Librarys or Temples

[Abaddon]

l was wondering what most people build first?

 

[punkbass2000]

Depends what you're trying to do, what techs you have, what traits you have etc.

 

[Tomoyo]

Libraries, unless it is a corrupt city that needs culture.

Temples, if they didn't give culture, are almost completely useless.

 

[IbnSina]

Temples make a citizen happy, which makes them a little useful, particularly in the early game, before one has markets and luxuries hooked up. They also become available significantly before libraries, and are (for most civs) cheaper, providing a good way to expand borders. I build temples first, unless I'm playing a scientific civ, in which case I build libraries first, if they are available.

 

[michael4000]

I played the religious civs a lot when I was just started out and got hooked on temples. Now I'm trying to cut back. It's tough, though. You get these terrible temple cravings...

 

[Cataphract887]

then give in and build temples every game i play,i have to fight the urge to play babylon.again.i almost always play either science\religouis civs though on rare occasian i will play netherland or france...

 

[QuinEd]

In my current game, I am playing the Ottomans. As a sceintific civ, I have not built a single temple, but instead am using libraries to expand my borders. It has not been an issue not having the happiness generated by the temples. But, I have 4 lux resources inside my borders and marketplaces in each city, as well.

Temples, if they didn't give culture, are almost completely useless.

I am not an experienced enough player to refute this comment. But I suspect that it may be a true statement. Which, in my mind, begs the question: What is the point in playing a religous civ?

 

[Tomoyo]

I don't like Temples because they cost 60 shields for non-religious, and only give you one content face. The happiness problem can be taken care of easier with marketplaces and luxuries. Those shields you use to build the temple can be use to build units that go and capture a luxury.

When I play religious, I actually build a lot of temples, mainly for the culture.

 

[DBear]

QuinEd, THE point in playing a religious civ, in addition to cheap temples and cathedrals, is that you only have 1 turn anarchy when switching governments. Since most civs switch twice, and have 4-6 turns anarchy, this is like getting 10 free turns.

 

[QuinEd]

QuinEd, THE point in playing a religious civ, in addition to cheap temples and cathedrals, is that you only have 1 turn anarchy when switching governments. Since most civs switch twice, and have 4-6 turns anarchy, this is like getting 10 free turns.

I realize that religous civs have that advantage. In my playing style, I normally only switch once: from Despotism to Republic. Maybe as my games get more difficult, I may have to rethink this attitude.

I am by no means an expert. But, I have seen more than one post in these forums by folks like Tomoyo stating that temples are useless. And I am starting to agree with them. Although, I still have an open mind, I am coming to the conclusion that a religous civ is an inherently weaker civ.

For my next game, I have decided to play Arabia. I thought about playing Babylon, but the sceintific attribute would negate the religious temple advantage. I am also tempted to play Egypt. That industrious trait, in my opinion, is the most powerful of all of them. After that I may change my mind about temples and religous civs, will just have to wait and see. But first, I have to finish my Ottoman game.

 

[pedrov]

I like temples when I'm behind on "make-people-happy wonders." It keeps productivity going. I like libraries when I want to expand my cultural borders and occupy more territory/resources. I still haven't got my C3C going (working on a mod for it), but in basic Civ3, I generally found that, in the absence of a dire need to occupy territory, temple before library seems to work out better in the long run for me, and I don't usually play religious civs.

 

[justp360]

I would build the Great library Wonder it serves as libraries in every city.
or The Pyramids Wonder serves as granaries in cities.
although wonders are expensive to build they serve their usefulness.
buliding a barracks helps units heal faster after battles , if fortified in cities.
building city walls help protect your cities.
market places helps to gather more gold.

 

[punkbass2000]

GL doesn't put libraries in every city...

 

[ybbor]

I would build the Great library Wonder it serves as libraries in every city.

no they don't

or The Pyramids Wonder serves as granaries in cities.

that deosn't answer the question

although wonders are expensive to build they serve their usefulness.

that's debateable, see Ision's 4 rules of wondr addiction

buliding a barracks helps units heal faster after battles , if fortified in cities.
building city walls help protect your cities.
market places helps to gather more gold.

thank you for reciting the civilopedia for us, as well as answering the question


i persoanly go for temples, they're cheaper, and while they may not be as useful, i'd rather use that extra 20 shields for something more useful (of course if i'm scientific all bets are off )

 

[Stoo.W]

I usually build libraries if im way out of my depth and need to keep up in techs. Otherwise I go all out war, which usually means that i usually choose the cheaper temple simply for expanding the borders. I am just playing a regent game at the moment as the celts by not researching or accepting any techs after collecting all the ancient techs! I have not built any libraries or set any research or scientists or the GLib wonder and used only temples in my cities simply to expand the borders: And i am winning by a country mile!! Even though my enemies are using cavalry and im using just gallic swords!! temples vs libraries really do depend on your style - there is no right or wrong answer! dont build temples for happiness (build markets and get lots of lix for that) build them only as a cheap way of expanding your borders. You could even sell them after they have pushed out your border so they wont cost you anything either!!

 

[smackster]

If I'm playing a fast domination, then I don't build either, if I'm trying to fill in the gaps for my domination I'll rush settlers.

Sometimes I might squeeze a temple/library for coastal cities, depending on cash available, and cost.

 

[fishpimp]

I almost always build libraries first. I wait to build temples until civil unrest requires a fix to keep the city growing.

 

[handy900]

QuinEd, THE point in playing a religious civ, in addition to cheap temples and cathedrals, is that you only have 1 turn anarchy when switching governments. Since most civs switch twice, and have 4-6 turns anarchy, this is like getting 10 free turns.

My RNG is stuck on 8 turn anarchy

Good answers here, and some intersting observations. As with most CIV strategy questions...it depends. Traits, map size, goal, variant being played...

FWIW, I play AW a lot and rarely build temples unless I'm religious. It's a cheap way to push borders back in AW in the early game. Once the steamroller is cranked up, you don't need them so much.

 

[AdamNott]

I always build libraries first (I love sciene).But, I only build temples when a city start civil disorder.

 

[citizen001]

For non-research games, don't build temples as they are more expensive and give useless science. temple is a good border city culture rush building.