The Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man shall pass

[Cookie Monster]

Thanks for the kind words all.

Arrian:

I have to agree with you regarding discussing strats on 'Poly. If it weren't for everyone's ideas about Civ3 I would still be that builder as well.

I too have learned to stop worrying about the sword!

[Sava]

It all depends on how you play... personally, I just make a CIV with all six attributes... PROBLEM SOLVED!

[King of Rasslin]

A religious civ can keep the people happy. That is so important in the higher difficulties. Scientific civs have a culture advantage (libraries) but they don't keep the people happy like a religious civ does.

Conquering with industrious can get you luxuries. Happiness with religious is a guarantee. I just cannot get used to 60 shield temples when I play a non religious civ. That is even better than 2x speed workers. Toss in the fast revolutions and you have the best trait in the game.

[Unregistered]

Really good thread guys! So, now my two cents.

I really don't think that religous is the best trait, imo. Number three maybe. I agree that we all have our own preferences, & the job can get done by whatever method chosen. (This is one of the good things about Civ, there is no 'correct' single way to win)

Personally I think Scientific is the best trait. As laid out above, culturally speaking Scientific vs Religous is pretty much a wash. So you might say that it boils down to Research rate vs Happiness, which is more important? And really, they both are pretty equally important. Once a city grows to a certain size, you need to build happiness improvements. If a city generates enough commerce, you're going to want to build science improvements. If you want to be competitive scientifically with the AI (I'm not talking about being the tech leader, necessarily. Just being able to sometimes beat the AI to an advance and being able to sell it to them instead of playing catch up all the time.) then the Scientific trait helps enormously. Since the AI doesn't seem to build religous improvements as often and as early as it should, I find that even without the Religous trait I can pretty easily keep ahead of the AI culturely with cheap Libraries, etc and aggressively building temples, etc. Otoh, the AI is pretty aggressive about trading tech, and researching tech, so I think that of the two you have to go with Scientific to combat the AI in this area.

By now, I think we've all figured out that you need a decent military and you need to be willing to use it. So I'd say that the next most important trait (mho) would be Millitary, 'cause elites & leaders are really important. Which I why I usually end up playing Germans. Plus, I just love those panzers. (Ok, shameless German plug off)

I'll admit that the ability to switch govt types on the fly is a pretty good perk. But I've adopted the philosophy of going from despotism to republic and staying there. If you only change governments once, the penalty for being non-religious is not so bad, particularly if you do it early while you're still small. I must note here that I play more of a builder style in that I try to limit myself to somewhere between the optimal number of cities and twice that. The games where I've gone over the two times limit were fun and instructive, but you really do get punished for doing that. Still worth doing if you're going for a domination win though. Too much work on the huge maps I've been playing on to make it worthwhile for me.

This strat is working well in my current game for me. Huge map, 16 civs, playing Germany, monarch. I have managed to achieve the tech leader spot, I'm three techs into the modern era, the closest AI's are still researching Radio & Motorized Transpo. I've gone to war twice, once with the Zulu (Cav & riflemen), once with England (Cav & infantry to start, panzers & infantry at the end) and absorbed them both. Got two great leaders, used the first to build the FP, the second to create an army of panzers. I'm in third place, 400 pts behind number two & 600 pts behind number one. At this point I figure on coasting to a spaceship win. Could go the domination route, but that would involve at least one large scale amphib op if not two and that's just too much like work right now. (They can be fun though!)

This thread has got me thinking about trying the Religious/Scientific combo for my next game.

Anyway, thanks for making me think.

[Dominae]

Figured I would continue this discussion in what seems to be the right thread. Here's a quote from the recent 'Americans' thread (what has turned into a debate about the Religious trait...mostly my fault, I admit):

Originally posted by BRC
If I think that my units are not going to be enough, a temple does not get built. No question. I'm terrified of the later flips, but my safety in the beginning comes first.

This is precisely what I've been trying to get out of fans of the Religious trait, although I dared never mention it myself. If you're comfortable, a Temple is surely a useful addition. If you find the game too easy (i.e. you're playing on a difficulty that is too low for you), you can probably dominate with Culture. But this is an example of "winning more", and (I believe) will not help you if you're struggling to win in the first place. Like BRC said, if the AI is threatening you early on (or you have far too few cities), Temples simply will not be queued up. Once your empire is shaping up (i.e. once you're among the two 2 or 3 civs), you can start building Temples in expectation of their payoff later on in the game. My point is simply that (on Emperor, where I'm still struggling in about half my games) I build Temples later on, because if I build them early I'm reducing my chances that there will be a "later on".

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. Don't get me wrong, I like buildling improvements and all that. But I will not build anything for its cultural value alone until well after a few skirmishes. I'm still open to arguments that early Temples help you pull ahead, not just make you pull further ahead. The best argument against this (that I can think of), is that I don't believe any Deity player prioritizes Temples early on (even if they really do need the Happiness).


Dominae

[punkbass2000]

I disagree, Dominae. In my deity games, my fifth city and beyond almost always have temples as their first build to grow borders and culture. Also, I want these cities to build improvements right away, as any city can build units for them (that's what my first four cities are for, 2 settler farms, a worker farm and a military camp). Sometimes I do end up using my newer cities to build workers, though, cause often enough they build a worker and grow in ten turns, which is really just too convenient to pass up.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I disagree, Dominae. In my deity games, my fifth city and beyond almost always have temples as their first build to grow borders and culture.

I should really try Deity, so that I can back myself up when I open my mouth! In any case, I still do not see what those Temples are doing for you (beyond "grow borders and culture"). Is it that AI civs will tend not to attack you if you have higher relative Culture? On Deity, I can see this as being quite useful. However, you can always keep them pretty happy with diplomacy (if you're not warmongering), so a disdain for your Culture doesn't matter all that much (does it? Will a civ with a much higher relative Culture attack you even if they're Polite or Gracious?). I'm guessing that you build Temples primarily because you play a very peaceful game early on, and there's simply nothing better to build than Temples if you're not going for military units. Have you tried just cranking out Worker after Worker?


Dominae

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae


I should really try Deity, so that I can back myself up when I open my mouth! In any case, I still do not see what those Temples are doing for you (beyond "grow borders and culture").

I think you may have answered your own question

Is it that AI civs will tend not to attack you if you have higher relative Culture?

I don't know.

On Deity, I can see this as being quite useful. However, you can always keep them pretty happy with diplomacy (if you're not warmongering), so a disdain for your Culture doesn't matter all that much (does it? Will a civ with a much higher relative Culture attack you even if they're Polite or Gracious?).

Don't know this either

I'm guessing that you build Temples primarily because you play a very peaceful game early on, and there's simply nothing better to build than Temples if you're not going for military units.

Nope. Temples are just what I build first. After that depends, but I like to have enough military so that the AI doesn't consider me to be too weak.

Have you tried just cranking out Worker after Worker?

No, actually. I often find my civ has too many workers as it is! (which isn't to say I don't still love Industrious )

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I wrote a long, rambling post and then decided to scratch that and boil it down to its essence:

You want to scratch and claw your way to victory - hence your comment about temples on Deity. And yes, if put in a situation where I really believed it was either survival or temples, I would of course go with survival.

I don't play just to survive. I guess that's it. I play to win BIG. Perhaps there are games where I chose to build my temples and that's what caused me to fail in those games (where failure is usually me hitting ctrl+shift+q and muttering that it wasn't that good a game).

One of the reasons I still teeter between Monarch and Emperor is that Emperor is pretty stressful and I feel like I need to play China all the time (ultimate warmonger combo) to win. That's not true, of course, as I've beaten Emperor with both Egypt and Japan in v. 1.29. I like playing as China, but I like Egypt and Japan more. I don't like leading a bunch of uncultured, ignorant barbarians. I like leading a bunch of cultured, ignorant barbarians.

There is still a lot of builder in me. [Luke]There is still good in him, I can feel it[/Luke]

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I think you may have answered your own question

Actually this was my point. I know that Temples grow your borders and increase Culture. My question is how this affects the overall effectiveness of your civ. Using a tight city-spacing (but no ICS, at least not for me!), you rarely need to grow your borders. And the usefulness of Culture is exactly the thing I'm trying to cast doubt on.


Dominae

[punkbass2000]

I do use tight city spacing, but I am not growing borders to connect cities. It is really more general border growing. I want to have large, powerful cultural borders. No more, no less. I personally like culture. I find it to be useful, though perhaps unquantifiable. I read about a lot of 'problems' people have that never happen to me, even though they're playing, like, Monarch and I'm playing deity, and I think culture and other intangibles of my game account for it. Culture is not a guarantee or a strategy. It's a lifestyle

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
You want to scratch and claw your way to victory - hence your comment about temples on Deity.

Well, my comment about Deity was simply trying to take into consideration the strategies that most effectively win the game (since, at the highest difficulty level, you pretty much have to be using effective strategies, by definition).

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't play just to survive. I guess that's it. I play to win BIG. Perhaps there are games where I chose to build my temples and that's what caused me to fail in those games (where failure is usually me hitting ctrl+shift+q and muttering that it wasn't that good a game).

Agreed. Truly, I do play for fun too! When my empire is big and successful (and I have lots of Culture!), I'm happy to look at it and smile. But there needs to be some difficulty in getting there, I admit.

I think the CTRL-SHIFT-Q comment is right on, actually. In my efforts to become a better player (hence my postings on this strategy forum), I want to be able to expect to play and win games without frequent restarts. I'm not at the poing where I penalize myself just to create a challenge (no Workers until 10AD!), but I will usually stop if things are too easy. My rants about Temples and Culture are just questions as to which strategies are the most effective. I'm willing to grant they may not be the most fun.

Originally posted by Arrian
One of the reasons I still teeter between Monarch and Emperor is that Emperor is pretty stressful and I feel like I need to play China all the time (ultimate warmonger combo) to win.

Having played Emperor for quite some time now, and seeing glimpses of the way you play the game, I'm confident you belong at Emperor, skill-wise (using any civ). What may take some getting used to is the later arrival of "dominance". On Monarch you're dominating after a successful Knight campaign (or before); on Emperor, you often need to go all the way into the Industrial Corridor.

Originally posted by Arrian
There is still a lot of builder in me. [Luke]There is still good in him, I can feel it[/Luke]

Arrian = Anakin?


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Culture is not a guarantee or a strategy. It's a lifestyle.

Heh, I'm so not cultured. Maybe you need to have a certain je ne sais quoi to win at Deity...




Dominae

[punkbass2000]

I've been thinking about changing my signature, really.

*but remember, GWB would get absolutely crushed at Chieftain*

(unless his wife helped him out)
(and his brother)

(and that woman in Florida)


(and the Supr...

[BRC]

You suffer from the same affliction I do. Just winning doesn't cut it.

It's kind of a pain in the butt, because I realize that I may never be able to beat Diety. Not because I won't be good enough, but because I will hate the game when I am down a whole era. I'll just quit.

Incidentally, I've come up with a way to perk up the late(r) part of the game: Privateers. When you have UP, you can easily afford to crank out 20 or so privateers. See if you can destroy the combined navies of the remaining AI civs. It's like fighting a war... without fighting a war. I'll even take on ironclads. 2-3 privateers will take them down.

Do you normally use Privateers when the game is close??? Or are they just for fun??

Or, alternatively, you could use that nifty religious trait and switch back to Monarchy and just declare a neverending war on the remaining civs. Take your time. No need to rush it. Break things. Slowly. Carefully.

And people think the Religious Trait is good for the culture wins.

I like playing as China, but I like Egypt and Japan more. I don't like leading a bunch of uncultured, ignorant barbarians. I like leading a bunch of cultured, ignorant barbarians.

Me too. I guess I feel that I need to be beating the AI in every aspect of the game. Land area, tech lead, military, Culture...

There is still a lot of builder in me.

My cities need every improvement too, although I think I could benefit more by waiting to build the improvement in some of them.

I do use tight city spacing, but I am not growing borders to connect cities. It is really more general border growing. I want to have large, powerful cultural borders.

PB: Just a question: How tight of spacing??

Dom: Religious is one of my favorite traits. I also make more use out of it than you probably do. The key to all of this is how your strategy uses the traits. I haven't done much experimenting, but I bet Scientific can be really good in the hands of the right person. That same person may say that Religious stinks. Industrious is rated near the top because everyone uses workers in there game. You enjoyed the English game with the Expansionist Trait. I still feel it is weak. This is probably because I don't always expand like you do. I usually pop up 4 or 5 cities and then upgrade warriors or chariots. And then I hit someone while I burn off the saved up population in my cities. The edge that I would gain from Expansionist probably would not help as much as my ability to poprush temples in these new cities. It's all in the style of play.

[punkbass2000]

Three spaces away, as in any 1 movement unit can get from one city to the next in one turn on my road system (and I've always got a road system).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
It's all in the style of play.

Yup. This probably explains why I'm going off on Religious, because I feel it may be the time for me to change my style, so I'm trying to figure out if Religious is the way to go. I started off as a Religious freak, then slowly went towards Atheism. Maybe I will return. Expansionist was a fun experience. Scientific (outside the realm of OCC) is almost totally foreign to me.

As you can see, much of the fun for me in Civ3 is exploring the possibilities.


Dominae

[BRC]

PB: Thanks. I'll remember this when I give Diety a shot.

Yup. This probably explains why I'm going off on Religious, because I feel it may be the time for me to change my style, so I'm trying to figure out if Religious is the way to go. I started off as a Religious freak, then slowly went towards Atheism. Maybe I will return. Expansionist was a fun experience. Scientific (outside the realm of OCC) is almost totally foreign to me.

Why do you need to change your style??
I saw nothing wrong with what you were doing. It was different than what I've ever seen, but I am realizing that it might take that to get UP on the higher levels (if that's possible). Like maybe with the Scientific trait.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
Why do you need to change your style??

If you always keep the same style, you're not playing every civ to the fullest of its potential, IMO (nor are you having much fun, in my case). If I were to discount the worth of early Temples when playing a Religious civ (by not building them), I would be uselessly crippling myself. My comments about the usefulness of Temples and Culture apply only to other, non-Religious civs (or, civs in general). Lately, I've had some success with the "heathen" civs, and so I was wondering if Religious is really as great as everyone says it is. I'm just trying to figure things out!


Dominae

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I was getting comfortable at Emperor and then PTW came out, and it is a tad harder, so I dropped back while testing out the new civs. I know I can win on Emperor. But as you know, I don't want to just win.

"Arrian = Anakin?" Sorta, actually. I want this nice, big, cultured, developed, happy, efficient empire. I have discovered that the best way to get it is to do my best impression of Ghengis Khan.

Regarding your wanting to change styles and your relative lack of experience with the scientific trait, I offer up Babylon or Persia (or Ottomans). The Babs are slow to get going, it's true, but if you can get them rolling, they EXPLODE into the mid game. They save on a lot of improvements. In fact, I'm going to play them tonight. I had a very frustrating game as Egypt last night due in part to a terrible run of combat luck*, so I need a change of pace.

BRC,

Nah, I'd never waste shields on privateers when the game is close. I'm talking about an UP game where I've taken out 3-4 neighbors already, have a solid tech lead, I'm rich, wonderous, etc. This is usually when I'm approaching the industrial age (I probably have galleons & Cavalry, but don't yet have RRs & factories). There are two things I can do at that point:

1) invade someone
2) play nice, waiting for a couple of AIs to get in a tussle so I can sneak a city or two on their continent to grab luxuries.

If going with option 2, privateers help alleviate boredom while I'm waiting for the AIs to pick a fight. I often end up with a mixture of 1 & 2.

Sometimes I don't have enough productive coastal towns to build a large number of privateers, though (there is little point to building a couple of them. They're weak, and should be used in packs of 3 or more). It all depends.

-Arrian

* - there's bad luck, and then there is *cursed by the Civ gods* bad luck. I experienced the latter last night.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Babs are slow to get going, it's true, but if you can get them rolling, they EXPLODE into the mid game. They save on a lot of improvements. In fact, I'm going to play them tonight.

I'm was actually quite surprised and impressed you chose the Babylonians in our PBEM game. Although I did steal China from you (I was willing to give it up, really!), I thought you would go for one of the other "powerhouse" MP civs, like the Iroquois.

Funny you should mention the Babs, actually, because (once I finish my schoolwork), that's the first civ I'm planning to try out. My only experience with them in the past was my last Monarch game, and I was so dominant in Culture and Wonders that I gave up in disgust (...you know, when UP gets scary). Probably that game set me up for a general dislike of Culture I've carried around with me ever since.


Dominae

[Arrian]

My only experience with them in the past was my last Monarch game, and I was so dominant in Culture and Wonders that I gave up in disgust (...you know, when UP gets scary).

This is the fundamental difference between you and I. I *LOVE* it when UP gets "scary." That's what I'm after!

As for choosing them in the PBEM game... it was a total whim. I don't expect to win (though I'll try).

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

What do you mean by "UP"?

To learn the value of different trait combinations "Random" has long been my choice of civ.

To moderately increase the value of Privateers I gave them same numbers as Frigate, except for RoF: A/D/M=2/2/4, B/RoF=2/1.
Lot's of fun until Combustion, with AI privateers sneaking across the border, bombarding and retreating back to their home port. I had to build them too, in order to stop their incursions.

[Arrian]

"UP" = Ultimate Power. It's a term I kinda coined.... it basically means you have it all: tech, wonders, resources, military power, size, culture, etc.

I did a thread a while back about the concept (oddly enough called Ultimate Power), using a very dominant Chinese/Monarch game to illustrate.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

Dominae,
I was just looking at the Editor, Culture tab. Your culture ratio vs. your opponent is quite relevant in regards to:
Propaganda
Resistance; initial and continuing

[Dominae]

Jaybe,

Originally posted by Jaybe
Propaganda

Irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Jaybe
Resistance; initial and continuing

I've posted elsewhere that this isn't such a big deal if you know how to deal with it (what a pun!). But, I've been noticing lately that when I conquer other civs, I have to plan for a lot of flips, which slows me down somewhat. I'm not sure yet if this effect is big enough to convince me to "go cultural" before I go to war (or at the same time).


Dominae

[Catt]

Much to comment on, but not much time to post. I'd just leave for now this inflamatory commentary: if the goal is simply the most efficient method to win the game, consistently, while accepting the least risk of losing, then neither temples (early or late) nor any other city improvement other than (perhaps) barracks are required. Units, and conquest, win the game. The further you move up the difficulty tree, the more true this becomes. Imagine playing a "Super Deity" level where the AI builds at a 40% (or 30% or 20%) human cost. Units, units, and more units are the prescription for that ailment, IMHO, until at some point the game becomes "unbeatable."

But playing the game soley to win becomes stale quickly for many people, just as always employing an "optimal" opening play sequence might become stale. One fun challenge is to play in a manner that exploits the inherent advantages of your chosen civ, the map features, your neighbors, etc., even if such play style deviates from a more optimal approach. For some this doesn't make sense - the object should be to whip the game, as effectively and efficiently as possible. For others, this is the goal (ahead even of winning). Everyone finds their own comfort zone.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
I'd just leave for now this inflamatory commentary: if the goal is simply the most efficient method to win the game, consistently, while accepting the least risk of losing, then neither temples (early or late) nor any other city improvement other than (perhaps) barracks are required. Units, and conquest, win the game.

Heh, I knew I set myself up for this reaction. Let me say in my defense that I do play the game for fun, and certain things I do are "sub-optimal"; city spacing, not checking the diplo screen every turn, and yes, building every darn improvement I can in my good cities. I would not enjoy the game if I felt I had to play Militaristic and build Archers until I win. But with this said, I believe there is still room for discussion of the relative merits of certain courses of action at certain points of the game (or else the whole Strategy forum would be for naught). And "intangible" as the Temple benefit appears to be, I think there must be good reasons to build (or not to build) them beyond "I have more fun if I build Temples", which is a great reason, but is not about strategy. Temples (and Culture) are definitely a big part of Civ3 (which is just great), but there must be better times and worse times to build them. That's my question.

All this said, my next game is probably with either the Spanish or the Babylonians. I want to prove to myself that the "intangibles" in Civ3 (mainly, the Commercial trait and Culture) are responsible for "tangible" success (victory and fun).


Dominae

[Brizey]

I personally beleive there is a time and place for each of the traits.

For example, with the Chinese, I do any early push with horseman, then a major sustained push with Riders and Cavalry. The GA is timed to help me beeline to Miltrad. The three move Rider makes culture flipping a non-problem. They move very fast, and so I usually leave the cities I capure lightly defended, if at all. If one flips, I send a rider or two back to retake it.

Here is where industious kicks in. It is very easy to over-extend with Riders. And we all know how poor the AI is at developing tiles. So I send my worker force in to rapidly clean up the mess.

So the point is that the three move UU mitigates the culture flipping problem. And well developed tiles can mitigate the production advantages of religious and scientific. Throw in three or four leaders, and you have a great combination.

That being said, I wouldn't choose the Chinese as optimal on a island map becaus it would hinder the Rider push too much.

Dom: I think that Comercial is under-rated. It adds production where it counts most: on the edge of you holdings. Two shields per city is the same as half-price ANYTHING, not just temples or libraries. One thing I have done lately is concentrate more on building courthouses and police stations.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae

Heh, I knew I set myself up for this reaction. Let me say in my defense that I do play the game for fun, and certain things I do are "sub-optimal"; city spacing, not checking the diplo screen every turn, and yes, building every darn improvement I can in my good cities. I would not enjoy the game if I felt I had to play Militaristic and build Archers until I win. But with this said, I believe there is still room for discussion of the relative merits of certain courses of action at certain points of the game (or else the whole Strategy forum would be for naught). And "intangible" as the Temple benefit appears to be, I think there must be good reasons to build (or not to build) them beyond "I have more fun if I build Temples", which is a great reason, but is not about strategy. Temples (and Culture) are definitely a big part of Civ3 (which is just great), but there must be better times and worse times to build them. That's my question.

All this said, my next game is probably with either the Spanish or the Babylonians. I want to prove to myself that the "intangibles" in Civ3 (mainly, the Commercial trait and Culture) are responsible for "tangible" success (victory and fun).

Wasn't targeting you or attacking your position at all! I just felt that one undercurrent of the long conversation I missed while away from 'Poly was whether or not their was an objectively "optimum" time to build temples (or other improvements). Though I felt the undercurrent was largely unspoken, you highlighted it and also pointed out that playing for "fun" more than efficiency is what keeps the game interesting for you. Arrian did the same. I thought it made sense to throw out my view that, as a baseline, units, unit factories (cities) and conqeust are all that is needed to win. This view is, I think, derivative of Vel's early strategy threads and the game-breakers he devised.

But I will also venture a guess that just about everyone who spends any time here doesn't play the game in this fashion. Indeed, I suspect that if one did play the game in the most brutally efficient manner possible, one would soon bore oneself to death with Civ 3 and would not be spending any time in the forums at all!

So, by setting my own baseline view of the most consistently "optimal" play pattern, I can discard it and argue the merits of other playstyles (without having to point out each time that it represents a departure from optimal play ).

Fact is, IMHO, playing a civ to its strengths, playing a random map to its strengths, playing opponents to their weaknesses, etc., and exploring where the boundaries of those strengths and weaknesses lay, are what makes the game fun and interesting. In turn, such explorations are the only things that make strategy discussions worthwhile (as Dominae points out).

Catt