Many writers have mentioned how vitally important it is to build the Pyramids. And granted, the Pyramids are wonderful. The boost they give both to Science and Happiness (via Representation) really slingshot the player into a powerful and almost winning position right out of the box.

There is just one problem: In the upper difficulty levels (Emperor and above), building them is nearly impossible—or just not worth the effort.

First off, you absolutely must have Stone. Without Stone, you can chop Forests to a fare-thee-well, and some other Civ will pile up those Quarry blocks faster than you can. All you’ll end up doing is permanently denuding your landscape (which doesn’t do your Health any good), and ruining squares which could later run Lumbermills.

Even with Stone The Pyramids are hard. Oh, you might manage them all right, but unless the map is virtually perfect, you’ll expend so much time that other Civs will shoulder into your vicinity, plop down Cities, and steal other, more critical resources. If you don’t play your cards exactly right, your troops will be standing there admiring their newly-built megalith—just before they’re crushed by invading hordes of Axemen or Swordsmen.

To get the perfect map, i.e., one with close, workable Stone, Forests in just the right places, and ready access to either Copper or Iron for defense, you’ll play at least ten—maybe twenty—openings before you finally get the right set-up. This is enormously time consuming.

Here’s another way: Forget the Pyramids. Let some other Civ build them. There are other, easier ways to get what the Pyramids offer, i.e., Science and Happiness. Let’s start with Science:

The Pyramids (via Representation) promise three extra beakers of research for every Specialist you run. But you can’t run too many Specialists in the early phases of the game without seriously impeding your growth. Excess growth is better used hurrying improvements and/or defenders via Slavery. So the Science boost doesn’t really start to kick in until the middle game.

Money you can use immediately. Rather than setting your heart on Stone, plot your first Cities with either Gold, Silver, or Gems in mind. If you don’t have at least one of these in easy reach, you might as well forget the map and start over. Without the Pyramids, you need gold.

The next time you’re playing, try selecting and deselecting a Mine square (via the City Screen), and see how it changes the research bar. Often the operation of a single Gold Mine can reduce research times by a third or more. In the early phases of the game, this is key. As the game wears on, augment these monies by building Cottages. As the value of those first Mines begins to diminish, your Towns and Villages will start to come on, keeping your Science humming.

But Villages and Mines can only go so far. To really kick your Science into overdrive, you need one more thing: The Great Library. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to get. All you need is Literature, a Library, and the energy to build it. If you’ve got Marble, more’s the better, but Marble isn’t nearly as critical to the Great Library as Stone is to the Pyramids. With a little advance planning, you can either chop-rush it, or pop it, and still have time to spare.

Literature’s a pretty cheap tech; other Civs rarely research it first. If you’ve gotten your Mines and settlements working right, steal up on it at an opportune moment, and then build that Library. The Great Library gives a City three free Science Specialists—which is huge.

Build the National Epic in the same City as the Great Library, and not only will you be pumping out enough Science to at least keep pace with your rivals, but that City will generate a constant supply of Great Scientists, which you use to build Academies. Once those Cities build Libraries, Universities, Observatories, etc., they become little Science powerhouses.

It’s a given that even with the most careful play, you won’t be the tech leader until very late in the game. That’s ok. All you have to do is more or less keep up. If you’ve planned your growth properly, by the time you enter the end game, your Science will be coming on like a lion, and you’ll finally earn the appellation of “The Worlds’ Most Advanced Civilization.” From then on it’s a cakewalk.

Pyramids also bring Happiness. This loss is much easier dealt with. Just move along the tech tree and either research or trade for The Monarchy. Change over to Hereditary Rule, and then stock your Cities with soldiers. This is more than enough to pacify your citizens until you’ve either conquered or traded for Happiness resources such as Sugar, Furs, Wine, etc.—or built Happiness improvements, such as Markets, Temples, Cathedrals, and so on.

Playing the game this way demands more concentration. Rather than relying on a one-trick pony, such as the Pyramids, you try to orchestrate the growth and expansion of your empire so that all phases of your Civilization work in harmony.

I usually play with only the Cultural, Time, and Conquest victory options selected, because I play Civilization IV for keeps. My aim is to conquer the world.

Building a Space Ship, or trying either to Dominate or Diplomate the globe—is for weenies, and I don’t bother with it. A Cultural win sounds like fun, but I’ve yet to try it. Nevertheless, I may, because my regular strategy works like clockwork, and I’m looking for a challenge.

So, if you want to become Grand Poobah of The Entire Civilized World, the accompanying .pdf file contains Bogus Trumper's tried and true strategy for doing just that:

A very well written guide. Thank you so much.

While I agree with some of the points you want to make, you exaggerate a lot, and I think that really hurts your presentation.

And I would also like to point out that disabling spaceship and diplomatic victories is a handicap -- you make the game easier for yourself by eliminating methods by which the AI might snatch a victory.

On the higher levels, I've found that Great Wall = GE = Mids; however, this won't work in BTS (GW doesn't give GE points; or so I've heard).

Although I agree that the Great Library helps a lot with science, it's worth pointing out that the great library plus representation (from pyramids) is even better.

My favorite way of getting the pyramids is the "rock thrower's gambit." Find stone (easier said than done), and establish a trade route to a nearby industrious civ. Trade them the stone, or just give it to them if they don't have any good resources. While they're building the pyramids, you build up an army of your favorite rush unit. As soon as they're done building the 'mids, you march in and attack their capital. That way you get the 'mids, an army, and another capital city.

Works great if they're close.

Hmmmm? Turning off victory types that the computer is more likely to win, huh. Generally the AI will only win via space or score in my games, though in BTS I understand they do shoot for culture sometimes.

Still, you can play the game how you want :). Also, good point on the mids...I hate relying on wonders. I'd much rather take wonders from other civs. That way, I have the wonders AND an army...

There is just one problem: In the upper difficulty levels (Emperor and above), building them is nearly impossible—or just not worth the effort.

I disagree. And if you look at some of the very tuff games posted, you will see this just isn't true.

First off, you absolutely must have Stone. Without Stone, you can chop Forests to a fare-thee-well, and some other Civ will pile up those Quarry blocks faster than you can. All you’ll end up doing is permanently denuding your landscape (which doesn’t do your Health any good), and ruining squares which could later run Lumbermills.


No, you don't absolutely must have stone. And while it is true that chopping will hurt your health, and wreck your later chance for lumbermills, some sacrifices are worth it in a pinch.

Even with Stone The Pyramids are hard. Oh, you might manage them all right, but unless the map is virtually perfect, you’ll expend so much time that other Civs will shoulder into your vicinity, plop down Cities, and steal other, more critical resources. If you don’t play your cards exactly right, your troops will be standing there admiring their newly-built megalith—just before they’re crushed by invading hordes of Axemen or Swordsmen.

Yes, you should play your cards right, but you don't have to play them perfect.

To get the perfect map, i.e., one with close, workable Stone, Forests in just the right places, and ready access to either Copper or Iron for defense, you’ll play at least ten—maybe twenty—openings before you finally get the right set-up. This is enormously time consuming.


Ten to twenty openings is just silly...

Here’s another way: Forget the Pyramids. Let some other Civ build them. There are other, easier ways to get what the Pyramids offer, i.e., Science and Happiness. Let’s start with Science:


Why would you want to let another civ have the advantage of getting the mids? Alright, lets look at the science then...

The Pyramids (via Representation) promise three extra beakers of research for every Specialist you run. But you can’t run too many Specialists in the early phases of the game without seriously impeding your growth. Excess growth is better used hurrying improvements and/or defenders via Slavery. So the Science boost doesn’t really start to kick in until the middle game.

You DO realize that the mids allows +3 pop extra growth right?

Also, the science boost kicks in immediately, you just have to take advantage of it.


Money you can use immediately. Rather than setting your heart on Stone, plot your first Cities with either Gold, Silver, or Gems in mind. If you don’t have at least one of these in easy reach, you might as well forget the map and start over. Without the Pyramids, you need gold.

What?!

Now I understand where your 10-to-20 restarts estimate is coming from.

The next time you’re playing, try selecting and deselecting a Mine square (via the City Screen), and see how it changes the research bar. Often the operation of a single Gold Mine can reduce research times by a third or more. In the early phases of the game, this is key. As the game wears on, augment these monies by building Cottages. As the value of those first Mines begins to diminish, your Towns and Villages will start to come on, keeping your Science humming.

Umm, do you realize even a single running scientist with the mids not only gives 6 beakers instead of 3, but it also contribs to give you Great Scientists. Even just one of these will either give you an academy = 50% sci boost, or you can absorb him for +9 beakers & 1 hammer, which btw doesn't even need a pop point unlike your mine which DOES require this.

But Villages and Mines can only go so far. To really kick your Science into overdrive, you need one more thing: The Great Library. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to get. All you need is Literature, a Library, and the energy to build it. Actually, you need Aesthetics with BTS, but that's another story...

Literature’s a pretty cheap tech; other Civs rarely research it first. If you’ve gotten your Mines and settlements working right, steal up on it at an opportune moment, and then build that Library. The Great Library gives a City three free Science Specialists—which is huge.

Umm, no. TGL only gives you two scientists, not three. And sadly, since you just told everyone not to build the mids, that means they only get the power of 2 scientists. Now had they followed doctrine from high ranking players like Cheffster, they would have built the mids, which DOUBLES the power of TGL to give FOUR great scientists. I still don't see where 3 comes from.

Build the National Epic in the same City as the Great Library, and not only will you be pumping out enough Science to at least keep pace with your rivals, but that City will generate a constant supply of Great Scientists, which you use to build Academies.

You will also be pumping out great artists as well due to the NE. I suppose, if you ran a lot of scientists in the city, then you could dilute the artist pollution to minimize this, but in that case, you were much better off building the mids in the first place!

It’s a given that even with the most careful play, you won’t be the tech leader until very late in the game.
It is? While it is true that you will sometimes find yourself falling behind on the highest levels, it's also known that the mids will make a uber strong science base early that rivals the cottage system you advice. This enables a faster jump to things like liberalism, which again propel you deep up the tree again.

That’s ok.

Phew!!!

Pyramids also bring Happiness. This loss is much easier dealt with. Just move along the tech tree and either research or trade for The Monarchy. Change over to Hereditary Rule, and then stock your Cities with soldiers. This is more than enough to pacify your citizens until you’ve either conquered or traded for Happiness resources such as Sugar, Furs, Wine, etc.—or built Happiness improvements, such as Markets, Temples, Cathedrals, and so on.

But my Lord, it takes a while to get those happiness improvements, and Monarchy is fairly very expensive at its time. And all those extra troops eat up maintenance, and cost hammers & time to produce. So why didn't you build the mids again?

Playing the game this way demands more concentration. Rather than relying on a one-trick pony, such as the Pyramids, you try to orchestrate the growth and expansion of your empire so that all phases of your Civilization work in harmony.

Ok, I will agree that this harmony thing makes sense. I'm not so sure on this one-trick pony thing? But I have to confess, I'm not a re-generate expert.


I usually play with only the Cultural, Time, and Conquest victory options selected, because I play Civilization IV for keeps. My aim is to conquer the world.


Umm, so why can't you deal with it fair & square? It seems that since not building the mids is the superior way to play, you wouldn't have to cheat. Especially since you reload if you don't like the terrain you get.

Building a Space Ship, or trying either to Dominate or Diplomate the globe—is for weenies, and I don’t bother with it. A Cultural win sounds like fun, but I’ve yet to try it. Nevertheless, I may, because my regular strategy works like clockwork, and I’m looking for a challenge.


????

So, if you want to become Grand Poobah of The Entire Civilized World, the accompanying .pdf file contains Bogus Trumper's tried and true strategy for doing just that:



I'm too scared to look at that now...

obsolete pwned you good... real good

Obsolete just went upside your head with his heavy pimp hand. Ouch!

I was not sure after reading that if Bogustrumper was just trolling with a bogus post or not. After thinking on it some more, I believe it is possible he means well, but is just too inexperienced to write up a post of enough quality/calibre for this side of the forums.

I guess one thing people should get out of this thread is that there isn't much wrong with building the mids. But there is also nothing wrong if you prefer to go another strategy. Just don't get too polarized in your over-all starting strategies.

And remember, to NEVER say NEVER in a strategy post. It will always come back to haunt you.

There is constructive criticism, and there is trolling. Post like this are trolling.

You can debate issues, but when it comes to trying to rub-it-in to someone who has taken the time and effort to try and contribute to this community, this type of post, and the two above, are not particularly welcome.

I was not sure after reading that if Bogustrumper was just trolling with a bogus post or not. After thinking on it some more, I believe it is possible he means well, but is just too inexperienced to write up a post of enough quality/calibre for this side of the forums.

I guess one thing people should get out of this thread is that there isn't much wrong with building the mids. But there is also nothing wrong if you prefer to go another strategy. Just don't get too polarized in your over-all starting strategies.

And remember, to NEVER say NEVER in a strategy post. It will always come back to haunt you.

Bogus or not it was fun post to bring back from the dead just to watch him get dismantled with a well-crafted response other than the usual "You're dumb", "No, you're dumb". Well played, sir.

I do like the mids but they really hurt the warmonger openings I like so much. I guess an exception would be having stone/industrious or both. In that case, the immediate benefit from them would probably let me hit harder...

For me its a situational wonder, although along with the oracle one of the only 2 I tend to plan to get early in the game. Everything else I'll just build if I have the right resource and a tech lead, and a city with infrastructure to make it, and if I don't need more troops. That's a lot of ifs, but it does happen.

Ouch! I think i`ll be filing my potential strat article away for a while

Better than the pure science based pyramids gambit is the great wall/pyramids gambit where you use your capital as a science/espionage centre. Build a worker, warrior, settler, great wall. Second city is founded near stone and builds a worker to quarry it. Your capital is done the great wall by the time you have stone hooked up, then you build the pyramids in this second city with heavy use of the chop. The capital continues with either peaceful REX builds or axe-rush builds, and will pop a great spy sometime during the mids build or shortly thereafter. Research your way to alphabet once you have researched the techs for whatever food/happy resources are nearby. Spy bomb somebody who was worked their way down a different part of the tech tree-- usually the religious side, but you will occasionally find someone like Tokugawa beelining through metal casting/machinery/etc. A few stolen techs later and you're the clear tech leader. Your capital is running a mix of spy (after COL) and scientists (after Writing) who are all churning out some impressive beakers with representation. From here you keep adding specialists to the capital, and are getting a mix of scientists and spies. First scientist builds an academy, future ones are used for bulbing and settling, depending on your situation... IE: If you can use a bulb to snag a religion, or pull even further ahead in tech, then do that. Also, the fact that you built the mids in your second city means that you will pop an engineer there sooner later (depends if you stole metal casting and got a forge and engineer in there quickly) which you can use for a variety of mid game wonders depending on your strat. My personal favorite is the Parthenon for the 50% GPP, but sometimes it comes early enough you can still use it for the Oracle, and if you got representation then it makes the Great Library a truly useful wonder... Without rep though, I question the OP's view that the wonder is worth a damn... Frankly I wouldn't build it unless those scientists had extra beakers attached.

Anyways, with a philosophical leader you'll be popping so many spies and scientists in your capital that between self research and staggering EP counts compared to your enemies any time another civ starts pulling ahead of you in one branch of the tree, you will be able to steal it and sustain your tech lead with ease. Eventually your capital will have a settled spy, scotland yard, an academy and loads of settled scientists and be outperforming even the most advanced cottaged city. You will have visibility to most of the AI civs via espionage, and can ensure you win all the crucial races like Liberalism, and later game to all those techs with the free great people who you can then use to found corporations (because with this setup, the overwhelming majority of your natural GPs will be spies and scientists, with maybe 1 or 2 engineers from the second city in due time). Basically, the combination of high science output and high espionage in your capital will make it so you can beeline your way through one part of the tree, and steal the rest. This is much better than tech trading, as it preserves your monopoly on the techs you are manually researching. It also gets you to the point where you don't need to use the science slider at all, and can turn the slider into cash (general purpose/war monger) or culture (for a culture win) or still further espionage if you need a quick burst of points to steal some expensive techs.

Now granted, going for two early wonders makes a rush with some crap unit a little difficult. It can still be done though, as the great wall is cheap and that's all you're building in your capital early on. Personally I prefer to use this pair of wonders to get the ball rolling, and wait until I can steal construction from somebody to start a real offensive war. Meanwhile, I am more than happy to let the AI hurl units at my cities, as I will be farming great general after great general to settle in my capital and pyramids city (once its done with the mids and is able to crank units that is) which, once again, means more free beakers thanks to representation.

I find the great wall/pyramids super science spy city tactic to work like a hot damn for any philosophical leader out there, but I admit I have yet to try it without that trait. For a secondary trait I have had great success with all of them-- Imperialistic (Suleiman) ended up giving me something like 4 great generals from fighting defensive wars insde the great wall, all before 1 AD. With Charismatic (Lincoln) it didn't take many generals settled before my 2 production cities were cranking out some seriously elite shock troops. Organized (Bizmarck) simply made it a lot easier to REX quickly and peacefully without going bankrupt. And the final one I've tried is Financial (Elizabeth) which worked just fine but I didn't find financial to be all that great in this context, as it really favours a heavy food based economy, and other than coastal tiles it really wasn't paying me anything-- because I was putting farms on grassland and flood plains, to pay for more scientists and spies.

I find that the pyramids are quite deprioterized by the AI and you can usually get them without really sacraficing your REXing. E.g. in my current game on immortal the pyramids were built somewhere around 500 AD :eek:, I was 2 turns away from education by then.

Providing you have decent food sources Hereditary rule is probably just as good as Rep until Rep becomes available with constitution. Sure your specialists are less productive but with a potentially unlimited happy cap and enough food you can run more of them which means more GPP anyway.

Context: The pyramids is a powerful wonder. 7 cities, 2 scientists in each, that's an extra 42 raw beakers in the classical period, easily 50% more research until medieval times. No, you don't get more great persons though, as you'll just have lots of GP points spread out everywhere.

Bogustrumper: I don't like pyramids, so I sympathise with you, even though the quality of this writing really needs major improvements. It sucks, I'm sorry. "An" alternative to pyramids? There are several alternative strategies that are also powerful. And get the facts right.

To Obselete: In BTS, I like the pyramids even less. You need to keep up in the power graph not to get hit by AI offensive stacks, which in BTS are now actually credible offensive stacks. Since you need units anyway, you might as well trade for monarchy and keep an extra archer in each city (You don't keep 1 warrior per city do you Obselete? Do you want a random pillager to take out your city?). So there - +2 hapiness from HR versus +3 from representation, not the same, but managable for the sake of argument, eh?

My favourite wonder is "stack of axeman", by the way. You need copper for that though.

I can almost always grab the pyramids on emperor, and thats without industrious. Fortunately stone is somewhere near by more often than not so I try to make that my 2nd city unless there is some monster gold/gem/silver city site nearby. In the early game if you have stone you can easily grab the GW, stonehenge, and the pyramids. Work those mines, chop some trees, etc. The pyramids usually arent built before the AD's so i usually rex to about 4 cities and then focus the capital on wonders while the other 3 are producing military orinfrastructure.

first off I want to say a big thank you to bogustrumper for an extremely well written guide; one of the best I've read. It goes so far beyond the "no pyramids" premise and gives so many great tips and pointers for a full game that it is pure gold for newbies like me. Plus, it took an immense effort to write up 25 pages and write thm up so well. Presentation, language and content are just ace. if you ever should read this thread again, bogustrumper, accpet my sincere thanks and admiration.

now to the many negative and sometimes insulting replies:

bogus is showing an alternative strategy to pyramids (and then some). so your argument (i.e. obsolete) "even then, the pyramids would have been better", is not valid. it's not the point he's trying to make. his premise is "no pyramids" and it goes from there. if the premise he makes ("next to impossible on higher levels") is correct or not, is another story (which I wouldn't know. I am a beginner after all).

try to look at it with a beginner's view (not that easy, I know. experience does that to you) and see the immense value in this write-up. yes there might be a dozen other and better strategies, but for every better one, there's probably three worse ones as well. also, as a beginner I don't know all those "better" ones, so bogus' stuff is very valuable to me. he doesn't suggest wrong strategies, so try to be a little constructive in your criticism. it is always easy to say "you suck" instead of saying "hey that is an idea, but look, this could be better".

again, the effort that goes into these 25 pages is admirable. give the guy a break. even if you didn't like it, I did alot and I will be looking forward to implement many of the valuable tips I extracted from this write-up.

cheers
-wannabewarlord

The Pyramids are huge. No they're more then that, they totally change your early game.

Happiness. Charismatic gives you +2 happiness. In the early years Pyramids give +3 and you don't even need a building. In the early game the cheaper upgrades are not a big factor, as you don't have any generals and just barracks.
Science. Starting with crappy basic cities with just a library, courthouse, and granary, each double scientist produces 18 instead of 9 science. Thats like 2 cottaged squares for free in every city.
Super Science. In late classical when you adopt Caste and open the doors to a city with 5-8 scientists, the effects of the pyramids are still just as huge. Representation is a % boost not a flat boost, and it doubles science BEFORE the % bonus from buildings.

Pyramids, are, in my opinion a must have wonder. Even in non-SE economies having them is huge. They save having to tech monarchy which is no where in the same line as Currency or Code of Laws for economy.

You don't just stumble onto the Pyramids though. You plan ahead, choose which city is getting them by the second or third settler, and do everything you can to get them. There is an amazing post on this forum that explains the best ways to get Pyramids done by 1000 BC as well as having a starting empire.

now to the many negative and sometimes insulting replies:

bogus is showing an alternative strategy to pyramids (and then some). so your argument (i.e. obsolete) "even then, the pyramids would have been better", is not valid. it's not the point he's trying to make. his premise is "no pyramids" and it goes from there. if the premise he makes ("next to impossible on higher levels") is correct or not, is another story (which I wouldn't know. I am a beginner after all).

try to look at it with a beginner's view (not that easy, I know. experience does that to you) and see the immense value in this write-up. yes there might be a dozen other and better strategies, but for every better one, there's probably three worse ones as well. also, as a beginner I don't know all those "better" ones, so bogus' stuff is very valuable to me. he doesn't suggest wrong strategies, so try to be a little constructive in your criticism. it is always easy to say "you suck" instead of saying "hey that is an idea, but look, this could be better".

obsolete pointed out the many flaws in the article, aswell as the exaggerations. As a beginner (especially!) you should be grateful for those flaws being exposed, as you would likely not know about them yourself and take the article for more than its actually worth. There is always two sides to the story- better to know both.

IMHO: I don't think the Pyramids are 'essential'. Now, Obsolete did not say that, and I agree with him that the heavy hammer investment (lessened by chopping and/or Stone) will pay for itself through Representation or Hereditary Rule. In fact, I used to use Gandhi in Vanilla (Spiritual/Industrious) and do just that.

I just think there are tons and tons and tons of good, even superb strategies that don't use the 'Mids at all. I've been playing Monarch for a good month, and even here you don't need the 'Mids.

Also, I think not having the 'Mids makes the game a tad more challenging. I appreciate the nail-biting that accompanies my Wonder-building (to be frank, I suck at Wonder building so hard its amazing. I'm still figuring out chopping Wonders. Units: yes, Wonders: no.), but sometimes I want to try out a new strategy and all.

I think this is a good article for new players, but doesn't go as indepth with strategies and reasoning as games on the forums like Obsolete's, Aelf's, Sisutil's, etc, etc.

Representation is a % boost not a flat boost, and it doubles science BEFORE the % bonus from buildings.

Uh, Rep isn't a percent boost. It's +3 beakers per specialist.

now to the many negative and sometimes insulting replies:

bogus is showing an alternative strategy to pyramids (and then some). so your argument (i.e. obsolete) "even then, the pyramids would have been better", is not valid. it's not the point he's trying to make. his premise is "no pyramids" and it goes from there. if the premise he makes ("next to impossible on higher levels") is correct or not, is another story (which I wouldn't know. I am a beginner after all).

try to look at it with a beginner's view (not that easy, I know. experience does that to you) and see the immense value in this write-up. yes there might be a dozen other and better strategies, but for every better one, there's probably three worse ones as well. also, as a beginner I don't know all those "better" ones, so bogus' stuff is very valuable to me. he doesn't suggest wrong strategies, so try to be a little constructive in your criticism. it is always easy to say "you suck" instead of saying "hey that is an idea, but look, this could be better".

again, the effort that goes into these 25 pages is admirable. give the guy a break. even if you didn't like it, I did alot and I will be looking forward to implement many of the valuable tips I extracted from this write-up.

Let me guess... You're American? I've heard that you guys don't have a culture of being blunt. Well, in the professional or middle-class world anyway. But do Americans really need everything to be candy-coated for them?

Let's face it. The article does suck, and for many good reasons. Worse, it sucks but it's pompous, which makes it fully deserving of the blunt truths. Accommodating people is all fine and well, but I think it's better that you realise what is good and what is not than be bamboozled by rubbish that is poorly done but sold as something very good or even superior. Less of McD's and more of quality, savvy?

Trolling - warned.

@aelf:

interestingly enough I am not american at all, I am swiss. So yes, I know all about the culture of being "blunt" (don't even try the "neutral" argument now). wrong analysis of my persona but good reference of americans though. I agree with you that especially in the american culture, criticism has to be candy coated and it's always "you did good, but..." and never "you sucked big time". I am with you 100% on that (trust me, I am all for pointing out flaws "uncoated". I didn't make many friends for that when I studied abroad).

on the other hand, I don't see why I get the hammer on my head now for defending the work of another guy that I found to be helpful. maybe I did come across a bit wrong. I am not saying his guide is the one and all and I am not saying you guys should not criticise. I am even less saying that it has no mistakes. I was saying that I, as a beginner, appreciate the work that went into this write up and that I could extract a lot of helpful pointers. and I was suggesting that you go easy on bogustrumper for the work he did and for the helpful pointers that beginners might extract out of it. I cannot speak for advanced players; I assume you guys did that already :lol:
bear in mind that I just recently started that game (and got totally hooked on it) and I might not see beyond initial strategies or the "mistakes" that bogustrumper made, as bentley004 pointed out.

either way,
I am still building the pyramids in every game I start, believe it or not ;)

btw, while we're at it (instead of spamming a new thread): I am only playing on warlord level and I used to build my pyramids as soon as I have a second city asnd masonry available. I realise this seriously blocks my first city form doing probably more useful stuff, but I was always afraid that another civ would come up with the big one first. so is there any "reference" or rule of thumb as to when you should start piling up the blocks or when the enemies start on it?

cheers
-wannabewarlord

Totally OT, but I would like to step in to defend the Americans :-)


@aelf (and a little bit @wannabe)
Criticism is good, and so is candour. However, if you want to have a useful discussion with somebody you generally want to state constructive criticism, and get him/her to accept your comments as such. If someone feels attacked, the natural response is defensive, in which case you often get a verbal trench war in which neither side is willing to listen or concede points to the other. "sugar-coating criticism" is a very useful means of getting a constructive discussion, and if you say "I really appreciate the time you put in the article, and you have a number of good points. However, I have an issue with A, B, and C", the poster is a lot more likely to engage in a useful debate than if you say "Yo luser ur article suxkz!!! A is stupid so is B and C lolz" --- just to exaggerate.

In some cases, a post is just a troll or flamebait and should be treated as such. However, if someone is not as strategically gifted as you are but still puts a lot of time in contributing to the community, you should be appreciative of that, even if the article contains a lot of flaws. Point out the flaws in very straight language (also for the other readers), but give him credit as well.

hailing from a famously blunt European country ...

amen, vanatteveldt

Please, pardon the interruption.

Hey, Aelf, you arrogant self-important jackass, YOU SUCK! (Blunt enough?)

Now back to the conversation.

Flaming - warned.

interestingly enough I am not american at all, I am swiss. So yes, I know all about the culture of being "blunt" (don't even try the "neutral" argument now). wrong analysis of my persona but good reference of americans though. I agree with you that especially in the american culture, criticism has to be candy coated and it's always "you did good, but..." and never "you sucked big time". I am with you 100% on that (trust me, I am all for pointing out flaws "uncoated". I didn't make many friends for that when I studied abroad).

Sorry. It was, after all, a guess :blush: But at least you know where I'm coming from...

on the other hand, I don't see why I get the hammer on my head now for defending the work of another guy that I found to be helpful. maybe I did come across a bit wrong. I am not saying his guide is the one and all and I am not saying you guys should not criticise. I am even less saying that it has no mistakes. I was saying that I, as a beginner, appreciate the work that went into this write up and that I could extract a lot of helpful pointers. and I was suggesting that you go easy on bogustrumper for the work he did and for the helpful pointers that beginners might extract out of it. I cannot speak for advanced players; I assume you guys did that already :lol:
bear in mind that I just recently started that game (and got totally hooked on it) and I might not see beyond initial strategies or the "mistakes" that bogustrumper made, as bentley004 pointed out.

Criticism is good, and so is candour. However, if you want to have a useful discussion with somebody you generally want to state constructive criticism, and get him/her to accept your comments as such. If someone feels attacked, the natural response is defensive, in which case you often get a verbal trench war in which neither side is willing to listen or concede points to the other. "sugar-coating criticism" is a very useful means of getting a constructive discussion, and if you say "I really appreciate the time you put in the article, and you have a number of good points. However, I have an issue with A, B, and C", the poster is a lot more likely to engage in a useful debate than if you say "Yo luser ur article suxkz!!! A is stupid so is B and C lolz" --- just to exaggerate.

In some cases, a post is just a troll or flamebait and should be treated as such. However, if someone is not as strategically gifted as you are but still puts a lot of time in contributing to the community, you should be appreciative of that, even if the article contains a lot of flaws. Point out the flaws in very straight language (also for the other readers), but give him credit as well.

Personally, I wouldn't be so harsh with my first comments. However, given the context (i.e. tone of the article), I don't sympathise with the writer. Furthermore, in real life, when you are face-to-face with the person, being more sophisticated in offering criticism is indeed important. But, in that case, there are tools of communication (namely body language and tone of voice) to help you communicate the message effectively while maintaining decorum. Even then, in real life, what would you say to a person who is huffing and puffing about a subject while actually knowing little about it? Some people might just snigger quietly and ignore or accommodate him, while others might point out his ignorance. Personally, I prefer the latter, whom I consider less hypocritical.

On the internet, there are limitations on communication, and as long as the rules are obeyed (i.e. no flaming), I would argue that decorum is maintained.

Please, pardon the interruption.

Hey, Aelf, you arrogant self-important jackass, YOU SUCK! (Blunt enough?)

Now back to the conversation.

Reported for flaming. Sharp and concise now.

Ah, when I said the pyramids give a permenant +3 science, I mean that all your scientists, while under representation are 6 beakers instead of 3 beakers. These 6 beakers are then multiplied by libraries, universities, and whatnot. Thus the pyramids improve your base science quality quite a bit.

@ Aelf

Here in the Americas we refer to it as Micky-Ds or the Golden Arches SIR. I would hate for you to be visiting and find yourself under the cold steely glare of an underpaid and pimply fry jockey due to your loose grasp of the vernacular!

Here in the Americas we refer to it as Micky-Ds or the Golden Arches SIR. I would hate for you to be visiting and find yourself under the cold steely glare of an underpaid and pimply fry jockey due to your loose grasp of the vernacular!

Thanks for the info. I doubt I'd be visiting McDonald's when I'm travelling, though, even though I've given KFC the occasional nod :lol:

Fine, Aelf, I agree with you, I wasn't blunt and to the point like "most" Europeans. Thus, I will rewrite my past post ;):
Before:


I think this is a good article for new players, but doesn't go as indepth with strategies and reasoning as games on the forums like Obsolete's, Aelf's, Sisutil's, etc, etc.
After:


I don't think this is a good article for new players, since it doesn't go in-depth, and is quite misleading at times. THE PYRAMIDS ARE TEH BOMBS!!!1!!!! YARRRR!!!!! HBSDHBSB!

:) Sorry about that. Seriously though, I'm sticking with my previous points and agree with van about American/constructive criticism.

Fine, Aelf, I agree with you, I wasn't blunt and to the point like "most" Europeans. Thus, I will rewrite my past post ;):
Before:

After:


I don't think this is a good article for new players, since it doesn't go in-depth, and is quite misleading at times. THE PYRAMIDS ARE TEH BOMBS!!!1!!!! YARRRR!!!!! HBSDHBSB!

:) Sorry about that. Seriously though, I'm sticking with my previous points and agree with van about American/constructive criticism.

Oh, well. At least you aren't going to flame anyone for not being so pleasant. No, you're too smart for such irony :p

The Pyramids Are Teh Bomb Diggiest Bomb-ba-domerama! Woot Woot!

alrighty, I think we all made our point about how we see criticism and which way it should/could be delivered or not. let's not turn this into a discussion/flamewar about it. after all it is a thread about an essay on the importance of pyramids or not, respectively.

pyramidz is teh b0mbs, I agree!!11oneone ;)

cheers
-wannabewarlord

Discuss the article, in a constructive manner.

As Obsolete pointed out, you should never say never in such articles. I found the content of the article to be reasonably informative, but the overall condescending tone and cockiness of it turned me off completely.

There are much "smarter" ways to write such articles, without sounding like you have "Solved" Civ IV. Changing a few words here and there, mostly the "absolute" words like never, certain, always, will, permanently, etc, would go a long way to tidying up the writing. Lets look at an example:

First off, you absolutely must have Stone. Without Stone, you can chop Forests to a fare-thee-well, and some other Civ will pile up those Quarry blocks faster than you can. All you’ll end up doing is permanently denuding your landscape (which doesn’t do your Health any good), and ruining squares which could later run Lumbermills.

Now, here is my version of what he just said:

First off, if you dont have Stone or are not IND, it may be better to skip the Pyramids altogether. While you can certainly chop a pile of forests in an attempt to build them, there is a strong possibility that another Civ is going to be able to build them faster, especially if they are IND or have stone, or even both. You also risk a significant health hit removing so many forests, and ultimately, its more likely that all you have done is convert your precious Forest tiles into failed-Wonder gold. Forests make excellent late-game production tiles with Lumbermills, or could be saved for chopping out other important buildings/units mid-game, even other Wonders that you have a higher percentage of being the first to build.

I wont condemn the writer or his article, but the responses to his abrasiveness was fairly predictable. The quickest way to create negativity is to make do-all, end-all claims with a chip on your shoulder, regardless of the actual value of the content of your "claims".

I just read through most of that pdf thing. Though I did skim past the last few pages as I could not find it holding my attention.

The Grammar is not TOO bad, so that is a plus, though you should watch some things. Using words like FAG-End can get you into a little bit of trouble.

Also, be careful about telling people that their chances of winning are absolute zero, due to a few unlucky events occuring. There are games posted in detail here which contradict your claims.

I also find it hard to take strategic claims seriously when the game must be 'rigged' to prevent the AI from achieving other victories, which they have been designed to do.

Why is there no statement on what level this is being played on?

Nice write up. Ive just started on Immortal level and still learning. The research given is just too much to ingore and without it I find it hard to keep up. Instead of wasting hammers building it though, if you are lucky you can pour those hammers into units and capture the pyramids when its built if its near. A small transition into police state b4 rep wouldnt be too bad if you are at war also.

I used to use the strategy of GW then Pyramids (later the GL too) in capital and then if I was lucky the oracle in my 2nd city for a CoL slingshot, the problem I hit was not popping a GS in the 1st 2 tries, and getting a GSpy or GE. Although both are useful it hurt my science city advancement.

Anyway its alays good to read other new opinions, especially when you are stuck on one that isnt working at higher levels.

The pdf file is pretty astonishing and impressive.

I never build the pyramids without stone, It's just not worth it to me. All the chops neccesary to build them without stone is insane. I never chop unless I have a modifier like stone or marble for wonders, or it's a special building. The only exeption to that rule is if I need alittle extra military unit production but this is limited. People are going to hate me for this but I think the pyramids are highly overrated. I play on the high difficulty levels and always win on emporor (and thats without world builder or reloading) and I just plan my initial conquest on getting happy rescources and making friends with people with resources I need. A complete peacemonger may disagree with my anti-pyramids rant but it's not for me. I'm usually slaving in my cities so much a specialist economy in the early game doesn't make scence to me. besides I can get to the republic pretty fast if I want to trough tech, and it seems to me that alot of people think it just takes forever to get to it.
I've heard people say I don't like to war until cavalry or later, the I can see why people are addicted to the pyramids. I mean honestly no heroic epic until cavalry (I play vanilla, I guess in bts you can use great generals to boost xp or something, I don't know). To me early wars are vital if anything to crush cities for money and free workers and the other obvious benefits of warmongering but more than anything to get the heroic epic up and the pyramids don't usually fit into the equastion (unless early stone and lots of trees to chop with it). I know some people are going to say "well some people don't like to warmonger" well in my honest opinion that's just not very intelligent (No heroic epic until cavalry or later AHHHH, sorry for repeatig but the heroic epic is AWSOME).

I am fast coming to the conclusion that the way you win CivIV is the same way you won Civ I, i.e., by going to war early and often.

All the advances in the game, whether they be monetary advances (gold), science advances (beakers), or cultural advances (little purple flutey thingies)—are additive in nature. The more you have, the faster you advance.

You can either manufacture these things (via improvements, population growth, wonders, and so on)—or you can steal them. Stealing is not only much faster, it hobbles your opponents as you go along.

When you capture a city, not only do you steal the city itself, you steal all the labor that went into it—its improvements, its towns and villages, and its developed resources—plus a boatload of gold.

The money you can use to keep your science pumping—even if you're running sizeable deficits—and the continual infusion of science beakers from conquered territory (often augmented by Academies your opponents have helpfully built for you) can really push your Science into the stratosphere.

The real challenge of Civ IV is to maintain a smooth, unbroken curve of conquest and expansion until you've established such a powerful lead no one will ever stand a chance of catching you. Then you can win as you choose.

Civilization IV ain't SimCity. It ain't a building game. In the higher difficulties, it's all about war, war, war. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of this game.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that the way you win CivIV is the same way you won Civ I, i.e., by going to war early and often.

All the advances in the game, whether they be monetary advances (gold), science advances (beakers), or cultural advances (little purple flutey thingies)—are additive in nature. The more you have, the faster you advance.

You can either manufacture these things (via improvements, population growth, wonders, and so on)—or you can steal them. Stealing is not only much faster, it hobbles your opponents as you go along.

When you capture a city, not only do you steal the city itself, you steal all the labor that went into it—its improvements, its towns and villages, and its developed resources—plus a boatload of gold.

The money you can use to keep your science pumping—even if you're running sizeable deficits—and the continual infusion of science beakers from conquered territory (often augmented by Academies your opponents have helpfully built for you) can really push your Science into the stratosphere.

The real challenge of Civ IV is to maintain a smooth, unbroken curve of conquest and expansion until you've established such a powerful lead no one will ever stand a chance of catching you. Then you can win as you choose.

Civilization IV ain't SimCity. It ain't a building game. In the higher difficulties, it's all about war, war, war. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of this game.

I'd agree that military knowledge and use is essential in the game, but you don't HAVE to war early and often, and sometimes doing so is suboptimal.

Don't get me wrong, I love warmongering so much that I HATE space and culture wins (I do use diplo wins to end games earlier - aka the "vassals vote for you method). Still, if there's a lot of room to peacefully expand, it makes more sense to do that first and THEN take the lands from the AI. You can often wall off land, keeping nearby AI's smaller than they'd normally be and making conquering them less difficult. You may want to delay for a more hammer-efficient unit to conquer with or so that your opponent "builds a shrine for you" etc. also.

For me though, everything I do is intended to further a military advantage (except for doing something like building the UN, which isn't military but is often the culmination). Even within that constraint, war isn't ALWAYS optimal, you have to pick your time and targets ;).

Also, I don't like getting the mids, I like playing the map. The exception is if I start with stone and I'm playing LAN with my roommate...he relies on the "pyramids strategy" quite heavily, and it's fun to watch him squirm when they go in 1500 BC to me because I settled my 2nd city on stone and chopped them :p. Noble AIs suck anyway so screwing him is my optimal play in those games IMO :lol:.

Normally though, for the hammers it takes to make mids I'd rather make military or workers/settlers to claim good land, run HR, and work good tiles while running a few library specialists here and there. I often find this barely weaker techwise than the mids early game, and it quickly overtakes a pure mids specialist strategy as you tech CS/cities grow.

Edit: More relevant to your OP, I also skip TGL unless I am industrious/have marble - again for the investment it requires you can often just out-do it with traditional means.

One wonder that seems to be the bees knees or something lately is the great lighthouse - and using it i've found it's nearly as powerful as the mids. Even then, a lot of maps don't shake out where building it is better than units.

Of course, any of these wonders are equally useful when captured ;).

The art of the higher difficulty levels is to know when to fight and when to stop.

The art of the higher difficulty levels is to know when to fight and when to stop.

Is it REALLY necessary to take my nice, long-winded post and summarize it effectively in one sentence :cry:?

Is it REALLY necessary to take my nice, long-winded post and summarize it effectively in one sentence :cry:?

Maxims are awesome :smug:

maybe you don't have to war often, but I think you have to atleat war once early, atleast by the time you get to Literature to get the heroic epic. the buildings cheap and equivalent to an ironworks for units. When playing on higher difficulties I find I just can't keep up with the computers unit production while with it I can usually surpass it allowing me to take on much larger campaignes later to take over entire empires instead of just taking capitols which is usually the goal of an early war.

maybe you don't have to war often, but I think you have to atleat war once early, atleast by the time you get to Literature to get the heroic epic.

In BtS, at least, Barbarians can take your units to level 4, which is the requirement for the Heroic Epic.

I still don't get why people are so obsessed with the Pyramids. It's so bloody costly in hammers and representation is not the easiest civic to use anyway.

Early Representation is awesome on higher levels, where beakers are more precious and happiness caps are low.