PYRAMIDS a must or no??

[alancarre]

Any wonder that can trigger a golden age for you is a *must* in my book. The Pyramids however, can really be a pain in the arse because your cities will grow too quickly and everybody will get upset. IMHO, without respect to golden ages, I think the best wonders are those that reduce unhappiness or improve science output.

BTW. Did anybody notice that there's a limit on how quickly you can get a scientific advance? I noticed that if it says say: "4 turns to discovery", I can often reduce my science spending to almost zero and remain at '4' turns because of this limit. I think this is a bug but I'm not sure.

- Alan

 

[SirBruce]

Yes, 4 turns seems to be the limit. Time to sell of those useless universities.

Pyramids are pretty close to a must-have because granaries are SOOO EXPENSIVE. I'd say Hoover Dam is also a must-have, not so much for reducing the need to build hydro plants everywhere but so you don't have to build coal plants for extra production which pollute way too much to be worth it. Then when nuclear comes along, switch to nuclear.

Sun Tzu's is pretty nice, but not essential unless you're a warmonger.

Bruce

 

[LayZMan]

Originally posted by SirBruce

Sun Tzu's is pretty nice, but not essential unless you're a warmonger.

Warmonger isn't exactly the best way to put it. Some players are like me. Content w/ the land mass we have, but the computer is dumb enough to challenge our military...so we go seize a couple of their cities or just crush the entire civ if they have been a pain through the game (the computer...now there are some warmongering civs, right now in my current game the Greeks just can't stop fighting). W/ this said sometimes that free barrack is useful for upgrading before or during a war if you've been continuing research and have the money (this is why I usually need Leo's Shop). Since huge culture means little to me, the era bonus doesn't matter to me w/ Pyramids. Like someone else said, it is one of those wonders best left to another civ to build and sack them later (esp. if nearby).

PS-Still say granaries are worthless between discoveries of new governments and the modern era. Think Mike C hit it on the head, since cities are stuck at 12 until the industrial age, the wonder is not as great as it could be.

 

[Proteus]

No, it gives you a very nice advantage, but in my current game, where the Iroquoise got em before me I don´t miss them very much. I´m No. 1 in Science, Culture and Military Power nevertheless

 

[Special_O]

Well, I started a game yesterday where the AI is beating me to all the early wonders... Guess we'll see how it goes.

 

[SirBruce]

Originally posted by LayZMan

PS-Still say granaries are worthless between discoveries of new governments and the modern era. Think Mike C hit it on the head, since cities are stuck at 12 until the industrial age, the wonder is not as great as it could be.

Then you're missing the point. Yes, the cities will cap at 12 for several turns, but with a granary you'll grow to that size nearly twice as fast. Which would you rather have, 50 turns of size 12 cities or 10 turns of size 12 cities and 40 turns of smaller sizes until sanitation comes along?

You your size gets capped you switch to concentrating on production and getting the rest of improvements and wonders you don't have yet. Or, build lots of settlers and workers so you'll have massive development before railroads come along.

Bruce

 

[Protaxis]

SirBruce, yep. That's pretty much my line of thinking as well. Ancient age -> Industrial age is a long time to be playing. Having size 12 cities much before anyone else is quite an advantage, especially if many of your cities are located on rivers. (no need for building aqueducts)

 

[LayZMan]

I guess I just don't view my pop as important as you guys do. I focus on production to begin w/. I do sometimes build granaries (mainly if I have nothing else significant to build at that time) but reaching 12 asap means little to me, esp. depending on the terrain involved. Yes I agree a free granary is nice (as anything free), but not necessary for my style of play (at least not compared to other wonders). Instead of settlers and workers (which are pumped out easy anyhow), I push military defense then offense. I utilize the build palace to store shields towards a wonder when I don't have or want anything else to build. Until the modern era, my land is mostly mined up (grasslands anyhow). After wars, I have a ton of slaves anyhow, they'll do. With an industrious civ under democracy, the slaves are laying track every 2 turns on flats by themselves, paired they lay track every turn and I don't have to pay anything compared to my own workers (whom I reserve to strictly pollution cleanup).

 

[Protaxis]

I could care less about population for the sake of population. What I care about is production. Population = production, when all's said and done. (barring any corruption or unhappiness problems)

12 population = 12 squares getting worked on. All things being equal, a 12 population city will out-produce an 8-population city (or an 11-pop one, for that matter).

And if I have a handful of 12-pop cities 30 turns before my opponent does, while his highest cities are several 8s and 9s, then I am out-producing him by quite a margin.

I will also be able to pump out settlers and workers quite painlessly, as my population (and consequently, my production) returns to normal at a faster rate than that of my opponents.

Just my take on it, I could be wrong. ;p

 

[Magnus]

I build wonders according to my civilization's outlook - I will build the Pyramids for Industrious and/or Expansionist civ, but not if I am playing a civ that is neither of those types. I take on the personality of my civ!:crazyeyes

 

[SirBruce]

Originally posted by Protaxis
SirBruce, yep. That's pretty much my line of thinking as well. Ancient age -> Industrial age is a long time to be playing. Having size 12 cities much before anyone else is quite an advantage, especially if many of your cities are located on rivers. (no need for building aqueducts)

Rivers (and fresh water lakes too!) are where you want to build anyway if you can, because you need it for hydro and nuclear power later!

Bruce

 

[imalazypup]

In my opinion, Pyramids do vary on importance, depending on the size of land and all that stuff. But if you are on a decent size continent, then it almost is a must. Yes youll just stop at 6 or twelve, but alot faster. By that youll get more shields, faster, more everything, faster. And as long as you know how to keep your people happy, you shouldnt worry about pissed off people. In my games my people are always happy, i make sure of it. And its not to important if you only build cities YOURSELF, but if anyone plays like me, which is to build 8 or 9 with settlers (in good locations only), then pyramids are very important.

 

[tetley]

Define "must-have". Should you reload and restart if you don't get it? No. You WILL lose the race to Pyramids on Monarch and up a lot, so get used to it.

But not getting Pyramids really, really hurts.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I would have voted No if the poll hadnt closed. I am in no hurry to fill my outlying, waste-prone cities with extra people clamouring for temples and cathedrals and boo-hooing the oppression I brought down on them. And my manufacturing core cities are usually on their way to full up by the time the pyramids are built. Still, it is good to have that early culture. I build the pyramids but switch that city over to Great Library when I discover literature. Then I start building the pyramids again somewhere else (if I havent set one of my other cities to build palace in wait for this occassion). If you can get pyramids, that is fine, but if not, dont worry.

 

[Optimus]

I'm a persian player and as such I view building the Pyramids a must for my strategy. I also build it for pretty much any civ I play since I apply roughly always the same tactic.

I typically play on Monarch and build my Pyramid ASAP I mean after the 3rd or 4th city is built I use the one with the most sheilds to make it.

The BIG advantage I have from having the pyramids early is tha all important bonus growth to rivalise the expansion of the other civs. I'm a expansion/cultural freak. So i crank out much more settlers than my opponents and push back my empire boders as far as possible. The more city I have, the more ressource potential, growth potential and science I can generate. Even when my economic goals pushes me to use erm... decisive force the amount of cities I have make for a good production cushion, allowing me to maintain crucial city improvment construction. Another benifit from mass colonisation gained from the Pyramid's granaries are the added number of military units available at no cost under rudimentary governements because of my large number of cities.

To those who say it's difficult to manage your peoples happiness in an empire with large cities I reply 2 things:

1- With my strategy (mass colonisation), since you keep pumpin out settlers you keep city sizes manageable until you get the proper tech..

2- Since I occupy more territory I also control more luxuries, wich in turn takes care of the hapiness problem. What ever unhapppy people's left I trade remaining luxuries from other civs to compensate.

Then youre all set for Tech brokering !

But of cousre this strategy works well for my taste. So if I want to reap the most from this strat. I need to build the Pyramids not only before the other civ but ASAP so I outgrow them early on.

It's all about how much territory you have. The more space you have, the more cities you build thus more points and more science just to name some advantages.

 

[imalazypup]

Dude i play the same way, and use the same Civ. I love the persians, and you do pretty much EXACTLY what i do. Ha, jsut thinks thats cool.

 

[pompeynunn]

In Civ II I also used to class The Pyramids as a 'must have' wonder, and on lower levels in Civ 3 it is still a bloody excellent wonder to have. However, I'm not sure that it's possible to get it playing on the Deity level in Civ 3 - I would be interested to hear from anybody who has managed it on Deity yet.

Over the weekend I must have started about 10-15 games, each time with the best map I could get, trying to get the Pyramids on Deity, but haven't managed it once. I think it is because the AI players have 'bonus' units at the start of the game on higher levels, as well as their production bonus, which automatically puts the human player at a disadvantage.

I am starting to revise my thinking now for Deity in Civ 3 - I suspect that the 'Happiness' wonders such as the Sistine Chapel, and Magellen's Voyage, will be the 'must have' wonders for me in the future.

 

[Rear Admiral]

I'd have to say the Pyramids are definitely NOT a must have. To beat the AI building the Pyramids means I have to spend a lot of critical early game production to build it. My strategy is to build settlers to expand my territory. I'll build just enough warriors to fend off the barbarians and a couple of workers to link the cities but my primary objective so early in the game is to expand. Only when my borders start to get close to my nearest competitor do I start devoting a lot of resources to city improvements. I can produce enough settlers with my first 2 or 3 cities to almost guarantee a larger empire than most of the AI civs which is so much more helpful later in the game.

My vote for the "most needed" Great Wonder is the Great Library. From my experience, staying on the cutting edge of technology is the most important strategy.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

pyramids are definately a must, *especially* after longevity.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I try to build al the Culture wonders, but Heroic Epic, Military Academy, Pentagon get priority (yes I`m a warmonger )

All the other stuff - well that`s what I have a military for (except late in the game when wars get to big and cumbersome...)