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

Artifex · February 23, 2003, 10:34

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 · February 23, 2003, 10:57

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 · February 23, 2003, 11:03

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 · February 23, 2003, 11:06

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 · February 23, 2003, 12:44

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 · February 23, 2003, 13:54

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 · February 24, 2003, 05:27

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 · February 24, 2003, 05:56

Quote:

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 · February 24, 2003, 05:58

Quote:

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 · February 24, 2003, 09:56

Unwanted poster alert!

Jawa Jocky · February 24, 2003, 10:11

edit - didn't warrant a reply

Arrian · February 24, 2003, 11:44

Ottok sighting! *points*

-Arrian

Catt · February 24, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

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 · February 24, 2003, 12:54

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 · February 24, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

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.

Arrian · February 24, 2003, 14:22

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 · February 24, 2003, 14:51

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 · February 24, 2003, 15:51

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 · February 24, 2003, 23:45

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 · February 25, 2003, 01:53

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 · February 25, 2003, 02:11

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 · February 25, 2003, 02:16

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 · February 25, 2003, 02:34

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 · February 25, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

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 · February 25, 2003, 11:15

Quote:

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 · February 25, 2003, 11:28

Quote:

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.