The Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man shall pass

[Arrian]

This thread is the result of my musings on Vel's "The Virtues of Being Industrious." Specifically, Vel concluded that Industrious is THE best trait. Though he presented many good points in favor of Industriousness, I (after some in-game testing) disagree with that conclusion.

*DISCLAIMER: I play primarily on Monarch, and accept the possibility (though I doubt it) that playing on Diety boosts the relative power of Industriousness*

Why it's good to have God on your side

Religious, IMHO, narrowly beats out Industrious as the #1 trait in the game. Combine the two and you will find a wonderful civ to play, as many have discovered already. But our discussion here is about 1 trait over another, not combinations.

Let us examine the advantages of each:

Industrious:

2x worker speed
1 extra shield in size 13+ cities

Double-speed workers are, clearly, what this trait is all about. And it is very, very nice. Roads, irrigation and mines go up with shocking speed, at a time where a few roads and mines can really make a difference. Also, as Vel pointed out, aggressive roadbuilding for troop movement is also quickly done. Even the slaves you will soon capture work faster than they normally would.

It is a primarily early game trait, because its real strength lies in developing your basic terrain improvements faster than your neighbors, which allows quick expansion and/or conquest. There are two other, though less important, boost phases: upon the switch out of despotism, when mined hills & mountians are suddenly worthwhile (those take a long time for non-industrious workers to road/mine) and upon the discovery of steam power. Clearly, if you start near a large jungle, Industrious becomes even better.

Religious:

1/2 price temples & cathedrals
1 turn anarchy

This trait is also about speed. But a different kind of speed. Religious civs can get their temples up and running very quickly (30 shields is pretty darn easy to do, especially when 1pop = 20 shields). This means two things: 1) quick border expansion & linkup; and 2) An early cultural advantage. Later on, you save 80 shields per cathedral. That's a lot of shields boys and girls. But just as important is the time you save switching governments. Anarchy for non-religious civs is what, 4 turns minimum? A religious civ can switch government many times with hardly any penalty. I often use a despot -> monarchy -> republic -> democracy government path when playing a religious civ. When playing a non-religious civ... lets just say the 2nd and 4th gov'ts were cut out entirely, and I STILL spent more time in anarchy.

So why do I favor religious over industrious? It's really a combination of factors: Culture, Happiness, and Tech (I'll explain that last one, I promise).

CULTURE: is extremely important in CivIII, and having more culture than your neighbors is a real advantage. Early in the game, the AI is particularly bad at building cultural improvements, so you will often find yourself surrounded by civs who are in awe of you. That's good for diplomacy, but it's GREAT for war. How so? Culture flips quite honestly, are gonna be all in your favor. Further, rushing temples in captured towns is really easy. As a despot or communist, you can either blow 2 pop points (sometimes desirable in a capitol) or wait 10 turns and use 1. With a non-poprush government, you're gonna save a lot of money.

A second part of this, not to be overlooked, is the fact that without culture, a city may only use the immediately surrounding squares. IF (and I know there are many who do not) one builds one's cities with the full 21-square radius in mind, you will be missing out on bonus tiles until you have 10 culture points. Religious civs can quickly expand those border to get at bonus or resource tiles.

HAPPINESS: keeping your people happy is easier too. I've played non-religious civs, and spending 60 shields on (what I consider to be) an esssential building early in the game is BRUTAL. Same thing, to a lesser degree, with mid-game cathedrals (160 shields... you gotta be kiddin' me, right?). Happiness can be crucial. Less need to rely on luxury spending or lux. resource imports, easier to get into WLTKD, which of course reduces waste. A happy civ is a more powerful civ.

TECHNOLOGY: It's simple, really. 4 turns wasted in anarchy is essentially 1 tech lost. In ancient times you're not getting 1 tech in 4 turns, it's true, but later on you're getting them in 4 turns with money to spare, so it evens out. The less time you spend in anarchy, the more you can get done, both in terms of research and city builds. It adds up.

Finally, one point about the speed of industrious workers: while they are nice, cities don't often grow fast enough to outstrip the ability of workers to develop terrain. Cities with lots of floodplains and mountains are the exception here, of course, but by and large, non-industrious workers can do the job. If augmented with large numbers of slaves... the half-speed no longer matters (slaves are free).

Any way you cut it, Civ is about turn advantage. If you can build and learn faster than the enemy, you win. And though Industrious is the obvious "speed" attribute, Religious is actually the Ferrari here.

[Dennis Miller Voice] Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong[/Dennis Miller Voice]

Discuss.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Thread link to Vel's Industrious Thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=50963

-Arrian

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Arrian
CULTURE: is extremely important in CivIII, and having more culture than your neighbors is a real advantage. Early in the game, the AI is particularly bad at building cultural improvements, so you will often find yourself surrounded by civs who are in awe of you. That's good for diplomacy, but it's GREAT for war. How so? Culture flips quite honestly, are gonna be all in your favor.

Actually, I think this is the most important part of being religious. In a recent Regent game (testing some cultural attack ideas) with the Eqyptians, I had at least 20 times the culture of the other civs on my continent by the middle ancient era. I started putting down cities 2 squares from another civ's towns when the distance ratio was huge, and one city 3 squares from another civs capitol actually flipped to me. This is because it takes on the order of 20 military per foreign square or citizen in this case to prevent a flip. And a single garrison was enought to prevent my city from flipping, with change to spare.

Regardless, even on higher levels, this trait will give a chance to remain competetive in the culture game, which is 90% of the game as far as I am concerned (builder).

Any way you cut it, Civ is about turn advantage.

Of course, but the real question is what kind of turn advantage are you going to net yourself? Shields, culture, or gold? And I will take culture as a #1 almost everytime, so long as you have the basic defenses available (otherwise it's shields).

[Arrian]

Fitz,

It's funny that you see it that way, as a builder, and I couldn't agree more... as a warmonger. I am consistently amazed by the repeated whining about culture flipping, because it almost never happens to me. I routinely capture my enemy's capitol, stick a few healing units in there, rush a temple, bring up a defender, move the now-healed units out and forget about it. Like you said, the ratio of your culture to your opponent's is a MAJOR factor in the flip equation.

-Arrian

[Marquis de Sodaq]

As for early culture wars, don't underestimate the library. A scientific civ gets 1/2 price libraries, which net you 3 music notes per turn, more than the temple. If you are pumping out settlers anyway, the temple can come much later before happiness is ever a concern.

[Arrian]

Marquis,

Yes, cheap libraries and universities are nice (I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Babs), and the libraries do come fairly early... but the ability to build those 1/2 price temples begins on turn 1 (not that you would do it THAT early) for religious civs. So that's a lot of accumulated culture while you're researching your way to literature.

I like scientific as a trait, but I have to rank it fourth for my current style of play. When I was a builder, it came in third. I leave expansionist out of "ranking" at this point, because it is so evident that map settings can take it from #1 to #6.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

A splendid piece!

And, it looks as though we're not far apart at all in our analysis of the traits....just minor shades of variation in how we value each aspect that leads me to the thinking that Industrious nudges out Religious,and vice versa for you, but yes! You have summed up exactly how both traits shake out IMO! I think the reason that I value Industrious slightly higher than Religious is the 'right now' impact that the industrious trait brings to the table -- I view Industrious-driven conquest as being a "shieldless" methodology to happiness, and once the dust settles on those ancient era conquests I can pursue the game in an almost leisurely fashion (all the major opponents are dead)-- but every single word you've written about the Religious trait rings true in my ears.... Arrian, it's an absolute masterpiece!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

And, it looks as though we're not far apart at all in our analysis of the traits....just minor shades of variation in how we value each aspect that leads me to the thinking that Industrious nudges out Religious,and vice versa for you...

Hence the fact that the two test games (one Japanese, one Chinese) ended up pretty equal... but I enjoyed the Japanese game more.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Religious is by far the best trait, that's true. But I would surely miss to play a lot civs, that are not blessed with it, if I would stick with it.

There are other useful traits, but they are limited to a map setting. Expansionist trumps at huge pangaea and is nil at archipelago. Militaristic is good at standard and less maps. Industrious can be your saver, if you start at poor terrain (you can't always restart, only think MP). Commercial is the weakest, but it seems to me (no investigation done) that it's more useful on larger maps (more cities in the "2-shield-zone"). Scientific and religious don't depend on the map, they are always good.

Scientific comes close: Halfprice libraries, halfprice universities, 3 free techs, bigger culture than with religious. Compared with halfprice temples, halfprice cathedrals and basically also 3 free techs (1 turn anarchy), if there was not the happiness issue. I can safely let a city without a library and an university. I can make it without that goddamn science at all, extorting techs from my enemies. But I can not keep my citizens content without temples and cathedrals. Hence, religious trumps.

Good article, Arrian!

But who the heck is Dennis Miller?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Scientific comes close: Halfprice libraries, halfprice universities, 3 free techs, bigger culture than with religious. Compared with halfprice temples, halfprice cathedrals and basically also 3 free techs (1 turn anarchy), if there was not the happiness issue. I can safely let a city without a library and an university. I can make it without that goddamn science at all, extorting techs from my enemies. But I can not keep my citizens content without temples and cathedrals. Hence, religious trumps.

Although I play Roma 99.9999999999% of the time... I do find the babs very appealing just from what you said right there.


BTW: Dennis Miller is a comendian. He was on SNL for a few seasons and was in various movies. He's now a Football comentator... I think.

[punkbass2000]

I too prefer religious, with industrious as a close second.

[Theseus]

"God created Civ3 to train the faithful. One cannot go against the word of God."

[notyoueither]

Except to go with the word of Mars. Roma Victor!

[DrSpike]

Play the egyptians, and no need to choose.

For what it's worth IMO for a builder game religious is best, with industrious 2nd. For a conquest/domination game religious and industrious both aren't that great (though religious is better for domination than conquest). In this case militaristic is the only trait really worth having, and UU is more important, so your choice should be predicated on those 2 factors.

[chiefpaco]

I find the attributes so close it is hard to choose. If anything, the Industrious may sneak out ahead by a little IMHO. I've sinced lumped Religious, Scientific, Militaristic, and Expansionist close together, with very little to part them. Commercial still drags up the rear and has not climbed out of its hole yet. So, I very much agree with your argument, but find myself slightly differing in opinion on the importance of some details.

I agree happiness and culture are important and often times critical, but it can be achieved in other ways. Therefore, while I deem them important, I don't consider Temples the "critical" building. Here is my counter to your 3 points. Not to put Religious below other traits, but the reason I see them as quite even.

Happiness: 1 gold off the luxury slider equals the maintenance of a temple and gives me a happy face instead of a content one. 1 military police "may" be 1 maintenance and also gives me the content face. Therefore, non-Religious civs can produce cheaper units for the same happiness effect. Saying building Temples early with non-R civs is BRUTAL is quite correct, and as a result, I'll instead build a warrior or spearman for the same effect. It doesn't produce culture, but it also comes maintenance free with Despotism and defends the town too.

Culture: As pointed out, scientific buildings produce more culture than the religious buildings but are produced later. I think this may balance them out, especially since I don't have all my cities by the time I usually hit Literature. Then by the time Universities come out, they are the culture monster at 4 per turn (same culture as many wonders) and the same argument can be made on Universities for non-scientific civs than Cathedrals for non-Religious civs.

Anarchy: I can't find much to argue there, except to say that I find in civ if I am not warmongering till I get a definitive edge in territory, I'm not headed to victory as easily as I could. After this point, it doesn't matter what civ I am or which government I choose or which traits I have - I will win. It could be just my style, but I find I can not out-build the AIs on Emporer as well as I can beat them up with a military force. As a result, few of my games feature many government changes and I value this bonus less.

Now, compare a Religious civ to a non-R and non-Sci civ and the comparison is much tougher. I dare not extend this reply much further but only to say that I find I am missing some culture if I don't have one of those traits.

[Solver]

This in combination with Vel's thread got me thinking on an article "Why Religious and Scientific is the best trait combination". With my experience, I have played extremely succesfull games with Babylon, especially when I managed to avoid an early golden age by only using Swordsmen as the early warfare unit.

[Flip McWho]

religious hmmmmm. never really played with that civ trait. i just stuck with the persians ever since i met them. but i have to say my next game is gonna be with a civ that has the religious trait. u converted me.

- Philip.

[Solver]

Flip - I also played my first games with the same civ, but then I discovered it's actually much more fun to use Random.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Culture: As pointed out, scientific buildings produce more culture than the religious buildings but are produced later. I think this may balance them out, especially since I don't have all my cities by the time I usually hit Literature. Then by the time Universities come out, they are the culture monster at 4 per turn (same culture as many wonders) and the same argument can be made on Universities for non-scientific civs than Cathedrals for non-Religious civs.

My counter to this would be:
a) With religious, you start with ceremonial burial, and can build early, cheap temples which will double to four cpt long before you can build universities. In fact, I find that it's difficult to build more than a couple universities before 1050AD, which means they will never double.
b) Universities just aren't useful in small cities. You're losing omney on them, whereas a temple is useful virtuall everywhere.

[Solver]

I got to disagree on Universities here. I think tat by the time you get Education, you'll have a number of cities where you must get those Univerisites. A bit later, you'll also want to get them in smaller cities, for they do both culture and research to you, two vital things.

[chiefpaco]

PB:
a) Good point about culture doubling. That is very important. Too bad the happiness does not double too. Another point on culture doubling though. Libraries double to a 6 culture per turn. Surpassed by only Shakespeare's theatre and 2 greater than the doubled temple. Again, libs come later, but so do some of your cities.

b) Tough tradeoff. In small cities, the University will not help very much. But what will the cathedral do in a small city? I tried to keep the comparison between temples vs. libraries or cathedrals vs. universities. I also assumed temples and libs would be for towns and cathedrals and unis would be for cities.

Now, in a small productive town, I'd give consideration to a library because of my points above. The research that is multiplied can more than cover the cost of raising the luxury slider 10%

In a small unproductive town, I'd lean towards the temple because the lib won't be as effective and the temple could tip off a WLTK, which may grant an extra shield, if that makes much of a difference in your empire.

Of course, building both is great too! Being a Rep or Demo will force a temple or cathedral because there is no Military Police. However, Monarchies can enjoy happiness benefits without cathedrals and colosseums while conquering the world! So I guess my view is tainted by my play style.

[Arrian]

More thoughts on culture (specifically regarding the bonuses of being religious versus scientific):

I'm going to make several assumptions in this post, hopefully without making an ass out of either you or me.

Let us, for example, take a temple in 1250 BC, and compare it to a library built in 500 BC. I use those numbers because, off the top of my head, they seem reasonable.

As I understand it:

4000-2750BC @ 50 yrs/turn (25 turns)
2750-1750BC @ 40yrs/turn (25 turns)
1750-750BC @ 25yrs/turn (40 turns)
750BC-250AD @ 20 yrs/turn (50 turns)
250AD-1250AD @ 10 yrs/turn (100 turns)
1250AD-1750AD @ 5 yrs/turn (100 turns)
1750AD -> irrelevent

Temple built in 1250BC:

1250BC - 250BC = 45 turns = 90 CP
culture output now doubles
250BC - 1000AD = 100 turns = 400 CP

Total culture produced: 490CP

Library built in 500BC:

500BC - 500AD = 63? turns = 189CP
culture now doubles
500AD - 1000AD = 50 turns = 300CP

Total culture produced: 489 CP.

Obviously, from 1010AD forward, the library is ahead. My point is simply, that in this example (assuming my understanding of the years/turn is correct), it takes the library 113 turns to catch up.

My example is arbitrary, I know. It also happens to show, if all other things are equal, that the scientific civ which built it's library in 500BC will catch up and pass the religious civ in the mid-game.

That jives with my observations. Generally, my culture explodes early on when compared to the AI's on the graph. Then, when the AI's get literature, there is a strong upswing in AI culture, reducing my slice of the pie (usually still 1/3 or more of the graph, though). Then, once my cathedrals, universities, and various wonders kick in, my culture expands again. This is usually aided by my tendency to start picking off civs again in the late medieval/early industrial age.

Anyway, I think I would rate the cultural power of religious vs. scientific as a draw. Religious civs have a strong advantage in the early game, whereas Scientific civs make up a lot of ground in the mid-game, and probably take over in the late game. However, I think greater weight has to be given to the early game advantage. So much happens back then that is crucial. If you are a warmonger like me, an early culture edge is insurance against culture flips, and basically ensures a strong cultural advantage throughout the rest of the game. Even as a builder, that early edge can gain you cities via the "culture bomb" before the AI shifts from expansion mode to build/fight mode.

-Arrian

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I don't think that culture is that important during the Ancient Era in SP. The AI is just plopping down cities everywhere, and their culture is limited to what they have in their first and second cities. You may think that if your cities have lots of it, you will be able to assimilate the AI ciites. This is true, but very hard to do. Even if your ciites all have temples, and the ones on the other side of the border don't, it will not be enough to take them over. On top of that, temples cost upkeep per turn. When you are religious, you will want to make temples in every city just because they are cheap. In fact, you dont need temples if you keep your cities under pop 4 and keep REX-ing. It saves you money, and it is useless at the very begiining. Later on, around the end of the expansion phase you should build temples so you can keep people happy. Otherwise, its a wast of money IMLO.

[Cookie Monster]

Allow me to share with you all a thought.

After reading the plethora of information that Vel has divulged upon us, and after reading this thread by Arrian I've come to a conclusion.

Whatever works for your brain the best is what you want to do. We each have specific methodologies and thought processes. Each of our brains are physically and medically alike, however we all have different mathematical and scientific thought processes.

My approach to a problem may be totally different from anothers' approach to the same problem. Yet both of us will solve the problem.

We can dispense advice upon the masses and surely it will be of use. Each individual, however must decide what suits his brain the best.

IMHO both Industrious and religious (not the combo, just the individual) traits are very usefull in the right hands. I for example enjoy civs that have either trait in them, but tend to lean towards religious only because of the 1 turn anarchy. The ability to "shift gears" (I enjoy driving a manual transmission car) rapidly is of utmost importance to me. Fast 0-60 times (to use another car analogy) are not just accomplished with a powerful engine. They are accomplished with a smooth shifter and the drivers clutch to gas pedal coordination. The same, I believe holds true for the ability to shift in and out of govt.s quickly.

I love to engage in massive resource draining prolonged wars. This way I keep my enemies closer to me than my best friend. We are locked in a titanic struggle that keeps him from staying at number one. After 40 turns of war weariness I need to get out of rep/demo without losing valuable military production time. Religious comes in handy here. When the war is over I want to "rake in the cabbage" at blazing speeds so I need to be back in rep/demo at warp speed. Rel is gonna get me there and fast.

So in summary, everyone has hidden strengths and preferences to strats. All we can do is lay down foundations.

The true test will be with the arrival of PTW. I truely look forward to playing legends like Velociryx, Arrian, NYE, Uberkrux, Theseus, et. al. I am not a great player, and I fully expect to lose many many games, but in the process I hope to improve my own single player skills by learning from the best.

I can't wait to meet you all on the virtual battlefield.

[Arrian]

Haupt. Dietrich,

Well said. "To each, their own."

The reason I enjoy discussing things like this is that I often find myself questioning my style of play based on what others post. If I didn't hang out on 'poly, I'd probably still be a builder, playing as Babylon or maybe Egypt all the time. The chariot upgrade strategy I've developed was born of trying to use Egypt as an early warmonger w/o blowing my golden age as an ancient despot (that was smack dab in the middle of my builder to warmonger conversion... before I learned to stop worrying and love the sword ). Throughout, I was having discussions with Theseus (the poster formerly known as rpodos), Sir Ralph, Txurce, and others.

As for MP... well, I've gotta admit I've never played MP before. That goes for any PC game. And I'd hardly consider myself a legend. If I play MP CivIII, I bet I'd get my butt kicked, at least until I changed my mindset to handle it. I dunno... I may not play MP. I certainly don't intend to get PTW until it comes down in price (not because I'm pissed at Firaxis or anything, just because I'm happy with SP).

LoA,

I respectfully disagree about ancient era culture. And culture bombing AI cities early on is easy, if you do it right. This involves building a city or two three tiles away from theirs (city, open tile, open tile, city). With temples in your cities, plus your overall culture advantage, you have a very good chance of getting a flip.

But, like Haupt Dietrich pointed out... to each his own...

-Arrian

[Theseus]

I've never played MP Civ either, so I expect to get humiliated. The only game I ever played MP was C&C, and the first 1-15 games I got my head handed to me. But thanks for the complement.

I do agree with HD's assessment... there are certain things which each "get," and we develop strats that play to our strengths. For instance, I just don;t get the whole JW / Impi thing... I tried a quick Aztec game over the weekend, and just couldn't get anywhere.

Back OT:

Arrian, doesn't your hypothetical temple double again in 750AD? If so, that's another 200 accumulated CP in 1000AD, and a run rate of 8 CP per turn, compared 6 CP for the library. The library would only take the lead from 1500-1750AD.

More to than point than totals, for me at least, is the use of the culture... all about city flips. I either want the protection or I want the advantage when cities territories start to really abut each other, so the early temple is clearly the pick for me.

[Fitz]

LoA, I couldn't disagree more. If you mix your rexing with culture, and pay attention to where you place your cities, you easily absorb the cities of your neighbors. See my comments about having a 20:1 culture ration above. In fact, if you prefer not to REX to much (and thereby ignore the associated corruption problems), you can just settle on the choicest spots and get all your additional cities that you need by absorbing the nearest AI cities. Not only that, but the AI also loves to place cities in spots that are going to be very useful later in the game when resources start appearing, so if you are slapping down settlers two squares away from the AI and absorbing them, you are almost certainly doing yourself a big favor in regards to resources later.

Arrian, I couldn't agree more that the total culture factor is just as important to a warmonger as to a builder. After all, it's nice to be able to leave a minimal garrison and move on, as oppossed to taking one city at a time and using all your troops to try (usually in vain) to keep the city.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

oooooooooooooo
Lotta disagreement here

Arrian: I guess we agree to disagree . Either way, we get ciites, which is essential to a later builder style.

Fitz: I agree with the AI placing cities close to resources, but I never have corruption problems (I usually play Americans or, lately I've been trying Greeks.)

However, in the time it takes to build a temple, you could have built a settler. (usually) And while founding a new city will get you more gold right away, building a temple costs money which will only be paid back later on if a city flips (assuming you dont grow your city past four.) i just prefer to spend shields and foot to get gold now, rather than spend shields and gold, and hope to get gold later on.

To each his own

[Fitz]

I guess I build that city and a temple, or at least that's the way I think about it. Basically my style is settle until you start running into the AI, and then start your temples pronto. Given that I start running into the AI around 8-10 cities, the timing seems perfect.

More precisely, if not forced to do something different I tend to do this:

First city settlers only.
Second city setter, temple, settlers only.
Third city workers only. Around 10 workers I usually throw in the temple.
4th city: Barracks, defenders. Eventually I throw in a temple later (as I catch up on defenders).
5th+ city: temple, settler, barracks, military.

If I have a wonder to work on, it interupts the 5th+ city's work. And obviously I rearrange if a later city turns out to be better at making settlers.

But, here is the key point: You can rush a temple to speed things up. So, you have a choice, that pop can go into a settler and take a lot of time, or you can slap it into a temple right now then start building a settler afterwards, as the pop grow back.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Theseus
Arrian, doesn't your hypothetical temple double again in 750AD? If so, that's another 200 accumulated CP in 1000AD, and a run rate of 8 CP per turn, compared 6 CP for the library. The library would only take the lead from 1500-1750AD.

Improvements only double once. I wish they doubled every thousand years, but that is not the case.