RBPB4 [SPOILERS] - De Gaulle of the Egyptians

[Lord Parkin]

Hm. I did not know that tech cost scaled with map size. Interesting.

Yep, indeed. I presume the logic is that you'll have more cities on average on a bigger map, and thus your economy will be stronger so techs are scaled to be more expensive. For the record, tech cost also scales with the number of team members (if you're playing a team game), and probably some other factor I'm forgetting as well. Definitely worth keeping in mind though... glad I could help.

The readjusted tech paths with associated build orders are:

AH-BW
Hunting(7), AH (20), Mining (28 ), BW (44)
Worker, Grow to 2, Worker, Grow to 3, Settler(33), Settler(38 ), Settler(45)

BW-AH
Hunting (7), Mining (16), BW (33), AH (45)
Worker, Grow to 2, Worker, Settler (30), Settler (36), Settler (40)

Right. And if we were to slot Mysticism into either of those tech plans, that would delay the subsequent techs by 8-9 turns. Hmm... not exactly ideal. I wouldn't want to be reaching either Bronze Working or Animal Husbandry post-turn 50. Then again, getting Mysticism post-turn 50 would pretty much rule out Stonehenge. I guess we could live without it, though it's a shame to lose at only ~80 hammers Industrious cost... at that price it easily pays for itself as soon as our third city is up, arguably earlier if it turns out we need a border expansion to optimally locate a city to claim Horses or Copper. Then again, delaying getting the 3rd or 4th Settler out wouldn't be ideal... unless maintenance turns out to be exceptionally high, for instance if we have to settle a way away from our capital to grab a certain resource.

Anyway... hmm, I get the feeling I keep going in circles and coming back to Stonehenge. I'll leave that for now and look at other options.

Since the BW-AH build doesn't see a single strategic resource until after our first settler, I can definitely agree that it is quite a bit more risky.

This is certainly the key point, I think. It looks from your sim like there'll be a ~3 turn delay in the BW-AH scenario from the time we get our first Settler until we can even see Copper - depending on whether we can wangle things to scratch out a couple more beakers and get it a turn earlier, which might well delay the Settler a turn. Either way, that's not good... it means we either have to head off in one direction blindly for 3 turns, or sit in the capital for 3 turns while we wait for Copper to be revealed... which essentially defeats the whole point of getting the Settler 3 turns earlier.

I think that AH-BW should therefore be our default plan, at least for now.

That's what I'm leaning towards too, now that we know that Bronze Working won't arrive until at least turn ~33 with Hunting first. On the bright side, only two civs in this whole game started with Mining (China and England), so everyone else may well be having much the same problem as us (assuming similar starts). If that's the case, that would be quite good, considering most other people will also have 4 (or at least 3) techs to research off the bat to get their starts up and running. So, assuming similar starts, a lot of other people should have the problem of not being able to get both AH and BW until around turn 45. Of course, if the starts aren't similar, then we might be at a bit of a disadvantage with ours... we'll have to see.

My only reservation is that with this tech path BW comes so late that it will not have a huge impact on our initial settler push.

That's a bit of a concern for me as well, since delaying the ability to chop until around turn 45 doesn't quite feel right. However, if we actually look at the numbers, it doesn't seem all that bad.

If we assume that we don't get Horse or Copper at our capital (and I'd be surprised if we did), then we'll almost certainly want to settle either Copper or Horse with our first Settler - to do otherwise would be veering towards suicidal with only Warriors for defence so late. So assuming we have to get either Copper or Horse with the first Settler, then in both cases this settling rush can't start until turn 33 (when the Settler's built in one case, and when BW's researched in the other case). So there's actually no difference for the first Settler between the two cases.

The second Settler only arrives 2 turns later in the non-BW case. That's really not too bad.

The third Settler arrives 5 turns later in the non-BW case, which is a bit more of a pain, but by the time you get to the fourth city the timing usually isn't really too critical. Often at this point you'll be backfilling from cities 2 and/or 3 anyway. Cities number 3 and especially number 2 are the only major ones to get out ASAP, at least in my opinion.

Consider though, that for the 4th Settler and beyond, times will likely be identical (or even faster in the AH-BW case), because BW will have arrived and chops will begin for the other case.

So, comparing:

BW-AH vs AH-BW:
First Settler available - Same (33); Copper site for BW-AH, Horse site for AH-BW (arguably the stronger option being Egypt)
Second Settler available - Quicker for BW-AH (36 vs 38 )
Third Settler available - Quicker for BW-AH (40 vs 45)
Fourth Settler and beyond - Much the same, if not faster for AH-BW

Of course, the next thing is to substitute the more likely build order rather than just Settler after Settler. Personally I think it's more likely that we'll want to go for a Worker after the first Settler, then probably a Worker after each subsequent Settler (maybe substituting in a few military units along the way for defence as well). I find it's generally better to slot in new Workers regularly rather than building Settler after Settler, because new cities will generally just be useless maintenance drags unless you can improve them right away.

One thing that I haven't mentioned above, which is a huge plus in AH-BW's favour, is that we can get AH at turn 20, whereas BW can only be obtained at turn 33 (when the Settler wants to move). This means that we have an extra 13 turns to road to any visible Horse site once AH is discovered in the AH-BW case, whereas in the BW-AH case we'd only be able to start the roads when the Settler is already waiting to go (and that would also be a conflict of interest because we'd want the Workers to chop having just got BW). Considering that we won't have much else to do but road in the mid-late 20's and early 30's anyway (mines being useless unless we grow beyond size 3), being able to road directly to a known resource site for the first Settler would be a colossal plus.

We'd potentially be able to hook up Horses 1 turn after founding our second city (assuming we can pre-build a road to and on it, then start the pasture when the city's founded), or instantly when founding our second city (if we found directly on a Horse, which would be less ideal in the long term but good if we suddenly find ourselves in a tight spot in the early game). On the other hand, with the BW-AH option, we'd have to hold off chops in order to road to a Copper source to hook it up, which would defeat the whole point of getting BW first. And even if we did sacrifice chops to build the road and hook up the Copper, we'd have to spend maybe 5, maybe 10 or more turns doing so (depending on how far away it is) before getting access to the metal units.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that assuming we have both Horse and Copper somewhere around our capital, the AH-BW route should allow us to hook up the Horse at least 5 and more likely 10-15+ turns quicker than the BW-AH route would allow us to hook up the Copper. The AH-BW route would also allow us to road in the "Worker downtime" of the mid-late 20's and early 30's, rather than in the critical Worker time of the mid-30's and beyond.

Having thought it all over, I think I'm now quite strongly in favour of AH-BW. If we go for that, let's just hope that we see some Horses as soon as we get AH, and then our gamble should definitely pay off.

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on all of this. Sorry I keep writing such long essays every time.

[Senseless]

I agree with your analysis comparing AH-BW and BW-AH. I'm on board with AH-BW being the all-round better play at this point.

You're right that being unable to chop out settlers doesn't 'feel' right. I guess that means we'll have forests near the capital for other uses. Stonehenge possibly? It would be a great wonder for us, and I think our hill-heavy start makes us pretty well set up to actually grab it.

Don't apologize for the long posts. The analysis is all fun to read. If we're deliberating this long now, when all we have to do is move a warrior it's hard to imagine how crazy our posts will get in 40 or 50 turns.

[Lord Parkin]

I agree with your analysis comparing AH-BW and BW-AH. I'm on board with AH-BW being the all-round better play at this point.

Okay, cool. Let's go with that for now then... we can always change our minds up to turn 7 if need be.

Unfortunately there's no way of knowing for sure quite how far away our nearest neighbour is right now... although maybe we'll meet someone at or before turn 7, which would give us some idea of distance before we confirm one way or the other on AH vs BW. (BW first is probably stronger the further away our neighbours are, while AH first is probably stronger the closer they are... depending on if we have both resources in range, of course.)

I'm guessing we'd have to be quite lucky to meet someone by turn 7 though... even if they're close enough, we'd have to both head in the exact right direction blindly from the start. So we'll have to play this start without immediate knowledge of who and where our neighbours are (like most games I guess ).

Like I said before, I'm guessing travelling time between capitals will be around the order of 15 turns on average for a huge map with 10 civs, but it could be less or much more depending on the map layout. Thing is, if we happen to be neighbours with China or England (who could research Bronze Working out of the gate), then we could be facing enemy Axes very early indeed, perhaps around the turn 40-50 mark (earlier if we have a city in their direction). If either of those civs is a relatively close neighbour and has any inclination whatsoever to send an Axe our way early on, then we're screwed (or at least heavily set back) if we're still trying to hook up Copper between chops and have only just revealed Horses. I don't like the idea of being in that position.

All in all I feel much more comfortable having War Chariots as an option from sometime in the 30's - it guarantees us safety, even if it slows down our initial expansion a little (not too significantly though, I think). Not to mention a potential side benefit... if we have strong units early on, and our opponents know it (which I assume most will, since reading into demographics seems a pretty popular sport here), then that might potentially give us a little more leverage and bargaining power if we're trying to strike a deal with someone. In my experience it's usually better to be able to negotiate deals from a more secure position.

Plus, of course, AH allows us to hook up other animals, so if we happen to have Cow/Sheep/Pig around some of the best looking city spots near us, then being able to build pastures for food straight away will be a nice bonus. BW on the other hand is rather one-note on the resource front, despite the tremendous power of early forest chops.

You're right that being unable to chop out settlers doesn't 'feel' right. I guess that means we'll have forests near the capital for other uses. Stonehenge possibly? It would be a great wonder for us, and I think our hill-heavy start makes us pretty well set up to actually grab it.

It will feel odd not if we're not chopping out early Settlers, yeah. It'll probably put us behind China and England quite a bit at the start, but there shouldn't be as much difference with the other civs though - assuming similar starts.

Yes, we'll have the forests around for other uses later, but I'm not sure how or if Stonehenge will fit in yet. If we research Mysticism after the "big 4" starting techs, then we won't be finishing it until around turn 52-53, meaning we can't start on Stonehenge until then. We could potentially chop it out in a turn or two, but I'm not sure about whether someone would have already taken it by that point (that's quite late for it to go in a game, at least from my own past experience).

If we went for Mysticism earlier (say after AH or even Hunting), then that would push both Bronze Working and Settler production back (BW by 8-9 turns, Settlers by about the same). That would pretty much guarantee us the wonder. However, it'd cost us quite a bit in terms of early expansion, and chops wouldn't be online until post-turn 50 (ouch). Hmm.

Maybe if everyone else has the same issues (similar starts), nobody will be going for Stonehenge for a while, so chopping it out around turn 53-55 could be doable for us. Can't know anything for sure at this point though (or probably even closer to the time).

Don't apologize for the long posts. The analysis is all fun to read. If we're deliberating this long now, when all we have to do is move a warrior it's hard to imagine how crazy our posts will get in 40 or 50 turns.

Indeed. I wonder if the lurkers will get tired of reading all the endless deliberating back and forth over the same simple decisions and eventually give up on us, though.

[Lord Parkin]

Okay, here are some more thoughts along the lines of Stonehenge. The wonder itself seems fairly easy for us to get once it's available - the bigger issue concerns how we slot Mysticism somewhere into the tech programme.

- The earliest we can possibly make a bid for Stonehenge (that wouldn't be downright silly, as in going for Mysticism straight out of the gate) would be by going Hunting (7) -> Mysticism (16). Pros: We can finish Stonehenge around turn 27/28 (!). Cons: We only get one extra Warrior out, delays a second Worker until the early 30's (!), delays our first Settler until the early 40's (!), delays either AH until turn 28 and BW until turn 52/53 (!) or BW until turn 41/42 and AH until turn ~54 (!). Overall: Not good.

- The next-quickest option would be to go Hunting (7) -> AH (19/20) -> Mysticism (27/28 ), and go straight for Stonehenge when Mysticism comes. Pros: We get the second Worker (22) and 3-4 extra Warriors built by the time Mysticism comes, then Stonehenge arrives at turn 35/36. Cons: Delays our first Settler until the early 40's (!), delays BW until turn ~52 (!). Overall: Okay, but not stellar by any means.

- There's an interesting slight variation of the above option, building a Settler instead of 2-3 more Warriors while waiting for Mysticism to arrive. Pros: Get the second Worker on schedule (22), an early first Settler (31), and Stonehenge at turn 40/41. Cons: Only build 1 extra Warrior, initial growth curve messed up from being at size 2 until turn 35, next Settler not available until mid 40's (!), delays BW until turn ~52 (!). Overall: A little better but still not great. Might work better with BW before AH, since we'd be at size 2 for so long in this case.

- Another variant of the Hunting -> AH -> Mysticism case would be to build Warriors until size 3, then the first Settler as planned, then Stonehenge. Pros: Gets second Worker (22), 3 extra Warriors, reasonably early first Settler (33), and Stonehenge is built at turn 40/41 (maybe 39). Cons: Next Settler not available until mid 40's (!), delays BW until turn ~51 (!). Overall: Seems like the best of the available options if we want to grab Stonehenge pre-turn 50. Essentially we continue with our previous plan until turn 33, then switch to Stonehenge and delay cities #3 and beyond (as well as delaying chop access for an extra 7 turns compared to not getting Mysticism).

I don't see a lot of logic in going Hunting -> AH -> Mining -> Mysticism or Hunting -> Mining -> Mysticism, so I think the above are pretty much all the reasonable options we have for going at Stonehenge early.

Aside from those options, the only thing that's left is grabbing Mysticism around turn 52-53 (after the "big 4" starting techs) and chopping Stonehenge out at 53-55. This has the obvious advantage that it doesn't stunt our early growth, so we'd probably have at least 3-4 cities to immediately benefit from the wonder as soon as it arrived. However, the major disadvantage is that waiting an extra ~15 turns (compared to the option in the above paragraph) may well see the wonder taken by someone else. There's a big difference between turn 40 (2400 BC) and turn 55 (1800 BC) when you're talking about Stonehenge, after all.

Senseless, I'd welcome any thoughts or opinions you have on the various simulations for Stonehenge (or any mistakes you can point out in my calculations). Maybe you can suggest something I've missed that might be a better alternative as well.

One random unrelated thought I just had on the AH vs BW matter: you know, going AH-BW does give the tiny, tiny potential advantage that it gives slightly more time for additional forests to spawn near our capital before we chop the existing ones down. Of course, this is so unlikely that it's not worth banking on, but I figured I'd put it on the table for completeness anyway.

[Lord Parkin]

One other advantage of getting Stonehenge earlier (assuming we have equal odds to build it at any time) is that we get Great Prophet points sooner, despite the slowed expansion. Getting it 15 turns earlier translates to 30 bonus Great Prophet points, for instance. Not a game changing factor, but worth keeping in mind anyway.

Also, assuming we build Stonehenge after our first Settler, we'll pretty much get instant culture in the second city - which might give us a little more freedom of placement. On the other hand, if we build it later on, city #2 in particular will be sitting without culture for 15-20 turns (and cities #3 and #4 won't get culture for 5-10 turns either). Again, not really a major concern, but something to bear in mind.

I'm still not sure it's worth sacrificing early growth for, though.

[Lord Parkin]

On another note... you've probably already noticed the slight difference in tech times between the AH-BW [Hunting(7) -> AH (20) -> Mining (28 ) -> BW (44)] and BW-AH [Hunting (7) -> Mining (16) -> BW (33) -> AH (45)] routes. Mysticism's also finished 1-2 turns earlier in the AH-BW case if we research it at the end of these trees. This seems to be largely because of the +1 commerce from the river plains Cow tile over 20-25 turns, which we'll be much more inclined to work with early AH. That's at least 20-25 bonus beakers before turn 50! Again, not a major factor, but something that does make AH first slightly more attractive for us.

The difference in tech times is even more pronounced if we slot in Mysticism after the second tech for both cases. This makes AH-BW [Hunting (7) -> AH (20) -> Mysticism (28 ) -> Mining (36) -> BW (51)] become about three turns quicker than BW-AH [Hunting (7) -> Mining (16) -> Mysticism (24) -> BW (41/42) -> AH (~54)] at obtaining the first five key techs (assuming we want Stonehenge). Finishing the first five techs three turns earlier is certainly a decent boost.

Of course, one thing we have to keep in mind with all of this is that if we're founding a second city somewhere around turn 30-40 (as well as further cities later), the tech times for everything after that will be delayed a turn or two due to the maintenance increases. However, this should still leave AH-BW a slightly stronger opening than BW-AH from a purely economic perspective. BW-AH is still stronger from a hammer perspective, but not from a military defence perspective (as we worked out before with the times that we could see and road to Copper/Horses).

So AH-BW wins both economically and militarily, while BW-AH wins from a pure hammer perspective (translated to faster expansion). Hmm. I still prefer AH-BW, I think.

[Lord Parkin]

(Firstly, apologies for all the spamming and continual jumping around from topic to topic... I keep thinking of things I want to add. )

You know, one alternative opening that we haven't considered much is Worker (10) -> Warrior (15) -> Settler (25, built at size 2) combined with Hunting (7) -> Mining (16) -> BW (33) -> AH (45). This opening would pretty much give us the earliest possible Settler we could reasonably obtain (turn 25!), so that we could get right out there and plant our second city early. It would however have the disadvantage that we'd be down a second Worker until at least the 30's, but chops would arrive around that time so subsequent Settlers wouldn't be delayed too much.

We could potentially branch off slightly from the above scenario and go Hunting (7) -> Mining (16) -> Mysticism (24) -> BW (41/42) -> AH (53/54), build Stonehenge straight after the Settler at turn 25 and finish it at turn 35/36, but that would compound the Worker/Settler problem even further (pushing them back into the 40's, although chops would come online here).

So, is it worth getting out a very early Settler (25) at the cost of early infrastructure (delay on the second Worker)? Possibly not. We're also back to the problem of not being able to road to a strategic resource until very late with this plan. We could go AH first while keeping the Worker -> Warrior -> Settler build plan, but it would be kind of a waste if we're sitting at size 2 building a Settler - if we get AH early, we really need to get to size 3 ASAP to maximise its use. So maybe it's not a great idea. Still, I thought I'd present this option for the sake of completeness anyway. Senseless, maybe you can see further advantages or disadvantages of this "turn 25 Settler plan" that I've missed.

On a completely different matter (please bear with my jumping around if you can! )...

- Another variant of the Hunting -> AH -> Mysticism case would be to build Warriors until size 3, then the first Settler as planned, then Stonehenge. Pros: Gets second Worker (22), 3 extra Warriors, reasonably early first Settler (33), and Stonehenge is built at turn 40/41 (maybe 39). Cons: Next Settler not available until mid 40's (!), delays BW until turn ~51 (!). Overall: Seems like the best of the available options if we want to grab Stonehenge pre-turn 50. Essentially we continue with our previous plan until turn 33, then switch to Stonehenge and delay cities #3 and beyond (as well as delaying chop access for an extra 7 turns compared to not getting Mysticism).

Something else I like about this plan for Stonehenge is that I've found in my sim that we can set it up so we get 99/100 hammers on the Settler at turn 32. That effectively allows 6 food (and 9 hammers) to overflow into the Stonehenge build on turn 33, and be converted into 9+13.5 "free" hammers... rounded up to a total of 9+13.5+13.5 = 36 hammers on the first turn of the build, and guaranteeing Stonehenge at turn 40. That's not too shabby at all. (There doesn't seem to be any way of setting it up so that the Settler finishes a turn earlier.) I do like the idea of exploiting our food overflow to get nearly 10 free hammers on Stonehenge from food alone.

Once again, I'm talking about tiny details that don't have much significance compared to the big overall decisions (tech order, build order, whether to bother with Stonehenge at all). Still, there's not much else to discuss at this point while we still wait for turn 0 to finish... so I figure, why not go over the relatively insignificant details to entertain ourselves.

[Senseless]

Yeah, I like AH-BW better as well. I've got no desire to play only 30 or 40 turns of this game!

Of the four options you listed for Stonehenge, I think only the last two are balanced enough to be viable. They are also nice because we don't really commit to building Stonehenge until turn 33, at which point a dedicated attempt at Stonehenge should have finished or is near completion (like the first two options).

I think that Stonehenge should only be considered if we see horses nearby with AH. Delaying vision of metal another 8 or so turns seems foolish from a security standpoint. Until we get AH, and vision of horses, I think the tech path of Hunting-AH-Mining-BW should be our default.

In fact, I see Stonehenge as a reactionary tactic. Stonehenge, for us at least, is great for vertical growth, due to the increased happy cap. However, in the early game I would as default favor horizontal growth. Maybe Stonehenge would be a good response to neighbors who are clearly capable of out expanding us? Of course, this is somewhat counter-productive in that Stonehenge becomes a better deal with the more cities you found. What situation do you think would most drive us towards Stonehenge?

I'm also trying to figure out the meta-game here. We have four total industrious leaders, so it seems like people are placing quite a premium on wonders. Do you think it's safe to assume that other teams will be gunning for it as well?

Just out of curiosity, how seriously are you considering Stonehenge? Currently I see it as an unlikely possibility that we're discussing just to explore all of our options.

[athlete4life10]

... and be converted into 9+13.5 "free" hammers... rounded up to a total of 9+13.5+13.5 = 36 hammers on the first turn of the build, and guaranteeing Stonehenge at turn 40...

I believe this would get rounded down...just an fyi. You're welcome to test to confirm but I'm pretty confident it is floored.

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, I like AH-BW better as well. I've got no desire to play only 30 or 40 turns of this game!

Absolutely.

Of the four options you listed for Stonehenge, I think only the last two are balanced enough to be viable.

Yeah, I was really only listing the first two for the sake of completeness. Actually I think the third option isn't really viable either, since it leaves us with only 2 Warriors total (both really needed for exploring) until post-turn 40 (!). The fourth option is really the only one that I feel is viable to implement, and even then it stunts our early growth a fair bit.

They are also nice because we don't really commit to building Stonehenge until turn 33, at which point a dedicated attempt at Stonehenge should have finished or is near completion (like the first two options).

That's true. If either Arabia, Sumeria or the Netherlands are dead-set on Stonehenge, then they should complete it about this time, which would make our decision simpler. The later the turn-off point to Stonehenge, the less we risk by taking that route, and turn 33 seems the earliest reasonable time to turn off.

Although, actually, we'll have to turn off before this - sometime about turn 24 - since we'll need to invest beakers into Mysticism if we want to have the option of building Stonehenge at turn 33. So maybe we haven't got all the much leg room after all. I'd say turn 24 is probably our realistic turn off point for a potential Stonehenge build at turn 33.

I think that Stonehenge should only be considered if we see horses nearby with AH. Delaying vision of metal another 8 or so turns seems foolish from a security standpoint. Until we get AH, and vision of horses, I think the tech path of Hunting-AH-Mining-BW should be our default.

That's a good point... thanks for reminding me of the big picture again. Often I get caught up in the little details and forget things like this!

Yes, if it turns out we don't see Horses immediately with AH (or very shortly thereafter), then heading off towards Mysticism and delaying vision of Copper until post turn 50 would be rather foolhardy. So let's definitely not make any firm decisions on Stonehenge until we can confirm whether or not we have Horses within reach.

In fact, I see Stonehenge as a reactionary tactic. Stonehenge, for us at least, is great for vertical growth, due to the increased happy cap. However, in the early game I would as default favor horizontal growth. Maybe Stonehenge would be a good response to neighbors who are clearly capable of out expanding us? Of course, this is somewhat counter-productive in that Stonehenge becomes a better deal with the more cities you found. What situation do you think would most drive us towards Stonehenge?

The major factor for me is geography, but there's several individual parts to this. I'd say we should be driven more towards Stonehenge if we don't have great city spots near our capital, or if we have to settle further away than usual to claim good land. We should be driven away from Stonehenge if it turns out we have stellar land near our capital (since settling it ASAP will be critical to early success).

As for distance to neighbours (and number of neighbours), to me there's a critical point where if your neighbours are close enough (and/or numerous enough), then Stonehenge is a near-useless build early on. That critical point depends a bit on the feel of the map, but in general a rule of thumb might be having a neighbour closer than 10-12 tiles by land and/or having 2-3+ neighbours surrounding you. On the other hand, if your neighours are far away (or if you only have one immediate neighbour), then Stonehenge is a considerably stronger build early on.

Anyway, that's my opinion at least - feel free to disagree if you wish.

I'm also trying to figure out the meta-game here. We have four total industrious leaders, so it seems like people are placing quite a premium on wonders. Do you think it's safe to assume that other teams will be gunning for it as well?

We can scratch the Cre/Ind Louis from the Stonehenge race at least, but Arabia, the Netherlands and Sumeria are all potential contenders. I think it depends more on the mindset of the player, and unfortunately I don't really know most people here too well. (Mackoti I've played with before, but only once or twice and so long ago that I can't really remember if he placed much priority on it. I think he didn't.) I guess as you're new here you probably don't know much more than I do - but if you happen to have gained some insight on some of the players here from long-time lurking, then I'd welcome any thoughts on who might be inclined more towards Stonehenge than others.

I think the fact that we're Ind/Cha Egypt will be key to the metagame around Stonehenge for many people, but I'm still not sure exactly which direction it could go (really it could turn out either way - good or bad for us). I'm leaning towards the idea (and hoping!) that people will see the Ind/Cha Egypt pick as a definite tie to a plan for early Stonehenge, and thus not even bother trying to compete. If that happens, it would be awesome, because even though it's true we'd gain a lot from Stonehenge, having a bit more uncontested leg room to build it would be great.

On the other hand, it could be the case that one or two people might see the Ind/Cha Egypt pick and anticipate the Stonehenge build, but have the reverse reaction: try to steal it out from under us, whether out of spite (for some reason?) or just simple necessity. I *think* (hope!) that this is less likely to happen, but I'm just not sure.

Just out of curiosity, how seriously are you considering Stonehenge? Currently I see it as an unlikely possibility that we're discussing just to explore all of our options.

I guess I'm at sort of a moderate enthusiasm level about it. I will admit that I do have a certain fondness for Stonehenge (especially playing an Ind/Cha civ), but I can live without it. The main thing is trying to gauge exactly what competition we're likely to have, as well as whether expansion/defence will be a higher priority early on - the latter which we'll only know after exploration, the former which we can probably only guess at.