Post patch.. SE worth it??

[futurehermit]

Don't forget that with HR, you have to PAY for your happiness. What do I mean? Each unit costs $$ in maintenance. The +3beakers/specialist shouldn't be underestimated, especially in the crucial early game. Sure, once you get markets, guilds, etc. etc. etc. in the capital you get some nice multipliers, but what about all those critical early game turns, where you just have libraries? Imo it is in those crucial times that the SE really shows what it's made of.

 

[Dirk1302]

Don't forget that with HR, you have to PAY for your happiness. What do I mean? Each unit costs $$ in maintenance. The +3beakers/specialist shouldn't be underestimated, especially in the crucial early game. Sure, once you get markets, guilds, etc. etc. etc. in the capital you get some nice multipliers, but what about all those critical early game turns, where you just have libraries? Imo it is in those crucial times that the SE really shows what it's made of.

The 3 extra beakers/specialist are indeed very nice in the early game but instead of the pyramids i can also get at least 2 workers, one settler and a couple of units which might well be more important at higher levels. But if i see a good possibility of gettting it (stone and extra choppable wood) i still go for it.

 

[UncleJJ]

The 3 extra beakers/specialist are indeed very nice in the early game but instead of the pyramids i can also get at least 2 workers, one settler and a couple of units which might well be more important at higher levels. But if i see a good possibility of gettting it (stone and extra choppable wood) i still go for it.

Agreed; with stone the effort of making the Pyramids is equivalent to losing the opportunity to found another early city. Without stone it is equivalent to 2 early cities. An Industrious leader is somewhere between.

Ask yourself this when going for the Pyramid gambit, am I better off with 2 cities and the Pyramids or with 4 cities? The so called benefit of free beakers comes at a significant development cost.

Can those 2 extra cities (which should always be well ahead of the same cities founded later in the Pyramid case) produce the same amount of research? Yes, and often much more depending the situation. They also produce more hammers and culture and other benefits like grabbing resources.

 

[Dirk1302]

Indeed the difference seems to be roughly 2 cities without stone:

I tried 2 different scenarios on Emperor, a gambit with the great wall --> pyramids and a scenario with just normal development.In the first scenario i managed to build pyramids 800 bc but i had only one good city with one worker just building a settler at this time. I had to build a library first to assign a specialist so that the GE for pyramids arrived in time.

In the second scenario i had 3 good cities and 2 workers connecting resources and building mines about 800 bc.

Apart from the fact that the second scenario seems better, the first is not very reliable, i had to reload a few times to get pyramids before the Americans. Also with assigning a scientist to speed up the GE there is a small chance (some 20 &#37 that you get a GS this would more or less mean game over.

 

[futurehermit]

The benefit isn't "so called", it's a benefit. The thing is, with pyramids, you start off smaller, but you end up larger. With a SE with pyramids you are able to expand much larger than you could with a CE and your tech rate will be much faster than a SE without the pyramids.

And don't forget that when you are recovering after building the pyramids, you can use police state to build your army.

If you have stone in your capital or 2nd city imo you should always make a play for the pyramids (unless you have like no forests to chop).

 

[Dirk1302]

^I agree that the Pyramids are a huge benefit, especially for a largely peaceful style of playing like mine. It's just hard to get it at emperor, i usually went for it on Monarch.

 

[frob2900]

I think the whole pyramids thing is kind of crazy in the sense that it just completely changes the face of a SE. Yes its possible to run one without them but still, its kind of a thorn in ones side to know how many beakers are wasted without them...

I know its slightly stupid to discuss, but I actually think it would be better if they either removed the +3 beakers from representation and/or changed what the pyramids did (free granary in every city anyone? ) and just gave some more beakers to the scientist specialist.

Just imagine if there was a wonder that added +2 or +3 commerce to every cottage... it would be just crazy to pass up...

 

[futurehermit]

I think the whole pyramids thing is kind of crazy in the sense that it just completely changes the face of a SE. Yes its possible to run one without them but still, its kind of a thorn in ones side to know how many beakers are wasted without them...

I know its slightly stupid to discuss, but I actually think it would be better if they either removed the +3 beakers from representation and/or changed what the pyramids did (free granary in every city anyone? ) and just gave some more beakers to the scientist specialist.

Just imagine if there was a wonder that added +2 or +3 commerce to every cottage... it would be just crazy to pass up...

Then representation would be useless...then I would never build pyramids (like stonehenge and obelisks, granaries are easy enough to poprush when whipping away unhappiness)...no one would ever pass up that wonder, I agree. However, as many people point out, pyramids tend to be situational, at least in the highest levels (emperor+), since they are very expensive without industrial and/or especially stone. Plus you start out with a smaller initial empire. It's high-risk, high-reward. I don't think pyramids are unbalanced, but they sure are nice. I'm working on the great wall-GE-free pyramids gambit with gandhi right now and I think I'm going to have something to knock peoples' socks off with

 

[Dirk1302]

Then representation would be useless...then I would never build pyramids (like stonehenge and obelisks, granaries are easy enough to poprush when whipping away unhappiness)...no one would ever pass up that wonder, I agree. However, as many people point out, pyramids tend to be situational, at least in the highest levels (emperor+), since they are very expensive without industrial and/or especially stone. Plus you start out with a smaller initial empire. It's high-risk, high-reward. I don't think pyramids are unbalanced, but they sure are nice. I'm working on the great wall-GE-free pyramids gambit with gandhi right now and I think I'm going to have something to knock peoples' socks off with

I would be very interested if you can get this gambit to work on emperor with a certain margin of safety .I've also tried it as Ghandi on a not so good start without stone and and only 6 forests. I couldn't really make it work and i really tried hard with different sequences. Keep us posted!

 

[frob2900]

Then representation would be useless...then I would never build pyramids (like stonehenge and obelisks, granaries are easy enough to poprush when whipping away unhappiness)...no one would ever pass up that wonder, I agree. However, as many people point out, pyramids tend to be situational, at least in the highest levels (emperor+), since they are very expensive without industrial and/or especially stone. Plus you start out with a smaller initial empire. It's high-risk, high-reward. I don't think pyramids are unbalanced, but they sure are nice. I'm working on the great wall-GE-free pyramids gambit with gandhi right now and I think I'm going to have something to knock peoples' socks off with

Without stone/industrious the pyramids are horribly difficult to get. I once played on the right side of a Great Plains map (just grassland and forests, no stone) and basically had to chop an entire fat cross worth of trees to get them

The granary thing is actually what the pyramids used to do in civ1 or civ2, cant remember which..

I do think they are slightly unbalanced in the sense that IMHO the pyramids just blow any other wonder away in power, especially since they become buildable at masonry, which is one of the earliest techs around..

If I'm in the mood to play a specialist game and get beat to the pyramids I'll often start a war just to conquer them..

 

[futurehermit]

If I ever see a neighbour builds the pyramids and I'm not going for them (usually when I go for them I know I can get them), I'll make him the first target.

Pyramids' strength depends on running a spec econ (some exceptions). I agree that they are more powerful than most of the other early wonders, although of course oracle can be quite powerful given the right conditions as well.

And I will chop a whole fat cross worth of forests to get the pyramids. I think it's worth it I don't think anyone would dispute pyramids are very powerful. But I think you have to pay quite a lot (especially with the recent nerf) to get them.

 

[karr1255]

you title is wrong obviously. You dont need pyramids for SE, where the hell did this idea originated in the first place??

This is very important. A lot of people think that a hamlet is as good as a scientist. Your science slider won't(and shouldn't) be at 100% all game. Realistically you hover around 50% maybe 60%. Plus of course scientists produce GPP. With the pyramids a SE simply blows a CE out of the water in early+mid game.

 

[frob2900]

you title is wrong obviously. You dont need pyramids for SE, where the hell did this idea originated in the first place??

Would you say that smart lightbulbing using GS is the most important part of an SE, rather than the per/turn beakers from the specialists?

I have noticed for myself that with good bulbing its possible to pull of fantastic tech leaps such as early biology etc. Still I've not made my mind up about settling great scientists.. outside of oxford I would say its not very good..

 

[acidsatyr]

YES, that is the point. Early research in SE is mostly done with bulbing not beakers. Once you get Representation it's different.
Settling scientists is the worst option you can do with them.

 

[frob2900]

Settling scientists is the worst option you can do with them.

Post oxford/observatory I sometimes think of settling in the oxford city, since I can get ~40 beakers/turn with the scientist then and bulbing isnt so very powerful then (i.e. gives only ca 1/4 of the juicy techs).

 

[acidsatyr]

If GS at that time gives you ~2000 beakers with lbulbing, and settling that scientists gives you ~40 beakers per turn (meaning, takes 50 turns to give you 2000), which one you think is better?

 

[frob2900]

Ok, I agree with that.

Would you say the same logic extends to merchants (i.e. trade mission rather than settle), and engineers (wonders..). I do have a habit of settling my engineers in the ironworks city because with 3 or more settled engineers + ironworks + optionally Heroic epic I can crank out units like theres no tomorrow.

 

[futurehermit]

I used to think settling GSs in your super science city is the way to go, but that's just plain wrong (thanks acidsatyr, i've learned a lot from your games). Settling them will theoretically give you more beakers in the long run, but the thing is once you add tech trading to the equation you get WAAAY more beakers from lightbulbing because you then trade that (usually superior) tech to a couple AI civs for a bunch more tech = major saved beakers