Religious vs scientific

[bungee_70]

As I read the threads, I note that most people will be more seduced by a religious civ than scientific. Finishing my second game at regeant with an overwhelming success on world map with 16 civs, let me compare those two caracteristics.

First of all, I want to say that I got 3000 points at my last game, remembered as Xerxes the Great, at regeant. I dominated the game from beginning to end, but that is a bit because in America, there is not lot of challenge when you bottle up the central-americans ("Aztecs") early and you destroy the "Iroquois".

Let's get to the point: I say that scientific is much better than religious for lot of reasons:

-scientific gets cheap libraries which replace temples as culture booster. Moreover, libraries boosts also your science which is obviously an overwhelming advantage over temples.
You will say that you want to keep your citizens happy which is not the job of the library. I say that since the key to survive is expansion, I crank as much settlers/worker as I can so I keep my population low, happy, so there is no need for temples.
Plus, with big expansion, there is lot of luxuries, hopefully, that replace temples for preventing civil disorder.

-Religious makes anarchy last only one turn. But how often to you change gvt? I target democracy and when I get it, I stay for the rest of the game. That mean that I change for republic ASAP with a very short anarchy period, usually 1 turn because the civ is still small and then democracy with 3-6 turns of anarchy. Why are there any reason to change once in democray? I feel that only short aggressive wars are good because the longer you stay at war, the more ressource you drag in and the more you lay behind. I only do blitzkrieg wars carefully planned with finite objectives. Democracy is not a problem here.

That's it for the superiority of the library over the temple and that is also true for university/collesum and research labs/cathedral. When I decide to let my cities grow, I can afford pay more for happiness buildings.

The second thing I want to say is that considering Industrious as the best caracteristic, you get the Persians with scientific and Egyptian with religious. IMHO, Persians are clearly superior: with the retreat feature removed, Immortals are the best units in Ancient era. Moreover, they still have a place in Middle ages because they cost lest and are better than longbowmen for exemple. The war chariot without retreat is far less effective.

Finally, with Persians, you get Iron work faster and you are better placed for ressources war.

What do you think?

[Harovan]

Hmmm, let's see...

Germans vs. Japanese - I prefer the Japanese
Germans vs. Aztecs - I prefer the Germans
Persians vs. Egyptians - tied
Iroquois vs. Russians - I prefer the Iroquois
Indians vs. Greeks - tied

Obviously I slightly prefer religious over scientific

[NeoStar]

When you have a big empire with big cities anarchy can be catastrophic for a few turns - but it is only for a few turns. The rewards of keeping ahead in technology is more worthwhile like you've said.

I don't usually go scientific if playing only for domination, though. I change governments alot in that kind of game.

[Theseus]

Retreat is not gone, it just now has a probability factor based on experience... which, in this discussion, means that the Immortals, while one of my favorite units, are not as relatively great as you point out.

Re Sci vs Rel, I guess the reason I lean toward Rel is that regardless of my traits, I'm gonna play catch up with the AI civs for a while, and then I'll take the tech lead. This seems to be true regardless, and there's nothing special about Sci that accelerates the crux point meaningfully. For instance, if somehow Sci ensured that I got to Cavs, or certain GWs, well before everyone else, then it would be much more valuable.

As to the value of Rel, heck, I'd by into it just to avoid anarchy. Government changes are usually possible JUST when some juicy GWs are being built.

Keep an eye out for the AU trial on techs... you'll like it.

[alva]

Religous is far better then scientific
Reason: religious works throughout the game, scientific only becomes interesting from hmm librarys.
Wich is allready quite some turns into the game (some games are even decided by then)

[bungee_70]

I don't see how you can say that religious is there all game long and not scientific. For the building cost, it is equivalent. For govt change, I change less my gvt than I change Age! As I said, I go despotism->republic->democracy. Two change with the first usually taking only one turn.

Second, another said that retreat is not gone, maybe not, but I have just finished a game where I did NOT see one single unit retreat for all the game!!! I know like you that it is now supposed to be a probability and the higher the experience, the better the chances are, but as I said, I didn't see any unit retreating in all the game which finished with my space race victory (I was alone in the race, lol!). That may be a reason why I tend to say that Immortal is best.

I still maintain my point that Persia is the best combination of characteristic and UU of the game.

[alva]

scientific isn't any good until librarys come around. And are build in some numbers .
Therefore the scientific treat isn't used throughout the whole game
. I'm not saying isn't doesn't have it advantages, but I do think religious is better.
In my next game I will probably go for scien/commercial just to do something different BTW

[Aeson]

At the lower difficulty levels Scientific probably is better. Anarchy is short anyways, and you get 3 or 4 citizens born content, so Religious isn't a big deal. The free techs mean something because you can get to them first.

On higher difficulty levels Religious is much better though. 1 citizen born content means to get to size 4 you need a temple or luxury (with 2 garrison units). The pace of the game is much quicker, so any additional turns of anarchy set the player back. Plus research by the player is usually devalued, so Libraries don't play as big a part. The AI's will usually get the 'free' techs before the player, so they are devalued as well.

I'd say at Regent or Monarch the two traits are pretty well balanced, and UU and playstyle is the only real difference. Higher and Religious is clearly better, lower and Scientific is.

As for retreating... it's still huge. The chance is 50% for regulars, 58% for veterans, and 66% for elites. So better than half the time they should retreat when losing, unless the defender is down to 1hp. Immortals have a bit of an edge during the Ancient Era (on smaller maps where movement isn't as important), but once the Horsemen get upgraded to Knights the Horses take the advantage in all circumstances, not to mention when those Knights get upgraded to Cavalry, or if the civs UU is a Horse unit...

Until there is an upgrade path for Sword units, they just aren't as effective as Horses over the course of a game.

[King of Rasslin]

Play a religious civ for a while and get used to the cheap temples. Then try to go back. You will see that religious is better than scientific.

[Dimension]

Aeson's points are all valid, but playstyle is also a factor.

You said you don't change govenments much. Obviously, you don't have an aggressive warmongering style. If you can get by staying in Democracy, Religious loses half its appeal because you're not making use of dynamic government. The opposite end of the spectrum is even more true. You could spend the entire game fighting, going straight from Despotism to Monarchy, and spending the rest of the game in Monarchy. Even on harder difficulties, you could manage to play a mostly defensive game, and Scientific would be better if you managed to get a couple luxuries pretty early and didn't need those quick temples.

People see Religious as better overall because unless you are specifically trying to use a narrow playstyle, you will find yourself going through cycles of expansion, building/researching and fighting, making dynamic government quite valuable.

Sometimes I'll have tons of captured workers, and I'll just switch governments to pop-rush cathedrals and research facilities when they become available, then replace population with workers I don't need. That makes Religious better than Scientific even when it comes to building science, because everything is free.

[Arrian]

Religious is much better than Scientific, IMO, though as Aeson pointed out, Scientific gets a boost on lower levels of play.

Even if you only switch goverment twice, that's roughly 8 turns of anarchy saved. That's a lot of turns. Keep in mind it's not just research you're doing... that's 8 turns of shields and gold too. If you make more use of the trait (say going despot -> monarchy -> republic -> democracy) it's even better.

The "free" techs aren't really important to me. The first one (middle ages) is either beaten out of the AI or gifted by the Great Library. No problemo there. The second one is nationalism. I often ignore it and beeline for replaceable parts, and later buy it for peanuts or beat it out of the AI. The fourth one... well, I haven't gotten to the modern age for a while.

As to the 1/2 price buildings, the scientific ones come later but are quite valueable. I won't argue that point. But I will say this: the early culture from cheap temples (at a point in the game where 30 shields is a LOT) really helps consolidate your borders and keep your people happy.

-Arrian

[Jethro83]

While Religious civs start with Ceremonial burial, meaning that their cheap temples can be built almost right away, a temple generates a culture of 2 when first built.

In the early stages of the game, I focus on expansion and military, at a point where I only have at the most size 4 towns. The extra boundaries created by temples therefore aren't all that important to my strategy.

Scientific civs start with Bronze Working, which isn't part of the path to be taken towards Literature, however, since libraries generate 3 culture, they are well worth the wait, since by that point I'll be wanting to start building up my culture anyway.

As for government, I usually make a smooth transition of Despot, Monarchy, Democracy, and I stick with Democracy the whole game. Religious cuts the amount of time this transition takes.

So I'd say that both traits are pretty much balanced, though I would take slightly higher preference to the Scientific trait, since I can build spearmen right away, and the cheap cultural improvement comes at the time I actually need it.

[bungee_70]

Your arguments are getting better and I think it is all about higher difficulty levels. I'm going monarch next game on std random map. My last two games were regeant on World Map (Marla Singer?) huge with 16 civilizations. I am pretty sure it is more difficult to play against 15 AI's that trade advances between each other than 7, so that will be a smooth transfer.
I'll try a religious civ, but I don't know what to choose because egyptian war chariots don't seduce me at all. What are your favorite religious civs? Iroquois?

[alva]

The Egyptians are seen by many as the best civ.
You can use the charriot to "time" your golden age whenever you want/need it.
(I think this was first mentioned by Aeson, not certain though)

[Aeson]

Wasn't me. I think early Golden Ages are just about always worth more than later. Not Aztec early though.

The Indians are the only Religious civ which doesn't stand out, and the changes to Commercial don't seem like enough to change that. Any of the others are good choices if used right.