On the boards, Early Religion is disfavored. The typical reasons cited: delay in getting worker/military techs, possible negative diplomatic consequences, and the fact that the AI can often grab the early religions before the player on Monarch+ difficulty. All of these are legitimate reasons to shy away from getting an early religion.

However, lately I have become convinced that the key to the early game (assuming you are not rushing) is vertical expansion -- which means raising your happy caps. A state religion and a temple give +2 happiness, which is huge. Priesthood, the temple-enabling tech, also is the prerequisite for Monarchy and Hereditary Rule, a great happiness civic.

So getting either Meditation or Polytheism + Priesthood can get you a religion and enable you to chop the Oracle out for a very fast Monarchy/HR. On Monarch, then, with state religion, a temple, and two defensive units, you can get to size 9 very early -- and that's without counting happiness resources or going bananas with HR.

You may say: I'll skip the religion, because once I get HR I can build as many garrison troops as I need. True, but they aren't free. Religion + Temple saves you the cost of two troops per city while also contributing 2 culture per turn.

So with that in mind, let's consider an early-religion strategy using Brennus. The Celts start with mysticism and hunting. If there is a source of commerce to work, on Monarch difficulty Brennus can get to Hinduism first. A tech path might be:


Polytheism
Mining
Bronze Working
Agriculture, Fishing, or AH
Priesthood
Monarchy (from Oracle)
Military tech (Archery, IW, AH)
Writing


This sets up Brennus to have big cities (he's Charismatic, too, giving +2 total happiness when a monument is thrown in) very early in the game. If Brennus doesn't have an early commerce tile to work, he can go for Theology/Christianity by using the Oracle/Stonehenge Great Prophet to lightbulb it.

Also very releveant is the comparison between founding an early religion of your own, and borrowing one from another civ.

I like this thought cause I used to favor an early religion on lower difficulties but when I climbed up the ladder I forced myself of that path. This should also help to get first border pop without having to build obelisks (I play vanilla yes so what...:D)

A lot of things tend to come full circle. I used to go for early religions because it was easy on lower levels, but risky higher up. But frankly, more religions equals more options so im starting to look at it again. The problem is only the mysti leaders have any real chance.

In my current game i spread a single confu missionary to my closest neighbor. That made him a universally hated outcast to the other civs, which meant i was safe for the entire game.

Whether vertical or horizontal expansion is better depends on your surrounding tiles (and those in the capitol).

I'd probably go agriculture or even fishing before mining so that you can hook up food (assuming no deer/beaver/etc in bfc). If you're going this route of course you wouldn't build a worker first anyway, instead going for either a warrior (to worker steal lul wut zing) or a scout to see all your land/pop more huts, or a work boat if you're a fishing spiritual civ like the spanish and you have seafood (which is also a worthy commerce tile).

If I want to found religion though I usually go Judaism (rarely get it but mono is a good tech), or sling CoL or Theology (the latter being a favorite lately, for AP control and because it actually trades around decently too, and opens up the potential for a very early shot at certain techs, I'm going to experiment with a gunpowder beeline through that path today when I get home).

Actually, I don't always sling Theology when going for it though, although if you do so you can get it around like 1500 BC no problem, and often it will be your second religion (picking a religion and the 2 temples, which are cheap for spiritual, is like having rep happiness and doesn't have terrible synergy with the mids if you can get both). Having something like crazy-early Christianity might be seen as a negative for founding it, but I've found the AI's almost never switch into those late-seen and underspread religions. The exception is if you found it early! This allows for 2 things: possible AP victory by building it in the obscure religion and keeping tight control of it, or going the rather simple route of spreading it to a civ with no religion just to cause some fireworks.

OR is very powerful if you can run a religion without getting killed also. It contributes even to whipping buildings, so setting up infrastructure is easier and faster.

Sometimes the enemy is nearby and you just need to axe them out though :devil:.

This is all at emperor difficulty btw. I'm not sure what would work and what wouldn't at immortal, and in deity i'd imagine there are many tactics that wouldn't work.

I stopped grabbing early religions purely as a strategic move to give the AIs more reasons to hate each other. If I take an early religion, that increases the chances of 2 or more AIs being "religious buddies", which is almost always bad. Since you usually have to found these religions before you meet any AIs, you cant always be certain who your up against. A strong religious bond usually means those AIs will work together, swapping techs, dogpiling opponents, etc etc.

I found Confu in most of my games anway, since I often tech CoL fairly early, as well as Taoism, since I often bulb Philo with an early GS pop, so I generally have access to at least 2 religions. I also like to open borders and allow the AIs to make missionaries and spread religion for me, especially if there is a zealot-type close by.

So basically, I use religion as an offensive tool to try and keep the AIs at least Cautious, if not Annoyed, with each other. If I see a "block" forming, I may even try to spam a new religion into one of their cities, and get them to switch.

Shadawayne negates religion. Any Cities that have founded a religion should be targeted and destroyed. Usually they are- at best- founded in secondary cities and become nothing more than colored icon targets, waiting for the dogma spewing halls to be razed and the priest machines muted.

I prefer to let the AI do the hard work of founding a religion. I'll just adopt what the rest of my continent has.

The happiness is nice, but more often than not in the early game I'm using the whip to get stuff done and it keeps the pop down. I guess you can argue that the early happiness could help here somewhat in having the unhappiness effects of whipping mitigated, but it also means having to spend hammers on the early temple and possibly on missionaries (needing meditation and another building or organized religion - itself requiring monotheism) if the religion does not spread fast enough on its own.

On the plus side, of course it helps with border pops and the Oracle could easily provide a Prophet for a shrine, so those are nice to consider.

Still, since you have to go for the religion first thing, I'm too nervous that I'll miss a rush opportunity or something else that the trip down the religious tech path may have altered. And diplomacy is nothing to sneeze at - especially at the rate the AI's can spread their religions on higher levels. When I try to hit an early Hinduism or something I often find that I end up in some other religion anyway for protection/diplomacy.

Doesnt matter if you use some other religion, more religions still means more happy. I had all 7 religions in my last game. Being able to ignore emancipation is nice.

The early religion strategy is also great for a pre-Caste System SE, as you can easily grow large enough to support two scientists (library) and a priest (temple) if you have a couple of food bonus tiles -- and still work some cottages or mines as you prefer. And it gets even better if you have an early UB that allows other/additional specialists.

Early religions (hinduism, Buddhism, possibly Judaism:

Why I favor them

1) Happiness reasons as stated, although you do NOT have to adopt the religion as a state religion.
2) A way to leverage diplomacy against who I want by sending missionaries.
3) 5 culture in the holy city!
4) No need for monuments for non-creative leaders providing you have good trade routes amongst your own cities.
5) BIGGEST REASON: shrine income. Land may be power, but gold is what wins! Sure you can try stealing one, but that is sometimes not easy since it's in a capital usually or the AI does not get a Prophet.

Problems
1) Loss of valuable early tech time.
2) You are less likely to have a prospective friends religion spread to you.
3) If you adopt it you may have early and bad diplomatic problems.

When I shoot for it

1) start with mysticism or pop from a hut very early.
2) I can work 1 comemrce tile right away, and can work a second once the city border pops.
3) I have decent food where I can quickly expand the population once I tech the need techs.

Regarding Brennus.

Early religion is fine, but I think he's equipped to delay the mining/BW route. Polytheims/food tech/archery are best. Gets him religion/food/defense very early.

I think early religion CAN work well, provided that your neighbors don't get a religion themselves. That way, they'll immediately adopt your religion and spread it around, so you'll get some good friends and a lot of shrine money. But otherwise, its too much of an investment for a little happiness, and you can easily make powerful enemies (cough cough Justinian Cough).

You may say: I'll skip the religion, because once I get HR I can build as many garrison troops as I need. True, but they aren't free. Religion + Temple saves you the cost of two troops per city while also contributing 2 culture per turn.


Also, I wanted to respond to this, because I've been relying on HR more an more lately as I get better. If you skip hunting in the early game, you can keep building warriors even after you get macemen, which means you're paying only 10 :hammers:/:). That's a great deal! And, every unit you build increases your power graph, which means that other civs will give you respect and not try to sneak attack you. Besides, you should be building an army anyway... might as well put it to use.

I don't object to early religion in and of itself, I just make sure that it makes sense for the leader before devoting time to it. In the case of Brennus, it definitely makes sense.

Also, I wanted to respond to this, because I've been relying on HR more an more lately as I get better. If you skip hunting in the early game, you can keep building warriors even after you get macemen, which means you're paying only 10 :hammers:/:). That's a great deal! And, every unit you build increases your power graph, which means that other civs will give you respect and not try to sneak attack you. Besides, you should be building an army anyway... might as well put it to use.

I agree that warriors are great "constables" to use in HR to maintain happiness. The problem isn't the hammer cost -- it's the unit maintenance cost. Each unit over your "free limit" costs you 1 gold per turn. This adds up if you are seriously abusing HR. Why not use religion to save both the hammers and the gold per turn or better yet -- earn some gpt for yourself with the shrine?

Also, warriors aren't that great for the power graph. Better than nothing, though. I'm not advocating skimping on an army, just suggesting that religions are undervalued in non-cultural victory games.

And we haven't even touched on cathedrals.

Finally, if you built the pyramids and are running Representation, building more units doesn't add to happiness. To grow, you'll need other sources of happiness, and religion fits nicely into that mix.

I don't object to early religion in and of itself, I just make sure that it makes sense for the leader before devoting time to it. In the case of Brennus, it definitely makes sense.

If you don't start with Mysticism, the only way you can get an early religion on Monarch+ is to get lucky with some goodie huts.

Of course, we can also quibble about what "early" means. If you do a superfast Code of Laws Oracle slingshot, Confucianism can show up darned early, arguably before Judaism.

I have also played many games where all of the early religions are founded on the other continent, making Christianity "early" on my continent.

I think the biggest danger in pursuing an early religion is simply losing the race. If you shoot for Hinduism and fail, then take Masonry and Monotheism to get Judaism, arguably you've already shot yourself in the foot techwise, even if you get there first. This is particularly true for the Celts and Aztecs, who start with Hunting and Mysticism and have no starting worker techs. So yeah -- if you're going to do it, make sure you win.

I only go for Judaism if I pick up some goodie huts that help out (e.g., Masonry, Mining).

Finally, while going for an early religion does push back your tile improvement schedule, this can be partially mitigated for the Celts and Aztecs from goodie huts. You can easily get 1-3 bonus techs just from scouting like crazy.

I agree that warriors are great "constables" to use in HR to maintain happiness. The problem isn't the hammer cost -- it's the unit maintenance cost. Each unit over your "free limit" costs you 1 gold per turn. This adds up if you are seriously abusing HR. Why not use religion to save both the hammers and the gold per turn or better yet -- earn some gpt for yourself with the shrine?

Also, warriors aren't that great for the power graph. Better than nothing, though. I'm not advocating skimping on an army, just suggesting that religions are undervalued in non-cultural victory games.

And we haven't even touched on cathedrals.

Finally, if you built the pyramids and are running Representation, building more units doesn't add to happiness. To grow, you'll need other sources of happiness, and religion fits nicely into that mix.

You make good points. However, keep in mind much of this can be attained simply by using a religion that gets spread to you. Founding just guarantees a religion and potentially a shrine. The same goes for cathedrals, as after libraries they are the best hammers to beaker multipliers in the game. (on a side note, warriors have a comically solid hammer to power rating conversion, making them more worthwhile than expected).

I usually like to let the AI spread a religion to me, then found one. Doubling up is pretty powerful, and lets you build the AP in one religion and run the other, and you can spread your new religion to an different AI, get him to convert, and dogpile.

I still don't like going out of my way to get the first 2.

I don't like to go for an early religion because I don't like risking losing it to the AI and the other techs are soooo much more important.

If I start with hunting I always get more huts, which means more $, techs, etc. Bonus.

Agriculture/Fishing are important for feeding your cities

Mining for production and unlocking :bow: bronzeworking :bow:

Ag/Hunt also unlock AH to feed your cities and reveal horses :bow:

Wheel to hook up resources and unlock pottery for granary/cottages :bow:

I only need mysticism to come home by the time my 2nd city is settled to chop out a monument. If I'm creative, I often delay mysticism until after alphabet.

Do I WANT to found an early religion? YES!!! :D But, the costs are too high imo. The exception would be HC or Korea who are financial and start with mysticism or Issy with a water tile. If you have a 3 commerce tile (or 2 in Issy's case) and start with mysticism then I would say that is good enough odds to shoot for it. The nice thing is you can get OR going earlier and also spread your religion to the neighbour you want to buddy up, which is really nice. And once your religion has spread to most of your continent, that shrine is going to be worth a lot of $$$.

Nice? Yes. But in reality, it is too much of a gamble where losing presents major problems imo. Also, if the other tech you start with is say fishing and you start inland or something like that your worker isn't going to have something to do forever, meaning you are working a lot of unimproved tiles for too long imo.

If you go for Buddhism or Polytheism, you are almost certainly not building a worker first, unless your other starting tech (besides Mysticism) is Agriculture or Mining, and by stagnating growth you are risking losing the religion race by not being able to work a second commerce tile.

Yes, that means you'll be working unimproved tiles for a while. But if you win the religion race, you get a guaranteed religion, boucoups culture, unpillageable happiness, and a good chance of dictating the early diplomacy on the game.

There are risks, calculated risks, and high risks. It is risky to target mining/BW first since you may not find any copper rather than hunting/archery. Similar it is a risk to attempt the oracle, as you are sacrificing hammers that would go for military. It is a risk to target liberalism at the expense of engineering/guilds and risk losing a middle Age war.

To me, if you can work a 1 commerce tile right away and a second at the population pop you have a good chance at being first to Hinduism. If you lose you are 2 techs from Judaism.

Every situation is different, but give me 2 floodplains and start with mysticism and I am going for POlytheism 90% of the time wether I am celtic, Holy Roman, or Incan.

If you go for Buddhism or Polytheism, you are almost certainly not building a worker first, unless your other starting tech (besides Mysticism) is Agriculture or Mining, and by stagnating growth you are risking losing the religion race by not being able to work a second commerce tile.

Yes, that means you'll be working unimproved tiles for a while. But if you win the religion race, you get a guaranteed religion, boucoups culture, unpillageable happiness, and a good chance of dictating the early diplomacy on the game.

Brennus and Montezuma are already great leaders as they are, without going religion first.

Why risk throwing away a potentially winning position?

Gurk... EVERY start is a potentially winning position, with or without religion. And sometimes more with than without.

Gurk... EVERY start is a potentially winning position, with or without religion. And sometimes more with than without.

The difference between the two, however, is that going for religion entails consequences that you can't control completely...ulitmately, whether or not you get the religion successfully.

It's an unnecessary risk that just increases the likelihood of losing.

To be fair to the game designers, early religion has its uses.

If you're playing on a difficulty level that's higher than your actual skill, then the benefits of having the religion could give you the extra boost you need to win on that difficulty level.

Then again, on Emperor and higher it might not be practical to go for early religion anyway, because of the AI bonuses.

So the only practical application I see for it is if you're a Noble-level player playing a Monarch game...

Yes, that means you'll be working unimproved tiles for a while. But if you win the religion race, you get a guaranteed religion, boucoups culture, unpillageable happiness, and a good chance of dictating the early diplomacy on the game.

Not too sure about the diplomacy thing. I can never seem to keep up with AI religion spread from Monarch+ - and one would really have to put a fair amount of hammers into missionaries to get it done (which itself means getting meditation for monasteries or monotheism for OR - plus there is a chance that the missionary might fail to spread the religion if another one is already there).

One added item that is a positive for this early religion and temples is the extra cultural defense. Very handy for the extra city protection. Still, as another has mentioned, this can be done with a neighbor's religion just as well....

I'm totally opposed to founding an early religion on Monarch and above. There was some talk about risks and founding Hindu a possible winning move, but at the end of the day, founding Hinduism for happiness and diplomatic moves is HUGE risk and a HUGE liability.

Going (Mining)->BW is never bad since you need BW for slavery and chopping, it's not just to grab copper.

The AI is so much quicker in spreading their own religions that you often don't get a chance to get your own into the door, and you have to be able to actually build the Missionaries, which requires at least one Monastery or Organized Religion. Even more liabilities to your early development.

Artichoker is SPOT ON:
The difference between the two, however, is that going for religion entails consequences that you can't control completely...ulitmately, whether or not you get the religion successfully.

You just can't control it. Getting early key wonders, axe/horse rushes, blocking in the AI, all of that is much more controllable than the religion gambit.

If I knew in advance that I'm isolated, or that the competing early religion (usually Buddhism) is going to be founded very FAR away from me, then I might risk getting to Polytheism first. The other situation I can think of is an Archipelagos or Medium/Small map, where religion spread is slow. Apart from these cases, my answer is: No, thanks.

Religion first is definitely a no-no for me. There is only a downside.

- Loss of 10 turns before I can research my first worker tech. No thanks.

- Workers coming online later because I have nothing for them to do. No thanks.

- Provoking early AIs to hate me. No thanks.

- Early access to buildings I can't afford to build because I am too busy building workers, settlers and warriors. No thanks (at least not until later).

- Temptation to missionary spam to defend my religion. No thanks.

An early religion is a distraction - it has no immediate benefit and worker techs do have an immediate benefit. On immortal I'm already starting behind the AI - I don't need anything that puts me further behind.

Happiness is a plus - but by the time that I have priesthood, its highly likely that an AI will have donated me a religion. That gains me a friend AND happiness. And if they haven't, I'm heading to Monarchy next anyway.

Religion is a very expensive option for happiness when you also consider missionary costs. You aren't always lucky enough for it to self-propagate. And spreading by hand is expensive in the early game. So it might be better to think of it as +2 happy in one city guaranteed - thats not nearly so good.

Monarchy happiness is cheap. Very cheap. One gold for one happy. That gives you an extra citizen who can work a cottage to pay that gold immediately and turn a profit after 10 turns. And for every 3-4 (can't remember which) pop you grow you get an extra free unit support so its even less than one gold per happy on average.

There is nothing wrong with an early religion, if you do not get carried away. It is problematic to found at the harder levels though.

On the boards, Early Religion is disfavored. The typical reasons cited: delay in getting worker/military techs, possible negative diplomatic consequences, and the fact that the AI can often grab the early religions before the player on Monarch+ difficulty. All of these are legitimate reasons to shy away from getting an early religion.

However, lately I have become convinced that the key to the early game (assuming you are not rushing) is vertical expansion -- which means raising your happy caps. A state religion and a temple give +2 happiness, which is huge. Priesthood, the temple-enabling tech, also is the prerequisite for Monarchy and Hereditary Rule, a great happiness civic.

So getting either Meditation or Polytheism + Priesthood can get you a religion and enable you to chop the Oracle out for a very fast Monarchy/HR. On Monarch, then, with state religion, a temple, and two defensive units, you can get to size 9 very early -- and that's without counting happiness resources or going bananas with HR.

You may say: I'll skip the religion, because once I get HR I can build as many garrison troops as I need. True, but they aren't free. Religion + Temple saves you the cost of two troops per city while also contributing 2 culture per turn.

So with that in mind, let's consider an early-religion strategy using Brennus. The Celts start with mysticism and hunting. If there is a source of commerce to work, on Monarch difficulty Brennus can get to Hinduism first. A tech path might be:


Polytheism
Mining
Bronze Working
Agriculture, Fishing, or AH
Priesthood
Monarchy (from Oracle)
Military tech (Archery, IW, AH)
Writing


This sets up Brennus to have big cities (he's Charismatic, too, giving +2 total happiness when a monument is thrown in) very early in the game. If Brennus doesn't have an early commerce tile to work, he can go for Theology/Christianity by using the Oracle/Stonehenge Great Prophet to lightbulb it.

You are overvaluing your happiness levels. Early on you really need to start running scientists and be expanding as quickly as possible. Happiness is helpful, but you really dont need to actually be growing your cities until all the land on that map has been taken up. (then again I play Immortal+ so i suppose it might be more efficient on lower levels to expand at a more steady rate).

Regardless, growing past size 6 or so without a ridiculous amount of food or a granary isnt a very good plan early on, its far better to grab some more juicy land. Of course on lower levels where people might not manage their economy very well, you may run into an overexpansion problem.

Happiness is a crucial resource. +2 happiness when you have 3 base happiness is a huge boost (66%), and worth a lot. +2 happiness to save 2 gold per turn is a very minor boost. Similarly, if I were brennus, I'd be happy with charismatic and monuments.

If you have +4 happiness pre-hereditary rule, just expand more.

When you have 3 base happiness, it is time to uninstall and reinstall to fix whatever problem is going on with your game.

Spiritual leaders need a state religion (or even several religions to play with) so they can fully exercise the civic switching they are all about. Of course that doesn't have to be an early religion, and they don't have to found the religions themselves, but they do need them to fire on all cylinders.

If any leader should try for an early religion then it should be a Spiritual one and it can be a great investment even if they can't make full use of it immediately, since it needs civics available later. So Brennus, Monte and particularly Izzy should try for one of the early religions if they get a start with decent commerce.

When you have 3 base happiness, it is time to uninstall and reinstall to fix whatever problem is going on with your game.

warlords, at high difficullties. not counting the palace.

warlords, at high difficullties. not counting the palace.
Yes but why would anyone play warlords now? I think BTS is available in every country now and in my opinion it is much better.

The difference between the two, however, is that going for religion entails consequences that you can't control completely...ulitmately, whether or not you get the religion successfully.

It's an unnecessary risk that just increases the likelihood of losing.
I think this is a key point, you may get your own religion and if it spreads and you're not boxed in by other ais, you'll have made a good decision. But you can also meet Izzy, now your religion is useless because you can't use it and you really wish you'd done something else. So it's a gamble, for the same reason i don't try for wonders much unless i'm either reasonably sure i'll get them or am happy with the gold i'll get anyway if i miss out.

Religion is a very expensive option for happiness when you also consider missionary costs. You aren't always lucky enough for it to self-propagate. And spreading by hand is expensive in the early game.
If you adopt your neighbour's religion, you often don't even have to wait for self-propagation, because the AI loves to send you their missionaries, and they have the production power to crank them out mindlessly. In my experience they only do it if they founded the religion themselves, so by all means if your goal is to have a religion for happiness reasons then founding it YOURSELF would even work against that goal (because then even if you give it to an AI they have no incentive to build missionaries and send them to you).

From what I gathered so far playing on Monarch and Emperor, it doesn't make a big difference to when you get the religion, if your neighbour founded it and you open borders right away. They will seed it in your empire almost as early as you could had you founded it yourself.

You get all the benefits, including happy bonuses and the ability to build religious buildings. The only thing that you miss out on is the gold from the shrine (but you can always try to capture it from the AI later on).

So it might be better to think of it as +2 happy in one city guaranteed - thats not nearly so good.
Exactly, definitely not worth sacrificing so much early development.

How much does founding a religion matter for AP votes? How much does controlling the AP matter?

There are some drawbacks to allowing a religion to be founded by an AI rather than founding it yourself. If they spread a religion to you and they have the shrine then they get the gold benefit and that can finance their research or upgrade their troops. That is detrimental even if you also get a benefit from having their religion. It is good to go and get that shrine ;)

They will often ask you to convert to their religion even if you only have 1 city with it. If you agree then you might annoy other Civs and get very little benefit. If you refuse you get a negative diplomatic modifier. And although they do sometimes spread their religion vigorously to your cities, other times they just send it to one city and leave you to do the spreading while they are distracted by something else, maybe a war with a rival.

How much does founding a religion matter for AP votes?

Not at all. Votes are only given for pop of your cities with the AP religion. Other religions are irrelevant.


How much does controlling the AP matter?

A great deal. It is a very powerful wonder in some situations giving huge diplomatic and economic bonusses (the +2 hammers). It is possible to "control" the game by means of the AP.

You dont get the hammers from controlling the AP but from building religious buildings. What does controlling the AP do other than make you a nominee regardless of your normal eligibility?

They will often ask you to convert to their religion even if you only have 1 city with it. If you agree then you might annoy other Civs and get very little benefit. If you refuse you get a negative diplomatic modifier. And although they do sometimes spread their religion vigorously to your cities, other times they just send it to one city and leave you to do the spreading while they are distracted by something else, maybe a war with a rival.

I have found when the AI begins to vigorously spread religion, it is usually an indicator of one of a few things:

1. They have the shrine.
2. They have the AP.
3. They are in the early stages of purusing a cultural victory. However, it really doesn't matter if the AI spreads these religions or not to others, I've just noticed it seems to happen.

You dont get the hammers from controlling the AP but from building religious buildings. What does controlling the AP do other than make you a nominee regardless of your normal eligibility?
For one thing, building it allows you to choose the religion it is assigned too. Its a very viable strat to switch to a religion that only you have before its built. I actually try to shoot for a switcheroo every time I build it, I am stingy with the hammer bonus like that.

Control of it also allows you to pick what gets voted on. That can be fairly powerful, especially in games where there are AIs without the religion.

I don't usually make the effort to found an early religion with any leader. I do usually seem to manage to found confucianism via oracle or straight up tech, taoism by lightbulb, or christianity by lightbulb.

I could see going after an early religion with HC (agriculture) or Izzy (fishing) because they are the two leaders who start with mysticism and a food tech.

I could see going after an early religion with HC (agriculture) or Izzy (fishing) because they are the two leaders who start with mysticism and a food tech.

Any leader with Mysticism to start should at least consider the early religion. I particularly like (aside from HC and Izzy) those who start with Hunting and Mysticism, so that I can get out 3-4 scouts and be the hut-popper from Hades. Those huts give bonus techs and gold for deficit research while uncovering the map -- which to me is a fair tradeoff for delaying my first worker while I pursue Hinduism.

I agree that Izzy has it best, though, since she has the best chance of working a high-commerce tile from turn 1.

Consider that the early religion gives you guaranteed, non-pillageable happiness. You don't have to research some expensive tech to get it. You don't have to rely on a trade for it. You don't have to wait for the AI to spread it to you unevenly in the late BC period. You get it NOW. That means bigger cities sooner, which is better for everything.

On a side note, it just occurred to me that settled prophets are arguably better than settled merchants.

For every 2 merchants, 3 after biology, an extra farm can be turned into a workshop. If you are running emancipation that means each merchant gives a hammer and 6 gold when used this way. Prophets on the other hand give 2 hammers and 5 gold, and they do it from the start.

So, im thinking ill make a combo ironworks/gold city and see how it works out. Before wallstreet i can have GP farms making merchants without any loss, so i dont even need to focus GP generation in any one city.

For one thing, building it allows you to choose the religion it is assigned too. Its a very viable strat to switch to a religion that only you have before its built. I actually try to shoot for a switcheroo every time I build it, I am stingy with the hammer bonus like that.
But on the other hand, the AI gets stupid bonuses as is so what does a few more hammers matter?

Before wallstreet i can have GP farms making merchants without any loss, so i dont even need to focus GP generation in any one city.
If you distribute your GP points over several cities you will incur a loss to your total number of Great People spawned during the game. There is an article in the War Academy that illustrates it with diagrams. So there definitely is a loss to it, and it can be significant.

But on the other hand, the AI gets stupid bonuses as is so what does a few more hammers matter?
Firstly, if those hammers matter to YOU (the player), then they certainly matter to the AI. Secondly, the production bonus for the AI is a percentage of their hammers (10/15/20/40% on Mon/Emp/Imm/Deity), making the AP religious buildings even more valuable for the AI compared to the player.

It's not "a few more hammers" anyway, it is 4 (base) hammers if you build temple + monastery, and that is significant (given that these buildings give substantial other bonuses of their own).

If you distribute your GP points over several cities you will incur a loss to your total number of Great People spawned during the game. There is an article in the War Academy that illustrates it with diagrams. So there definitely is a loss to it, and it can be significant.
Not true. More GPP equals more GP, its a very simple concept. It also increases the value of pacifism. Its only true if i convert the city to something else with a half full GP bar, and why would i do that.

Not true. More GPP equals more GP, its a very simple concept. It also increases the value of pacifism. Its only true if i convert the city to something else with a half full GP bar, and why would i do that.

I think his point was that it's better (for GP generation purposes) to have your GPP eggs in fewer baskets, as it were. Since every GP costs more than his predecessor, you can end up making GPPs in cities that never accumulate enough GPPs to generate a GP. Obsolete's games are as powerful as they are because he's generating almost all of his GPPs in his wonderspammed capital -- and because he tries to control the kinds of GPs he gets.

That said, you may have other reasons to have specialists and/or build wonders in your non-GP farm that are perfectly valid. You just have to accept that you won't be getting many GPs from those other cities.

Since every GP costs more than his predecessor, you can end up making GPPs in cities that never accumulate enough GPPs to generate a GP.
This falls under "dont be stupid". Obviously its time to convert a city when it stops being realistic to generate a GP in a meaningful timeframe.

Obsolete's games are as powerful as they are because he's generating almost all of his GPPs in his wonderspammed capital -- and because he tries to control the kinds of GPs he gets.
His games are powerful because he builds a lot of wonders and settles most of his GP, something i also advocate. But putting wonders aside, having just one GP farm is not as good as having several of them.

I agree that more GP farms gives you faster GPs. But the War Academy article shows you get more GPs with a concentration of GPPs in fewer sources. I would also say, however, that a GP now is worth more than a GP later, and getting a bunch of GPs quickly early could be huge.

In my games, I usually end up generating a significant number of GPs in no more than two or three cities. Occasionally I'll get the odd GP here and there, but the bulk come from my wonder city, my science city, and my merchant/priest city. I some games, the wonder city generates almost all of them.

Anyway, and back on point :), why not found an early religion, run a priest specialist or two or build the Oracle or Stonehenge, build the shrine with Great Prophet #1, and settle the rest of the Great Prophets for cash n' hammers?

More GPP equals more GP, its a very simple concept.
No, it is not. Please read the article in the War Academy that I have mentioned above (Great People Points: Focus in One City, or Distribute Across Many? (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/gp_focusdist.php)) and you will probably understand better.

The gist of it is that because with every new GP the cost for the next one does increase, you can hit break-points that are detrimental for your overall GP generation. The most extreme case occurs if one city (possibly the one with the National Epic) does create a lot more GPP than any other. This city will constantly increase the threshold for the next Great Person, so that the slower city can never break the barrier.

The diagrams in the article explain it a lot better than words can.

No, it is not. Please read the article in the War Academy that I have mentioned above (Great People Points: Focus in One City, or Distribute Across Many? (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/gp_focusdist.php)) and you will probably understand better.

The gist of it is that because with every new GP the cost for the next one does increase, you can hit break-points that are detrimental for your overall GP generation. The most extreme case occurs if one city (possibly the one with the National Epic) does create a lot more GPP than any other. This city will constantly increase the threshold for the next Great Person, so that the slower city can never break the barrier.

The diagrams in the article explain it a lot better than words can.

I reread this article. In addition to the central premise (concentration of GPPs is good, particularly when one city starts to pull away in GPP production), it also establishes the reason why switching from a SE to a CE in mid-game may be critical, since you're not going to be getting many GPs from your non-GPP cities after a certain point, which is one of the main benefits of running the SE to begin with.

I read that article before. Dont remember the exact content, but regardless of that the fact remains that multiple GP cities are going to produce more GP in the same amount of time than one city will. Its just simple mathematical fact.

I really dont wanna have to go into gradeschool math again, so if you think im wrong please come up with an example that isnt covered by my earlier DONT BE STUPID.

No, it is not. Please read the article in the War Academy that I have mentioned above (Great People Points: Focus in One City, or Distribute Across Many? (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/gp_focusdist.php)) and you will probably understand better.

That article is highly misleading. It should never have been put in the War Academy. It is based on poor assumptions and it makes bad predictions. It has little if anything to do with a real game, especially with the changes brought in BtS.


The diagrams in the article explain it a lot better than words can.

The diagrams are junk and highly misleading. Please do not base any of your ideas about the generation of Great People in a real game on those diagrams.

since you're not going to be getting many GPs from your non-GPP cities after a certain point, which is one of the main benefits of running the SE to begin with.
It does not matter what kind of economy you are running, you should always try to concentrate your GPP in the National Epic city, because that will get you the most total Great People over the course of the game.

Having more specialists in "secondary" cities under a SE would not have a noticeable impact to your GP generation if you correctly distribute your GPP in the first place.

The SE is not to get more GPP, it is to get more beakers before your cottages have developed (kickstarting your early research).

The transition from specialists towards coins does not reduce the number of effective GPP (they are coming from your GP farm all the way through the game). In a pure CE, nothing is different.

It is not in any way detriminal to run secondary GP farms even with a NE farm, as long as they have a meaningful amount of GPP/turn. I again ask for an example that backs up your stance on this issue.

The point of a SE is not to get quick beakers. It would be a poor reason, at least. The point is to get some bulbed "firsts" as well as trade fodder, and settled GP/academies for long term profit after that is taken care of (at which point id argue its time to switch to cottage spam).

This really belongs in its own thread. But what the heck.

Let's make some assumptions that might imitate a real game, JJ. By the way, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this exercise, and I am no math genius.

Let's say the year is 1000 B.C. We have three cities that are generating GPPs: the capital with two early wonders and two specialists (10 GPP) and two cities with two specialists each (6 GPP). For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that all cities are starting at 0 GPPs and that we are working towards our second Great Person (the first one having been generated from our capital the turn before). We start on turn x.

The Second GP arrives in x+20 turns from the capital. The third GP, requiring 300 GPPs, arrives in x+50 turns in the capital (all three cities having generated 300 GPPs on exactly the same turn, as it turns out). The fourth GP, requiring 400 GPPs, arrives in x+67 turns in city #2. The fifth GP, requiring 500 GPPs, arrives in x+84 turns in city #3.

So after 84 turns, four GPs were generated. The capital has 340 GPPs stored, city #2 has ~102 GPPs stored, and city #3 has ~0 GPPs stored.

All of this results in more GPs than if the capital alone were generating GPPs (in 84 turns, the Capital would only generate two GPs at 10 GPPs/turn ... one at 200 GPPs and another at 300 GPPs).

This illustrates that early in the game, when GPP costs are low and the relative difference in GPP generation is small, more GPPs from multiple sources results in more great people in the same period of time (in this case, twice as many GPs from having three sources of GPPs), but not in a linear relationship. Doubling your GPP output does not double your GP creation, even early in the game. This is also intuitively correct and makes sense.

Extrapolating, it seems that a point of diminishing returns would occur as (1) you add more GPP sources, (2) the disparity between GPP generation/turn increases between the large GPP and small GPP producers and (3) the GPP/GP cost increases.

Frankly, there are too many variables to consider by the mid-game to make a meaningful mathematical comparison. And there are plenty of valid reasons to run specialists besides generating GPPs. But if your goal is to generate as many GPPs as possible, I would still try to avoid "wasted" GPPs in cities that will never generate a GP past a certain point in the game -- again, while acknowledging that those GPPs may be meaningless to you if your real motive was the wonder/specialist that generated them.

You should always try to concentrate your GPP in the National Epic city.
And with this you are assuming the same thing the author of that article did: that there is some finite cap to the number of GPP that is being distributed across the empire. Which of course is nonsense. If someone has a city producing 24 GPP per turn, it isn't stealing those GPP from the NE city.

It is not in any way detriminal to run secondary GP farms even with a NE farm, as long as they have a meaningful amount of GPP/turn.

I think we just have to define what "meaningful" is. Here's a realistic example that you could face in, say, 500 A.D.:

City A puts out 50 GPPs and City B puts out 21 GPPs, and assuming we start with no GPPs in reserve and 1000 GPPs for the next GP, it will be 67 turns before GPP generator B generates a GP. Why? Because it can only catch up to City A's GPP generation after City A has already generated two GPs: (NOTE: I may have the GP cost wrong here, I'm going on recall)

GP #1 (1000 cost): City A, turn x+20
GP #2 (1200 cost): City A, turn x+44 (city B has 924 GPPs in reserve)
GP #3 (1400 cost): City B, turn x+67 (city A has 1150 GPs in reserve)
GP #4 (1600 cost): City A, turn x+76 (city B has 189 GPPs in reserve)
GP #5 (1800 cost): City A, turn x+112 (city B has 945 GPPs in reserve)
GP #6 (2000 cost): City A, turn x+152 (city B has 1785 GPPs in reserve)
GP #7 (2200 cost): City B, turn x+172 (city A has 1000 GPPs in reserve)

What we see is that as time goes by, City B is progressively generating fewer and fewer GPs. At some point, the game will end before City B can ever generate another GP -- at which time the player may decide to stop running specialists, if his main purpose was to generate GPs. It is true, though, that the two cities combined are generating more GPs than one city alone (city A would only make 5 GPs in 172 turns by itself).

Reading between the lines, you can see that adding a third or fourth city to that calculation would result in even fewer GPs per city, although I think it's fair to say that in the early-midgame you get more GPs faster with more GPP-producing cities. By the time each GP is costing 2000 GPPs+, though, I'd wager that having more than 3-4 GPP-producing cities doesn't add significantly to the net GP total due to the dilution effect -- and that the number of turns left in the game at that point reduces the opportunity for cities 4, 5, and 6 to create another GP.

I think we just have to define what "meaningful" is.
I define it as making a GP while it is still useful. What that means is a little different in different games, but we all play the game so i wont need to expand on that.

And with this you are assuming the same thing the author of that article did: that there is some finite cap to the number of GPP that is being distributed across the empire. Which of course is nonsense. If someone has a city producing 24 GPP per turn, it isn't stealing those GPP from the NE city.
Of course there is a "finite cap", and it depends on the number of specialists you are able to run "reasonably" empire-wide (plus GPPs from Wonders of course).

I think what the author assumed, and where his analysis is flawed, is that he assumed there is a total amount of GPP available and that you are able to distribute these at will (which is not true). This is in his parameter d, which only gives the ratio in GPP from "big" to "small" cities and does not take into account that your "big city" is capped by the number of citizens it has available (therefore capping the value of "d").

In an early empire, high values of d are impossible because your GP farm will still be too small (and possibly lacking the National Epic yet). So your d will be close to 1 in that case and having more total GPP overall will of course give you more total GP/turn.

Just take the extreme case where d is so high that none of your smaller cities will ever produce any more Great People for the rest of the game. This should make it obvious that distribution (the "d" we've talked about above) definitely does matter in addition to the total number of GPP in your empire.

It is NOT just that "more GPP = more GP" as Ibian suggests (although I understand what he's trying to point at with that argument).

And with this you are assuming the same thing the author of that article did: that there is some finite cap to the number of GPP that is being distributed across the empire. Which of course is nonsense. If someone has a city producing 24 GPP per turn, it isn't stealing those GPP from the NE city.

No but there is a finite cap on turns in the game.

I like to spread GP creation to 2-3 cities in the early game and then concentrate it in my national epic, iron works and national park cities in the mid-late game (these are the only cities that realistically stand a chance of generating a great person once the GP farm is up).

Sometimes you get a surprise. I had a pleasant one last game when the city I build Oracle in and never ran a specialist in finally popped a prophet in the late game. But that was because my farm was down to build National Park and it was a poor farm to begin with.

I've also played a lot of games where my GP farm generated every single one of my GPs and it was impossible for another city to produce one before the end of the game. How come? Because I ran Great Library and National Epic in the same city and it was my highest food city. That city was running not 2x the GPP production of other cities but probably 4x.

@Ibian:

Well, Sigg was saying focus all GPPs in one city and I initially agreed. You and others disputed that. After doing my little exercise, I have concluded that once GP costs rise to a certain level, it only makes sense trying to generate GPPs out of a few cities, say 3-4, and only if you can accept the diminishing returns from cities 2, 3, and 4.

I agree that "meaningful" is subjective ... but if your stated intention is to generate GPPs in mid-game, and city 4 is only going to generate one or two more GPs for the rest of the game, you may have to reassess whether city 4 should focus its efforts elsewhere (again, unless the GPPs were just a "bonus" side effect from building wonders or running specialists you otherwise wanted).

It is not in any way detriminal to run secondary GP farms even with a NE farm, as long as they have a meaningful amount of GPP/turn. I again ask for an example that backs up your stance on this issue.
Having a secondary GP farm means that your value of "d" is close to 1. Which is still worse than having a higher value of "d" with the same total amount of GPP.

Now, you might not be able to raise "d" (making your GPP more effective), so you have to raise GPP by creating a secondary farm. This will make each individual GPP less effective but you might still end up with more TOTAL effective GPP simply because you have more "raw" GPP than you could have otherwise.

Its not GP farm #1 + GP farm #2 vs a twice as good GP farm. Its GP farm with or without a secondary.

I think we just have to define what "meaningful" is. Here's a realistic example that you could face in, say, 500 A.D.:

City A puts out 50 GPPs and City B puts out 21 GPPs

GP #1 (1000 cost): City A, turn x+20
GP #2 (1200 cost): City A, turn x+44 (city B has 924 GPPs in reserve)
GP #3 (1400 cost): City B, turn x+67 (city A has 1150 GPs in reserve)
GP #4 (1600 cost): City A, turn x+76 (city B has 189 GPPs in reserve)
GP #5 (1800 cost): City A, turn x+112 (city B has 945 GPPs in reserve)
GP #6 (2000 cost): City A, turn x+152 (city B has 1785 GPPs in reserve)
GP #7 (2200 cost): City B, turn x+172 (city A has 1000 GPPs in reserve)

the two cities combined are generating more GPs than one city alone (city A would only make 5 GPs in 172 turns by itself).
Let me hijack your example to illustrate where I think me and Ibian have been talking at cross-purposes: the total number of GPP certainly does matter, as you've shown above. If you simply take away city "B", you end up with less Great People. However, if you instead add the GPP from city B to city A and then observe the number of GP generated over the course of the game (ie. until you win the game anyway), then you will see that a bigger city "A" and no city "B" (in terms of GPP) is better.

City A puts out 71 GPPs and City B puts out 0 GPPs

GP #1 (1000 cost): City A, turn x+14
GP #2 (1200 cost): City A, turn x+31
GP #3 (1400 cost): City A, turn x+51
GP #4 (1600 cost): City A, turn x+74
GP #5 (1800 cost): City A, turn x+100
GP #6 (2000 cost): City A, turn x+129
GP #7 (2200 cost): City A, turn x+160

We observe that we generate the same number of GP 12 turns earlier than in the original example, which directly translates into more GP/turn or, to stay with my own terminology, each individual of the 71 total GPP was more effective than in the original example. (I did not take into account that none of the cities have any points in "reserve" now, but since we are concerned with getting more GP faster/earlier, this does not matter.)

So, if you have an actual choice where to put the GPP, for example by concentrating wonders, then massing them is better than distributing them. The point is that you might not have that choice. In that case, more is more, as Ibian says.

Its not GP farm #1 + GP farm #2 vs a twice as good GP farm. Its GP farm with or without a secondary.
Yeah, I hope I've made that clear now. If you can choose between "GP farm + nada" and "the same GP farm + another one", the latter option is better.

Which is were the academic discussion in the War Academy loses some of its value (and that still does not mean that it's "crap", because the simulation that was analyzed there is correct under the assumptions that the experimenter made).

Yes but why would anyone play warlords now? I think BTS is available in every country now and in my opinion it is much better.

BTS was not released in Brazil, I have just checked again. We don't even have the 2.13 path for Warlord either, the official one from Firaxis doesn't work.

Thats what torrents are for.