Isabella

[TheMeInTeam]

I dont see any valid reason why I should not found early religions for my cultural / non conquest playstyle. It works for me very reliably, and it is a very powerful tactic.

A slow start is not a negative when you are not attempting to win by science or conquest. An early religion start makes a far faster start for a cultural win, and also for a builder game as it allows you to get Organised Religion running very quickly.

Settling and developing core culture cities later makes your culture wins slower, not faster. Look at Jesusin's guide to culture wins in strategy and tips; he's one of HoF's masters of the victory condition along with a few others. You don't found early religion in normal games because 1) it's likely to spread to you and 2) it drastically hampers development. After the first 2 or 3 religions, the opportunity cost of founding a religion is much less drastic, meaning you can still easily put up 4 religions on your own and get 1 to spread to you. Considering the diminishing returns of spreading religion + taking time to build cathedrals in cities that are probably not amazing for hammers, you're not losing any time by not founding early religion; you're gaining time.

Isolation founding one of the first 2-3 religions sucks hard because it tends to make large clusters of AI follow the same faith and have a big tech trading group hug, making it more threatening. Also, founding a religion in isolation means that your auto spread will likely kill the chances of getting foreign religion (often 3-4) via autospread, potentially making a push at culture LESS likely from iso despite having a religion at the start.

And i'm not alone in winning conquest in the 1.5 to 3 hour range from isolation in terms of time played, so it's not like it's some major drain to use military anyway lol. Basic waypoint commands and galleon logistics get things done just fine. It's AIRDROPS that take forever because you have to command units individually, which you don't have to do with galleons/transports if you have good waypoints.

EDIT2: It just occured to me that you were probably referring to TMIT's HoF game with Isabella. That was a very specific strategy for very special conditions (everyone in isolation except for two AIs, always war, goal: cultural victory). In that case the AI is slow to develop so you can afford a slow start as well. (It will still set you back, but the risk might be worth taking.)

That too, but primarily because the odds of getting a few religions from the AI in an always war game in iso are miserable. The usual diplo consequences are completely non-factor, and the ideal situation on that map was to win culture from isolation before the AIs could put together a serious invasion rather than bothering with units. If you're intending no major contact with the AI ever, then yes founding religion becomes better lol.

 

[bhavv]

Founding too many religions is usually not a good idea IMO as you would deny them to the AI (very bad for diplo). I guess if I wanted to win peacefully in isolation I'd go space and would not care about religions too much, I'd rather try to get Astro first. Isolation is generally not a good setting for a cultural win (TMIT's previously mentioned game is different as the culture victory and always war conditions were preset.)

Diplo on an Isolated start? What?

Its no good for diplo when everyone else is in a different religion too as you cant control tech trades.

Isolation is the absolute best posibility for a cultural win because no one will attack you for a very long time. Simple as that. I dont get how culture wins make more sense on a crowded pangaea than they do on an isolated start.

Settling and developing core culture cities later makes your culture wins slower, not faster.

This makes no sense to me because teching a religion first does not slow you down significantly at all for a culture win. At the start of the game you wont have anything to build to develop culture (other than monuments if you started with Mysticism). If you tech all your worker techs first and no religions until Confucianism, thats a good solid chunk of the game where you arent building any culture. You wont have Organised Religion either to start building your Libraries, Monasteries and Temples sooner. In all that early time prior to Confucianism, I can get a monument, library and monastery built in three cities, which will double in culture value very soon for 10 culture per city. This puts me in a much more stronger starting position for a cultural win.

Delaying religion spread is counterproductive to a culture win. If you pick an IMP leader with Mysticism, most obviously Justinian, you can be popping out two settlers very quickly while you tech an early religion. Have these three cities produce a worker and bam, exponential growth from there compared to worker first.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This makes no sense to me because teching a religion first does not slow you down significantly at all for a culture win. At the start of the game you wont have anything to build to develop culture (other than monuments if you started with Mysticism).

This is getting to joke levels of nonsense.

How are you getting all these buildings when you aren't getting the cities and workers to set them up? The answer is you aren't doing it as quickly, because you're delaying worker technologies to found a religion. You're also hampering absolute science rate (a big no-no even in culture games) and the growth of your cities onto cottages.

HOOOOOOORAY, you got a library to double in culture 10 turns sooner. The player who actually developed his empire got to lib a dozen+ sooner instead and got a 100% culture multiplier in all cities, with towns in addition. I'm sure that 200 total advantage is so much better than getting 100's of /turn advantage for a longer period later though, right?

The mere suggestion of getting a great prophet in a culture game suggests some misunderstanding of what "fast" culture is .

Delaying religion spread is counterproductive to a culture win. If you pick an IMP leader with Mysticism, most obviously Justinian, you can be popping out two settlers very quickly while you tech an early religion. Have these three cities produce a worker and bam, exponential growth from there compared to worker first.

Counter-intuitive perhaps, but not counter-productive. As for the rest of this paragraph...well...it's difficult to address it without being too insulting lol. A while back vicawoo (I think) opened a thread on S&T about going settler first with imperialistic vs worker first...and in reasonably painstaking detail. It's not fun to see such emphatic assertions as "exponential growth" compared to an alternative with 0 numerical backing and existence of evidence to the contrary.

Settler first almost always loses. WILL always lose if you build TWO of them before a worker, because now you're throwing significant maintenance into the equation and delaying worker techs and writing even further. Not to mention settling a 3rd so early pushes up the date at which barbarians enter borders and will likely force you to go archery even on medium difficulties because you won't know where strategic resources are before settling the cities.

Exponential growth compared to worker first? Absolute joke. It's slower growth and slower tech, and significantly so.

 

[UnforcedError]

Diplo on an Isolated start? What?

Can you win culture before the AI gets Astro? On what difficulty level?

Its no good for diplo when everyone else is in a different religion too as you cant control tech trades.

Everyone in a different religion is just about the best thing that can happen to you. All you have to do is not adopt a state religion (or only adopt one for short time periods). What do you mean by controlling the tech trades? Everyone will trade with you only.

Isolation is the absolute best posibility for a cultural win because no one will attack you for a very long time. Simple as that. I dont get how culture wins make more sense on a crowded pangaea than they do on an isolated start.

Because you have to do all the teching on your own until mid-game, so fitting in races for multiple religions will be an additional major setback, especially since (as TMIT already pointed out) the rest of the world might be a happy fast-teching community, all in the same religion.

 

[bhavv]

Settler first almost always loses. WILL always lose if you build TWO of them before a worker

Settler > worker > settler is what I did in my games sorry.

Settler first because I wanted to tech a religious tech first, then a worker while I tech my first worker tech.

Can you win culture before the AI gets Astro? On what difficulty level?

I thiught you meant self teching astro, not the AI teching it.

 

[Abegweit]

A good strategy is anything that can win the game. There is therefore nothing 'bad' about founding early religions.

In CivII, they used to play a "strategy" called Waiting for Jesus. This meant sitting on your settler and doing nothing until 1AD. I won a game on Nobel playing this way. I suppose that makes it a good strategy!

 

[UnforcedError]

Settler > worker > settler is what I did in my games sorry.

You build 2 settlers and a worker with 4-5 hammers? Have you ever run the numbers?

I thiught you meant self teching astro, not the AI teching it.

Well as soon as the AI techs it you're dead if you're not doing any diplo and go for culture. That's what I meant. Being first to Astro is good for you in isolation, but you're not going to trade it away happily, I assume.

 

[UnforcedError]

In CivII, they used to play a "strategy" called Waiting for Jesus. This meant sitting on your settler and doing nothing until 1AD. I won a game on Nobel playing this way. I suppose that makes it a good strategy!

Nevertheless:

 

[bhavv]

You build 2 settlers and a worker with 4-5 hammers? Have you ever run the numbers?

WITH IMPERIALISTIC. Settle on a plains hill, work a plains forest or forested hill, 15 turn settler > worker > sellter while improving first tile.

You get three cities out very fast, and you have much more time to build them up.

Screenshot:

Spoiler :

With ISABELLA, instead you can look for a seafood start and build a workboat first while teching an early religion.

In that game (immortal difficulty as well), I still maintained a comfortable tech lead and founded Hinduism, Confucianism, Christianity and Taoism.

HOOOOOOORAY, you got a library to double in culture 10 turns sooner. The player who actually developed his empire got to lib a dozen+ sooner instead and got a 100% culture multiplier in all cities, with towns in addition. I'm sure that 200 total advantage is so much better than getting 100's of /turn advantage for a longer period later though, right?

Correction, I get many more cathedrals, each one boosting culture by 50% and slightly slower free speech. In the end I'm generating far more culture with more religions and their cathedral buildings.

 

[UnforcedError]

WITH IMPERIALISTIC. Settle on a plains hill, work a plains forest or forested hill, 15 turn settler > worker > sellter while improving first tile.

You get three cities out very fast, and you have much more time to build them up.

My ears are fine, so no need to shout. Besides, I think you misread the title of this thread. Last time I checked, Isabella was not imperialistic (both her traits are better than that, thankfully). Now try to do the numbers with building a worker first and then a few warriors so that your first settler could be built using improved mines and not run the risk of being taken out by a panther before it settles your great early city.

 

[rah]

It looks like all three of those cities are about to fall to that barb warrior.

 

[UnforcedError]

It looks like all three of those cities are about to fall to that barb warrior.

The settlers could dodge 1-movers as long as he doesn't settle them But then what's the point in building them early?

Edit: seriously though, bhavv, what's the point in paying the maintenance for 3 cities working 1 unimproved tile each? I just saw that you named Immortal as your difficulty level and claim that you maintained a comfortable tech lead with a Poly start. Honestly? With this sttrategy? Did you reroll until you had 5 gems or something? (Although that probably wouldn't have helped having no Mining and only 1 worker for 3 cities...)

 

[bhavv]

^^ In the game posted in the screenshot I teched CoL and Philosophy before anyon else. In my most recent religious attempt I founded every religion on Immortal, but that needed a Fin leader and settling on a riverside lux. I've just tried a couple of games with Isabella on completely average Immortal starts, and I can found Hinduism, Judaism, Confusianism and Taoism reliably in every game with handpicked no mysticism opponents, Christianity too if I manage to build the Oracle. I see absolutely no reason not to do this, AIs getting trade advantages, not a problem to me for culture wins. Diplo, I'm SPI and can change to any religion I want, no problem there either.

My ears are fine, so no need to shout. Besides, I think you misread the title of this thread. Last time I checked, Isabella was not imperialistic (both her traits are better than that, thankfully). Now try to do the numbers with building a worker first and then a few warriors so that your first settler could be built using improved mines and not run the risk of being taken out by a panther before it settles your great early city.

Your ears might be fine but your eyes aren't. The rest of the post you quoted explained very clearly that you can build a workboat first with Isabella.

The starting warrior is capaple of preventing any mishaps with animals, and barbs don't enter your borders until turn 50 on immortal so all ws fine.

 

[UnforcedError]

In my most recent religious attempt I founded every religion on Immortal, but that needed a Fin leader and settling on a riverside lux.

Look, I actually read this forum because I like this game and want to improve my skills so I'm interested in other people's opinions and tactics. However I do assume that anyone posting here does in fact play the game, instead of deliberately posting crap just for fun like you are. Stop talking nonsense and try to win a map on whatever level.

The starting warrior is capaple of preventing any mishaps with animals, and barbs don't enter your borders until turn 50 on immortal so all ws fine.

Don't try to play immortal yet That starting warrior will have a lot to do defending three cities against barb archers.

 

[bhavv]

I can turn barbs off if I want to. Don't tell me not to play Immortal when I win 100% of my Emperor games with ease, and can comfortably win on Immortal too. I've been playing this game since the day it launched, something that I doubt that you have.

I'm managing to do on Immortal what too many people on this forum keep saying is impossible, that's a clear sign that too many people simply don't have a clue about strategies that differ from their own.

Out of curiousity when did you even start playing this game, seeing that you only just signed up this month?

Its absolutely ridiculously simple to maintain a tech lead along the religious line on Immortal difficulty with a lame average start, the fact that I can reliably pull this off and you and so many others can't doesn't really demonstrate that you are anywhere close to as knowledgeable about the game as you like to pretend you are.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Screenshot:

Non-imperialistic civs can get 3 cities and 1 worker by then with worker first. The capitol is bigger too. I'm not sure what an ideal case where all 3 cities get auto-trade routes and you have a commerce resource is supposed to prove, other than that worker first is still better.

I can turn barbs off if I want to. Don't tell me not to play Immortal when I win 100% of my Emperor games with ease, and can comfortably win on Immortal too. I've been playing this game since the day it launched, something that I doubt that you have.

Less citing experience (which is pretty irrelevant regardless of who's doing it), more citing numerical proof that this is somehow a good approach. It's weird how none of that has ever turned up.

Out of curiousity when did you even start playing this game, seeing that you only just signed up this month?

Again, if going to attack an argument, go for that instead of the player. If the player has valid points, trying to attack his experience (which is unknown anyway) doesn't strengthen an argument; it weakens it.

Its absolutely ridiculously simple to maintain a tech lead along the religious line on Immortal difficulty with a lame average start, the fact that I can reliably pull this off and you and so many others can't

Who said we "can't"? Well, you. Some of us have actually done it. However, it's still a slower play. Immortal is quite forgiving in this game still. You can do things like beat tanks and infantry with rifles and cannons on immortal too. Does that mean it's a good idea? It won, right? Must make it a good strategy, possibly "just as good" as say winning before the AI even gets rifles...following the logic of "religious line can work".

What will make the religion line argument finally worth anything is when someone can open with that and come out numerically ahead of disciplined micro with a more standard worker tech emphasis. The problem is, even in your screenshot you're demonstrating it's behind, even with a fairly ideal starting position and trait combo for attempting it.

doesn't really demonstrate that you are anywhere close to as knowledgeable about the game as you like to pretend you are.

Speaking of which, if you want to show us knowledge about the game, run a breakdown of the "superiority" of a religion opening.

The most comical thing is that on the vast majority of maps a shrine can't even beat an academy, despite the sacrifices made to attain it (assuming of course that one didn't get it via rush, but that's not what you're advocating).

 

[bhavv]

Who said we "can't"? Well, you.

Actually, you yourself have said many times that founding religions and building the oracle on Immortal is 'unreliable'. For me that isnt the case.

run a breakdown of the "superiority" of a religion opening.

Im not bothered about which methods are 'superior', I play the game how I enjoy it. If all you and others want to do is play whatever method is superior, then dont ever play as anyone other than Inca or Darius, and dont ever use any methods other than Quecha / Immortal rushing, because clearly according to you, absolutely nothing else is better than this.

Your 'superior' methods of playing the game bore me, and my methods still work on Immortal difficulty so thats fine for me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, you yourself have said many times that founding religions and building the oracle on Immortal is 'unreliable'. For me that isnt the case.

I was going on the assumption of random opposing leaders and non-cooked settings. For example, with some AI rng outcomes, you already lost oracle in your screenshot, even if you finish PH immediately and start building it with pre-chops. too slow. AI get it by 2000 BC on immortal sometimes, and you're likely not getting it before 1800 bc. Unreliable = yes. Where, however, did I say I couldn't go down the religious path and hold a tech lead on immortal? I'm missing that part.

Im not bothered about which methods are 'superior', I play the game how I enjoy it. If all you and others want to do is play whatever method is superior, then dont ever play as anyone other than Inca or Darius, and dont ever use any methods other than Quecha / Immortal rushing, because clearly according to you, absolutely nothing else is better than this.

Your 'superior' methods of playing the game bore me, and my methods still work on Immortal difficulty so thats fine for me.

Well, if you're changing your stance to "I'm doing something deliberately weaker than a standard opener for fun", then there's nothing really to argue. However, it IS a change in stance:

A good strategy is anything that can win the game. There is therefore nothing 'bad' about founding early religions.

When discussing whether something is bad, most people would define "more opportunity cost than alternatives" as "something bad". Maybe not bad enough to sink you, but bad.

 

[bhavv]

Work boat first for Fishing Civs, or Settler first for IMP civs is not 'deliberately weaker' than Worker first, regardless of what opening technology you choose to research.

Spain just happens to be a very good Civ for teching an early religion because they can go workboat first. Similarly to Justinian with a Settler first. You may be put 'very slightly' behind compared to a worker first, but I am convinced that all the extra turns I will have Organised Religion running as a result will more than make up for this slight temporary set back. Also if I choose to go conquest, I have a very early potential Theocracy setup too. The initial setback would be far less significant over the course of the game than playing a Fin leader compared to playing Toku.

Its like when you rex and crash your economy to <20% science rate, but recover with scientists. You have your cities placed earlier and you get more time to improve, grow and develop them. In the end the 'drawback' is repaid by the greater increase in productivity. You sacrifice a little early game progress to be repaid with greater midgame progress which repays and exceeds your initial setback.

Similarly to this, I remember once I was playing a game as Pericles, and I was rushing for construction ASAP for what I assumed was blatantly obvious. I was told by a Deity level player 'researching construction that early is bad unless you are trying to elephant rush. You should be teching economy techs like CoL and Currency first'. I couldn't contain the lollage.

Everything you say about GAs being better for culture wins, theres nothing stopping you from doing that on top of setting up a strong early game Organised Religion. Any early game culture building you add to your culture cities - be it monuments, libraries, temples, monasteries, will add to your cultural progress. You mentioned it may delay lib and free speech, but you could also have more cathedrals set up by that point due to earlier multiple religion spread.

Also regarding your 'attacking the player is bad' arguments, you conveniently ignore that I was replying to yet more attacks against me because people simply can't stand seeing someone play the game using any strategy that is incorrectly believed to be bad just because several other people have already said it is. I don't understand then, how I can take these 'bad' strategies and make them work on Immortal difficulty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Work boat first for Fishing Civs, or Settler first for IMP civs is not 'deliberately weaker' than Worker first, regardless of what opening technology you choose to research.

On some starts, work boat first is good. On many it isn't, even if you start with fishing.

but I am convinced that all the extra turns I will have Organised Religion running as a result will more than make up for this slight temporary set back.

You are convinced wrongly.

Its like when you rex and crash your economy to <20% science rate, but recover with scientists. You have your cities placed earlier and you get more time to improve, grow and develop them. In the end the 'drawback' is repaid by the greater increase in productivity. You sacrifice a little early game progress to be repaid with greater midgame progress which repays and exceeds your initial setback.

Yes, exactly like that. And when you don't settle those cities and get your early tech rate going, you also fall behind in culture wins.

Everything you say about GAs being better for culture wins, theres nothing stopping you from doing that on top of setting up a strong early game Organised Religion.

You were talking about getting a prophet at some point. I was just ironing that away.

I don't understand then, how I can take these 'bad' strategies and make them work on Immortal difficulty.

Because immortal is forgiving. That's why I play it too.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against your insistence that early religion = fast culture times, however, comes here:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=24736
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=8758
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=22513
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=18944
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=23964 - Early religion
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=20282
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=22366 - Early religion
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=23610
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=14527 - Pre 1000 AD, no early religion

I could go on here, but you're going to notice a trend. Self founded religion games are finishing the same or later than games where people get worker techs, in culture victories. Nobody has yet attained a material win date advantage by going early religion. The players who have most worked to master culture wins like lexad, jesusin, and wastintime are the ones who are skipping founding an early religion, and winning sooner.

Maybe you have the new style. Take one of those spots away from someone who did the inferior option with your organized religion that "more than makes up" for the worker techs. Show us that your approach to a culture win is actually stronger, and not a a weaker option done deliberately for flavor. However, any time I've ever seen comparisons between approaches, the early religion falls behind unless the circumstances are exceptional (and by exceptional I mean map situation, not traits).