An Alternative to the "Pyramids" Strategy

[TinkerJohn]

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.

 

[bentley004]

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.

 

[Gooblah]

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.

 

[Jerrymander]

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.

 

[aelf]

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?

Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[wannabewarlord]

@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
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

 

[vanatteveldt]

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 ...

 

[wannabewarlord]

amen, vanatteveldt

 

[bestbrian]

Please, pardon the interruption.

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

Now back to the conversation.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[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).

Sorry. It was, after all, a guess 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
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.

 

[aelf]

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.

 

[TinkerJohn]

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!

 

[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!

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

 

[Gooblah]

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.

 

[aelf]

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

 

[TinkerJohn]

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

 

[wannabewarlord]

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

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Discuss the article, in a constructive manner.

 

[Bleys]

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".

 

[PopHut]

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?