All Civ 4 BTS buildings ranked and explained - Henrik

[civac]

Games that last longer (so for example most science victories even on the "standard" settings) will lead to more buildings, but I think that doesn't change the fundamental issue with the gold multiplier buildings (outside of niche scenarios like shrines and corporation headquarters): by the time you have enough production to comfortably afford them, you often have enough production to build wealth (with production multiplier buildings) to ensure your slider is at 100% and thus you have no gold to multiply.

Markets are still very expensive even in slow games. But banks are good investements under such conditions. Wealth cannot be whipped and cottage cities often do not have a ton of production.

 

[Jellybug]

how cheap would a market have to become in order to transform it into a usually-good building that you'd want to whip/chop in most commerce cities? if it cost 90 like libs would you build it? or would it have to be cheaper?

edit: maybe not "want to whip," since getting rid of cottages is hefty consideration, but at least think about maybe whipping or a reasonable slow build

 

[civac]

For 90 I would make them in all of my commerce cities.

 

[sampsa]

Due to the -bonuses at 90 it'd be decent, but still depends a lot on the exact settings and situation.

 

[Fippy]

An eternal playing style question
If you know when exactly you can / will overwhelm AIs, you might not want any market.
In mp the competition & being unsure if plans work increases so much, skipping buildings that will pay off starting on turn x could proof a mistake.

In high cities 90 or 150 might only be a 3-4 turn difference in growing back.
Low cities would be much more interested in reduced building costs..

 

[ariosto]

I think, selling Polytheism to Shaka for 80 is what really makes markets redundant. In NTT games they are nice buildings in commerce cities. Not great, but way above "only for shine" league.
I'm also surprised to see so much hype around monasteries. They are awkward - I want to build missionaries in hammer cities, so 10% doesn't do much. In commerce cities I don't want to build missionaries at all, so 10% is the only value, and I find it a little underwhelming. I usually build only a couple throughout the game, unless I have religious wonders of course. The same tier as barracks? Astonishing.
With that being said, I'm also in OrgRel camp, so that's part of the reason I value monasteries lower, than @sampsa.

 

[ariosto]

I would say Henrik more took the approach of "how quickly do you spam these once they're available." In that sense harbors/factories/coal plants belong in A tier, even if many games they're not missed.

I would put factory + coal plant in S tier if you value buildings this way. Not only I build those in most of the cities ASAP - I sometimes beeline Assembly Line only to get them sooner. And swap to OrgReligion if I have well timed Golden Age.

 

[sampsa]

@ariosto Maybe it's my own inability, but I just can't find the time to switch to org rel. Need to get the tech and pay for anarchy and higher civic maintenance. I just think a monastery to spread the religion is much more convenient (assuming a typical golden age strategy).

Barracks I build everywhere in war prep, but when the war is rolling I think nearly everyone overvalues XP by quite a bit. With my bread and butter strategy I would argue that not being able to build any monasteries is more inconvenient than not being able to build any barracks.

 

[Core Imposter]

I do so worry about building up units with XP only to see them become obsolete and overshadowed and too expensive to sensibly update. And then I want to update them anyway. But playing the long games I will have a barracks everywhere almost and just a couple of monasteries. Organized religion is almost a whole game thing for me because I am playing deep, and it takes a long time to build factories. If I were playing a little Pangea map and 7 civs it would all be different I am sure.

I have the annoying habit of having annoying habits. For example, I don't like to chop for a unit I might lose, it seems to make sense to me to chop infrastructure I won't lose so that's what I will do, sometimes infrastructure I don't have to have. I endlessly post sentries and scouts for attacks that never come, obsessively leave forests on plains so that I can build lumbermills so that I will maybe not have to build some health-related building. I will leave squares empty for ages just in the hope that a forest will grow that I can chop. My worst habit is to build blocking settlers for those odd squares not in my cultural radius, to prevent encroachment, which I have to do because I play limited war rules. These habits are rabbit holes that are almost like black holes. Just can't get away from them. So, I end up using settlers as scouts on distant continents in the latter game. It is a mental condition of some sort.

The fact that I have come back to Civ IV after all these years is, I suspect, a clue the white coats are coming.

 

[sampsa]

Yes, there are several things that have an impact. Map size makes a huge difference. Lately I've been trying always war, thanks to some great games by @Henrik75 on his channel. Playing AW is one way to make buildings a lot better on normal speed/size.

 

[ariosto]

I endlessly post sentries and scouts for attacks that never come

I don't have much experience in MP CIV, but I think this should be a good habit. The only reason why it could be considered "bad" in SP is predictability of an AI

 

[antimony]

The AI usually will build one main stack, so it can be worth sending a scout (most often just a spare worker or horse unit for me) to find out where that stack is if you want to know who an AI is plotting against, or if you want to prepare an attack on them.

 

[Core Imposter]

Sending out a scout is great...till later in the game when that stack can move far enough to leave me guessing which direction they went.

And I can't find a spy to tell me if those ten transports in the harbor are loaded with troops or not. So, it's all monsters under the bed for me.

 

[Luke1195]

I'm surprised Cathedrals are C tier... you say they are only useful for Cultural victories and not a normal game, but that isn't true. Isn't a 50% culture boost always useful? And besides, why wouldn't Cultural Victory be an option in an average game?

The cultural boost from Castles doesn't go obsolete -- so I'd say it is at least C tier, in between Walls (D) and Monument (B). Monuments are still more important than Castles for their early culture spread

I'd probably put the Nuclear Plant in D or even F tier. Coal or Hydro plants are always better because they can't blow up randomly, and even if they aren't an option, is power even worth it if the plant blows up giving your city the same effects as a nuke?

 

[Lennier]

The problem with cathedrals is that they’re very expensive. Unless going for a culture victory, not very useful in core cities (except for happiness boost.) And for border cities—just conquer. On occasion you may have a situation like “I’m warring east and my west neighbor is friendly with me so it would be really inconvenient to attack them, so a cathedral might help me retain my border city BFC.” But that’s pretty rare.

 

[sampsa]

you say they are only useful for Cultural victories and not a normal game, but that isn't true. Isn't a 50% culture boost always useful? And besides, why wouldn't Cultural Victory be an option in an average game?

No, a culture boost is very often close to zero value. You should not fight cultural wars with the AI, it's just inefficient. You can win culture if you want to, but in an average game you can win in an easier way, one that doesn't require early planning really.

The cultural boost from Castles doesn't go obsolete -- so I'd say it is at least C tier, in between Walls (D) and Monument (B). Monuments are still more important than Castles for their early culture spread

Culture from castle is irrelevant. Walls is for me the more important building.

 

[civac]

Castles main draw are the trade route and the middle finger to enemy siege. And yeah walls are more important buildings.

 

[Core Imposter]

Playing with custom rules on warfare which gives me no control on starting wars, I am always going to build some castles and cathedrals at places where I don't want to post large garrisons and or have to move borders. With conquest and domination taken off the table as victory conditions it slides a lot of infrastructure up.

 

[antimony]

If seems your play style is roleplaying as an AI though. Why would you want no control on starting wars in a strategy game? Are you going to enter a war over a grudge against a more powerful civ? The AI do that and coincidentally also build a lot of unnecessary buildings.

 

[antimony]

As an example for any level below deity you can get a diplo victory with very low infrastructure and no wars. Just need enough hammers in one city for the UN. Culture requires the culture buildings obviously and science requires more infrastructure but that is true whether you conquer a lot of territory or not. For any of those victories (again, below deity) you can play the diplomacy to avoid defensive wars in the great majority of cases.

That's for standard setting, but not that many settings alter it fundamentally. Settings like huge map, always war (probably the most) or no tech trading have some effect as discussed above. No tech brokering in my view makes things easier though, because you can trade techs you research to one AI at a time without worrying they will trade it to others.