Religious Settlements

[hr_oskar]

Okay, serious talk:

From a purely cold, dry powergaming perspective, is the RS pantheon not the optimal choice in nearly every single game?

That's assuming you're able to pick it (I know the AI likes it) and you're playing on deity with mostly normal settings aiming for optimal play.

I've looked through previous discussions on the pantheon but they were all trapped in subjective talk about preferences and different playstyles. I understand perfectly why you'd not want to take RS because other options are more interesting and feel less cheesy. For roleplaying it's a very dull option, I get that.

It just really bothers me how powerful it is relative to the other options, since I'm a competitive player who can still appreciate having interesting choices to make. Pantheons are fun and without RS there are a number of decently balanced and interesting choices available. If I'm able to pick RS then picking something else could be interesting but also leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling that I made a bad choice. I honestly think the game would be better if it were simply removed or otherwise significantly nerfed.

Can anyone argue against RS from a powergaming perspective or this just one of those cheesy things, like Magnus chops, that you either have to embrace or reject for the sake of cuter / more challenging options?

 

[fantsu]

I always pick the "free" settler, sure. Its the best.
I do like to pick fertility rites if there is no settler left, "free" builder is ok too.
God of the forge if I am in need of units fast, but yeah, settler is the best, others are more situational. I am fine with the choices, they could nerf the settler one a bit, maybe lower the bonus beside the settler for 5 or 10%.

 

[Victoria]

Can anyone argue against RS from a powergaming perspective

RS is very strong and it caters to our needs. After all they start with 3 settlers and I start with 1 but it is also about the simplicity. It just seems simple and right.

You are saving the production of the settler minus the inflation rate for the next settler plus the extra turns the found
Ing city has plus the saving of a population. It is a large combination to argue against.

faith pantheons are very situational and personally I find god of fire the strongest because things do not have to be pretty and you do not want to build on those tiles anyway. With a few fertile volcanoes you can rake in a lot of faith. Faith is later than RS but is more flexible. One of the real advantages I find to it is I can buy a settler in a captured city and it is distant settlements I find otherwise challenging. But just buying troops or GP or buildings allows more flexibility. The value over a 200 turn game I guess is around 2000-2500 faith so not large end game wise but handy mid game when things are more critical. Just how you value that against 80 fast production early with all the other benefits is one thing but there are other factors to consider.

losing that +1 production card early for a crappy +1 faith/gold card
if I have an envoy in 1-2 military CS early that degrades the value of RS
If I have a lot of chop around my capital that also devalues RS
Equally high food/production tiles devalue RS as does location (RS is useless if you are on a small island)

Equally, I have no source of culture bar monuments possible but I have 3 sheep and a cow.

I also try to get my head around tile value. A tile with an additional food or production is more than just +1. It is a powerful tile pushing you ahead of the curve that way. When this can be combined with another tile increase like Kupe’s +1 food for fishing boats makes god of the sea much more appealing. While on paper +1 is not a lot, in game the difference is... well no need for Magnus to have provision.

what I do do is replay games a few different ways and I have found RS May give you 11 cities rather than 10 for an SV but the spread out tile benefits have appeared more beneficial.

The game does not allow for simple comparison and RS is one of the simplest choices. Because it is more powerful you are asking a lot for an empirical comparison with other more complex pantheons.

I believe there are both civs and situations that benefit from alternative choices. It also may make sense that Indonesia go for RS most games while Canada would be better going for say goddess of the hunt because it is also about your chance of getting it. Is the settler arriving just as you are being swarmed by Tomyris? Then RS was fairly useless.

It certainly seems the intent with this version that it is about shades of grey and while RS may be white, I do not believe it is whiter than white but sometimes reading posts I feel it is blindingly white to some. I am just not so convinced.

RS is pittance compared with Magnus. You choose not to chop, you may as well choose god of war. Are you sure you would never choose god of the forge?

 

[Zdarg]

Okay, serious talk:

That's assuming you're able to pick it (I know the AI likes it) and you're playing on deity with mostly normal settings aiming for optimal play.

Right now, I am playing on Terra map with 22 civs, as Zulu (not deity but immortal, does it matter?). I evidently intended expansion by early war. Anyway, the map allowed settling another city of my own, there were Dover cliffs no neighbour was interested in. I haven't any early sources of faith, so didn't hope for RS and hard built a settler. Anyway, I used "1 gold 1 faith" card when available. To my great surprise, 25 turns later, when I got access to a pantheon, RS was still open option. I thought really hard, I examined all pantheons, but nothing still looked better than RS. Spark is great, but not for Zulu. 1 sea amber and 1 fur didn't make that pantheons much useful and no volcanoes. So, I just took a settler, which stayed unemployed for about 50 turns, until I found a place for another coastal city and was able to put the settler there safe, without removing units from my wars.

 

[hr_oskar]

Thanks for the detailed reply Victoria.

I want to make clear that I'm not emotionally attached to RS -- if anything I'd love to find out I'm wrong and be convinced of better reasons to prefer other pantheons.

RS is very strong and it caters to our needs. After all they start with 3 settlers and I start with 1 but it is also about the simplicity. It just seems simple and right.

The game does not allow for simple comparison and RS is one of the simplest choices. Because it is more powerful you are asking a lot for an empirical comparison with other more complex pantheons.

I understand the limits of theorycrafting in a game as complex as Civ. I would also agree that there should be a few really simple pantheons that are not particularly situational to act as a baseline for comparison and backup options when nothing else fits your situation. But RS isn't alone in that niche -- we have Fertility Rites which is the most directly comparable to RS. I would also count City Patron Goddess as a non-situational pantheon. Thing is, Fertility Rites is a perfectly good pantheon -- one that I'm happy to pick but would also often turn down in favor of some of the situational pantheons. But Religious Settlements is for all practical purposes strictly better than FR.

losing that +1 production card early for a crappy +1 faith/gold card
if I have an envoy in 1-2 military CS early that degrades the value of RS
If I have a lot of chop around my capital that also devalues RS
Equally high food/production tiles devalue RS as does location (RS is useless if you are on a small island)

I don't get what you're saying about the policy cards.... most of the time you need God-King to get any pantheon. I'm talking about how one specific pantheon compares to the rest, not whether pantheons are worth getting. On that topic, Fertility Rites is almost always available and I is clearly a good return on the investment of running G-K over Urban Planning for 25-30 turns. It's like building a cheap builder on the side while you're doing other things. Of course after getting a pantheon I switch that card out and never use it again while Urban Planning gets a lot more use.

Don't really agree with the rest either. Having the military CS is great and so are chops... but they aren't exactly wasted with an extra settler! In the early game I'm under pressure to settle some 4-6 decent city spots while also building a military to defend against an almost inevitable rush by some neighbour (I play crowded maps), while also wanting to get my first districts built plus monuments and builders etc... I want all those bonuses and chops and a free settler too! Early advantage is simply king.

what I do do is replay games a few different ways and I have found RS May give you 11 cities rather than 10 for an SV but the spread out tile benefits have appeared more beneficial.

The way you phrase this almost makes it sound like RS is giving you your 11th city some time late in the game, when of course it was actually your 2nd or 3rd city. We both know the enormous difference there.

The benefit of a bonus yield pantheon is something you're constantly reminded of while you're playing. The benefit of that extra settler right at the start of the game is on a more what-if basis... it's easy to overlook and forget later on why you had such a successful game.

Are you sure you would never choose god of the forge?

Well this is my problem with RS... even with a gameplan that would clearly favor God of the Forge I'd probably still pick RS over it because it benefits that gameplan even more. Oh I can just get a free settler and keep building units to attack even earlier? Yes I'll take that thank you.

-----

The point I'm making in the end is simply that I think Religious Settlements is not balanced and should be nerfed or removed. Whatever value it has as a simple pantheon with an immediate benefit is already provided by Fertility Rites.

I could of course decide to never pick it but that still doesn't satisfy me because I'd like to be able to compare my games with other competitive players but that becomes a lot harder if I start handicapping myself on purpose.

 

[Victoria]

I don't get what you're saying about the policy cards.... most of the time you need God-King to get any pantheon.

Not if you are not rushing it which you have to do for RS. God King is sacrificing 1 production per turn very early when production is truly king. Take fertility rites or divine spark as great examples, you do not need them early, just pillage a plot or settle on some incense. You do not have to slot god king and I often do not. Sometimes I use Survey and like Survey but it is a longer term risk.

Don't really agree with the rest either.

Then perhaps I am wrong but I do not think so currently. While someone else is chasing god king I get +1 production and they may not even get RS. Take an MP game, 7 people are going for it and you slot UP. Very happy to be convinced otherwise. One of the reasons I am good at my job is I always play devils advocate with myself and to a degree I am doing so here as I feel you are wanting this discussion and seem balanced enough to have it. It is not a one way street as I always want to better my understanding.
More chop does not equal more settlers, there is a limit whether it be raw cost, places to settle or other reasons. These are what I mean, on the other side I do appreciate that it means more chop elsewhere with RS but I often find initial limits on settlers.
You disregarded the point that starting on a small island gives little value to RS, it certainly devalues it a lot and I was using it as an extreme example of how position devalues RS. You really do not see this?

The way you phrase this almost makes it sound like RS is giving you your 11th city

Perhaps I am in a way. I did make the RS advantages very clear at the beginning showing my understanding of it, did I miss any advantages of RS? The thing is this, I slot UP and have Kabul and Valletta envoys, I am at +5 prod for settlers on top of say +10 production by this time. It is 7-8 turns to get that settler without Colonization. Add to that the fact the additional settler escalation cost and the benefit of taking another pantheon with its advantages and am seeing the gap between RS and others is closer. Sure that prod could go to a builder or army but those things are not always needed. We are not choosing RS over nothing, we are choosing RS over faith per turn for the entire game.

it's easy to overlook and forget later on why you had such a successful game.

Now I think this is a cheeky comment like you thought my 11th city was.
I am playing an awful lot of Kupe deity terra games and I will replay a game to say T100 every now and then to try something out. Three times I took RS from all of these games. Either god of the sea or earth goddess seems to work so much better and it’s not purely anecdotal. I am looking back at the game asking myself just what did that city give me. It is not easy to quantify because a second/third city with RS replaces a city you would have put there with a settler anyway and TBH that city was pretty useless for the first 10 turns, got better with population which you would have got earlier but also got better because of more card slots, more advanced civics, more trade routes, whatever. The early city itself value wise may be overrated in this regard.

with regard to god of the forge, you want to attack early on deity, it is harder for early attacks to be successful. God of the forge moves forward that attack in time and you seem to have accidentally proven one of my points. Not that RS is worse but that it is an easier pick so seem to be flippantly picking it without due consideration. And a free builder early may seem nothing but converted to 3 chops for horsemen?

just remember that to a degree I am taking the opposite side of this argument out of necessity. But your comment disagreeing my other points made me think it’s not such a serious discussion.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

My experience is that 85% Religious settlement on online speed if available.

Only in rare situations will allow other options have a chance.

On standard speed certainly this shall be picked more than on online speed. So yes, if this is available I can hardly think of a reason to pick any other.

 

[Socrates-]

Especially for newer players RS offers a simple straightforward advantage/kickstart to your game. Most of the other pantheons may seem a bit complicated at first glance (specific improved resources & tile appeal for example). So, since everyone gets used to choosing this pantheon when first introduced to the game it's quite understandable to stick with it.

I have no experience in online multiplayer but I can imagine those games are mainly about rapid expansion & domination victories. So from a power gamers perspective (awful term, but i completely get the point) RS seems like an obvious choice. Maybe a more interesting question could be: which pantheon to pick if RS is no longer available (in an online game)?

Furthermore I think that especially in singleplayer a pantheon doesn't need to be the optimal choice. Better even, seeing that the current AI doesn't offer much of a challenge according to the heaps of topics discussing it, maybe picking a less 'optimal' pantheon and leaving RS for the AI might be a step towards a more challenging game?

 

[steveg700]

I'll still happily take Desert Folklore and its analogues, at least if I don't have mountain chains. Getting some +6 holy sites helps make the most of Monunentality. But I am not a speed player, and I don't default to Diety. I'm a player who uses a lot of house rules to give the AI half a chance.

I can't imagine playing Civ as a game that is 90% about things that happen in the ancient era and 10% everything else. Time to find a new game. But at Emperor and up, the AI is getting more settlers than the player, so as Victoria says RS often feels like the right choice.

Can anyone argue against RS from a powergaming perspective or this just one of those cheesy things, like Magnus chops, that you either have to embrace or reject for the sake of cuter / more challenging options?

Well, it seems you have a fairly dismissive disposition towards arguments for other pantheons as being "cute". I assume whatever you consider a "cold, dry powergaming" perspective amounts to that notion of 90% of the game takes place immediately in the ancient era. In which case, a pantheon that gives you something useful immediately will certainly appeal more than all those other pantheons that provide accruing bonuses. Similar to Magnus chops, it favors the notion that Civ is a sprint, not a marathon.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I just count for value, short-term or long-term. It turns out that RS provides the most value both from a short-term or from a long-term prospective, under most situations.


In fact some Civs' strength rely on this pantheon. For example, Mali, Indonesia and Russia. "Guaranteened RS" makes up a good proportion of strength for these Civs.

 

[steveg700]

I just count for value, short-term or long-term. It turns out that RS provides the most value both from a short-term or from a long-term prospective, under most situations.

You can perform averaging on bonuses over time in a straighforward fashion, but how do you "count for value" with a free settler?

In fact some Civs' strength rely on this pantheon. For example, Mali, Indonesia and Russia. "Guaranteened RS" makes up a good proportion of strength for these Civs.

Mali, sure, it needs that extra settler due to malus. For the others, it's not a reliance so much as it is a perk.

 

[The googles do nothing]

From a purely cold, dry powergaming perspective, is the RS pantheon not the optimal choice in nearly every single game?

I think if have an early (land) UU and if I meet an neighbor early god of the forge would be better. A lonely start Monument to the Gods is great because some Ancient and Classical era Wonders wonders are great.

The point I'm making in the end is simply that I think Religious Settlements is not balanced and should be nerfed or removed. Whatever value it has as a simple pantheon with an immediate benefit is already provided by Fertility Rites.

But is it fun? Not for myself. For me the free settler would be better suited to the building the Mediocre, er Great, Bath where the reward currently is not worth the risk.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

RS is definitely powerful. I would agree that it's the best "default" pantheon for most games. Settling as early as you can creates a strong snowball which carries you throughout the game.

That being said, I don't think it's the best in every game. If you go into a game planning on a religious victory, pantheons like Sacred Path for Brazil or Dance of the Aurora for Russia can get you a massive faith economy. If you're Indonesia, it's really hard to pass on God of the Sea, no matter what victory type you are going for. And when I play Inca, I don't go as wide as I usually do, instead concentrate on less cities because I'm limited by mountain tiles, so I'll pick Earth Goddess and enjoy +2 faith for every mountain tile. Or with Sumeria, I'd rather have God of the Forge so I can spam out Donkey carts instead of getting a free settler... My donkeys can just get me three free cities from an unlucky neighbor early on.

Still, all those above are situational depending on civ, victory goal, and even map. RS still remains the strongest in most games, and I will pick that in most cases.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The only real competitors are the Holy Site terrain pantheons and that locks you into building Holy Sites. You may also not really have enough of any particular terrain to go around either. Religious Settlements is just simply the most straightfoward bonus that doesn't require terrain luck.

I guess God of the Forge if you got raided early? Maybe Fertility Rites for a meme Chinese wonder rush

 

[steveg700]

But is it fun? Not for myself. For me the free settler would be better suited to the building the Mediocre, er Great, Bath where the reward currently is not worth the risk.

To be fair, the OP did say this discussion discards the notion of making sub-optimal choices for the sake of fun.

Having said that, I contest the OP's suggestion that RS should be nerfed because it is imbalanced. Rather, because pantheons simply aren't balanced. They are options for which civ's compete, and some may well be superior choices.

And having said THAT, I would be fine with a % bonus to producing settlers in the ancient era, giving it some parity with God of Forge and Monuments to the Gods.

 

[RealHuhn]

But how do you really compare the effectiveness of pantheons? It's not enough to play 100 turns and compare stats because quite a few strategies only start to snowball after turn 120 or so, religious starts for example.
Pantheons are very similar. Religious Settlements gives you the most immediate benefit and it speeds up the entire early game but the effect does run out and can be overshadowed by a more gradual effect.

I had games where City Patron Godess made all the difference in getting district discounts rolling with hardly any delay. That can be a lot of saved production. One of my favourite pantheons.
Or depending on the map, faith pantheons can generate an absurd amount of faith. Go for Moksha and buy districts with faith everywhere or faith buy a huge army in the medieval era and go pillage/conquer. Classical golden ages get really good as well. Not possible with RS.

Since the AI likes to grab it early, it lost a lot of value for me as well. In the beginning of GS, you could delay your pantheon and get the often critical 4th city for free. That's not possible anymore. You might have to pick it 3 turns before you finish your first or 2nd settler and that feels very underwhelming because it delays the next settler and screws up your build order.

In low production starts, RS is a life saver but if you really focus on good city locations with good production tiles, it's not really a big problem anyway. Like Victoria said, why pick RS when you can build a settler in 6-8 turns?

Edit: I know that feeling though. It's kinda hard to ignore RS when it's available. It's a tough decision I agree.

 

[hr_oskar]

Not if you are not rushing it which you have to do for RS. God King is sacrificing 1 production per turn very early when production is truly king. Take fertility rites or divine spark as great examples, you do not need them early, just pillage a plot or settle on some incense. You do not have to slot god king and I often do not.

Thank you! --- this is an approach that I had overlooked. I mean, yes, God King is the inferior card if it were not for the reward of a pantheon. I'll definitely be looking out for this situation in my games where I probably can't get RS but have a chance to get the faith for a pantheon without slotting GK. I don't think getting a turn 30-ish Fertility Rites (or whatever) with God King is bad but potentially getting the same turn 40-ish without GK is likely better.

Then perhaps I am wrong but I do not think so currently. While someone else is chasing god king I get +1 production and they may not even get RS. Take an MP game, 7 people are going for it and you slot UP. Very happy to be convinced otherwise. One of the reasons I am good at my job is I always play devils advocate with myself and to a degree I am doing so here as I feel you are wanting this discussion and seem balanced enough to have it. It is not a one way street as I always want to better my understanding.
More chop does not equal more settlers, there is a limit whether it be raw cost, places to settle or other reasons. These are what I mean, on the other side I do appreciate that it means more chop elsewhere with RS but I often find initial limits on settlers.
You disregarded the point that starting on a small island gives little value to RS, it certainly devalues it a lot and I was using it as an extreme example of how position devalues RS. You really do not see this?

Here it seems like we're running up against the problem of playing different settings. I don't play MP and I don't play water heavy maps where I might start on a small island. I play maps similar to continents or pangea or something in between, preferably crowded. I always have at least 4-5 city spots (I settle tightly) available to settle. So it wasn't to be dismissive that I didn't address your point about a small island start.

Especially for newer players RS offers a simple straightforward advantage/kickstart to your game. Most of the other pantheons may seem a bit complicated at first glance (specific improved resources & tile appeal for example). So, since everyone gets used to choosing this pantheon when first introduced to the game it's quite understandable to stick with it.

Yeah and as I've said in other comments I think it's good that there's a simple option like that available... I just think that Fertility Rites already does that job.

I have no experience in online multiplayer but I can imagine those games are mainly about rapid expansion & domination victories. So from a power gamers perspective (awful term, but i completely get the point) RS seems like an obvious choice. Maybe a more interesting question could be: which pantheon to pick if RS is no longer available (in an online game)?

I have no experience with multiplayer either. I did say in my original post that I find the other choices to be quite interesting. My complaint is with RS apparently being the superior choice, if it's available, even over situational pantheons appropriate to your situation.

Furthermore I think that especially in singleplayer a pantheon doesn't need to be the optimal choice. Better even, seeing that the current AI doesn't offer much of a challenge according to the heaps of topics discussing it, maybe picking a less 'optimal' pantheon and leaving RS for the AI might be a step towards a more challenging game?

Well, it seems you have a fairly dismissive disposition towards arguments for other pantheons as being "cute". I assume whatever you consider a "cold, dry powergaming" perspective amounts to that notion of 90% of the game takes place immediately in the ancient era. In which case, a pantheon that gives you something useful immediately will certainly appeal more than all those other pantheons that provide accruing bonuses. Similar to Magnus chops, it favors the notion that Civ is a sprint, not a marathon.

You're both not really arguing against my point but rather against the competitive perspective. Against the playstyle essentially. Look, I've played every single Civ game since Civ1 and already played loads of long games where I prioritize roleplaying and just building up something neat to satisfy my creativity. I completely understand that playstyle and am not dismissive of it. I recognize that that's how most people play this game and that the designers prioritize that experience over the competitive side.

But I've long since exhausted that playstyle and (since Civ4 I think) started to enjoy exploring optimal strategies. With that approach, the only concrete measure of success is on what turn I win. The motivation for it is not to prove some point but rather to understand what makes the game tick. Part of it all is reflecting on the game's design. It's just a different way of having fun with Civ that works well for me. "Cute" is just a word that I (and many others) use to describe choices that appear to be synergistic and successful but are ultimately a diversion from the final goal of winning the game -- I don't mean it as an elitist sneer at "casuals".

Having said that, I contest the OP's suggestion that RS should be nerfed because it is imbalanced. Rather, because pantheons simply aren't balanced. They are options for which civ's compete, and some may well be superior choices.

Sure, the pantheons don't need to be entirely balanced. Most of the stuff in the game is poorly balanced actually - districts, wonders... Civ has always been like that. It's one of the things I like least about the series to be honest. In this case I'm finding this particular pantheon to be excessively unbalanced relative to the other options, to the point of overshadowing even the situational options in many situations where they should be good.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

But how do you really compare the effectiveness of pantheons? It's not enough to play 100 turns and compare stats because quite a few strategies only start to snowball after turn 120 or so,.

A game only lasts for 150-180 turns. If sth. only takes effect after T120, then it has to be 3-5 times stronger than sth. that starts to take effect on T0.

Also the game is about exponential growth so this 3-5 shall be "by ratio", for example, if sth. gives you 1 out of 3 science per turn on T0, which is a 33% ratio, another thing that start take effect on T120 shall give you (assuming you're running at 400 science per turn on T120) an additional 400-600 science per turn (100-150% ratio wise), to match the power of the previous one.

 

[RealHuhn]

A game only lasts for 150-180 turns. If sth. only takes effect after T120, then it has to be 3-5 times stronger than sth. that starts to take effect on T0.

Also the game is about exponential growth so this 3-5 shall be "by ratio", for example, if sth. gives you 1 out of 3 science per turn on T0, which is a 33% ratio, another thing that start take effect on T120 shall give you (assuming you're running at 400 science per turn on T120) an additional 400-600 science per turn (100-150% ratio wise), to match the power of the previous one.

Turn 150 - 180 on standard settings isn't the average game on an average start, especially not without replaying. Don't you only play on quick speed nowadays anyway? When I say snowball effect after 120 I mean that you see a very noticable boost in all yields compared to an RS start. The pantheon obviously helps before that turn as well and 120 is just an arbitrary number. You are right about the exponential growth of course.

Edit: Wait. Not sure I understand your math. You are saying that +1 science per turn on turn 0 is as good as 600 additional science on turn 120? WHAT xD? +2 science from an early science CS breaks the game folks -_-

 

[Victoria]

So it wasn't to be dismissive that I didn't address your point about a small island start.

Sure, I was merely trying to show that other considerations need to be taken into account, let’s drop the island and say we are penned in by mountains with only enough room to build 4 cities. RS is helpful but not as helpful.

You're both not really arguing against my point but rather against the competitive perspective.

I’m trying not to argue the immersive at all. Not sure any of my points were immersive. I 100% blame @Sostratus

A game only lasts for 150-180 turns. If sth. only takes effect after T120, then it has to be 3-5 times stronger than sth

You should really add an IF to that Lily. Your games may take 150-180 but games can take longer. Many things conspire against us. I lost my first settler to a tornado the other day. I am not disagreeing you are in the right ballpark, just not on home base.

if sth. gives you 1 out of 3 science per turn on T0, which is a 33% ratio,

This is an incorrect logic, the thinking is too linear. And my thought around this I am starting to think of as “the 11th city” which goes something like this.
I create a city and do a deity OCC and finish in 250 turns. Do I therefore assume that if I use 5 cities I should finish at roughly turn 50? To try and turn this around so you get what I mean, I build an 11th city at T100 and use a 6 build builder to chop in a campus, library and university, all with faith from earth goddess. It is now producing 25+ science a turn while a city founded with RS is perhaps producing 30+ and that RS city at T70 could well have been producing 5 science. The growth through the game is not a steady curve, it spikes.
There is also an assumption in there that the second city is as strong as the first but we know the capital produces more for many reasons as does a Pingala or Kilwa or Oxford city.
What RS provides us with is in essence an 11th city. Without it we get 10 cities with all of the other accelerants still in place.

We also have to factor in that RS does not kick in on T0. T15-20 once settled perhaps. A small thing but these all add up.

I am not saying RS is not the best. I am trying to say people exaggerate it’s power beyond what it is... an 11th city you got a few turns earlier with an extra 50 production. To try and use faith as a counter pantheon is a bit of a fail as this 11th city could have produced a holy site early often outstripping another pantheon. To me the advantage of RS is another city early for its productive capability. The ability to squeeze out a couple more eurekas/inspirations or to make that army that little bit more OP. To clarify even more, perhaps the best point is in an early GOTM @whacker outperformed @Lily_Lancer by perhaps 15 turns, both being highly skilled players and the major difference was @whacker stole 2 early settlers.... not one, but 2... a double RS gave 15 or so turns advantage. RS is shifting your game forward by the turns you got 3 cities settled is all... and one extra pop in your capital. That does put you ‘ahead of the curve’ and make your game easier as the OP said. The question for me is how close other options come to this in various situations. For example that extra builder early can chop in that settler. Just not as fast as RS and at the cost of wood. But that builder could also chop in horses.

@RealHuhn the answer is in the middle, he is right to a degree but exaggerated. He is using inflation without due consideration. The game does inflate, his rate is over keen (I prefer 1%) and also other factors like the 11th city above significantly change the estimation. The 150-180 is not that unfair, the OP is saying in a min-max competitive world and Dom, RV, CV certainly fits this category. SV also can be there but dipv not.

An ironic thought. Perhaps for an RV, RS is not so strong as number of cities is not so vital. Perhaps it should not be called a religious settlement. I certainly think a mild nerf that would help would be that it reduces pop but bearing in mind a pantheon has to be taken that turn and we cannot have 0 pop cities it cannot be easily done.