What's built first, Granaries or Temples?

[Terra Nullius]

* edited previous post
----------------------------------------------------

?

[Vince278]

Oh. That does change things a little.

[Aqualung71]

No brainer - Granaries, every time!

Temples are an afterthought, and unless you're Religious they are a large investment for their limited return. Not to mention, when you start building Temples, you have to build a lot of them to keep your empire balanced as it grows!

[joncnunn]

I find Temples more useful in several conquests than in epic game.
Mostly because of how few unique luxaries there are in several conquests. This is sometimes countered though by ToA never expiring in the conquests that includes it. (Technically St Peter's in FoR is equalivent, except that unless playing the Sassidens, it's not really an option early enough.)

[The Nomad]

Granary. I usually build Libraries, sometime even Universities before Temple.

[Golden Bear]

Depends. Early on, granaries. Later, probably libraries before temples but it depends if it is on a border and needs culture faster.

[Addled Platypus]

Graneries, worker(s), temple

its all about the pepole to get the production for all those other neat things in the game

[Paddy]

of the two Granaries before temples

barracks can come before granaries though.... must train the troops for the march to war

[Dis]

I only build granaries in settler pumping towns. temples everywhere else

[realpolitic]

A few temples in the early epic gam, if I'm conquering rivals {early military units are usually cheaper than rexing}, but at some point, before I approach enemy capitals, I'll need culture to prevent flips, so it's eighther temples or libraries.

[ElConejo]

I always build granaries first in my core cities and temples first in my fringe cities.

[planet]

Build a temple. Make them know they are happy straight away.

[Cort Haus]

Don't listen to the n00bs, Commy. A couple of early Granaries are the answer, as a zillion strat forum threads will tell you.

[MightyQuill]

I commonly build temples first if there is a tile i wish to work outside the initial boundry

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by MightyQuill
I commonly build temples first if there is a tile i wish to work outside the initial boundry

I've got to tell you, that is almost always a mistake. In virtually every case, you're better off building a settler and taking over the desired tile by building a city near it. Several reasons:

1. We're talking early game, so there absolutely no reason to hold back gaining territory. Given the greater resource scarcity in Conquests, you need to get as much land as possible early to maximize your chances of getting scarce strategic resources.

2. Shield costs: temples cost 60 shields, the same price as 2 settlers. With a granary and some basic management of the tiles your cities work, you're going to grow very quickly, meaning you'll easily be able to grow to size 3 before you produce a settler. Once you've got a couple cities up and running, you will be able to expand much more with 2 settlers than you will with 1 temple.

3. Since your cities' populations tend to be quite low in the early game, happiness is more easily controlled via luxuries or the luxuries slider than via temples.

4. Temples cost gold every turn; new cities provide gold every turn.

As I said, this is true in virtually every case. While there theoretically may be a case where a temple makes sense, such cases are very rare. One such case may be, for example, along a border you share with another civ. In that case, you may not have any room for an additional city, but want to get a given tile within your border before it goes into your enemy's. In those types of cases, a temple makes sense. Beyond such strategic uses of culture, however, I just don't see the value (unless you're going for a culture victory).