Pyramids

[vicawoo]

A good test game is when you have to race to get a good block off before you get boxed in, and see whether it's worth failing the block and losing significant chunks of land.

When you have a predetermined chunk of land and therefore hammers to spare, then you might as well. When it's low enough difficulty that you can squeeze 250 hammers at the cost of around 250 commerce (run higher maintenance), it's worth it.

 

[Smokey McDope]

I'm in the shoulda spent the hammers for axes crowd on this. Rep is decent sometimes but even as someone who prefers an early specialist economy I find that monarchy works just fine, or better if you run caste too.

 

[Steve the Noble]

I rarely go for pyramids since my early focus is usually on claiming land and getting workers busy. Plus, I never have stone in my capital.

For those who normally do go for pyramids from the start, what's your main shift in strategy once they're built, since presumably you've sacrificed a bit of expansion? (Aside from switching civics of course.)

 

[futurehermit]

I've always been a huge fan of pyramids and rep scientists.

I'll go for pyramids if I'm industrious and/or have stone in capital or 2nd city.

You do sacrifice some expansion, so you have to pay attention to the situation around you. There are times where I'll be playing as Roosey for example and have stone nearby, so I go for pyramids, but meanwhile overlook the fact that I've got 2-3 civs, maybe even some aggressors, starting to box me in. That is a situation where going to war or blocking off land and defending until a tech advantage is the better option.

Like all things civ, the answer is "it depends." When pyramids work, it's an awesome wonder to have, especially with a spiritual civ. But when other openings are stronger, they should be skipped over in favour of other options.

 

[Dirk1302]

^You need to run quite a lot of rep specs to make it worth while. And doing this it won't be easy to whip the necessary infra in your cities. The problem with cutting down on expansion is that Mids are most profitable if you do have a lot of cities with a library and 2 scientists assigned. If you only have ~4 cities that can do this your research will be a bit better than without rep but not spectacularly so.

Imo GLH is a much better wonder than mids usually. It just works independently of your other activities. You can keep on whipping and expanding (the more the merrier as long as it's coast) and the bonus is still there.

 

[ben-jammin]

People see the pyramids as a "game changer" but that doesn't mean it makes your game any easier to win, really. you just have to change the way you play to take advantage of representation. And as more talented players than I are pointing out, that change can mean a slight improvement in short term tech pace at the cost of just about everything else. I'd think that the pyramids get less effective on immortal and even less so on deity where the competition for land gets way more pressing. Rep = less whipping. Mids = fewer forests left and what, 2 fewer settlers if you have stone or are industrious?

 

[dalamb]

... if you have stone or are industrious?

Lots of people have said they have to have stone, but, as ben-jammin suggests, isn't IND sufficient?

Also people have focused on the usefulness of Representation -- which is certainly the civic I use most. But I've found that once I can build up a fair amount of gold, sometimes Universal Suffrage is the best way to get a low-hammer city to produce the few buildings it needs (e.g. a commerce city with lots of grassland but few or no hills, or a tundra city with some critical resource).

 

[Zechnophobe]

The discussion of hammer cost to commercial cost is very tricky of course. The thing about representation is that it allows your first cities to grow substantially larger, due to a massive +3 happiness boost (one that doesn't require any further tech or buildings to be built). So while you lose out on the additional cities, you don't necessarily lose out as badly on the total Tiles worked.

And of course large cities are more efficient maintenance wise, so you gain a bit there too.

However, things are never that simple. In the short term, building the Mids can be incredibly dangerous. Lack of sufficient defenses is just one very big possible problem. You may also lose out on getting the 'good' land that you need. Failing to get that gems and wet corn site because you greedily grabbed the pyramids is a bigger problem than just having less cities, it is also having potentially lower quality ones.

It is a calculated risk, and I generally don't go for it unless I have either Stone or IND, and then possibly not even then.

 

[Mylene]

Pyras is what players like Obselete do, and there is a reason why they win Deity.
Rep. Scientists are always worth it, i didn't play a single Civ4 game where this was not true.

 

[Dirk1302]

^True but obsolete bases a lot of his strategy around the Mids. Settling every spec in capital brings in a lot of revenue obviously under rep and building it is important for his strat so he's willing to sac expansion and even improved food tiles in in favor of production to get it. I can easily imagine a game where having Mids wouldn't make much of a difference. Have played many of these games too.

 

[Mylene]

^^ Yip, the strategy is simply to not use slow cottages to shoot to military tradition & Co.
I find that is the faster way usually, might be arguable with FIN but i like the flexibility without cottages a lot more as well. It seems many really underestimate the combined research & bulb power of rep. specialists, when the cottages are finally mature enough to be worth it the Pyramids "economy" will already start whipping out those horses

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Build the Pyramids if you think you can get away with it. Otherwise, don't

 

[Dirk1302]

^^ Yip, the strategy is simply to not use slow cottages to shoot to military tradition & Co.
I find that is the faster way usually, might be arguable with FIN but i like the flexibility without cottages a lot more as well. It seems many really underestimate the combined research & bulb power of rep. specialists, when the cottages are finally mature enough to be worth it the Pyramids "economy" will already start whipping out those horses

But it's mostly the bulb power that makes this route so fast, not the extra science from rep. Cottages are fine and can bring you to mil trad fast as well as long as you build them near the capital and build them early. Other cities shouldn't build much of them or you will lose a lot of flexibility indeed.

 

[futurehermit]

Don't forget that there's some situations where you can build pyramids and still expand quite a bit and also that not everyone plays immortal/deity

 

[Um the Muse]

I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, it seems that Rep is more useful for the +3 than the +3 /turn. If we assume that a GPP is worth the same as a beaker, Rep increases our yield per scientist by 50% (a little higher if you have a library as well, which you probably do), whereas the +3 gives three cities the opportunity to work 3 more tiles or specialists at a time when you're just hitting your limit of four . Assuming these tiles are worth as much on average, you've increased your yields by 75% across most of your empire.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, it seems that Rep is more useful for the +3 than the +3 /turn. If we assume that a GPP is worth the same as a beaker, Rep increases our yield per scientist by 50% (a little higher if you have a library as well, which you probably do), whereas the +3 gives three cities the opportunity to work 3 more tiles or specialists at a time when you're just hitting your limit of four . Assuming these tiles are worth as much on average, you've increased your yields by 75% across most of your empire.

This is often very true. I think the real reason representation IS so good though is because it has both the delicious boost RIGHT NOW of +3 happiness, while also the long term massive boost of +3 science. Once you sail into Code of Laws, and have a GP farm, or science farm (sometimes it is both) you will be getting much more science from the civic.

Also, if you do early game conquest, where specialists are often a great way to dig you out of debt, you can get that much more from each of them.

Lastly, 1 Hammer 3 science starts looking like a much better default case, especially if you can't grow. 2 Food 1 hammer in a happy capped city? or 1 hammer 3 science? Good stuff.

 

[ben-jammin]

Pyras is what players like Obselete do, and there is a reason why they win Deity.
Rep. Scientists are always worth it, i didn't play a single Civ4 game where this was not true.

And if obsolete took a few more early cities instead of the mids, especially if the land was strong, would he be any less able to win with a non specialist economy?

 

[Dirk1302]

Don't forget that there's some situations where you can build pyramids and still expand quite a bit and also that not everyone plays immortal/deity

If you can expand to a positon where you can build 5+ libraries and run 2 scientists in each while still having a reasonable food surplus in these cities mids is good indeed as here the extra science really begins to count. But in a small empire Mids doesn't do that much or you should run caste. Which brings out the other obvious point, Mids are much stronger when having a spiritual leader. Ramesses is obviously perfect for mids strategies. Philo is good of course as well as running scientists in multiple cities is much more attractive now.

 

[Dirk1302]

And if obsolete took a few more early cities instead of the mids, especially if the land was strong, would he be any less able to win with a non specialist economy?

No he would still win, i have seen him win domination often enough. I have always thought obsolete's mids strategy very original but i don't think it's the fastest let alone safest way to win the game.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my games, it seems that Rep is more useful for the +3 than the +3 /turn. If we assume that a GPP is worth the same as a beaker, Rep increases our yield per scientist by 50% (a little higher if you have a library as well, which you probably do), whereas the +3 gives three cities the opportunity to work 3 more tiles or specialists at a time when you're just hitting your limit of four . Assuming these tiles are worth as much on average, you've increased your yields by 75% across most of your empire.

Certainly true and significant. But there's sometimes a slight downside to it as well. Especially with few happy resources around you're sometimes forced out of rep especially if you whip a lot of infra. However you can fight this problem most of the time by capping your cities assigning specs so i agree the + side from 3 happiness is significant.

 

[Mylene]

There are disadvantages in blocking off land from the AI and taking more early cities as well.
Specially without the mids, some of the cities would be no good for the horse units rush, in many @AZ videos you can see how he stays small for a rush.