When to build improvements?

[Quintillus]

It's possible for a Coastal Fortress to fire on a ship, but rarely happens. The thing is that the ship has to move directly from one tile bordering the city to another tile that still borders the city. For example, if L is land, C is city, W is coast, and O is ocean:

LCL
WWW
OOO

Then a ship moving from a W to a W can get fired upon. A ship moving from a W to an O or vice versa - the usual case if it's bombaring you - won't be fired upon. Thus, they're pretty useless, as about the only time it'll ever help is if the enemy is moving ships past one of your cities at the far end of a peninsula.

I forgot about Police Stations; clearly I don't have that many run-ins with the law. For corruption, between their cost in shields, their maintenance, and that courthouses are already present, I don't find them that worth it. For war weariness... it might be. I haven't studied it in much detail, and I suppose if I'm a Republic I tend to try to keep my wars short, whereas if I'm always in war I usually am a Monarchy or Communism by the time Police Stations become available.

They might be more worthwhile from the corruption perspective if you are a Communism, but I don't actually go that route that often.

[Cyc]

Originally Posted by Quintillus

clearly I don't have that many run-ins with the law.

[Theov]

Originally Posted by Quintillus

It's possible for a Coastal Fortress to fire on a ship, but rarely happens. The thing is that the ship has to move directly from one tile bordering the city to another tile that still borders the city. For example, if L is land, C is city, W is coast, and O is ocean:

LCL
WWW
OOO

But that makes it's kinda useless.
So maybe turn it into a small wonder? I mean, when it's time for a country to build a coastal front line/coastal fortress, it just means business just got real.
So maybe it makes one Dromon per 5 turns. To soften up the advantage that the human player has over the AI when it comes to war at sea. Will the AI build it?

[dhokarena56]

Nah. Maybe if it were a ridiculously cheap small wonder (like 60 or 70 shields) that put a coastal fortress in each of your cities, it'd be worth it? (and coastal fortresses cannot be built otherwise)

[Raliuven]

Hey, what's with all the hate on the coastal fortress?

They are just deeply misunderstood. Much like temples they are built to be admired not beause they are actually good for anything.

[Theov]

Originally Posted by Raliuven

Hey, what's with all the hate on the coastal fortress?

They are just deeply misunderstood. Much like temples they are built to be admired not beause they are actually good for anything.

but they sound so badass! COASTAL!! FORRRTTRESS!!! Mhuuuhhahahahahahaa!!!
Anyway.
I've made the thing into a Dromon building (1 every 5 turns, just like the Temples of Zeus and the Knights Templar) Small Wonder that can be obtained by researching Invention.
Industrialization makes it obsolete.

[bigFRANK]

Originally Posted by Theov

Good point.
Have a suggestion for what I can change a coastal fortress to? Maybe move it towards navigation? You'd think the AI will use it too?

My standard mod for costal forts is to have them increase commerce in the city (merchants paying for the secure harbour) and produce a cannon every 7 turns.

[Buttercup]

Much like temples they are built to be admired not beause they are actually good for anything.

The disdain for Temples on this forum by far too many posters is somewhat irrational. Temples are not glitched and do provide very substantial benefits in some very specific scenarios.

The scenarios I mostly encounter are:

1) Islands with few to zero Luxury resources and a general desire not to trade with all the AIs every 20 turns and very little desire to have to make war just to secure a luxury, building a Temple to permit access to a Cathedral is very often a much more 'easy' way to increase a City from size 7 to size 10.

2) Populating semi/quite-corrupt small islands is a complicated process, particularly if you don't want to keep having to buy all their improvements. Simply buying a Temple initially is the cheapest and easiest way to help them increase in size just enough to garner two shields instead of one or three shields instead of two, allowing them to be both Culturally expansive and a whole lot more self sufficient, particularly with self defence and Harbour/Settler production.

3) For Religious Civilisations, building a Temple in a conquered City is by far the cheapest, quickest option for land munching on your way to a Domination victory. If you are playing a Scientific Civilisation then a Library is probably the better option. For all other Civs then a Temple/Library choice would depend on the benefits of either more Happiness versus more Beakers - totally corrupt Cities would not gain much from producing a whole one additional Beaker, but increasing the population with a Happy Building would permit the potential for more Scientists and, ironically, more Beakers.

I'm sure there are many other benefits. I know you were just making a funny, but I'm sure you could find a *more* useless building than a Temple with which to make the funny comparison

[Theov]

Originally Posted by bigFRANK

My standard mod for costal forts is to have them increase commerce in the city (merchants paying for the secure harbour) and produce a cannon every 7 turns.

Good idea.

[bigFRANK]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

The disdain for Temples on this forum by far too many posters is somewhat irrational. Temples are not glitched and do provide very substantial benefits in some very specific scenarios.

The scenarios I mostly encounter are:

1) Islands with few to zero Luxury resources and a general desire not to trade with all the AIs every 20 turns and very little desire to have to make war just to secure a luxury, building a Temple to permit access to a Cathedral is very often a much more 'easy' way to increase a City from size 7 to size 10.

Assuming this is your main island with very few luxuries you should either be seeking to trade luxuries or acquire them through war or settlement, its far more efficient to have 4 or 5 luxuries hooked up with a market than it is to build temples and cathederals in all your cities (both in terms of shields and mainance costs). Also use your luxury slider to avoid those riots.

Originally Posted by Buttercup

2) Populating semi/quite-corrupt small islands is a complicated process, particularly if you don't want to keep having to buy all their improvements. Simply buying a Temple initially is the cheapest and easiest way to help them increase in size just enough to garner two shields instead of one or three shields instead of two, allowing them to be both Culturally expansive and a whole lot more self sufficient, particularly with self defence and Harbour/Settler production.

Small corupt islands are ideal for setting up science farms, so settlers are your key, if you want to make your cities more effiecient later use engineers (after replacable parts to build city infrastructure).

Originally Posted by Buttercup

3) For Religious Civilisations, building a Temple in a conquered City is by far the cheapest, quickest option for land munching on your way to a Domination victory. If you are playing a Scientific Civilisation then a Library is probably the better option. For all other Civs then a Temple/Library choice would depend on the benefits of either more Happiness versus more Beakers - totally corrupt Cities would not gain much from producing a whole one additional Beaker, but increasing the population with a Happy Building would permit the potential for more Scientists and, ironically, more Beakers.

I'm sure there are many other benefits. I know you were just making a funny, but I'm sure you could find a *more* useless building than a Temple with which to make the funny comparison

Yep if I am a religious civ then temples are on the early build list. As for putting them in captured cities, maybe maybe not, although I want to fill the space am I really going to benefit from a temple in this corupt little town?

[Buttercup]

Assuming this is your main island with very few luxuries you should either be seeking to trade luxuries or acquire them through war or settlement, its far more efficient to have 4 or 5 luxuries hooked up with a market than it is to build temples and cathederals in all your cities (both in terms of shields and mainance costs). Also use your luxury slider to avoid those riots.

The important bit in my post was where I said "general desire not to trade with all the AIs every 20 turns and very little desire to have to make war just to secure a luxury" REGARDLESS IF THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT FINISH THE GAME IN RECORD TIME.

if you want to make your cities more effiecient later use engineers (after replacable parts to build city infrastructure).

Temples are available in 4000BC, why in God's name would you wait for the Industrial Age to help boost SEMI/QUITE corrupt small islands? No, don't answer that, it probably involves some link to finishing in RECORD TIME.

am I really going to benefit from a temple in this corupt little town?

I have no idea, IT PROBABLY DEPENDS ON YOUR SCENARIO Edit: Why would you NOT benefit? What's not to benefit from increasing your cultural borders? what's NOT to benefit from having more happy people? Oh right, one gold per turn, of course, when your ploughing through Civs at a rate of 5 Cities per turn, your economy is showing +110gp per turn, you have more Armies than you know what to do with, yes, of course, that one gold per turn is just wasteful excess, of course, you should be spamming Settlers to go and fill the Cultural gaps on the way to a Domination victory, because ohhhh, that's oh so much EASIER. NOT.

[bigFRANK]

I dont see your point buttercup, addopting an isolationist stratergy (not trading not getting involved in wars) is seldom the right thing to do, you either get left behind in technology, find you have a behemoth AI to fight in the industrial ages or stunt you own growth, perhaps you will be OK at lower levels but at monarch and above this policy will see you anexed before the 19th century.

As for the corrupt small island, I would have filled it with cities in a cxxcxxc format, each city would grow as the food allowed and most of the poulation would work as scientists returning far more to my civ than the city would do normaly, if at a later date I wanted a market place or library I would switch the scientists to engineers for a short time to build this. I have no need to build a temple in 4000bc in a city that has 95% coruption unless Im aiming for a cultural victory and im a religious civ.

To expand my borders in a corupt area i would generally do better with another town, in doing so I get more unit support, the potential for more citizens (therefore more specialists) and the ability to build (slowly) more artilery type units. Regards keeping the land working pesants happy thats what the luxury slider is for.

[Buttercup]

I dont see your point buttercup, addopting an isolationist stratergy (not trading not getting involved in wars) is seldom the right thing to do

Oh really. Well, that's that 'game choice' over then. Wait a minute though... you said 'seldom', erm, doesn't this mean that you CAN imagine such a scenario? If so, aren't you barking at the moon with both your posts on this subject due to the fact that I QUALIFIED my posts with the phrase 'specific scenarios'.

you either get left behind in technology

Erm, I've never been 'behind' in technology, even in my Monarchy games. Oh dear, I've just let out that I play some games with Monarchy... (sits and waits to be lectured on the Republic even though I'm fully familiar with it)

find you have a behemoth AI to fight in the industrial ages

Well, apparently, if you're playing 'so damn well' the game wouldn't get that far... at least my last game (which was packed with Temples) didn't.

or stunt you own growth

Excuse me? How can a Happy building 'stunt growth'. It's only purpose is to enable 'growth'. Are you sure your grip on reality is 'all there'. I think you were, again, referring to 'technological advances via economics and saving 1 gold per turn' rather than 'growth'. No, wait, you might have been referring to building something else with the Shields rather than spend the Shields on Temples because, of course, 'there's ALWAYS something better to build than Temples'. At least...'seldomly'.

perhaps you will be OK at lower levels but at monarch and above this policy will see you anexed before the 19th century.

Amazing terminology. Complete crap, but amazing you have the temerity to post such an 'all-encompassing' sentence. I've never been annexed due to 'having an open mind' with regards to Temples. Utterly bizzare.

And what do you even mean by 'this policy'. I haven't stated any freaking policies. I stated that I can think of lots of SCENARIOS where Temples are very useful indeed. Policy? Are you on something?

As for the corrupt small island

Why do you keep missing out the SEMI/QUITE part? Are you attempting to just invent your own SCENARIO and hope no-one notices?

I would have filled it with cities in a cxxcxxc format, each city would grow as the food allowed

That's nice dear. Are we referring to a fully corrupt Town or a SEMI/QUITE corrupt Town?

and most of the poulation would work as scientists

Most? You mean one of them? The one you have to turn into a Specialist because if you don't the Town goes into Rebellion? Isn't that what everyone does whether there's a Temple there or not?

returning far more to my civ than the city would do normaly

Oooooh, you're talking about later in the game again aren't you. Somewhere with lots of Grassland to Irrigate... Ohhh, a SPECIFIC SCENARIO that we're somehow supposed to guess that's what you're talking about.

if at a later date I wanted a market place or library I would switch the scientists to engineers for a short time to build this.

OMG, now we're back in the Industrial Age... Our great and benevolent leader has decided that the thralls might like Library or a Market Place, how nice.

I have no need to build a temple in 4000bc in a city that has 95% coruption unless Im aiming for a cultural victory and im a religious civ.

At 4000BC the only place you will build anything is in your Capital which has zero Corruption (LMBFAO). But aside from this 'too obvious to pass up' observation, I still notice the word 'unless'. I take this to mean you can imagine SCENARIOS where Temples are good, to which I am once again left wondering, why are you so interested in 'debating' something you are in full agreement with? Oh, my SCENARIOS were 'wrong' weren't they, whereas your SCENARIOS are all 'perfect', silly me, I must pay more attention (LMBFAO).

To expand my borders in a corupt area i would generally do better with another town

Didn't I say that in my last post, didn't I say it! Yes dear, you just keep making those Settlers, if that's the way you prefer you just keep doing it that way.

in doing so I get more unit support, the potential for more citizens (therefore more specialists) and the ability to build (slowly) more artilery type units.

Because for some reason you haven't already got enough? Even though you're obviously on top and conquering... Wow, I can almost hear your brain trying to process a SCENARIO where you do actually need MORE of all the things you mention when you are already on top enough to perform those actions.

Regards keeping the land working pesants happy thats what the luxury slider is for.

You'd exchange 10% of your Slider rather than build one Temple? Fascinating, that must be quite some SCENARIO.

[Raliuven]

Here we go again. The problem with a temple or a cathedral is the opportunity cost. Sure there are specific reasons and victory conditions why you would build a temple. Otherwise there is almost always something better that you can do with the shields and the maintenance costs.

Yes, building a temple is a matter of preference. Just like playing an isolationist civ is a preference. For that matter, building a coastal fortress is a matter of preference. My dislike of temples is not irrational. As they do not fit my goals, my dislike is not irrational. Speak for yourself, not for me.

First, a temple for a standard civ is 60 shields. In a corrupt city I won't be building this to keep the population happy, the unhappy citizens will be scientists and that will control happiness. The purpose will be to expand the borders by 12 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups). Instead of using that 60 shields to build a temple I can produce 2 settler and have the added bonus of removing unhappy citizens. The 2 new settlers can then found 2 new cities to pick up 18 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups). Now I have 2 new cities (that are providing great unit support under Monarchy) and I can produce 4 more settlers or two temples. Two temples=24 tiles. Four settlers=36 tiles. I can pay 2gpt to maintain the temples (or sell them after the expansion and waste all the shields or money used to rush them) or I can have 4 new cities giving unit support (even if those units are peaceful workers rather than knights, etc.) and those cities will also be supporting scientists or taxmen part of the time. Of course if you chose the temple at the 1st city you are 21 tiles for that city while in the other example you have 5 cities at 45 tiles (with more settlers on the way).

You tell me who is going to reach the domination limit first.

Second, if you are a Monarchy you can build a 10 shield warrior as an MP and pay the same 1gpt maintenance for the same happiness. Added bonus - the warrior can attack/defend if the enemy or barbs come knocking. Draw back - no culture. As I would only use MPs in my core cities (unhappy citizens in corrupt cities are scientists, jokers, starve or become workers/settlers) these cities will be gaining their culture via libraries/universities.

Even better, the MP can move from city to city as they change and grow to put the happiness where it is needed. A temple is in the city whether it needs it or not. Often a city fluctuates between needing that extra happiness or not. So you either keep paying for a temple you don't need or you sell it and the 60 shields are gone and it’s not there when you need it. You get to keep the culture, though.

Note: The other time MPs are need is to stop resistance in a city. The added bonus here in Monarchy is that those MPs are also moveable 'happiness' giving a newly conquered city the instant benefits for happiness. These MPs could be the difference between starving the city and converting them to specialists. However, unless a city population is really needed most of the time it is just 'starved' or turned into settlers or workers to solve happiness problems. Rushing a temple here doesn't seem to make sense to me, particularly because the temple is lost if the city flips. MPs can move in and out of the city as it flips back and forth and starves down.

Third - On the note of libraries vs. temples - religious/scientific civs aside, a temple costs 60 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 2 culture per turn. Libraries are 80 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 3 culture per turn. On both a shield and gpt basis (per point of culture), libraries win.

Fourth - With the exception of some VCs, building an early temple is when you pay the highest opportunity costs and are likely to need the temple the least. This is also why the opening moves of a game have such a huge impact on the game as a whole. Your early cities are creating workers and settlers, happiness fluctuates and you need so many other things that sinking 60 shields and 1gpt in a temple is probably not the best choice. Use the luxury slider to prevent early unhappiness (you can't use the money for much else anyway particularly if you are an isolationist civ).

Cathedrals are in basically the same category. If you have Sistines they may be worth it. I'd rather have Bachs, generally speaking. Besides, they have a prerequisite of having built a 60 shield, 1gpt temple first.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong here. It is preference, just like Monarchy vs. Republic. This list is why I don't build temples. But to say that my preference is irrational is just silly. My actions are rational in accord with my preferred playing style.

In my opinion I find it interesting that you use temples and Monarchy. Because of the MPs in Monarchy it would seem to me to be the least in need of the happiness provided by a temple. But if you are playing an isolationist approach, I can see how that makes sense. However to base your argument on a very specific set of conditions does not make for good 'general' advice.

[Kirejara]

Hi,

if it is just for the imperial bank account in my current game:

17 Cities (except for 3 all size 6 or larger) with temple = 17 gold
Luxuryslider on 10% = 21 gold

So actually the Luxuryslider would be a waste of gold compared to my temples. And two of the small cities do not have one yet!

From what I have read and observed, is also that a city with a temple is less prone to defect to a rival nation.

Slightly OT, but I have also added the Hagia Sophia (available with Monotheism), wich doubles the effect of temples.

And at last: It is only a game. So have fun with it.

[MysteryX]

There is an advantage to building a temple early rather than waiting for another building to give culture, in that the early temple gives you early protection from culture flips. If you wait later to start your culture, you will always be playing catch-up in the culture game, and that leaves you exposed to the culture flip.

But the important analysis is about opportunity cost. Don't build a temple (or anything) if you have something more useful to be building. Always consider alternate ways of getting what you need (in terms of culture, military units, gold, etc.)

[Buttercup]

Here we go again.

Oooooohhhh siiiiighhhhh, here *I* go again (milking the exasperation for all it's worth)

The problem with a temple or a cathedral is the opportunity cost.

Can't say as I've ever had a 'problem' winning any game, Temples or not. You mean you don't *have* to therefore you don't. You don't *have to* build anything, it's quite possible to 'win' by just spamming soldiers, in a SPECIFIC SCENARIO.

Sure there are specific reasons and victory conditions why you would build a temple.

Barking at the moon are we?

Otherwise there is almost always something better that you can do with the shields and the maintenance costs.

Of course there is. For you and the way you play.

Yes, building a temple is a matter of preference.

Yes, using the items the game provides with which to 'have fun' is indeed what one would call a 'preference'.

Just like playing an isolationist civ is a preference.

Wow, it's like in your games you settle on all 8 Luxuries and have automatic roads to all the other Civs! Oooo, can I try that start location?

For that matter, building a coastal fortress is a matter of preference.

No, the Coastal Fortress is *glitched*. It *doesn't... work*. It would be a preference in the same way assigning your Great Scientific Leader to Increase Scientific Production would be a 'preference'. *Facepalms* (waits for pedantic post-wasting about the definition of the word 'preference')

My dislike of temples is not irrational.

Yes... yes it is. I believe there are clinics which specialise in similar compulsive disorders.

As they do not fit my goals, my dislike is not irrational.

Oh right, so you play every single game exactly the same way with the same goals do you? Wow, aren't you, like, *bored* yet?

Speak for yourself, not for me.

That is the general intention of my posts, yes, well spotted.

First, a temple for a standard civ is 60 shields.

Wooooo, scary stuff!

In a corrupt city I won't be building this to keep the population happy

Well, apparently, you wont be building one at all...?

the unhappy citizens will be scientists and that will control happiness.

Yes, that's what most people do, Temple or no Temple.

The purpose will be to expand the borders by 12 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups).

So now you *are* building a Temple...?

Instead of using that 60 shields to build a temple I can produce 2 settler and have the added bonus of removing unhappy citizens.

That's what you do *every* game?

The 2 new settlers can then found 2 new cities to pick up 18 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups).

So you prefer quantity over quality? Yes... I can see where this is going...

Now I have 2 new cities (that are providing great unit support under Monarchy)

And a whole lot more unnecessary screens to manage.

and I can produce 4 more settlers or two temples.

So now you're building Temples again?

Two temples=24 tiles. Four settlers=36 tiles.

You wont get any Ocean squares (including Whales) without expanding Cultural borders. You can't put Settlers into the Sea. I like how your 'calculations and statistics' are, as per usual, skewed worse than a politicians.

I can pay 2gpt to maintain the temples (or sell them after the expansion and waste all the shields or money used to rush them) or I can have 4 new cities giving unit support (even if those units are peaceful workers rather than knights, etc.)

And a shed load more screens to manage as your eyes get pulled out their sockets by a Unit Control Interface which thinks it knows what you want to manage in your empire and when better than you yourself do. Sounds cripplingly horrifying to me.

and those cities will also be supporting scientists or taxmen part of the time.

They can do this with or without a Temple.

Of course if you chose the temple at the 1st city you are 21 tiles for that city while in the other example you have 5 cities at 45 tiles (with more settlers on the way).

Ooooo, yes, more Settlers, more Cities, more screen yanking, that's the ticket, go the full epilepsy route just to save yourself... 1 gold per turn...

You tell me who is going to reach the domination limit first.

Ah, I knew it, it's the old 'but I will finish first' argument. Wow, so predictable. Dude if you hate the game so much that you want it over as quick as possible just play tiny maps and spam soldiers. Seriously dude, two Cities with a Barracks in each, game over in 2 hours, you'd love it!

Second, if you are a Monarchy you can build a 10 shield warrior as an MP and pay the same 1gpt maintenance for the same happiness.

I had no idea you were such a fan of Monarchy. You should try Republic sometime, it rocks! Plenty of money for Temples.

Added bonus - the warrior can attack/defend if the enemy or barbs come knocking.

Bonus? That's the whole point of soldiers. If they didn't do that I'd be rather unhappy with the game...

Draw back - no culture.

Well... obviously...

As I would only use MPs in my core cities these cities will be gaining their culture via libraries/universities.

That's going to be a looooong wait if your stuck on an island with not much going for it.

(unhappy citizens in corrupt cities are scientists, jokers, starve or become workers/settlers)

You let your people starve do you? Hmmm, not sure if I like the sound of this. Ah well, lucky it's just a game heh, hope no-one thinks it's some form of educational 'reality'.

Even better, the MP can move from city to city as they change and grow to put the happiness where it is needed.

You're really digging for every thought possible on why you're too tight fisted to by a Temple aren't you...

A temple is in the city whether it needs it or not.

Yes. That's why they are called 'Buildings' as oppose to 'Mobile Units'.

Often a city fluctuates between needing that extra happiness or not.

Mmmmm, fluctuations.

So you either keep paying for a temple you don't need or you sell it and the 60 shields are gone and it’s not there when you need it.

Why would you sell something you might need? Do you close down a Fire Station while there's no fires... to save money...?

You get to keep the culture, though.

Yes, you do. Tell me, do you sell all your buildings when you are two turns from victory? After all, you don't need them any more. And when you've done that, what do you spend the money on?

Note: The other time MPs are need is to stop resistance in a city.

I have no idea why we've moved onto discussing Resistance suppression, building is not allowed while a city is in revolt, but what the hey, I'll humor you.

The added bonus here in Monarchy is that those MPs are also moveable 'happiness' giving a newly conquered city the instant benefits for happiness.

I thought we were mainly interested in expanding borders in conquered cities in order to facilitate a Domination Victory? I dunno, maybe you just fancied a chat about MPs because you haven't had one in a while?

These MPs could be the difference between starving the city and converting them to specialists.

Or they could all be lost in a Cultural Conversion. Or they could die from a counter attack. Or they could have a nuke drop on their heads. Or, or, or, or,... where's this going exactly?

However, unless a city population is really needed most of the time it is just 'starved' or turned into settlers or workers to solve happiness problems.

All sounds a lot more complicated than just sticking their build screen to 'Temple' and forgetting about it while you pummel your foe.

Rushing a temple here doesn't seem to make sense to me, particularly because the temple is lost if the city flips.

But the city has less chance of flipping with a Temple, interestingly enough, and, I think someone said that the Culture stays when you re-conquer it? Now, who was it who said that?

MPs can move in and out of the city as it flips back and forth and starves down.

But they have no Culture.

Third - On the note of libraries vs. temples - religious/scientific civs aside,

Yes, concentrating on Religious Civs would really hamper your argumentative pleasures I suspect.

a temple costs 60 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 2 culture per turn. Libraries are 80 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 3 culture per turn. On both a shield and gpt basis (per point of culture), libraries win.

Except they don't make people happy, there's no Wonder to give you them free, there's no later Wonder which increase their worth, they're more expensive to rush build, they're not available for the first few thousand years. Yes, it must be so obvious how Libraries 'win' so easily.

Fourth - With the exception of some VCs, building an early temple is when you pay the highest opportunity costs and is likely to need the temple the least.

How about if you want to catch a Whale Tile on a small island? Or how about if you have nothing else to build and it's that or Wealth? How about if a rival civ settles in the middle of your 'area' and you think a quick Conversion would be easier than a war? How about if... Oh I don't care any more...

This is also why the opening moves of a game have such a huge impact on the game as a whole.

You mean like the difference between starting next to a Cow on a River surrounded by Grassland and starting on a small Tundra island? Is it THAT big a difference? Or are we talking something a bit more 'debatable and unverifiable'?

Your early cities are creating workers and settlers, happiness fluctuates and you need so many other things that sinking 60 shields and 1gpt in a temple is probably not the best choice.

I dunno, depends on the SCENARIO really.

Use the luxury slider to prevent early unhappiness (you can't use the money for much else anyway particularly if you are an isolationist civ).

Oh, I thought you didn't like Temples because they cost money, now it appears you have oodles of money you don't know what to do with.

Cathedrals are in basically the same category.

Oh right, we're moving onto Cathedrals now are we? *Yawns*

If you have Sistines they may be worth it.

Erm... no. If you have the Sisteen Chapel then they *are* worth it.

I'd rather have Bachs, generally speaking.

Yeah, it's great when you have a choice isn't it.

Besides, they have a prerequisite of having built a 60 shield, 1gpt temple first.

There's that disorder reappearing again.

Ultimately there is no right or wrong here.

Thank heavens, you've finally noticed.

It is preference, just like Monarchy vs. Republic.

Yes. A bit like *everything* in the game really. Well... except Coastal Fortresses, Increasing Science Output, Courthouses in Capitols...

But to say that my preference is irrational is just silly.

It is? Oh, I take it back then, you obviously have no disorders whatsoever.

My actions are rational in accord with my preferred playing style.

Awesome!

In my opinion I find it interesting that you use temples and Monarchy.

I do believe they are included in the game's software code and don't seem to add any huge complexity to the game, so, yes, I find them usable sometimes.

Because of the MPs in Monarchy it would seem to me to be the least in need of the happiness provided by a temple.

I wasn't aware that I combine the two on a regular basis. But even then, Monarchys need Whales as much as Republics and Despotisms.

But if you are playing an isolationist approach, I can see how that makes sense.

All games start out isolationist.

However to base your argument on a very specific set of conditions does not make for good 'general' advice.

I feel sure it's better advice than 'Temples are as useless as Coastal Fortresses'...

[Jingo7]

Buttercup your posts have been most amusing.

I like to build temples, yeah I said it. In fact there usually isn't a city that I control in my games that doesn't have a temple.

[Raliuven]

Originally Posted by Kirejara

Hi,

if it is just for the imperial bank account in my current game:

17 Cities (except for 3 all size 6 or larger) with temple = 17 gold
Luxuryslider on 10% = 21 gold

So actually the Luxuryslider would be a waste of gold compared to my temples. And two of the small cities do not have one yet!

From what I have read and observed, is also that a city with a temple is less prone to defect to a rival nation.

Slightly OT, but I have also added the Hagia Sophia (available with Monotheism), wich doubles the effect of temples.

And at last: It is only a game. So have fun with it.

However, you also need to account for the 60 shields per temple it cost to build them in the first place. Using the lux slider requires no down payment. Then the question is if you could have done something better with the resouces to further your goals.

I completely agree, it is just a game.

I have collapsed my response to Buttercup because frankly the pointless ramblings are getting boring.

Spoiler:

You are right, I probably do have a disorder. I love to watch you self-destruct. Given long enough you will always reply with one of this utter nonsensical and completely irrelevant rants. The problem, Buttercup, is that you fail to realize that my arguments are in no way meant to convince you of anything. I point out the logical inconsistencies in your arguments and you go ballistic. I am offering an alternative and challenging your assertions.

Let's get something out of the way.

I feel sure it's better advice than 'Temples are as useless as Coastal Fortresses'...

For someone that prides themselves on their sarcastic wit you have a blind spot for other people's tongue-in-cheek. Given my choice of avatar I thought it would be obvious.

Wow, it's like in your games you settle on all 8 Luxuries and have automatic roads to all the other Civs! Oooo, can I try that start location?

I'm not sure where you come up with these pointless issues? The only time I do thing such as this is in a test scenario when I am trying to isolate a specific element of the game to gain a better understanding of the mechanics. I never play these games as 'real' games and never claim they are. I would welcome you to use any of the testing scenarios I've posted and do you own research. So in that sense, you can 'try' that start location if you wish. That's sort of the whole point. I know, however, that the entire concept of testing is strange to you. Wild accusations are your forte. No proof is required because of your keen deductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes would be proud. That was more tongue-in-check.

All games start out isolationist.

No. All game start out with each civ isolated on the map. And maybe not that isolated depending on the dimensions of the map. Isolationist is a world view, not a geographical impairment. Spawning in isolation does not make you an isolationist. I was specifically addressing the scenario you produced where you refused to trade with other civs. Several of your other comments fail to recognize your own argument; frankly these repeated lapses into willful ignorance in an attempt at smugness are too boring to list so I'm going to skip them.

You mean like the difference between starting next to a Cow on a River surrounded by Grassland and starting on a small Tundra island? Is it THAT big a difference? Or are we talking something a bit more 'debatable and unverifiable'?

Apples and oranges. Your favorite mix. The question is not whether some starts are better than others. Obviously they are. The challenge is what you make out of what is given. This where we talk about opportunity costs. But since you don't have a firm grasp on math or statistics I'm not going down this road. Either you understand the concept or you don't.

The issue is really that you seem to hold mediocrity up as a goal to achieve. In addition you have issues with presenting a consistent argument, a problem that seems repetitious in your postings. It is difficult to debate with you because you don't seem to stand for anything other than being disagreeable. Since you are so concerned with disorders, you might want to have this checked.

How about if you want to catch a Whale Tile on a small island? Or how about if you have nothing else to build and it's that or Wealth? How about if a rival civ settles in the middle of your 'area' and you think a quick Conversion would be easier than a war? How about if... Oh I don't care any more...

Here is an interesting scenario with your personal touch of not enough information to make an informed decision. So I will address the possibilities.

If the small island is productive I will build an library to capture the whale. I've already explained why it is a better investment. A temple is unnecessary. If the town is completely corrupt then there is no point in expending 60 shields and 1gpt to capture the whale. It will become a tax or science farm and produce worker, settlers, artillery or wealth. I'd rather have wealth then spend 60 shields on something that will cost 1gpt (thus canceling any further benefits of producing wealth) to keep a completely unproductive citizen happy.

If a rival civ settles in my area than I will consider it a free city when war breaks out. I've rarely seen a cultural conversion that was 'quick'.

Except they don't make people happy, there's no Wonder to give you them free, there's no later Wonder which increase their worth, they're more expensive to rush build, they're not available for the first few thousand years. Yes, it must be so obvious how Libraries 'win' so easily.

Except that temples don't give a 50% bonus to your science rate. If you are unfamiliar with the power of multiplier buildings you should do research. For 1gpt a library gives you 3 culture per turn and if the city is making at least 2gpt in science then the library pays for itself in beakers.

You seem stuck on building a temple at 4000BC. Exactly how long does it take you to get to libraries and how many emergency temples can you build between 4000BC and that time? Maybe the number of temples you seem obsessed with building is a factor for why it takes you so long to get to libraries.

Also, the first few thousand year is about 44 turns. How many temples did you say you build in the first 44 turns of the game? Let's run a test. You save a start at 4000BC. Turn off scientific leaders as they are a wild card. Then you play the first 44 turns and make as many temples as you can. Then everyone else can take a stab at showing how the game could look after the same 44 turns. There is no right or wrong. It will just highlight the difference between approaches. Of course I know you won't actually do this because you are full of empty rhetoric.

Yes, concentrating on Religious Civs would really hamper your argumentative pleasures I suspect.

Well if you compare a religious civ to a scientific civ you still lose. You can't change the math which hampers your argumentative pleasure I suspect. (See that witty turn of smugness I pulled there?) The only way you can win is if you pit a religious civ against a non-scientific civ. Stacking the tech usually results in winning, though, so I'm not sure what this actually proves.

But the city has less chance of flipping with a Temple, interestingly enough, and, I think someone said that the Culture stays when you re-conquer it? Now, who was it who said that?

True, but you lost a 60 shield rush. Not exactly money well spent. And your comment is questionable. If the city is in danger of flipping then the addition of a quick temple will have about as much effect to prevent the flip as the MPs. At best it is a wash except that the MPs can move on after the flip chance is gone. They can also retake the city if it flips. Your temple is simply gone.

Or they could all be lost in a Cultural Conversion. Or they could die from a counter attack. Or they could have a nuke drop on their heads. Or, or, or, or,... where's this going exactly?

If forgot. Temples survive cultural conversion by moving out of the city and waiting to retake the city when it flips. They are great at defending against attacks; I've personally seen one kill 3 veteran horseman without losing a single hit point. They will survive a nuke being dropped but if you biggest concern is building a temple when the AI is dropping nukes on you then I think you need to reexamine you playing style. I would say that most players do not find being nuked by the AI 'fun'.

I know you have difficulty with this concept so that was tongue-in-check. Mostly.

So where is this all going? Temples offer no better solution than MPs and the temple costs 60 shields and 1gpt.

I thought we were mainly interested in expanding borders in conquered cities in order to facilitate a Domination Victory? I dunno, maybe you just fancied a chat about MPs because you haven't had one in a while?

I was actually addressing one of the strengths of your chosen government in the previous discussion. Once more your willful ignorance of your own argument is boring.

Yes, you do. Tell me, do you sell all your buildings when you are two turns from victory? After all, you don't need them any more. And when you've done that, what do you spend the money on?

Of course I do. I spend the money to rush temples. That was that whole 'tongue-in-check' thing again. Shifting your argument into the spectrum of ridiculous doesn't really support your argument. I could ask the same of you. I won't because what would be the point? However I do periodically throughout the game disband units and sell buildings that are no longer needed to save gpt and to enrich my treasury. The problem with this is what?

Why would you sell something you might need? Do you close down a Fire Station while there's no fires... to save money...?

If I could only hire a firefighter when there was a fire, wouldn't you agree that would be even better? That is analogous with the MP, which was the point of the statement.

You're really digging for every thought possible on why you're too tight fisted to by a Temple aren't you...

Well since you dig for every reason to reach for mediocrity, someone has to provide the counterargument. Happy to be of service.

You let your people starve do you? Hmmm, not sure if I like the sound of this. Ah well, lucky it's just a game heh, hope no-one thinks it's some form of educational 'reality'.

Really? That's the best you've got? I suppose when the AI declares war on you then you just roll over and let them win the game? You are aware that every time you seize a city in an attack you kill one population point representing anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 citizens for that foreign nationality? What exactly do you suppose happens to those 'people'? Do they die from excitement at your liberation of the city they have owned for thousands of years? Empty rhetoric. Your stock and trade.

That's going to be a looooong wait if your stuck on an island with not much going for it.

I forgot that curraghs and galleys are far less useful for sea exploration, making new friends and shipping units across the sea than temples. That's an excellent point. Guess what that was right there?

I had no idea you were such a fan of Monarchy. You should try Republic sometime, it rocks! Plenty of money for Temples.

I am a fan of monarchy. It is very low maintenance. But in my opinion a Republic is almost always better. It does rock. No need for temples though. With all the extra commerce raising the luxury slider is affordable without building a 60 shield and 1gpt temple.

Ah, I knew it, it's the old 'but I will finish first' argument. Wow, so predictable. Dude if you hate the game so much that you want it over as quick as possible just play tiny maps and spam soldiers. Seriously dude, two Cities with a Barracks in each, game over in 2 hours, you'd love it!

Ah, I knew it, it's the old 'but I'm only playing for fun' argument. Wow, so predictable. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with either approach. Fun is subjective. Where you go off the track is that you assume I can't play a fast game while still playing a meaningful game. I can set goals and accomplish them as fast as possible without resorting to hack-n-slash. I can even set different goals for each game, something you think is unique only to you. To me your style is just sloppy and lazy. Why bother to even play the game if you are going to be that disengaged?

But of course both your argument and mine miss the point entirely. The game is about having fun. We all do that in a different way, including the dudes that like to blitz a game in 30 minutes. This debate isn't about right or wrong. It is about choices and preferences. You self destruct whenever someone disagrees with you and you think you can just bully your way through the forum. You can keep at it. I can be as sarcastic as you want. But I will always come back at you with logic, which you have made clear in countless posts is your fatal weakness.

[Buttercup]

You answered your own posts when you wrote:

Sure there are specific reasons and victory conditions why you would build a temple.

Which is agreeing with what I said. Somewhat confusing then that you continue. Ah, but wait...

I love to watch you self-destruct.

Guess that kind of wraps up this (cough cough) 'debate' then...