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

[Arrian]

Catt,

I was responding to Artifex. But your points are valid: if you aren't planning on fighting for a while, building barracks all over the place doesn't make much sense.

But even if I wasn't going for early warfare, I wouldn't build 3 warriors in my capitol and then a temple. No way. 4 warriors and a granary, probably. The temple comes much later. My first ring of cities, however, would probably build temples relatively early. If religious, new cities build warrior, worker, temple. If they're 1-shield cities, it's probably temple (poprush assist) and a string of workers.

-Arrian

[Catt]

In thinking about it a little bit more I was struck by a thought that I've never really explored before (not sure why or how after so much civ and so many "early culture" discussions ). The religious trait (and to a much lesser degree militaristic) is the only trait that forces more interesting ultra-early build decisions. (Expansionist and industrious alter the overall build priorities - scouts and fewer workers, eg - but don't present as interesting a decision, IMHO, simply because of the low-shield cost of these builds).

Map features and starting techs / research paths all seem to have much greater impact on early expansion and early tactical decisions with other-than-religious civs -- only when religious is in play (cheap temples) is the early sequence of events potentially skewed a bit. With a militaristic civ, perhaps one is more likely to build barracks more frequently; but every other trait offers benefits that will come only later (at least in terms of build choices). Whatever my other-than-religious civ traits are, my granaries will cost me 60 shields, my markets will cost me 100 shields (and will be a ways off), and my libraries, while price-variable, will tend to come fairly late just by virtue of the placement of Literature in the tech tree.

I'm not exactly clear on the relevance of this observation to the discussion but it struck me for the first time just a few moments ago -- with respect to the first 80 - 100 turns of the game, do we essentially develop cities and our empire in the same fashion (given the same map) when playing any of 5 of the 6 civ traits? Does religious offer the only substantive divergence from our early city development (putting aside for just a moment whether any divergence is justified)?

Catt

[Arrian]

I do build more early temples (earlier, too) when I'm playing a religious civ. I want my borders expanded and locked so I can work all the best tiles (since I'm a wide-city-spacing sorta guy).

Why do I love Japan so? Temple + barracks = 50 shields. My own continent = priceless

-Arrian

[Artifex]

You use wide city spacing? You play below emperor then right? I hear wide city spacing is a serious no no on emperor.

I'd be surprised if your succesful regularly on emperor with wide spacing..after all the city spacing threads I have read here.

[Master Zen]

I'd go for a Granary first, THEN, the temple, even in my capital city. The difference in culture in building the temple before or after the granary is negligible since the 1000 years will come up pretty quickly anyway.

Of course, if you are a religious civ then it's a no-brainer.

Wide city spacing is definitely a no-no on emperor. I cannot concieve how someone could win with OCP on those dificulty levels other than being in a continent all by yourself.

[Artifex]

Hmm..well how about not OCN but this: If your a religious civ (big borders), can you get away with 4 tile spacing on emperor? Or should you still do strictly 3 tile and ICS city placements?

[Dominae]

You can use whatever spacing you want on Emperor, and still be successful. It's just that you'll have to work a lot harder to get those wins with looser spacing. All of my AU games were played on Emperor, most of them successes, but I did not switch to 3-spacing until last November/December.


Dominae

[Artifex]

Is it true that if you just ICS and build settlers and military units only that you will always win easily on emperor. I know thats cheesy and unfun..but am curious if that is "technically" the most powerful way to play? I heard a few comments that it is.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Dominae
You can use whatever spacing you want on Emperor, and still be successful. It's just that you'll have to work a lot harder to get those wins with looser spacing.

Dominae

He's right. I'm trying out Pattern 19 for kicks and giggles with Rome right now, and despite the obvious limitations of this style, I've just kicked into a huge legionary war with Greece that I'm having no problems with, despite their being hugely beyond me in ranking. Spacing is actually much less important than good use of settlers and warfare than we might sometimes make it out to be.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Artifex
Is it true that if you just ICS and build settlers and military units only that you will always win easily on emperor. I know thats cheesy and unfun..but am curious if that is "technically" the most powerful way to play? I heard a few comments that it is.

Check out the NIC thread here on the Strat forum. The short answer to your question: you're weaker if you just build military units, but there's a whole much of builder-stuff you can just skip.


Dominae

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Wide city spacing is definitely a no-no on emperor.

Hmm, I've beaten emperor using wide city-spacing - and without going to war (using the Peace Dividend strat). Not easy, and probably not generic, but do-able with the wonderful Egyptians on pangea.

I'd never build an early 60-shield temple in the first city. My style requires REXing to maximise the land-grab which means settlers & units only at the start. For religious civs, yes - a temple btw settler builds goes down well.