Culture - Am I Playing it Wrong?

[t-o-m]

Ok, when I play Civ, I like to have a lot of land area because i don't like it when others settle near me.
Normally the first thing i do when i have built a city is the norm...roads mines and irrigation.
What I build first in the city is a temple though. I do this simply to make my boarders expand over time.
However, other civs and the Histogram show that the others just build a city without doing any of this, so am I playing 'wrongly' or..?


Here is one Histogram taken at around 1/8th of the game.

About half way through normal games of mine, i end up ruling the culture section of the Histogram - is this normal?
I also seem to have a lot more gold than all other civs, i have thousands whilst they have tens. I spend money on research and whatnot but my cities always have a lot taking in. So am i playing some parts wrong?

 

[Spoonwood]

What level are you playing on? What sort of victory condition do you want? I can't say you're doing anything "right" or "wrong" in this game until I have an idea of what you want to do. Many players don't rule the culture section of the histogram, but they want a conquest or domination victory... so temples and such don't make much sense. For Emperor on up (probably not on Monarch, but possibly) temples and cathedrals and possibly even colosseums can make sense for maps where you have few luxuries and/or you want large cities after sanitation. If you have a fair amount of luxuries traded for/native though marketplaces should do. Libraries, universities, and research labs make sense for any sort of game where you want a fast(er) tech pace such as a spaceship or diplomatic victory condition... or a game where you'd rather war later than sooner... as well as possibly a histographic victory. For a 100k game all cultural buildings make sense, as well as smallpox city spacing. For a 20k game you want all those cultural buildings in your 20k city *pretty much* as soon as possible, and science improvements in the other cities for the chance at more SGLs.

 

[Peebo]

I know the feeling, wanting to give each city a lot of space, and building a temple quickly so the borders will expand. And sometimes those pesky AI mess up my plans. If you look at their cities, they usually forgo any culture improvements for a long time. Some people play like that, and my style is moving in that direction. When you're trying to expand really quickly in the beginning, sometimes it's better to forgo the temple and instead build more settlers and units until you run out of space. But there's nothing wrong with how you play as long as you're winning

 

[t-o-m]

Thanks for the replies

I usually play on fairly easy levels, mostly the 4th and 5th difficulty levels. The victory conditions mainly aim for are simply conquest, as for a diplomatic victory that would mean having to not double-cross friends and start pointless wars over resources

I usually expand fast, but throughout the game i go through phases of not building settlers and then to building 6 settlers in 5 turns.

 

[Aabraxan]

As Spoonwood noted, temples/caths/colosseums make sense for the cultural victory conditions, but they're not usually necessary for conquest or domination. For those VCs, I suggest largely ignoring temples, cathedrals and colosseums. You shouldn't usually need happiness beyond what can be gained with: (a) a nice collection of luxes; (b) marketplaces; and (c) a decent military. If you're in a lux-poor situation, you might need a few happiness buildings, but in most cases, just go conquer the luxes that you want. If you just really enjoy kicking the AI around, instead of temples, invest those shields and gold in military. You gain territory much, much faster.

If you just *have* to have a little culture, build some libraries. At Regent or Monarch (which is where you're playing, right?), they should be enough to hold off any culture flips, and a big ol' stack of cavalry should be enough to recapture anything that actually does flip. Besides, for conquest or domination, you'll likely want libraries for their research bonus, anyway.

 

[capnvonbaron]

How is your score only 162 in 1892AD? Are you sure this isn't a low difficulty?

Aabraxan's pointer is pretty accurate. I think most middle-difficulty players tend to build temples rarely, cathedrals even less, and colliseums almost never. Libraries and universities make decent culture if you really, really need it, and build science as well. Happiness is never a problem on monarchy or lower with a lux or using the lux slider. Keep in mind, your capital will build culture no matter what anyways, so don't bother with a temple there. The early-game shields should be put to use more efficiently building military or settlers, etc. Even wonders are a bit of a waste in most cases... only build them if thats what you are setting out to do (ie culture win). You'll find a lot of war-mongers here that say "military above all"

 

[Snarkhunter]

. . . . You'll find a lot of war-mongers here that say "military above all"

Edged weapons are their own culture, after all

kk

 

[capnvonbaron]

true. Three swordmen will "flip" a single-spear-defended town much quicker than all the buildings in all the neighboring towns!

 

[t-o-m]

My general aim for the temples and for culture is just to corner off sections of the map.
I tend to create a stronghold on a map and then just run over anyone who dares get a tad close.
I never build anything like Cathedrals, that would be a complete waste, I ONLY build temples because they're quick and expansive.
When I build cities simply to grab a resource or anything like that, I dont build many, or even any improvements, its only on the more main cities that i build them.

 

[RFHolloway]

as has been said before you are better to build either

a) libraries - 20 more shields, butter culture, and provide a boost to science

or

b) settlers - 30 less shields, help population grow, provide income and don't cost maintainanace. If you place them cXXXc the culture will span across the gap if you do it correctly. You can always abandon them later if you want to build metros

or

c) attacking units - take enemy cities, and sometimes reusable!

than temples

If you are going for culture though, lots of cities is the ideal way (library+temple+cathedral in a few hundred cities)

 

[Spoonwood]

If you build metros, then you'll *often* need temples, cathedrals, and possibly even colosseums to deal with happiness problems... unless you have perhaps all the luxuries or play on Cheiftain or Warlord.

 

[RFHolloway]

If you build metros, then you'll *often* need temples, cathedrals, and possibly even colosseums to deal with happiness problems... unless you have perhaps all the luxuries or play on Cheiftain or Warlord.

Again I would disagree - far better to use markets to multiply the luxuries

 

[Peebo]

I used to be the kind of player who wanted every improvement in every city. When changing my style of play I notice some things. Like, you quickly run out of things that you need to build. What do you build instead of all these improvements? Obviously a strong military is good, but what if you've got plenty of troops for now and aren't going for conquest? Just have all your cities producing wealth and set research really high?

 

[capnvonbaron]

Just have all your cities producing wealth and set research really high?

Yep.

Or build workers and send them out to join fringe cities that you want to grow. I will often stockpile a couple-dozen or so settlers, too, since I never know when I'll need to bulldoze an enemy and replace their cities with fresh new ones.

 

[RFHolloway]

What if you've got plenty of troops for now and aren't going for conquest?

There are very few victory conditions (only really 20k culture, or space on continents when you have secured youre entire continent ) that aren't helped by a bit more territory. So in general you should either be warring or preparing for war. Even if not, then building military units to disband where you are building is often useful.

 

[Spoonwood]

Again I would disagree - far better to use markets to multiply the luxuries

For a metro that works say 14-20 tiles and no happiness wonders, you'll either need almost all the luxuries, or you'll need temples, cathedrals, and maybe even colosseums.

There are very few victory conditions (only really 20k culture, or space on continents when you have secured youre entire continent ) that aren't helped by a bit more territory.

Diplo and space on pangea where the AIs can do research and have sizable armies don't get helped much by war weariness... i.e. trying to take more territory. Granted, if you can control your weariness (and don't inadvertendly push a good trading partner into Fascism via a war with a weaker tribe), things can work out well, but on harder levels where the AIs can do research, this doesn't make for the simplest thing to do. I rarely war and prerpare for war. In fact, in a 20k I actually prepare for war and war more than in my diplo or space games, since the Heroic Epic makes for really good culture at a cheap cost. In diplo or space games, I'd rather have good trading partners and no weariness.

 

[Brainiac18]

I used to be the kind of player who wanted every improvement in every city. When changing my style of play I notice some things. Like, you quickly run out of things that you need to build. What do you build instead of all these improvements? Obviously a strong military is good, but what if you've got plenty of troops for now and aren't going for conquest? Just have all your cities producing wealth and set research really high?

well, if u have all the improovements built and enough military units, why dont you go kill somebody, or maybe choose a higher difficulty level next time