What's built first, Granaries or Temples?

[Commy]

I'm just curious, generally, do you build granaries or temples in a city first...assume that the city doesn't border another civ....

[cousLee]

Temples, usually. Then granaries. I play a rel civ so is an easy choice as they are cheap(er).

Would not let me do the poll.

[Modo44]

Must feed your people. Early Granaries win the game. Early Temples just distract from really crucial builds.

One exception would be going for a Cultural victory, in which case the earlier the Temples, the better.

[Harovan]

Granaries, hands down. At least 2 of them, sometimes more. Getting your population up quick is much more important than having one more citizen per city. Most cities aren't at this limit anyway most of the times, because they produce settlers as soon as they are size 3 or 4. Happiness in this stage can be cheaper maintained with 2 warriors as garrison or by raising the luxury slider.

I often don't build temples till very late in the ancient age

[Krill]

Depends. 3 early granaries is usually enough, especially if you have a bonus food to share. After that, focus on barracks and temples. If I'm Rel, I will usually build the temples early on the border cities, then go for the barracks. The extra culture helps with flips later on. If I'm not a Rel civ, Barracks, spears and horses or cats all the way...

[Tall Stranger]

Granaries, no doubt.

In the early game, you should be pumping out settlers and workers as quickly as you can. You're rarely going to have enough population to justify needing the happiness effects of a temple. As Sir Ralph said, you're better off using military police and the happiness slider than building a temple.

[Shogun Gunner]

Granaries. Send those mal-content, protesting citizens out into the wilderness to settle their own city -- if they are so smart about how things should be run.

After a granary has been built, produce military units, settlers/workers, and marketplace/temple. There is no formula, depends on geography, neighbors, needs, etc.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Temples have fallen off my 'must build' list all together with notable exceptions. It's better to fight than pray anyway.

[joncnunn]

Definately the Granery in cities that I'm going to build them in the ancient era.

The temple usually ends up as the first build on cities that I'm not building the granery simply due to extreme distance from capital.

For cities that granery was rejected due to lack of fresh water access plus insufficent food bonsuses to function as a pump, it usually gets a baracks as the first improvement.

[Kloreep]

Granaries before temples. (Though not nearly all my cities will end up building granaries, while most will end up building temples eventually.)

[Theseus]

Granaries, almost always. Exception circumstances include: being religious, needing the cultural expansion, and an absolute dearth of luxuries.

That said, I do still like Temples... they are just not a very high priority.

[vmxa1]

I'm with Uno, better to fight. The thing is you cannot always do the same thing. In the main I will not build temples for a long time, except in a city that is going for a wonder.

I do not want to spend the shields and I do not want to pay the main for temples all over the place. I don't need to expand my borders all that much in the AA.

Later if want to expand a border, a Lib is often a better choice as it yields extra beakers.

[Vince278]

Usually temples unless the city is a slow grower. Also tend toward temples at higher levels. Its a matter of timing for me.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
It's better to fight than pray anyway.

as unofficial priest of the apolyton celtic blood rage/human sacrifice/depraved anim** istic orgy sect, i fail to see a distinction between the two.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by lebensraum
as unofficial priest of the apolyton celtic blood rage/human sacrifice/depraved animalistic orgy sect, i fail to see a distinction between the two.