I believe that most people don't rate high enough Theocracy, simply because OR is better most of the time. I would like to argue a way to make Theocracy count :
THEOCRACY does not allow to spread any other than the state religion. Why is that good? Many times an AI founds a religion and then spams it to the whole world. By running Theocracy you do not allow the AI to get +1gpt for all your cities-if you run a diffrent religion than the AI. If you can get other AIs into Theocracy, you further harass the religion spreading thus not giving an advantage to AIs with shrined holy cities and further manipulating religion, making AP less powerfull if it is under another religion and better manipulating diplomacy and backstabbing.
I think this is a pretty interresting way to leverage this underrated civic..

That few gold you prevent him from getting is hurting you more than him usually. Why not just build a vast army and march straight for the shrine. Its better to be one of the religions groupies if its the primary religion in the area. That way your buddies wont get as mad when you annihilate him.

Theocracy is still good though when I play spiritual I run it at times just to get some exp for my CR units as I upgrade maces to Rifles rigut out of the box.

I don't argue that Theo is better than OR or any other religion civic. I am just pointing out ways that it can be more usefull, so when you get into Theocracy for military building, you can get some extra bonusses.

As of the shrine though : what happens when the shrine is on the other side of the *world* in the hands of a strong,zealous civ (Justinian ie)? Getting into Theocracy (that will give you extra diplo with zealots) and blocking off that religion for 3-4 civs might worth it...

Make it count by Oracle popping feudalism, bulbing theology with the resulting Great Prophet, and running over your enemies with CR2 swordmen fresh from production. Add a settled Great General and stable for triple promoted mounted units. Since you're building units you don't miss the bonus from OR.

Make it count by Oracle popping feudalism, bulbing theology with the resulting Great Prophet, and running over your enemies with CR2 swordmen fresh from production. Add a settled Great General and stable for triple promoted mounted units. Since you're building units you don't miss the bonus from OR.This is what I was thinking. I do not like the getting feudalism and bulbing part really, but IMO theocracy has its uses other than disallowing the AI to spread religions to you.

In fact, if the AI spreads its religion to others they might switch, leaving you in a tough spot diplomatically. Even if that is so, theocracy has its uses when massing an army. You will not miss on the missed bonus to :hammers: when you are massing units rather than buildings, and the units get bonus XP to boot.

Any :hammers: spend on missionaries rather than longbows are very welcome :hammers: in my opinion, and in due time the Ai will hand over the nice shiny shrine one way or another. :trouble:

I like theocracy, i can often switch to it in a GA but i would often sacrifice an anarchy turn to switch anyway when massing an army. It's that second promo that's often vital, cr2 for siege makes them more effective. Shock and pinch are 2 promos that can really help too.

To be noted: with a charismatic leader, vassalage+theocraty allow one to build level 4 mounted units out of barrack+stable, and level 4 units in any city with a barrack and a settled GG (Cyrus :yumyum:)

Having your heroic epic produce level 4 units in medieval era is a huge bonus.

Cheers,
Raskolnikov

theocracy ftw when warring. It's great. If building units, one can go vassalage and theocracy for tons of 2 promo even 3 promo units, or at least units 1 xp away from 3 promos. Or, alternatively, one can use nationalism and combine it with theo for drafting and extra xp. Thing is, usually the no religion spread is a pain, so I spread everything around in OR first, then switch to theo.

I believe that most people don't rate high enough Theocracy, simply because OR is better most of the time. I would like to argue a way to make Theocracy count :



It has to do with allocating more cities toward military unit production, more than anything else. The combat odds you can achieve by having 3rd level vs. 2nd level units sometimes becomes significantly higher (i.e., double or more). If you have enough cities building/drafting military, however, the benefits add up, just like they do with Organized Religion.

The other religion civic that competes with Theocracy is Pacifism, especially in the middle game during the phase where bulbing gains significance. In my experience, the extra GPP gained by Pacifism easily outweighs the special upkeep cost, in most cases.

Furthermore, the tech that unlocks Theocracy is Theology, which is basically a dead-end tech (unless you're specifically trying to get the wonders from Theology or Divine Right). The alternatives availble in the same era, Organized Religion and Pacifism, come with techs that are either much cheaper or lead to important techs.


A very special variation, however, is to tech Theology instead of Civil Service as a prerequisite for Paper. In this rare case, Theology no longer becomes a dead-end tech. I see very limited applications for this, however.

Rarely useful if you don't play spi leaders. Most of time I stay in OR. It's good for producing level 3 seige units, but not necessary, siege units are built for sacrifying and cannons don't care about another promotion.

I use Theo all the time. OR has high upkeep. If you know you're going to war for much of the middle game it is a great civic (you can still run Bureaucracy or Nationalism). It's also handy to keep the AP religion out of your civ if you plan on warring a lot against the AP civs (eliminating resolution defiance :mad: ). In many games I'll completely ignore the religious line, and then build Schweddegon Paya to run it.

The way to make theocracy count is to draft. Draft a lot.

I use it most of the time.

From what I gather, I think more people like it than OR. At least, Rameses seems like the only one I know who likes OR as a favourite civic, and I know at least Isabella, Justinian, and Zara are Theo-fans. That makes it good for diplomacy.

Stopping religion spread can be good or bad. Usually, I'll let someone take 1GPT off a religion in my city, since I'll be able to build a temple and monestary for that. And at least you can still spread whatever religions you want, in case if the AP religion isn't your state religion.

And finally, if you're geering up for war, I find it the best. Vassalage is good, but too often I want one of the other civics: Nationhood for the draft, Bureaucracy for the strong capital production, or FS to keep my tech rate up (late game with towns everywhere). If 75% of your cities are building units, then the other religious civics don't make sense.

Mainly for me, I tend to switch to it early when I prep for my early war, and will only switch out of it if I can get a free swap with another civic switch. Religious would be good, since basically it's Theo for the build up to war, then OR after to build infrastructure in the captured cities (or to build missionaries to get to those cities).

If you have a strong capital then theocracy enables you to use your other cities to build/whip lvl3units while bureaucracy keeps the economy running.

Rarely useful if you don't play spi leaders. Most of time I stay in OR. It's good for producing level 3 seige units, but not necessary, siege units are built for sacrifying and cannons don't care about another promotion.

It depends a lot on what kind of siege units you're using, and what units are defending.

If the defending units are Riflemen, there is a very big difference (sometimes nearly double) between CR2 and CR1 Cannons.

With Trebuchets as your main attackers, the extra promotion is more likely to count. Sometimes a few quick trades (from Philosophy, Music, and/or Paper) is all that is necessary to get Engineering, and it can be a good alternative to attacking with Cannons.

With Catapults, you have the option of giving them Barrage 2 to help your melee units (also better because of 3rd level).

The way to make theocracy count is to draft. Draft a lot.

True...I find that in most cases, however, continuous drafting during the 8 turns of a Golden Age is more than enough units to gain what I need.

I use it most of the time.


And finally, if you're geering up for war, I find it the best. Vassalage is good, but too often I want one of the other civics: Nationhood for the draft, Bureaucracy for the strong capital production, or FS to keep my tech rate up (late game with towns everywhere). If 75% of your cities are building units, then the other religious civics don't make sense.


I think this argument came up earlier on the forum before, and my answer to that was Pacifism. The trick to using Pacifism during a military buildup is to switch out before you have too many units. Before your military gets excessively large, the benefits gained from the extra GPP of Pacifism easily outweigh the potentially high upkeep (provided that you manage your military correctly).

The other aspect of choosing Theocracy versus Vassalage is the need to have religion. In many cases, Paganism is the ideal religion civic because it doesn't require a state religion, especially in tight diplomatic situations.

Finally, in some situations it can be advantageous to use both Vassalage and Theocracy. This would be more likely when playing Charismatic leaders.

It depends a lot on what kind of siege units you're using, and what units are defending.

If the defending units are Riflemen, there is a very big difference (sometimes nearly double) between CR2 and CR1 Cannons.

With Trebuchets as your main attackers, the extra promotion is more likely to count. Sometimes a few quick trades (from Philosophy, Music, and/or Paper) is all that is necessary to get Engineering, and it can be a good alternative to attacking with Cannons.

With Catapults, you have the option of giving them Barrage 2 to help your melee units (also better because of 3rd level).



There's not much difference of CRI and CRII cat or treb against LB. WB a battle and check the output.

Cannons vs rifleman? Rarely happen in my game. AI's rifleman will face my bomber and/or tank.

By running Theocracy you do not allow the AI to get +1gpt for all your cities

By skipping theocracy, you allow the AI to love you, and give you +1 gpt for all your cities as a gift!

There's not much difference of CRI and CRII cat or treb against LB. WB a battle and check the output.

Cannons vs rifleman? Rarely happen in my game. AI's rifleman will face my bomber and/or tank.




According to the WB, a longbowman with CG1 and a 5-turn fortify bonus results in 77.3% success for a CR2 treb and 56.8% success for a CR1 treb (I'm sure many of us on this forum are familiar with seeing these two numbers).

How does this translate to relative effectiveness? One way to measure is to count the average number of battles before dying. For example, having 0% success has an average of 1 battle before dying. A 3rd-order estimate of this number would be:

1 + P1 * (1 + P1 * (1 + P2))) for CR1

1 + P2 * (1 + P2 * (1 + P2))) for CR2

where P1 = % chance of success for CR1
and P2 = % chance of success for CR2

Note the following:

1) For CR1, the 3rd variable is P2 because the siege unit can be promoted to CR2 after 2 successful battles.

2) If either P1 or P2 = 0, then both numbers are 1.

3) This metric assumes that relative effectiveness of each unit is based on average number of battles, not wins.


For this test case, P1=0.568 and P2=0.773. Using the above 3rd-order approximation, relative effectiveness is 2.14 for the CR1 treb and 2.83 for the CR2 treb. This is a proportional difference of 32%.

Finally, remember that these numbers assume a CG1 longbowman with a 5-turn fortify bonus, in a non-hilled city. Results can vary greatly depending on whether the defender has extra promotions, hills (which give an extra +50% for longbowmen), and length of time fortified.


In the case of Catapults, % chance of success often approaches 0. In these cases, it's often better to take the Barrage line of promotions to increase collateral damage. Having 3rd level lets you take Barrage II.

According to the WB, a longbowman with CG1 and a 5-turn fortify bonus results in 77.3% success for a CR2 treb and 56.8% success for a CR1 treb (I'm sure many of us on this forum are familiar with seeing these two numbers).

How does this translate to relative effectiveness? One way to measure is to count the average number of battles before dying. For example, having 0% success has an average of 1 battle before dying. A 3rd-order estimate of this number would be:

1 + P1 * (1 + P1 * (1 + P2))) for CR1

1 + P2 * (1 + P2 * (1 + P2))) for CR2

where P1 = % chance of success for CR1
and P2 = % chance of success for CR2

Note the following:

1) For CR1, the 3rd variable is P2 because the siege unit can be promoted to CR2 after 2 successful battles.

2) If either P1 or P2 = 0, then both numbers are 1.

3) This metric assumes that relative effectiveness of each unit is based on average number of battles, not wins.


For this test case, P1=0.568 and P2=0.773. Using the above 3rd-order approximation, relative effectiveness is 2.14 for the CR1 treb and 2.83 for the CR2 treb. This is a proportional difference of 32%.

Finally, remember that these numbers assume a CG1 longbowman with a 5-turn fortify bonus, in a non-hilled city. Results can vary greatly depending on whether the defender has extra promotions, hills (which give an extra +50% for longbowmen), and length of time fortified.


In the case of Catapults, % chance of success often approaches 0. In these cases, it's often better to take the Barrage line of promotions to increase collateral damage. Having 3rd level lets you take Barrage II.I am not much of a number cruncher but I do get what you are saying. The bolded part is actually very good advice now that I think of it, and it is something I never even considered.

Promotions are indeed very powerful when used correctly in the sense that they can save you lots and lots of :hammers: if you use your units to their maximum efficiency.

Is there any reason stopping religions being added to your cities is actually beneficial? :confused:

-They can give culture either directly or through buildings,
-Possibility of more :science:, :hammers: or :gold: through wonders and monasteries,
-Give diplomatic flexability (abusively so if Spiritual),
-Access to more missionaries can be used to seriously screw up AI diplomacy if you really want to :lol:
-Greatly improve your chances at culture wins,
-Stops you needing to actually found a religion yourself,
-I'm much happier when the AI use its :hammers: on things that can't kill me :D
-Extra religions to spread to dilute the AP religion can help concentrate votes :mischief:
-More :) from either temples or FR

And all the AI gets in return is 1:gold: per city that its terrible at using :lol:
Good trade IMO :goodjob:

There are a few small drawbacks of an AI spreading its religion to you:

-"Brothers of the Faith" type war :mad:
-Possibility of being harder hit by defying AP resolutions
-Obviously the :gold: the AI will have
- And the very, very, very exceedingly unlikely case of the AI accidentally setting up an AP cheese win the way a person would.

I wouldn't say any of these really justify taking Theo in order to block AI missionaries.


Experience given by Theocracy does help at times, but blocking missionaries is something I consider, similar to SP stopping Corps, or Mercantilism stopping foreign trade. A disadvantage :rolleyes:.

Theo is good but the problem is: I like to keep my wars short, if not spiritual it might cost me anarchy. I might not have adopted a state religion bc of diplomacy.
So it's situational, if I've got a state religion and I'm spiritual or in GA I will always switch for war or if I need to revolt something else as well like say CS->Slavery then I get Theo as a 2 for 1 switch at the same time.

According to the WB, a longbowman with CG1 and a 5-turn fortify bonus results in 77.3% success for a CR2 treb and 56.8% success for a CR1 treb (I'm sure many of us on this forum are familiar with seeing these two numbers).

How does this translate to relative effectiveness? One way to measure is to count the average number of battles before dying. For example, having 0% success has an average of 1 battle before dying. A 3rd-order estimate of this number would be:

1 + P1 * (1 + P1 * (1 + P2))) for CR1

1 + P2 * (1 + P2 * (1 + P2))) for CR2

where P1 = % chance of success for CR1
and P2 = % chance of success for CR2

Note the following:

1) For CR1, the 3rd variable is P2 because the siege unit can be promoted to CR2 after 2 successful battles.

2) If either P1 or P2 = 0, then both numbers are 1.

3) This metric assumes that relative effectiveness of each unit is based on average number of battles, not wins.


For this test case, P1=0.568 and P2=0.773. Using the above 3rd-order approximation, relative effectiveness is 2.14 for the CR1 treb and 2.83 for the CR2 treb. This is a proportional difference of 32%.

Finally, remember that these numbers assume a CG1 longbowman with a 5-turn fortify bonus, in a non-hilled city. Results can vary greatly depending on whether the defender has extra promotions, hills (which give an extra +50% for longbowmen), and length of time fortified.


In the case of Catapults, % chance of success often approaches 0. In these cases, it's often better to take the Barrage line of promotions to increase collateral damage. Having 3rd level lets you take Barrage II.

Duh. 32% difference, is that important? Remember that the major usage of siege units are their collateral damage (Edit: and weakening of the toughest defenders). Are 3 siege units enough for a city? Even in deity, it is enough. So 15 siege units is usually enough for wiping out an AI of medium size. Also remember that after 2 battles, many of your level 2 units are able to be promoted to level 3 units. So even the 32% difference is no longer there. Then 32% difference for the first 2 battles, Hmm 2 cats/trebs, does this worth of 2 turns of anarchy?

Also as you mentioned about the tougher defenders, this kind of efficiency is better than nothing, they will all die anyway.

By skipping theocracy, you allow the AI to love you, and give you +1 gpt for all your cities as a gift!

This operates under a ton of assumptions. Usually by the time one would seriously consider using theo, religious lines have been drawn and if religious civics are in consideration you probably picked already, and you won't be caring about your TARGET.

IMO theo is best used as a favorite civic bonus for sal/izzy/zara, or when doing so isn't a major detriment and allows better military. Drafting is a special case as it allows the spamming of a TON of troops, and getting them combat I from the start is useful.

Duh. 32% difference, is that important? Remember that the major usage of siege units are their collateral damage (Edit: and weakening of the toughest defenders).


The collateral and weakening apsect of siege units is modeled by the 1 in these formulas. Even when the % chance of success is 0, the unit still has some effectiveness, and this is reflected by adding a 1 at the beginning of the formulas.


Are 3 siege units enough for a city? Even in deity, it is enough. So 15 siege units is usually enough for wiping out an AI of medium size.

Also remember that after 2 battles, many of your level 2 units are able to be promoted to level 3 units. So even the 32% difference is no longer there. Then 32% difference for the first 2 battles, Hmm 2 cats/trebs, does this worth of 2 turns of anarchy?


It's not just 2 units...all 2nd level units need to survive their battles in order to advance to 3rd level. As you weaken the enemy units, it may become easier to win battles, but having the extra promotion still gives them the advantage. Even if there is an opportunity to win easy battles for some of your units, having Theocracy for 5 XP units still doesn't prevent you from bringing your 3 XP units to battle for this purpose.

Even when enemy units are weakened to the point of having ~100% success chance for your CR1 attackers, giving Accuracy to your 5 XP units allows them to function as both attackers and castle-destroyers. Besides attacking, siege units are used to lower enemy defenses. Having the Accuracy promotion makes them more efficient at doing this.



Also as you mentioned about the tougher defenders, this kind of efficiency is better than nothing, they will all die anyway.

Again, here is where Barrage enters the picture. If the % chance of success is close to 0, the main value of the siege units is in collateral damage. Having 3rd level units lets you do more collateral damage per siege unit.

Also, the enemy units are also weakened in this case, after a few battles. So again, CR2 has an attacking advantage over CR1. Unlike the ordinary defenders, these tougher defenders, even when weakened, give difficult chances to CR1 attackers but easier chances to CR2 attackers.

Also as you mentioned about the tougher defenders, this kind of efficiency is better than nothing, they will all die anyway.

It also depends on what Era you are in a War and what units you are using. If you have WC, Immortals, Aggressive Sword, or Praetorians and are fighting against nothing more than Archers because you have pillaged every resource in sight it might very well be better to use the catapults to simply remove the cultural defenses and use the other units to fight the city. If you lose the catapult by fighting the city then it will take too long for new reinforcements to arrive and further conquering will be greatly slowed because you will lose more units vs. high culture or have to wait for more catapults/and or reinforcements.

In this case, I would use Theocracy in conjunction with my best GG city to hopefully produce better city attackers like the 1st 4 units above and be content with my siege having fewer promotions but geared towards knocking down city defenses faster. When warmongering I love Theocracy because free units + better promoted units for better wars. I don't see the need for a religion to use it - that's what the SP is for. Plus, when I warmonger it's not a short war - it's non stop till the game ends. If I don't warmonger then I simply conquer/settle enough land initially and go to war next with some combination of cannon or rifle.

By skipping theocracy, you allow the AI to love you, and give you +1 gpt for all your cities as a gift!

This operates under a ton of assumptions. Usually by the time one would seriously consider using theo, religious lines have been drawn and if religious civics are in consideration you probably picked already, and you won't be caring about your TARGET.

IMO theo is best used as a favorite civic bonus for sal/izzy/zara, or when doing so isn't a major detriment and allows better military. Drafting is a special case as it allows the spamming of a TON of troops, and getting them combat I from the start is useful.
I was going to give the same counterargument, so here is the quote;).

I like theo when I first get 1 religion (;)founded by me or not).
I then select the state religion, run theo (if available, but I play a lot of future starts these days) to only allow the spread of my new state religion and so make sure I never need to build a missionary to get my state religion everywhere.

The collateral and weakening apsect of siege units is modeled by the 1 in these formulas. Even when the % chance of success is 0, the unit still has some effectiveness, and this is reflected by adding a 1 at the beginning of the formulas.



It's not just 2 units...all 2nd level units need to survive their battles in order to advance to 3rd level. As you weaken the enemy units, it may become easier to win battles, but having the extra promotion still gives them the advantage. Even if there is an opportunity to win easy battles for some of your units, having Theocracy for 5 XP units still doesn't prevent you from bringing your 3 XP units to battle for this purpose.

Even when enemy units are weakened to the point of having ~100% success chance for your CR1 attackers, giving Accuracy to your 5 XP units allows them to function as both attackers and castle-destroyers. Besides attacking, siege units are used to lower enemy defenses. Having the Accuracy promotion makes them more efficient at doing this.




Again, here is where Barrage enters the picture. If the % chance of success is close to 0, the main value of the siege units is in collateral damage. Having 3rd level units lets you do more collateral damage per siege unit.

Also, the enemy units are also weakened in this case, after a few battles. So again, CR2 has an attacking advantage over CR1. Unlike the ordinary defenders, these tougher defenders, even when weakened, give difficult chances to CR1 attackers but easier chances to CR2 attackers.

Unfortunately, you don't get my point. My general point is that the theology doesn't worth the anarchy turns when you are not playing a Spi leader. Here's my previous post.

Rarely useful if you don't play spi leaders. Most of time I stay in OR. It's good for producing level 3 seige units, but not necessary, siege units are built for sacrifying and cannons don't care about another promotion.


You also don't get my point of battle results. When I attack with all level2 siege units, I expect to lose 6 of them for the first two cities, some other siege units will get another promotion by wining against the wound units. Then you can use those level3 siege units for the next battle and get the other units promoted to levels 3. So the difference between using all level 2 and level 3 units is the survival rate on the 1st two battles. If you still don't get it, sorry I couldn't make it more clear and I know it's hard to convince other people on the point that they believe in heart.

It also depends on what Era you are in a War and what units you are using. If you have WC, Immortals, Aggressive Sword, or Praetorians and are fighting against nothing more than Archers because you have pillaged every resource in sight it might very well be better to use the catapults to simply remove the cultural defenses and use the other units to fight the city. If you lose the catapult by fighting the city then it will take too long for new reinforcements to arrive and further conquering will be greatly slowed because you will lose more units vs. high culture or have to wait for more catapults/and or reinforcements.

In this case, I would use Theocracy in conjunction with my best GG city to hopefully produce better city attackers like the 1st 4 units above and be content with my siege having fewer promotions but geared towards knocking down city defenses faster. When warmongering I love Theocracy because free units + better promoted units for better wars. I don't see the need for a religion to use it - that's what the SP is for. Plus, when I warmonger it's not a short war - it's non stop till the game ends. If I don't warmonger then I simply conquer/settle enough land initially and go to war next with some combination of cannon or rifle.

Sigh, you also don't get it. We are talking about the difference between CRI and CRII cats/trebs against LB here. I care about the those precious early units, but not cats/trebs, I expect them to die.

Sigh, you also don't get it. We are talking about the difference between CRI and CRII cats/trebs against LB here. I care about the those precious early units, but not cats/trebs, I expect them to die.


I get it just fine but you seem to be missing out on what I originally said so:


Reiterating - depending on the situation and time frame, units involved, etc, it can be far superior to sacrifice city raider units over catapults. Your discussion about LBs has no relevance at all on my point because the situation is different. I was not talking about LBs but rather, other situations that change attacking efficiency of all the units involved.

Unfortunately, you don't get my point. My general point is that the theology doesn't worth the anarchy turns when you are not playing a Spi leader. Here's my previous post.


Actually, I agree with you for the most part. Using Theocracy is expensive in two aspects. First of all, the required tech Theology is expensive for a religion civic, and it's rather hard to trade for because it opens up Apostolic Palace, making it a monopoly tech. Second of all, as you mentioned, it requires a civic switch, resulting in possible anarchy.

However, there are ways to avoid these drawbacks:

1) Wait until Theology becomes a cheap tech to gain in trade, before trading for it.

2) Avoid the anarchy by starting a Golden Age, and use the no anarchy benefit of the Golden Age to switch to Theocracy.


You also don't get my point of battle results. When I attack with all level2 siege units, I expect to lose 6 of them for the first two cities, some other siege units will get another promotion by wining against the wound units. Then you can use those level3 siege units for the next battle and get the other units promoted to levels 3. So the difference between using all level 2 and level 3 units is the survival rate on the 1st two battles. If you still don't get it, sorry I couldn't make it more clear and I know it's hard to convince other people on the point that they believe in heart.

I understand your point now, after your clarification.

You're basically accepting heavier losses on your earlier battles, in order to catch up in promotions for later battles. While it may seem that you've caught up after 2 battles, you still lose those extra units in the first two battles, and won't have them available for later battles. So in order to make up for the early losses, you need to produce more units to compensate.

And it's not only siege units...other units also gain a head start on 3rd level. When 5 XP Macemen attack with 80% odds, 3 XP Macemen will be attacking the same targets with significantly lower odds. Then on the next battle, it will be their turn to advance to the next level--4th level--by attacking targets with <99% odds.

I think Theocracy is very powerful. I keep seeing people say "drafting" and "rifles" and siege units like "cannons". Obviously any of the above vs LBs is rape but I get the most out of Theocracy in the early - mid game ranging from 1000 BC - early ADs (before AIs get LBs) depending on the level and game speed being used.

When I'm not playing a forum game I always pick the leader I want to play with so this means Organized will always be used (heh!, at least theirs a strong chance!) so running expensive civics aren't a problem. On Immortal a typical beeline is Asthetics so getting Theocracy is a few chops away.

I have no problem with anarchy - bring it please because the trade off is fantastic. I get highly promoted units that will be facing nothing more than archers after I take out their source/s of metal/horse.

So although Theocracy might not be the best civic choice when you are focusing on infrastructure or have such superior units like cannons, in the early game it can be devastating and makes conquering land nothing more than pillaging their military sources and fighting mostly archers.

I realize on Deity early wars are normally problematic and waiting for cannon, or rifle, or even Infantry is necessary, however, most people don't play Deity and on Immortal and below Theocracy and constant early wars can be the best choice.