PYRAMIDS a must or no??

[Glidebent]

I'd have to say yes, it's a must. Same as Sun Tzu's Art of War and Magellan's Voyage for me

I agree 100% on that one, but i go for The Great Lighthouse, as well as the UN and Longlivety.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

Pyramids aren't really necessary, none of the great wonders are. On deity you will normally get beaten to all the early wonders, so it's not usually worth going for any of them. By the middle ages I only build a wonder if I have a GL left over after completing the FP. Otherwise, I lose the race to all of these as well (I don't try building them). The first great wonder I'd go for is Darwin's (industrial age), it can be helpful in getting a couple techs closer to Tanks. Almost all the cities containing wonders I capture end up getting razed too, in fact I often send units in to raze the core cities of my most dangerous enemies. This not only kills off their productivity, but it kills off their culture too. Nothing more satisfying than seeing your biggest rival, who used to be 'disdainful' of your culture 200 years ago worshipping your cultural superiority.

 

[Sid]

I hardly bother with The Pyramids on higher levels because a) as someone else wrote--the AI gets in first; and b) it only affects cities on the same continent and I'm usually playing with lots of islands. I prefer civilisation-wide wonders with lasting effects, as well as Small Wonders which help my late-game conquering strategies. I still miss the ability to 'hurry' Wonders/Secret Projects such as using the Supply Transport in SMAC/X.

 

[Ozymandius]

I normally play the Egyptians and for them the Pyramids starts the Golden Age. Because happiness scores are so important I build the Oracle first.

If the AI beats you to the Wonders have your second most productive city build the palace. When the opportunity arises to build a new wonder, switch production. At warlord and regent levels I am able to build nearly every wonder this way

 

[anderson]

I actually avoid building the pyramids. The exploding populations cause me too much grief. If I cannot build the happiness wonders quickly enough then I have to convert general population to specialists just to keep them from filling up the grain box too quickly. This usually decreases the amount of cash being brought in as the person you replace may haul in multiple coins that split between coins and flasks. The specialist only hauls in one coin or one flask. Sometimes I have to convert them to relatively useless Elvi. Especially in the higher levels, the unhappiness develops too quickly.

 

[God]

Which is better, Sistines or Bachs?

I think Bachs is because i usually don't have too many chathedrals until modern era when i'm trying to please my tons of unhappy people in those large cities.

Pyramids are not a big deal for me. i don't want my pop to grow too quickly because then they'll be tons of unhappiness. I build a few grananries and later try to get the Pyramids. Great Libary is big and i usually set up my capital with Pyramids and switch to GL as soon as i get literature.

 

[Arrian]

Originally posted by God
Which is better, Sistines or Bachs?

I think Bachs is because i usually don't have too many chathedrals until modern era when i'm trying to please my tons of unhappy people in those large cities.

I disagree. Big time. The Sistine, in my opinion, is the best Wonder in the game. I build my cathedrals in the early middle ages, and having double-strength cathedrals is awesome. Particularly if you are fighting as a republic or democracy. Bach's is also nice, but if I had to choose, there's no contest.

-Arrian

 

[DrSpike]

Sistine's over Bach's by a country mile.............And pyramids only for Monarch and under. Even then it's not worth losing sleep over, no great wonders are that important in civ3.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I second Arrians opinion on Sixt vs. bach. Especially since Sixt comes earlier and can be gotten without Edu - so if you have the Great library - why would you go for Bachs???

 

[Amask]

Originally posted by God

Pyramids are not a big deal for me. i don't want my pop to grow too quickly because then they'll be tons of unhappiness. I build a few grananries and later try to get the Pyramids. Great Libary is big and i usually set up my capital with Pyramids and switch to GL as soon as i get literature.

Strongly agree. Granaries are quite useless unless you are playing on a huge map and have to expand fast. I start on them but change to GR. LIBRARY as soon as possible.

I also like Smith Trading Company - saves tons of money.

 

[DPS]

I gotta agree with those who say the pyramids are not a must have in Civ III. On the other hand, I can't agree that they are less important in Civ III than in Civ II. In both, I don't want my cities to grow too fast, until I can keep the unhappiness in check. But I think they are a bit more important in Civ III because now a settler decreases your city size by 2 instead of 1 and even a worker decreases it by 1, so if you don't grow population fast enough, you can't expand. And an empire that doesn't expand enough early can't compete.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I have changed my opinion on Pyramids in recent weeks. Now I have developed a playing style (Monarch) where, if I have a productive capital and a fastgrwoing (floodplain) second city, I build the Pyramids in the capital ASAP. Production there is like Scout/Warrior (goes exploring), Warrior (Warrior/Scout, Warrior if production is high), Settler, (2nd and 3rd Warrior if not already done before), Temple, Pyramids.
I end up getting them, then lots od settlers quickly, thus outexpanding the AI. The Luxuries I get produce enough happiness so the fast growth doen`t even lead to more unhappiness.

Basically it is not a good idea to limit growth because of happiness unless the terrain is so bad that making entertainers leads to starvation. Let them grow, make entertainers, and when you get a new lux or a happiness wonder you can instantly convert them to productive citizens.
This can be a say 10% advantage over restricted growth, but only when you plant your cities next to freshwaterm otherwise the bonus from the Pyramids gets lost on the size 6 limit or by the cost (prod and maint.) of Aqueducts.

Still, they aren`t a must!

 

[planetfall]

Used to think pyramids were essential, but now only go for them if playing just a couple civs and I need to keep Egypt from going golden age too soon.

Arrian is correct Sistene is much more important for a long term builder game play style. Since I switched from sacrificing as much as necessary to get pyramids, I have not noticed any hampering of game play. Now I just build a few granaries in the key cities I need, and focus more on discovering resouces. This is with major continent land masses. Make your land masses smaller and pyramids are even less important.

Bach is a sucker move by the AI. I don't even try. Why bother, little boast in ONE city and small bip on culture. Gold is much more urgently needed elsewhere, like getting rr, etc.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Bach is a sucker move by the AI. I don't even try. Why bother, little boast in ONE city and small bip on culture. Gold is much more urgently needed elsewhere, like getting rr, etc.

Are you thinking of Shakesphere's? Shakesphere's only affects one city. Bachs makes two people content in all cities.

If you are a Republic or Democracy, then Sistine is better, since you will be building cathedrals anyways. In a monarchy, with military police and Bachs, that is just as good as getting the Sistine, but you wouldn't need to build cathedrals in ALL your cities. IMHO Edit: The only downfall is Bach's only affects the continent it's built on, but since I play pangea maps, whether the effect is continental or global doesn't matter.