1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Shall we attempt to build the Pyramids?

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by cav scout, Nov 25, 2012.

?

Should we attempt to build the Pyramids?

Poll closed Nov 27, 2012.
  1. Yes

    30.0%
  2. No

    70.0%
  1. Aivoturso

    Aivoturso King

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    IMO, the biggest problem with the stone city is the distance. Defending the city from barbarians would require an independent platoon of axes that cannot contribute to defence of the other cities. Also hauling all the workers needed for hooking the stone and then back again sets a logistical challenge. However, I believe in 2metra's skills as a turn player and if he says he can pull it of by turn 88, I trust that he can. So I am also for trying the pyramids, but as majority of the team is not (even if we count Maga's vote), so be it.
     
  2. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Right, the problem with the Pyramids isn't so much the 225 hammers that could be used for Settlers/Workers/Axes, it's more about having to delay our nearby prime city locations in order to send a Settler, Workers and Axes way over to the stone location that isn't even a great long-term city.

    Now, I admit that this sacrifice is easily made up by the economic benefits that the Pyramids could have given us (although the benefits would be greater for a non-Fin team). But if we had made the sacrifice only to lose the Pyramids to another team, then it would have been extremely difficult to dig ourselves out of that hole. IMO, this vote was more to determine if the team thought a T88 completion date would land us the Pyramids or lose us the race, and based on other mp games I've lurked, I think that's a little too late for comfort.

    At any rate, I hope that 2metra doesn't feel too much disappointment about the result of this vote. Keep those crazy risky ideas coming! We won't win by sticking only to the safe, cautious route.
     
  3. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Thanks to all who supported this idea and yet, I do understand the fears of the rest of you. However I never saw anyone explain how getting failgold from stone/OR powered hammers is bad thing either.

    I am glad you say that. Its quantum of solace at least if not else.
     
  4. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sure, fail gold can be a good thing, but it certainly isn't worth delaying better cities in order to settle the Stone. If we are able to get the Stone hooked up at our leisure, and there are stone-based Wonders still available, and we have cities without crucial builds, and we need the cash to fuel more expansion, then I think it would be smart to invest a few turns on a partial wonder for the fail gold. Otherwise, I'd say it's not a good strategy to settle cities based on their ability to contribute to better fail gold ratios.

    Again, I'm not arguing that the 'mids would not have been great to have, just that I doubt they'll still be available by T88, and that fail gold alone isn't worth it.

    What we need to do now is make sure we maximize our expansion. Let's settle the best cities as soon as possible and get them contributing to our empire immediately. That'll put us in a much better position than if we had gambled on the 'mids and lost.
     
  5. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    My main problem with the mids is that it is only useful to get if you going to go for a SE, which it doesn't seem like we are going to do, thus making it pointless in my opinion. Rarely do I go for this wonder in SP games, so for the most part I don't see it as being useful.
     
  6. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    I would completely disagree with this. Mids give us a lot benefits:

    1) No need to tech expensive Monarchy to run HR to maintain happiness in biggest cities (other that that the only immediate benefit is we can connect wine)

    2) Mids have great synergy with our SPI threat, for example we can switch to Police State for (1 turn to complete) an axe (chop )etc every time we build one

    3) Mids give GE points and culture

    4) Not going full blown SE does not mean one does not run couple specialists here and there - Representation bonus is always nice
     
  7. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Ninja, sorry for tricking you - just really wanted to get on the team. The photo you saw was my wife, LOL. Let us better stop here or more info on your, ehm, recruiting methods will see light :rotfl:
     
  8. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Hahah, good try too, but no, I wont buy it :D

    Also, good stab under the belt for the ehm, recruiting methods insinuation :D
     
  9. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Since the discussion rages on about whether the 'mids would have been worth it, I'll point out that even though the poll is closed, it shouldn't be too late to decide to go after them. I still think that they'll fall before T88, so I'm not changing my own vote, but no reason to stick with this somewhat arbitrary deadline if the pro-Pyramids side thinks they can sway the rest of the team.

    2metra might be able to tell us better if it's already too late to hit his T88 completion date, but I believe that the true deadline is when our next settler completes in a few turns. That is, unless we need to start prepping that long road out to the stone before the settler completes.
     
  10. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    That was also my thinking.

    I have been also reading old civ/leader picking threads, there was a lot of talk in them how awesome it would to be to switch civics without anarchy with Mids or chop tGW with our fast worker ...
     
  11. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Believe whatever you like, 2metra. just don't blame me later for keeping you in dark for so long, haha.
    Sorry to be so underhand, but applied to join team CFC before describing my civ skills and interests, got turned down because I did not participate in GOTMs, had not hundreds of posts in the forum and did not played in MP before. But since requirement seemed to be much lower for hot blond chicks, could not resist :mischief:
    It takes a ninja to tease another ninja :D
    And it is all love, as our Captain says
     
  12. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I'm undecided on the Pyramids (remember the cooldown that we still have to deal with between changing civics. there is some turns after we change civics that we are prohibited from changing civics to avoid utter abuse from SPI civs), but I'd really like to see us have TGW...

    If getting TGW means I have to accept the Pyramids in the process, then I am for. Do note that I didn't vote on the poll, as I didn't see it until it was too late...
     
  13. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    I see no reason getting TGW requires Pyramids, it is probably otherwise as getting both sounds extremely ambitious. I would be happy with either Pyramids or Great Wall, Great Wall is cheaper and Sommer estimated (awhile ago) possible without stone city so opposition against it may not be that fierce. Although researching monarchy for happiness without trying for the Mids saddens me.

    You are very right with the 5 turn waitiing period between switching civs.
     
  14. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    The cheapness of TGW is also the downside to it, as we may already be on overtime to get it. If we want TGW I believe we have to chop a few forests to get it. And we probably need to start it more or less immediately after the current settler is completed. I almost think it would be easier or more probable for us to get the Pyramids rather than the Great Wall - but since the time investment is far less on the wall, I would definitely like us to try.

    On the other hand, the Pyramids are one of my absolute favorite wonders in Civ4. I would very much like us to have them. The reason I am reluctant about them is the very strong arguments about how bad the stone city would be compared to the other settling locations we have. If we lose the race for them, that city will be a thorn in our side that we will constantly be annoyed about as we would sit there knowing that it could be a city pumping out lots of commerce/beakers instead.
     
  15. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    There is not complete consensus on stone city being so bad - for example 2metra does not think so, although I am also worried by very accomplished players like Jovan not liking it. Although I think the current analysis are underestimating the value of stone as a strategic resource. And I am still not convinced that failgold - with 2x stone multiplier and 25% organized religion bonus is a bad thing. It is not clear to me what are the plans for supporting economy but the urgent need for currency - which seems to be consensus - is for building wealth? Or simply trade routes between domestic cities and perhaps one with RB? Anyway, failgold still looks very good to me. Having stone city, we can build a chosen wonder even in several cities, thus getting some failgold even if we are successful.

    I generally agree with you on the summary:

    If stone city, maximize the payoff = Mids, perhaps even+TGW or build Mids in several cities to get them and fail gold

    If not stone city, than TGW still possible although not so appealing - no bonuses other than OR, and as you pointed out, rather late. But since many are likely suspecting we are bulding TGW, perphaps nobody's trying?:crazyeye:
     
  16. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Yeah, and it my have higher distance maintance. Although overall expanding towards RB should be good. Moreover, one can always solve the barbarian problem with the Great Wall :mischief:
     
  17. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    That would be me :blush:. Got a bit carried away with the discussion. But did make the discussion lively :D
     
  18. Bowsling

    Bowsling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I voted no on the proposal, not because I am inherently opposed to the Pyramids, but because I feel that we need to plan in advance for things like the Pyramids. Simply deciding on a whim every now and then to start a wonder will guarantee only a handsome stack of failgold. Even if we were to succeed with the Pyramids, we would not stand to benefit as much if we had planned on building them from early on, and had the saws ready to go into the trees the turn we finished masonry. In the MTDG3 Pitboss, for example, I decided around T100 to grab the GL and the Parthenon nearly simultaneously. While the effects were certainly worth it, this kind of strategy would have had a much richer payoff had I known it from the beginning and selected a Philosophical leader (and not spawned next to 2metra :D). The Pyramids are the same here - they'd be nice of course, but we haven't really prepared for our free government, and the benefits wouldn't be as great as they would be if we had known from early on that we were building them.
     
  19. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Nice point Bowsling. That was going through my head, too.
     
  20. Maga_R

    Maga_R Has quit civ

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    Yes, I agree completely. When I was browsing our forums, I could not find much of recent discussions on our "grand strategy". For example, is EE still on? How do we want to leverage our SPI treat (other than by being immune to CSM)?

    Perhaps we should start a threat on our big strategic mid-term goals?
     

Share This Page