Temple as your first build (non-religious civ)? Is it worth it?

[Artifex]

Emperor level, non-religious civ. After building a couple of warriors for exploration, Your first build in your capital is a temple. Is it worth it? For culture? Culture doubles every 50 years so that one temple can take care of a lot of your culture problems.

Is this a good idea?

[CerberusIV]

I don't play emperor but..

I used to build a temple first, now my first build in the capital is barracks. The palace generates enough culture to expand the city border so I build barracks, granary, temple in that order with units in between.

I do build temples first in other cities though to get culture going and expand borders.

[Artifex]

This isn't for borders. I use the 3 tile city placement so borders aren't the issue. My logic for doing a temple first in the capital was solely for the culture points. A temple built in 3500 BC will generate serious culture. Then in turn my other cities will be able to build settlers and forgoe temples since that capital will be such a culture powerhouse. I was thinking it alone can take care of any culture my civ would need for many thousands of years?

For religious civs it seems to be a no brainer since they are so cheap..but for non-religious I am left guessing. This is only to protect myself from my cities flipping all the time.

At emperor if I wait until I get a few cities to start building culture I am seriously behind civs likes the greeks..and my cities invariably start flipping to them.

So this was the idea I had. I don't know if some of the "expert" strategists and number crunchers out there think this is a good idea. Or if I am just being shortsighted in some way.

[Konquest02]

I usually do it in my other cities, not in my capital, for the reasons Cerberus just mentionned ( I usually play religious civs and on monarch...)

For non-religious civs, build barracks, a couple of units and go get that luxury the neighbor has...

--Kon--

[Fosse]

Only thing... culture doubles every thousand years, doesn't it? (which is probably around 50 turns in the ancient age, I don't know the math)

If you know from the beginning that you're going for a cultural win, then this would make sense, but if it's me, then I'm either pumping units or settlers at this point unless I'm Babylon.

[Theseus]

Sentiments are split on this one.

I will usually go for it... and especially if I'm short on luxuries (e.g., AU 204).

As you correctly point out, the cultural payback on a relatively cheap investment is so high, well, why not?

[nbarclay]

Why not? For a non-religous civ, a temple costs just as much as a granary, and a granary is worth a lot more in terms of a civ's expansion. (And yes, I almost invariably put Pottery at the beginning of my research queue just so I can build my early granaries.)

Ever since I learned how to use the luxury slider, I've been reluctant to build a lot of early temples even when playing a religious civ. (On the other hand, I'm quite happy as a religous civ to pop rush them right and left in corrupt cities when the time comes.) And since the capital is usually the easiest city to keep happy with the luxury slider, it's the place where early temples do the least good even aside from the fact that the capital's radius will expand on its own.

I suspect that my tendency to ignore early culture would be highly problematical for a play style built around fighting oscillating wars throughout the ancient era. But that's one of the reasons oscillating wars aren't part of my playbook.

Nathan

[ottok]

Re: Temple as your first build (non-religious civ)? Is it worth it?

Originally posted by Artifex
Emperor level, non-religious civ. After building a couple of warriors for exploration, Your first build in your capital is a temple. Is it worth it? For culture? Culture doubles every 50 years so that one temple can take care of a lot of your culture problems.

Is this a good idea?

Stupid. I will not answer with you stupid flag!!

Look mee "Neutral Countrie?"

[ottok]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Why not? For a non-religous civ, a temple costs just as much as a granary, and a granary is worth a lot more in terms of a civ's expansion. (And yes, I almost invariably put Pottery at the beginning of my research queue just so I can build my early granaries.)

Ever since I learned how to use the luxury slider, I've been reluctant to build a lot of early temples even when playing a religious civ. (On the other hand, I'm quite happy as a religous civ to pop rush them right and left in corrupt cities when the time comes.) And since the capital is usually the easiest city to keep happy with the luxury slider, it's the place where early temples do the least good even aside from the fact that the capital's radius will expand on its own.
I suspect that my tendency to ignore early culture would be highly problematical for a play style built around fighting oscillating wars throughout the ancient era. But that's one of the reasons oscillating wars aren't part of my playbook.
Nathan

But are you think :I must attack and deffort the leader them because i dont like the leader?
You flag tell that you think this!

[Dominae]

Unwanted poster alert!

[Jawa Jocky]

edit - didn't warrant a reply

[Arrian]

Ottok sighting! *points*

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Why not? For a non-religous civ, a temple costs just as much as a granary, and a granary is worth a lot more in terms of a civ's expansion. (And yes, I almost invariably put Pottery at the beginning of my research queue just so I can build my early granaries.)

Ever since I learned how to use the luxury slider, I've been reluctant to build a lot of early temples even when playing a religious civ. (On the other hand, I'm quite happy as a religous civ to pop rush them right and left in corrupt cities when the time comes.) And since the capital is usually the easiest city to keep happy with the luxury slider, it's the place where early temples do the least good even aside from the fact that the capital's radius will expand on its own.

I'm with Nathan. I value a few early temples, but for the culture and not so much for the happiness issues. Sixty shields, that early in the game, is a big investment, and when not playing a religious civ I am pretty cautious about making such an investment without a much better sense of my world (terrain, opponents, map features, etc.). With a religious civ, I tend to produce a few temples very early -- with a non-religious civ, they come much more slowly.

BTW - cultural buildings double their cultural output at 1000 years, and do so only once (not every 1000 years). So a temple will never produce more than 4 culture per turn. (But 2 or 3 temples by 1500 BC will usually very quickly make you the cultural leader, where you will remain for some time).

Catt

[Arrian]

I like temples & all, but I would never, not even as a religious civ, build a temple that early.

In fact, my capitol is often the last "core" city to get one, since I typically use my capitol as a settler pump/unit factory. Only when I stop building settlers and the city will grow unchecked will I invest in the temple.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian
I like temples & all, but I would never, not even as a religious civ, build a temple that early.

In fact, my capitol is often the last "core" city to get one, since I typically use my capitol as a settler pump/unit factory. Only when I stop building settlers and the city will grow unchecked will I invest in the temple.

Don't know if you're responding to me or to Artifex's first post. I suspect Artifex's, but if to my post then . . . you play a very particular game -- you're building barracks, chariots and warriors for the first of many attacks. Given the right circumstances, I might do the same, or I might end up not fighting until someone decides to (foolishly ) attack me, perhaps well into the middle or even industrial ages.

I sometimes turn around the thought process a bit by looking at a structure that doesn't seem to get a whole lot of debate -- assume a non-religious and non-militaristic civ -- barracks at 40 shields, temples at 60 shields (I hate building 60-shield temples, BTW). Should I build a barracks or a temple? Depends (of course ) -- for a barracks I get veterans (33% more HPs than I otherwise would) -- and as DaveMcW points out in another thread, it is a net-additive deal "in terms of hitpoints-per-shield after you spend 160 shields on military (including the cost of the barracks)." But if I don't intend to make early warfare against a neighbor, and I have confidence in my ability to avoid war (at least costly war) during the early game -- then I've invested my 40 shields, and paid 1 gpt for XX turns, all for the benefit of extra HPs which are not used. If I build a temple, I get 1 content citizen and 2 culture-per-turn. In most early cities, playing with the luxury slider pretty efficiently gets content citizens for little more than 1 gpt* on average across all cities -- so the straightforward reason to build a temple (if there is one ) is the culture -- is an early 60 shields worth the culture? -- many think not, I think it is in some cases (and in many more cases for only 30 shields) -- but what I do know is that for my shield investment and my 1 gpt, I am getting some continuing benefit (culture and contentment) -- with a barracks I may or may not utilize the putative benefit it provides. 'Course, I will probably want a barracks here and there for upgrades at the very least.

Catt

* Don't forget that for contentedness you can also build cheap units at 10 shields a pop and 1 gpt upkeep for military police -- if you cities don't grow beyond size 4 or 5 (assuming one nearby luxury), there's little need for any contentedness from improvements.