon, I think). And my cultural borders expand.
5. Great Prophet points, I always build shrines!
1. I play as Napoleon which means I get the Industrious trait, great for building wonders.
2. If I have stone, (and I'm playing as Napoleon as I always do) then you can get it done in 7-10 turns in your capital
3. Even if you have stone (or not) chopping down a forest or two can really cut the amount of turns it takes to grab that wonder
4. Free obelisks means, I don't have to build them in other cities, which would waste much more production than just 120 hammers (even though it is only 30 hammers when playing as Napoleon, I think). And my cultural borders expand.
5. Great Prophet points, I always build shrines!
I'm not a big fan of having a religion in my single-player games, as on my difficulty level (Emperor) I have to make a big tech sacrifice to beat anyone else to it, AND I have to take the big diplomacy hit of making someone angry by having a different state religion. Even if I get my religion from someone else, that diplomacy hit rarely justifies it.
It's true that having no religion has its downsides, but the fact that it keeps me from being attacked more than justifies it. Hence, I build and love stonehenge almost every game (Worker chop, baby!)
It's true that having no religion has its downsides, but the fact that it keeps me from being attacked more than justifies it. Hence, I build and love stonehenge almost every game (Worker chop, baby!)
