Would like your thoughts on an observation I made playing on Emperor: I believe that founding religions predominantly does you more harm than good, especially with regards to the game at large. Here's why:

1. Researching the necessary advance delays more relevant tech
Efficient use of tech is crucial in playing Emperor successfully. This means prioritising key technologies with regards to their immediate and strategic relevance. While I don't believe in an ideal generic tech-path, I believe that all religion-founding techs except one are always trumped by other available ones in terms of relevancy,so researching them carries a hidden "opportunity cost".

In particular, pursuing the three early religions delays much more immediately useful advances such as bronze working, worker techs and the pottery/writing/alphabet path. The one exception may be code of laws/confucianism, which is useful to have asap in all games where you have the opportunity to found/conquer a large number of cities early.

2. Spread of your own religion among your cities slows the spread of other ones
I believe having as many religions as possible in your empire is preferable to having just one predominantly as it gives you more choices in terms of state religion and the related diplomatic boni, allows you to build more temples and improves the benefit of the free religion civic. Early religions in particular tend to spread quickly through your empire, and religiously affiliated cities are less likely to acquire additional religions.

3. Making the religion you founded your state religion will spoil relations with other Civs
In most games, switching to a state religion works to your disadvantage in that it spoils relations with other civs, hampering trade and inviting aggression. The exception are island starts or games where your neighbors all share one religion. But a situation in which you manage to found and benefit from spreading your religion to other (unaffiliated) civs is much less likely. Thus, even if you manage to found a religion, it is usually unwise to leverage the larger part of its benefits (+1 happiness from state religion and access to religious civics).

4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

5. Letting AI found religions is more likely to keep them hostile to each other
This is possibly the strongest argument against founding religions: Religions foster dissent among the AI, and dissent amongst the AI works to your advantage in slowing trade and inciting war. Any religion you found is a religion not founded by the AI, increasing the chance of religiously homogenous alliances which work against your interest.

As a bottom line, I would argue that on Emperor games, the dominant (more useful in the majority of settings) strategy is to abstain from founding religions entirely.

The most frequent exception may be island starts, where an early religion can be helpful. The best religion to found my be confucianism, as it arrives with a key tech and in the mid game, giving you time to adapt to the prevailing religious climate.

Opinions, objections? :)

J.

EDITS: Formatting.

all this is also true on lower levels

i fully agree with the exception of going cultural

I couldn't agree more.

The diplomatic consequences are the reason I haven't founded a single religion or adopted any state religion in ages.

I agree too! However on lower levels it can be fun to found and spread your own religion. Also, let's see how aelf's thread develops - it may prove us wrong!

Would like your thoughts on an observation I made playing on Emperor: I believe that founding religions predominantly does you more harm than good, especially with regards to the game at large. Here's why:

1. Researching the necessary advance delays more relevant tech
Efficient use of tech is crucial in playing Emperor successfully. This means prioritising key technologies with regards to their immediate and strategic relevance. While I don't believe in an ideal generic tech-path, I believe that all religion-founding techs except one are always trumped by other available ones in terms of relevancy,so researching them carries a hidden "opportunity cost".

In particular, pursuing the three early religions delays much more immediately useful advances such as bronze working, worker techs and the pottery/writing/alphabet path. The one exception may be code of laws/confucianism, which is useful to have asap in all games where you have the opportunity to found/conquer a large number of cities early.

2. Spread of your own religion among your cities slows the spread of other ones
I believe having as many religions as possible in your empire is preferable to having just one predominantly as it gives you more choices in terms of state religion and the related diplomatic boni, allows you to build more temples and improves the benefit of the free religion civic. Early religions in particular tend to spread quickly through your empire, and religiously affiliated cities are less likely to acquire additional religions.

3. Making the religion you founded your state religion will spoil relations with other Civs
In most games, switching to a state religion works to your disadvantage in that it spoils relations with other civs, hampering trade and inviting aggression. The exception are island starts or games where your neighbors all share one religion. But a situation in which you manage to found and benefit from spreading your religion to other (unaffiliated) civs is much less likely. Thus, even if you manage to found a religion, it is usually unwise to leverage the larger part of its benefits (+1 happiness from state religion and access to religious civics).

4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

5. Letting AI found religions is more likely to keep them hostile to each other
This is possibly the strongest argument against founding religions: Religions foster dissent among the AI, and dissent amongst the AI works to your advantage in slowing trade and inciting war. Any religion you found is a religion not founded by the AI, increasing the chance of religiously homogenous alliances which work against your interest.

As a bottom line, I would argue that on Emperor games, the dominant (more useful in the majority of settings) strategy is to abstain from founding religions entirely.

The most frequent exception may be island starts, where an early religion can be helpful. The best religion to found my be confucianism, as it arrives with a key tech and in the mid game, giving you time to adapt to the prevailing religious climate.

Opinions, objections? :)

1) Even on Diety, you usually have enough grace period early on to grab one outside tech of your choice and still be fine.

2) Unless you are playing a spiritual civ, temples are too expensive for the happiness, and switching religions is too expensive for the diplomatic bonus. Drama and Paganism are your friends.

3) Nothing is forcing you to switch to a religion that you found. You get the shrine money either way.

4) *Everything* is cheaper conquered than built; shrines are no exception, but sometimes the holy cities end up an Astronomical distance away. Spreading a religion is not too difficult. Send a few missionaries to the religious nuts, and they will switch over and spread your religion for you, often sending missionaries back to your cities.

5) Letting AIs found religion make it much harder to control the state religion of the AIs and damn near impossible to redefine the diplomatic blocs at whim.


The most important benefit of grabbing an early religion on high levels is to slow down certain opponents, since they will keep trying to found one. It's nice to have a neighboring religious nut wasting their beakers on Theology and wasting their hammers on missionaries for your religion instead of building troops and military techs right on your doorstep.


I'm guessing that you have a tendency to only play particular maps/sizes/speeds/etc, because I can't see how else you could believe such a blanket claim about founding religions being futile at Emperor+.

Have you tried founding one of the early religions then building stonehenge or a temple for an ultra early shrine?

You get a lot of religion spread that way without having to build missionaries.

I'm guessing that you have a tendency to only play particular maps/sizes/speeds/etc, because I can't see how else you could believe such a blanket claim about founding religions being futile at Emperor+.

You are right, I should have specified that my observations are based on playing epic games on small to large maps, with the standard number of opponents for the respective setting. Also, I didn't say founding a religion was futile, but a dominated strategy in the majority of games (played under the settings above) - meaning there are benefits, and exceptional settings where it actually does make sense.

That said, I much appreciate your comments and would like to elaborate on my views of some of them.

1) Even on Diety, you usually have enough grace period early on to grab one outside tech of your choice and still be fine.

While a grab of Buddhism or Hinduism admittedly will not set you back hugely, you do see some incremental benefits from earlier access to specials, mines and farms if you time your growth and (worker-) turns really tightly. Also, I doubt you stand much of a chance at grabbing an early religion on Deity if you are playing four or more opponents. I think if you are going after a religion, Confucianism is probably the best one, as it opens up a tech that is very useful to have asap, comes at a time where religion can still be a major, cost-efficient means to influence diplomacy and because it can be lightbulbed or slingshotted (sp?) to.

Agree with points 2, 3 and 4 but would still argue that founding and spreading a religion as a major pillar in ones strategy is not the most effective choice under most circumstances.

Also, I think this ...

Letting AIs found religion make it much harder to control the state religion of the AIs and damn near impossible to redefine the diplomatic blocs at whim.

... is debatable. I understand that a successful grab of one of the three early religions gives you the option of converting your neighbours and thus helps define a diplomatic bloc. But in standard-size, standard-number of civ games, there is a >50% chance that at least one of your neighbours also founds an early religion, and what do you gain in this case? An enemy, if you committ.

Sure, you can stay neutral, spread it to him or his neighbor and hope to stir up some trouble - but if you abstain from founding, it is more likely that this will happen naturally, at no cost to you. 1/3 of the way into the game, you have pretty much the same options - if not more, because of the higher chance of different religions spreading to unaffiliated cities - simply by spreading on the religions that have spread to you, if that seems prudent.

That's why I say that in the majority of scenarios, an early religion is more of a hindrance than a benefit: In my experience, you fare better staying neutral in the early game, or adopting the religion of your near neighbours. I find that in most cases, founding a religion is not worth the additional effort.

Lastly, reading this ...

The most important benefit of grabbing an early religion on high levels is to slow down certain opponents, since they will keep trying to found one. It's nice to have a neighboring religious nut wasting their beakers on Theology and wasting their hammers on missionaries for your religion instead of building troops and military techs right on your doorstep.

... made me wonder whether the "religious nut" isn't in most cases the player who pursues religions as part of his/her strategy, burning beakers on (often chancy and unsucessful) religion grabs, throwing good shields after bad in actively shaping a religious landscape that, in the majority of cases, could be exploited to the same effect by just playing along with the game as it takes shape by itself.

Here's a question: Would you recommend that a player who is learning to play successfully on Emperor (standard size map and # of opponents) actively pursue religions to improve his chances at winning?

Reason I ask (and posted this) is that part of my learning process for Emperor has been to ditch founding religions, and I've never looked back.

Regards,

J.

Originally Posted by Paeanblack
4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

I usually target a civ with a holly city for my second war usally with catapults/axes or catapults/ mace man (first war eliminate closest neighbour) for land grab and distance cost.

Have you tried founding one of the early religions then building stonehenge or a temple for an ultra early shrine?

You get a lot of religion spread that way without having to build missionaries.

I have, but rarely. I play random civs, so in most cases I don't even stand a chance at grabbing an early religion.

Even with Mysticism as your starting tech, I find gunning for Buddhism or Hinduism is a risk, unless you have a tile that generates 3 coins off the bat. You cannot be certain of not missing the religion and wasting turns, while teching and building to make use of the terrain you start with will give you reliable results.

Similarly, I find that pursuing Stonehenge is a big, risky investment at a time when you don't know much about the world/game taking shape around you. If you pull off both the early religion and Stonehenge, I'm sure the rewards are great. But in most games, chances are you will fail at either, and forfeit the certain benefit of turns played more conservatively.

I suppose that for a veteran player, that risk is manageable (and the opportunity for a non-standard opening welcome) - but it seems that less experienced players tend to pursue flowery, religion and wonder heavy openings in the lower levels and wonder why they never get a leg up on Emperor ... much like I did, truth be known.

J.

More harm than good? Founding a religion is a bloody hoot on emperor level. If you spread it around, get a religious "team" on your side, and watch a holy war rage around the world. If you play your diplomatic cards right, you won't be the one going to war - your religious buddies will be.

Easiest way to found a religion emperor level is with Wang Kon, I'd say. Simply start researching Hinduism right off - you'll get it a vast majority of the time. Since it's an early one, if you're aggressive with it, you can spread it and form a good team-Hindu to work with - simply have to make your goal missionary rushes rather than axemen rushes. Ramses is fun too, and Christianity spreads like a weed if you use your first two great prophets (stonehenge in capital, two priests, you'll get them very fast) to lightbulb theocracy and make the sistine chapel. You'll need a bit of luck to not have the world religiously saturated by that point.

Is this harder than winning regularly? Yeah... But hell, if I wanted to win by a series of military rushes every time, I'd have stuck with Starcraft and Zergling rushed. The diplomatic rat's nest that religion brings to a game makes it fun. Why win the easiest way you can every time when there are other interesting courses to take? ;)

I think that founding a religion early is a reasonably worthwhile thing to attempt, neither an awesome move nor a bad one. It has pros and cons like pretty much everything else.

Having said that, I feel like pursuing religion techs has more in its favor than its critics are giving it credit for. For one thing, while delaying researching worker techs can hurt your productivity in the short term, spreading your borders faster can help it in the long term. Religion and buildings associated with the religion branch of the tech tree are the only way to get culture spreading from new cities early in the game except for Libraries and Wonders (and the Creative trait). Libraries can take an awfully long time for a new city to build, let alone Wonders. So at the very least it is often advisable to research Mysticism and build obelisks or Stonehenge.

Another point in favor of researching the religion branch is that the technologies involved have plenty of uses besides just the hit-or-miss establishment of a religion. Mysticism lets you build obelisks and Stonehenge. Polytheism unlocks a couple of wonders. Meditation isn't so good without a religion, but with it enables Monasteries. If you research some of these techs then you're in a position to go after Priesthood, allowing you to build the Oracle and Temples. Priesthood is also one of the fastest routes to Writing and the single fastest route to both Code of Laws and Monarchy, all of which are highly beneficial techs. Or if that doesn't interest you, the Organized Religion tech and the establishment of Judaism is well within reach.

So even if you try for, say, Hinduism, and fail, you're still in a good position to build some wonders, try to establish Confucianism or Judaism, and/or attempt a CS Slingshot or get some other free tech. It's hardly the case that if you didn't nab Hiduism you've wasted your time.

More harm than good? Founding a religion is a bloody hoot on emperor level. If you spread it around, get a religious "team" on your side, and watch a holy war rage around the world. If you play your diplomatic cards right, you won't be the one going to war - your religious buddies will be.

Easiest way to found a religion emperor level is with Wang Kon, I'd say. Simply start researching Hinduism right off - you'll get it a vast majority of the time. Since it's an early one, if you're aggressive with it, you can spread it and form a good team-Hindu to work with. Ramses is fun too, and Christianity spreads like a weed if you use your first two great prophets (stonehenge in capital, two priests, you'll get them very fast) to lightbulb theocracy and make the sistine chapel. You'll need a bit of luck to not have the world religiously saturated by that point.

Is this harder than winning regularly? Yeah... But hell, if I wanted to win by a series of military rushes every time, I'd have stuck with Starcraft and Zergling rushed. The diplomatic rat's nest that religion brings to a game makes it fun. Why win the easiest way you can every time when there are other interesting courses to take? ;)

Spreading the religious Word also is very depending on the maptype.

Also, founding an early religion can give you +4 diplomacy with your neighbors, and -4 with civs that are farther away - not a bad trade.

Actually, you can get more than + or - 4, depending on who is the same religion with you. Religiously oriented civs like/hate you more for same/different religions... I know it goes as high as +7. If you get on the same page with someone like Gandhi or Isabella they'll love you for it, but the opposite is true as well.

Also, founding an early religion can give you +4 diplomacy with your neighbors, and -4 with civs that are farther away - not a bad trade.

I'd usually prefer it the other way around, because I tend to conquer my immediate neighbors.

I've always attempted to found 1-2 religions on Emperor, but I never thought that it might lead to less AI fragmentation, since there are fewer other religions to go around. When I start playing again, I'll probably have less of a focus on religion, unless my strategy demands it.

4) Send a few missionaries to the religious nuts, and they will switch over and spread your religion for you, often sending missionaries back to your cities.


How often does this actually happen? I've tried numerous times to get an AI to spread a religion for me. I'll send them enough Missionaires so that they convert to my religion and then I sit back and wait. And wait... and wait... and nothing. So there must be some other factors in play that influence if an AI uses a Missionary or not. From what I could tell it looks like an AI never uses them at all unless it has built the Shrine and is expanding to get its income up. But maybe some of the religious minded AIs are supposed to use them in cases beyond this. I'd like to know what the trick is since I see 'get the AI to spread your religion for you' pop up all the time in the forums but I haven't seen it work yet.

Getting an early religion makes it much more likely that the AI will adopt your religion than another. I think it's generally worth the gamble if you start with Mysticism as a tech. Without Mysticism as a tech, you generally will miss it. After you get your religion you can alawys go back and work on Bronze working or The Wheel.

I'd usually prefer it the other way around, because I tend to conquer my immediate neighbors.Then warmongers need not apply. My last game, I had Bismarck and Isabella on my continent with a lousy starting position (lousy empire too - few luxuries or health benefits, and just one of most strategic resources). I spread Buddhism to Bismarck and Isabella founded Hinduism. I kept Bismarck at friendly and he made a GREAT buffer against Issy while I struggled to get the score and power lead. Heck, I was even pushing Bismarck's borders back aggressively with culture and he hardly gave me any demerits for it.

That game ended with my first "real" diplomatic victory as I had the 3rd, 4th, and 5th scoring civs running Buddhism and up to Friendly level through trades and religion and mutual wars. The entire game I captured two cities and razed one (should have razed two, though).

The early +4 with Bismarck tipped him into mutual warfare with me against Issy, increasing our bond even more. Without it, I would have been bogged down in twice the warfare with little benefit.

From what I could tell it looks like an AI never uses them at all unless it has built the Shrine and is expanding to get its income up.

That's true for foreign missionaries sent outside the AI's borders. Besides powering up a shrine, the only other purpose of a foreign missionary is to manipulate the diplomatic map by influencing a rival's state religion. The AI doesn't think to that level, so it doesn't do that.

The AI will spread your religion for you only internally, and only if it's their state religion (for its own benefit in its own cities.) Also they need to be in Organized Religion, since they don't prioritize monasteries, and if they're in Theocracy, they're building military, not missionaries.

... made me wonder whether the "religious nut" isn't in most cases the player who pursues religions as part of his/her strategy, burning beakers on (often chancy and unsucessful) religion grabs, throwing good shields after bad in actively shaping a religious landscape that, in the majority of cases, could be exploited to the same effect by just playing along with the game as it takes shape by itself.

By religious nut, I mean the AIs like Izzy, Monty, Gandhi, etc, who will switch to whatever religion first enters their borders and try to convert world, while still trying to found a religion themselves. If you deny them one of the early religions, you've made their life alot harder.

If you are playing with random personalities, you can still get some idea of what opponents are researching which pre-Alphabet techs by paying close attention to the land improvements they are able to build, how many beakers they are generating, and by looking at your own research costs, which will drop if you have met an opponent who has a particular tech.

Here's a question: Would you recommend that a player who is learning to play successfully on Emperor (standard size map and # of opponents) actively pursue religions to improve his chances at winning?

Reason I ask (and posted this) is that part of my learning process for Emperor has been to ditch founding religions, and I've never looked back.

I wouldn't say actively pursue religion, but keep an open mind. Used effectively religions and their civics can replace obelisks (or Stonehenge), libraries, markets, banks, theaters, etc in many cities, all of which means many more spare hammers to throw troops at opponents. In the hands of a human, a religion will spread faster and further than one founded by the AI, simply because a player can co-opt other AIs into helping.

There will be more situations than you think where an early religion is a stellar move. Don't ignore the opportunities.

I don't like dawdling for Code of Laws, Theology and Philosophy. If I found Confucianism, Christianity or Taoism, I'll take it, but I just take the holy city from an opponent if I get beat to them, I'll just invade and take them out.

Founding a religion is a bloody hoot on emperor level. If you spread it around, get a religious "team" on your side, and watch a holy war rage around the world. If you play your diplomatic cards right, you won't be the one going to war - your religious buddies will be.

I see the advantage in this, but you don't need to FOUND the religion to pull it off. Ganging up for a religious war only makes sense if you have 2 or more neighbours, and chances are one of them will get the religion and you can then spread it. Yes, you have less influence over the timing (as it needs to spread to you first), but then if you found it yourself, you need to invest turns into spreading it, so I think the net result isn't that different.

It helps a lot. If you spread it, that is. You get a great deal of gold, which is always important. If it is spread through out a lot of cities, you can keep track of your enemies. Helps your relationship *no brainer*. Kills it too *no brainer*.

I like finding religions. But it is very useful to go straight for Bronze Working, what I just did. I wasn't able to find a religion... yet, but oh well. If I conquer one, it'll be good. I love chopping. Chopped Stonge Henge a bit earlier. Was chooping Pyramids, but I lost it. Still got 191 gold. And instead of worrying of having to build missionaries, you just build your military.

Your neighbors will get pissed off at you though, and you won't have as much gold coming in. But it shouldn't matter unless you have a lot of cottages going around, and stuff.

So I tried to take some of the well intended advice for religion on board and played around with spiritual civ starts today, but I can't say I've seen the light.

I will be the first to admit that I am a bit stuck on the no-wonders/no religion formula for getting rolling on Emperor. My priorities are usually BW asap, then on to writing, alphabet if I have more than one neighbour. I'll throw in AH if no bronze is near, one or two worker techs/fishing and wheel, mysticism for obelisks if necessary, and usually get to writing via pottery.

What attracts me to this is the flexibility and reliability: You can leverage an early worker to the max, get a settler out quickly, throw in military to keep you safe and relibaly get a tech lead after alphabet is researched. The pacing of tech and growth interlocks so nicely.

Stuffing around with religion I always feel like I am tripping up and coming up short compared to where I could be with a more conservative start. Yeah, the benefits are nice - faster cultural expansion, no need for obelisks, monasteries and temples ... but the more I prioritise these, the more I miss my versatile workers and more useful basic units and buildings. It just feels really ineffective.

Most of all, sending out missionaries and pruning a priest for a shrine seems a reeeeeally long shot investment. Maybe I need to play longer to see it bear fruit, but frankly, I don't feel like I'm missing out if I let the AI get the religious game started.

Also, I still maintain that there is no reliable benefit from founding religion when it comes to diplomacy and alliance building. The stars need to align really well for you to be able to spread your early religion and get your neighbour(s) in an alliance against a third party - same likelyhood as in a non-religious game, I'd say.

Guess I'll stay an unwashed heathen. Any rate, thanks for all the replies, and, like, God bless. ;)

J.

I've always attempted to found 1-2 religions on Emperor, but I never thought that it might lead to less AI fragmentation, since there are fewer other religions to go around.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is the key benefit of NOT founding religions. Take a look at the current GOTM, an emperor continents game - lots of examples of people going for early religion, only to find the AI on the other continent in celestial harmony as a result.

J.

I totally agree that founding a religion at emperor is a waste of resources. Seems like at the higher levels, you're better off declaring war, or focusing on other things and adapting to the AI's diplomatic situation.

The thing is that wasting research and hammers on religion does not cripple the buffed-up AI. Spending them on war stuff does!

I'm trying to do both in my current Emperor Challenge game: stifle the AI with war and found + take advantage of religions. I guess it's only really impractical on Immortal or Deity. Maybe it can still be done on Immortal.

Researching one tech at the beginning of the game to try and found a religion if you start with Mysticism isn't exactly going to slow your development much, and in return you get the benefit of an early +1 happiness in your capital (a measurable advantage either for whipping or growing cottages) and free scouting info even if you do NOTHING except let the religion spread passively.

I usually research meditation or polytheism first if starting with mysticism, even at the highest difficulty levels.

Researching one tech at the beginning of the game to try and found a religion if you start with Mysticism isn't exactly going to slow your development much, and in return you get the benefit of an early +1 happiness in your capital (a measurable advantage either for whipping or growing cottages) and free scouting info even if you do NOTHING except let the religion spread passively.

I usually research meditation or polytheism first if starting with mysticism, even at the highest difficulty levels.

do u eat it if u fail to get the religion? thats what I wanna know about all the ppl who found religions on emperor+ is do they actually continue playing if they fail.

Yeah, I just play on as normal even if I don't get the religion. Like I said, it doesn't slow me down much to research one cheap tech.

A nice change would be to give the founder of the religion extra bonus relations with other civs under the same religion. (Sorry if that's been mentioned). There's really no difference in relations between you going after irrelevent techs, investing in missionaries, and risking religious war and just jumping on the religious bandwagon.

Researching one tech at the beginning of the game to try and found a religion if you start with Mysticism isn't exactly going to slow your development much, and in return you get the benefit of an early +1 happiness in your capital (a measurable advantage either for whipping or growing cottages) and free scouting info even if you do NOTHING except let the religion spread passively.

I usually research meditation or polytheism first if starting with mysticism, even at the highest difficulty levels.

Obviously, the setback isn't much - but it does ad up. If you go worker first and get the right tech to get him busy instead of religion, you will come out a few percentage points better in research, growth, prod, depending on what your tiles are giving you. Means you get a settler out earlier, get to bw more quickly etc ...

But my main point was not so much the setback due to tech, but rather the low value of what follows if you found religion and try to do something with it. My perception is that it`s just way too much risk and hassle to found and spread your own religion rather than just jump on the bandwagon and conquer the shrine later.

But hey, to each his own, and appreciate all the arguments in favor.

Cheers,

J,

Irrespective of the civ I am playing and it's starting techs I nearly always try a shot at at Hinduism (and if failed even Judaism or Code of Laws via the Oracle). The reason is simple: the alternative would be worker techs. But for this you need a worker. And at higher levels it is no use to build improvements early on as the barbarians will destroy them. So better first concentrate on the land grap (by cities and culture (early religion + monuments for which you need mysticism anyway) and later on concentrate on improving production (worker techs).

For instance with Churchill I go:
Mysticism->Polytheism->Sailing (spreads the religion+connects your towns!)->Hunting->Archery->worker techs.

Holy cities are very nice not only for its mid/late game money production but also for the early cultural production. In no time you have a level 3 cultural city and can dominate a large area.

Sometimes I go even further and research Masonry+Monotheism straight after Polytheism if am close to marble and or stone. This way you have at least the possibility of a cultural victory.

In my last game with Churchill on emperor this gave me Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity (via the Oracle) and a lot of early wonders... I would have won a cultural victory if I hadn't won a diplomatic victory.

Irrespective of the civ I am playing and it's starting techs I nearly always try a shot at at Hinduism (and if failed even Judaism or Code of Laws via the Oracle). The reason is simple: the alternative would be worker techs. But for this you need a worker. And at higher levels it is no use to build improvements early on as the barbarians will destroy them. So better first concentrate on the land grap (by cities and culture (early religion + monuments for which you need mysticism anyway) and later on concentrate on improving production (worker techs).

For instance with Churchill I go:
Mysticism->Polytheism->Sailing (spreads the religion+connects your towns!)->Hunting->Archery->worker techs.

Holy cities are very nice not only for its mid/late game money production but also for the early cultural production. In no time you have a level 3 cultural city and can dominate a large area.

Sometimes I go even further and research Masonry+Monotheism straight after Polytheism if am close to marble and or stone. This way you have at least the possibility of a cultural victory.

In my last game with Churchill on emperor this gave me Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity (via the Oracle) and a lot of early wonders... I would have won a cultural victory if I hadn't won a diplomatic victory.

so u research 5 techs on emperor before getting anything that allows ur workers to do something? I'm on the verge of simply not believing u. it seems to me someone on emperor should have realized that barbs dont enter the cultural borders for a long time.

The reason is simple: the alternative would be worker techs. But for this you need a worker. And at higher levels it is no use to build improvements early on as the barbarians will destroy them.

I've never had a huge problem with that. They pillage a few things, but it's still usually worth it to pop out an early worker.

Irrespective of the civ I am playing and it's starting techs I nearly always try a shot at at Hinduism (and if failed even Judaism or Code of Laws via the Oracle). The reason is simple: the alternative would be worker techs. But for this you need a worker. And at higher levels it is no use to build improvements early on as the barbarians will destroy them. So better first concentrate on the land grap (by cities and culture (early religion + monuments for which you need mysticism anyway) and later on concentrate on improving production (worker techs).

Why are so many people on this forum so fussed about Barbarians on Emperor? I just don't get it. They are a nuisance (edit: the barbs, not the posters ;) ), and you need to take some precautions against them (read: fogbust) but IMHO they are not a serious threat and certainly not a reason to delay building a worker and improving the land.

In virtually all of my games, a worker will be among my first three builds. If I start with techs that match the specials around my captial, or with mining (= beeline for bw) I will get a worker out first thing. I rarely get even one of these pillaged.

So I really don't see the point in pursuing religions because there is nothing better to do with your tech until you have some cities down. In fact, having a worker out chopping is probably the best way of getting cities down quickly ... but for that you need to have BW asap, which is not on the religious path.

Playing Emperor, do you get anywhere with this start?

Actually, aside from the ultra-religious starts, there are several scenarios where you don't want to build worker first even though it's the most efficient in terms of accumulated production per turn.

Most common is the scenario where you want an early settler before worker, to avoid being crowded out of the best 2nd city site (which happens more often the higher level you go.) Losing the best site more than nullifies any advantage from worker first.

There's a whole lot of nonsense written about exponential growth, which is not a valid model for civ4 as there are multiple caps on expansion and geometrically increasing maintenance costs. In fact I would say that the biggest benefit of getting one of the first two religions is getting +1 happiness cap (+2 with cheap temple) very early in the game. Having 5 cities size 4 is better than 6 cities size 3.

I don't disagree with you, überfish: Sometimes settler first is indeed the only way to grab land, especially if you need to prevent getting boxed in or beaten to the only good land around. Also, I don't categorically build worker first.

But I would argue that a worker investment in your early growth is the most safe and solid start in the majority of games on emperor (playing shuffle, random climate and sealevel) - and, in response to the above posts, I certainly wouldn't advise holding back for fear of barbs if the opportunity to take advantage of it presents itself.

A situation where you can benefit fully from the happiness bonus of religion - nice as it is - is rare. Temples are expensive unless you are spiritual, and switching to the religion for +2 may carry a diplomatic penalty, as discussed. Often, you will have enough early happies nearby to get you to a decent size before monarchy or theatres kick in so it's not really needed.

Of course the inverse is also true - by the time you realise you have no happies it is often too late to go after a religion. But my gut feel is that to found an early religion as a hedge against not having too few happies is not cost-efficient in most cases.

Ironically, I just played a game last night where, as Isabella on a crap swamp start, I did found Buddhism, which rapidly spread to the 3 atheist civs I shared a really crammed continent with. Although I was the underdog until caravels and the shrine, I was immensely safe and well-informed thoughout the first half of the game, which was a lot of fun.

But while this thread has made me appreciate the variety and benefits of religion gambits, I still maintan that games where the stars align like this are rare, and that founding religion is a dominated strategy in most emperor games.

The game that I was referring to was a bit special, I must admit. I concentrated on founding Hinduism as usual. But because I appeared to be alone on an isle with both stone and marble, I decided to at least try a cultural victory. That is why I concentrated on the religions and wonders. I think on emperor you have more a money problem than a production problem, so that is why I don't bother much about worker techs as long as my cities are connected and religion spreads. (Pottery is the exception.)

My research path was something like Monotheism (straight away) -> Sailing (to connect second city + build Great Lighthouse) -> Wheel (to connect marble) -> Priesthood -> Writing (->Theology by Oracle) -> Worker techs.

But in a 'regular' game I really like founding Hinduism and spreading it by Sailing as this gains me early friends. If Buddhism is also founded on the continent it may be wise to postpone adopting a state religion until other civs have adopted Hinduism as well.

Most common is the scenario where you want an early settler before worker, to avoid being crowded out of the best 2nd city site (which happens more often the higher level you go.) Losing the best site more than nullifies any advantage from worker first.

I agree completely. And BECAUSE you want to get a settler before a worker why then invest in worker techs when you don't need them yet? For religion techs it is pretty simple: you have to get there first of all civs. For worker techs it is not important whether you are there first or not. (As long you want to found a religion, which I think is beneficial.)

Don't get me wrong, I used to do Worker first, ignore religion all the time too. I just no longer think it's the optimal move for spiritual civs seeing the benefits you can get out of religion (and it's boring to always play the same way.) I use all sorts of openings from early rushes to fancy oracle builds.

My opinion is that civs starting with Mysticism should pursue one of the starting religions most of the time, and those who don't should consider it occasionally, for example when intending to build the Oracle.

I used to do Worker first, ignore religion all the time too. I just no longer think it's the optimal move for spiritual civs seeing the benefits you can get out of religion (and it's boring to always play the same way.) I use all sorts of openings from early rushes to fancy oracle builds.

My opinion is that civs starting with Mysticism should pursue one of the starting religions most of the time, and those who don't should consider it occasionally, for example when intending to build the Oracle.

Thanks for bearing with me, Überfish. Your posts prompted me to read up on some of your Immortal SGs on this site (was well impressed btw) which make good, flexible use of religion in diplomacy without being detrimental to military rushing, and I admit this got me thinking.

Maybe my predisposition against founding religion stems from my tendency to play risk-averse builder-ish wait-and-see openings. I do often go to war before catapults, but usually not at the first opportunity, and I will only workersteal, choke and fight my way through a neighbor if I absolutely have to. In other words, I don't drive the early game as much as you guys seem to do.

In the past months, I learned all the standard plays beating Monarch (slingshots, early rush/choke, specialist economy, inciting wars with religion/diplo), but playing Emperor, I found that I could not to rely solely on these. This is because I would often get beaten to key milestones in the more formulaic strategies, but as my general play has become more efficient, I've been winning almost all games by staying safely flexible, only committing to a risk (building a wonder, early war or founding religion) when the odds are very good.

In this approach, founding religion is a rare occurance, and little more than a fringe benefit if it works, hence this thread. In particular, playing passive aggressive early on, it helps you if the AIs found the early religions as this will worsen their relations and give you more options in who to side with.

However, I guess that I stuggle on Immortal because of this risk-averse habit. Reading your SG's, I came away with the impression that you need to chase every opportunity that presents itself, including religion and wonders I normally pay little mind to.

Sorry for being so long winded, just wanted to share my toughts. The coolest thing about this civ addicition is seeing yourself progress, often learning new tricks onlyto unlearn them again as you move up a level.

Thanks,

J.

I agree completely. And BECAUSE you want to get a settler before a worker why then invest in worker techs when you don't need them yet? For religion techs it is pretty simple: you have to get there first of all civs. For worker techs it is not important whether you are there first or not. (As long you want to found a religion, which I think is beneficial.)

Agree this is a very good point, and a good exception to the discussion we had earlier on in this thread. If circumstances necessitate settler first, it does indeed providce a good opportunity to chase a religion, especially if you are spiritual with mysticism.

I guess as a result of this discussion, I have mentally upgraded religious plays from "avoid" to "use when opportunate". Will need to play them more to see how much good this does me though.

There is another problem with founding a religion. in one of my games i founded confuscianism, not really by trying to though, i just wanted early courthouses. the problem came when i was trying to go to war with someone. My 2 neighbours both had confucianismas their state so if i declared war on either my cities would get VERY unhappy because of not only war weariness but the "we will not fight our brothers & sisters of our own faith" penalty

Jorunkun--One factor you don't mention that I think is important is what type of map you are playing. On a map where most everyone has contact with everyone else there is less reason to go for an early religion. I find that I always go for hinduism if I start with mysticism as I normally play continents and you have to decide before you know what the game will be like. You just get a lot of flexibility--maybe you're alone or game develops poorly and you decide to go cultural or maybe you're alone in which case it is really a pretty big swing. In many cases you can convert one neighbor and attack another, etc. and don't run into the other religions until much later and get the benefits for the most important part of the game.

Another benefit of religion you don't mention is that it will often spread within your empire and save you having to build obilisks for culture or its much easier to send a missionary to a new city that needs culture than build something.

Just because you found a religion doesn't mean you have to take it or keep it--many of the civs that start with mysticism are spiritual anyway so might as well use it--also those are the civs that it often makes sense to build some temples with.

I agree with you about the later religions and also about the general effect of reducing the number of AI religions but I think the early religion worth the cost in slower development.

Very good piece and discussion topic.

I've been playing aggressive AI/no tech trading emperor games and have not even used a state religion. instead just staying no religion until free religion. it sucks not getting theocracy, but on the plus side I dont have to research it. just trying to avoid the neg modifiers so ppl are less likely to declare war and take two of my cities really quick.

Yes, really enjoyed this thread, although the title has become a bit of a misnomer by now. Should probably read "Founding religions a pretty good or bad idea, depending on circumstances" ... but then, who'd read it? Anyhow, I sure learned a lot and came around to a more open pov on use of religions.

Wrt map types, I agree that they do influence the use of religion, but not in a cut and dry fashion. Continents is an interesting case in point: If you nab an early religion on an atheist continent, it really works in your favour. But start out next to Isabella and Ghandi and you're in for trouble - both because of the religious tension on your continent and the religious homogeniety (sp?) on the other one.

Also, I've had many island starts where, with hindsight, I wished I'd have founded an early religion for the early happies and culture. But then there have been many games where I founded a religion in anticipation of one, only to find myself next to some religious nut where having my religion in all of my cities did me no good at all.

My bottom line after all of this is that I would still recommend that one should abstain from founding a religion when learning the ropes on a new level. If you are not on top of every aspect of the game's progress, chances are it will do you more harm than good. If you know what you're doing and have a shot at a religious game with a spiritual civ, it's an interesting option though.

Will be starting an Immortal strategy thread today, and curious what use people find in (founding) religion on this level ...

My arguments in favour of pursuing Buddhism/Hinduism if spiritual are the same on immortal and deity (and I'm more likely to build settler before worker too because AI expansion gets stupidly fast.) If the diplomatic situation demands it, I will switch away from my original religion later in the game without regret, and I still get to keep the +1 happiness and culture from temples.

depending on the ressources of your starting city worker-first gives you the earlier settler, too, as the ressources give a big boost in settler production, especially if you can get 6P-fields (like cows for example).
in addition the 2nd town reaches a productive height much earlier as your worker has finished improving the first 2 or even 3 tiles of your capital and can directly improve your 2nd city.
you come nearly even with your first settler and have an improved capital as well as an improved 2nd city which makes your 3rd (and eventually 4th if you can somehow find place and money for it) settler coming out much faster as well as making your play more flexible.

when i play random civs on emperor and happen to start with mysticism and some commerce i usually try to found hindu as i have to admit :)
almost never switch to the religion though, i like to go to war when i want to...