Strategic Resources

[RFHolloway]

If you want culture - build a library (at least that will help your research as well). If you want happiness use the slider, connect Luxes, build markets if you have 3 or more luxes connected, use MP's or specialists (not clowns if you can help it though)

 

[Jazzmail]

But culture is almost useless.

If you are trying to win a 100K victory, the most efficient/fastest/overwhelming way to do it is to first conquer till near the domination limit (normally 65%) then switch to feudalism or communism and poprush culture everywhere.

Uh, no. For a 100K victory, start building temples almost right away. You will reach the 100,000 much faster if you start earlier. Finishing earlier will net you a higher score.
It is not about the total number of cultural buildings you have, but the culture these improvements generate *over time*. ONE temple from 2000 BC is worth 2*(6+30)+4*(50+75) = 572 by 1000 AD. If instead we started doing culture in 1 AD, it would require 572/2/100 = 2.9 temples to do as much as that single 2000BC temple.
That said, you should still conquer(1 medium continent), but don't wait getting those improvements.

If you already conquered near domination you should simply go for domination victory.

 

[MAS]

@Jazzmail

But by building temples early you slow down your expansion. By expansing early you will have so many cities later on, you can outculture big cultural cities by having many many more small cultural cities.

 

[Jazzmail]

At some point there is an optimum. Don't start building a temple 4000 BC, but don't wait till communism either.

Conquering half the world is just too much effort for a cultural victory in any case. On a standard map your continent is usually big enough (if you started on a medium sized). I can usually spare 1 knight for a temple and still do that.

Saves atleast twice the work, not having to move all these units to conquer twice the amount of territory, just so you can postpone cultural improvements.

 

[Aabraxan]

Sorry but I have to be a nitpick here, but a temple really costs 10 shields less than 1 single settler.
Think about it: you can have a temple for 20 shield + 2 pop (pop rush).
A settler is 30 shields and 2 pop.

Fair enough. I rarely poprush, so I didn't think of that. But that analysis is government-dependent. It doesn't hold true for cash-rush governments.

First off, there's lots of cities to build settlers from.

Depends on what point in the game we're discussing, doesn't it?

You don't have to be building settlers and workers in all of your cities all the time.

I have never said that you had to build settlers and workers in all your cities all the time. What I've tried to say (at which I was perhaps less than successful) is that there are more cost-effective ways of accomplishing the things that temples do, and most of them provide additional returns on the investments that temples do not. There is a time and place for temples.

Secondly, who says said cities are going to be overcrowded? If they get overcrowded then yes, get a settler, but not all cities are overcrowded.

No, not all are. I've never claimed that "all cities are going to be overcrowded." But unless you stagnate a city's growth, it will eventually give birth to an unhappy citizen. Most likely, that citizen will say, "It's just way too crowded." At that point, it's overcrowded and that issue needs to be dealt with.

Third, the fastest, cheapest way to get culture into a city is temples. A temple is only 1 maintenance; building a few early in the game isn't going to kill you if you know how to manage your treasury at all.

I, personally, think that the benefits are worth the costs.

I've never said that it would kill you. I've also never said that one should never build temples. I'll repeat what I've said. There's a time and place for temples, but there's usually a more cost-effective way of accomplishing your goal.

 

[Aabraxan]

Oops, just read the remark about temples and here i am uploading a save game with cities turning out temples. i wanted to expand my borders to increase my income.

You've seen the debate about temples. You'll have to decide for yourself if they're worth it. I would not build them (unless cultural victory was my goal). Note that expanding your borders, in and of itself, will not increase your income, though it may allow some more profitable tiles to be worked.

With that said, I took a brief look at your save. You've got 36 cities and 48 workers. That's not bad. Most of your core is well roaded. That's good. You're in Republic. For most games, that's good.

However, you're running 0% on the lux slider and you've got 16 clowns. That's bad. And you don't even need all of them. That's worse. Take Istanbul, for instance. CivAssist2 says you've got size 4 and 66% happy. It doesn't show any unhappy, but you've got a clown. In order to prevent civil disorder, you only need to have at least as many happy citizens as unhappy. How much time can you shave off Sun Tzu's by putting that clown back to work? I'd recommend putting all clowns back to work and increasing luxury spending.

Out of 36 towns, 21 are building wealth and zero are building settlers. You shouldn't be building wealth this early. There's still lots and lots of perfectly good land to fill and several cows just outside your cultural borders.

You've got the tech lead, at least as far as you can see. Get a couple of boats in the water and go looking for everyone else. That'll open up trade opportunities.

 

[MAS]

At some point there is an optimum. Don't start building a temple 4000 BC, but don't wait till communism either.

Conquering half the world is just too much effort for a cultural victory in any case. On a standard map your continent is usually big enough (if you started on a medium sized). I can usually spare 1 knight for a temple and still do that.

Saves atleast twice the work, not having to move all these units to conquer twice the amount of territory, just so you can postpone cultural improvements.

Well, you are not wrong here.
I was putting it a bit sharply when I said what I did.
Though, with the exception of the very high difficulty levels, (demigod and up) it isn't impossible to conquer half the world before the end of the Middle ages.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Well in Game of the Month we actually test these theories out.

Our most outstanding 100k result was Kuningas's 850ad win in the Indian COTM of August 2005. Analysis of his culture graph (using CivReplay on his final save file) shows that he builds his first temple in 1830bc. He has built only 4 temples (in 22 towns) by 610bc, at which point he captures Artemis. He does not then engage in any significant culture building until his switch to Feudalism in 280ad. By this point he has 224 towns; he will not build any more towns (ending the game with 221) or gain significant extra territory (he has 1230 tiles at this point, and the dom limit is somewhere between 1250 and 1300).

The best 100k result in PtW during my time in the GOTM community was Bremp's 1180ad result playing Persia in March 2005. Without TOA or Feudalism available, his building program is much more evenly spread out. He starts with a library in 1075bc, and has 5 built before his one and only revolt (surely to Republic) in 875bc. By 210bc he is making 83cpt in his 30 towns, which works out to an average of about one lib or temple in each town. This is the last turn in which he does not complete a cultural building; from here on he adds an average of 14.2cpt per turn, at a fairly uniform rate. He ends with 160 towns and 1170 tiles, against a similar dom limit to Kuningas's game. He cruises up to the limit throughout the game, again in a fairly linear fashion.

So my conclusion? Jazzmail's method is appropriate for PtW, and MAS's method is better in C3C. Certainly the way to play 100k is more obvious in C3C, where Feudalism and TOA are available. And it is interesting to note that going all the way to Communism isn't worth the effort in a PtW 100k run.

 

[Delphi456]

With that said, I took a brief look at your save. You've got 36 cities and 48 workers. That's not bad. Most of your core is well roaded. That's good. You're in Republic. For most games, that's good.

...but the fact that his entire army consists of ONLY 4 WARRIORS didn't strike you as a bit peculiar?

 

[Aabraxan]

...but the fact that his entire army consists of ONLY 4 WARRIORS didn't strike you as a bit peculiar?

I can't believe that I didn't even think to look at that!!!

 

[TruePurple]

Sorry but I have to be a nitpick here, but a temple really costs 10 shields less than 1 single settler.
Think about it: you can have a temple for 20 shield + 2 pop (pop rush).
A settler is 30 shields and 2 pop.

Hmm? Temple is 60, 30 with religious civ. Pop rushes is 1 head for every 20 population.(all rushing is twice as expensive without at least 1 shield) So for pop rushing a temple on religious wait till you have 10+ shield. (chop a forest maybe if low production, just time it right so you dont waste shields)

 

[Emblazoned]

...but the fact that his entire army consists of ONLY 4 WARRIORS didn't strike you as a bit peculiar?

i'm having cashflow problems. =P i'm trying to max out my tech research and the horde of workers are gobbling up plenty. i would trade techs for gpt but both enemy civs are running broke.

on a side note, i finally realized why people place cities so closely (so the workable tiles overlap). at first it seemed stupid to overlap workable tiles because it inhibits growth but that doesnt become a factor until cities reach a size 9. for the cities where no aqueducts exist (and lack a river) they'll never sport enough population to effectively work ALL 21 tiles. for me, cities dont reach population sizes of 21 or greater until very late in the game... but at that point the game should be essentially decided. this epiphany leads to my next question:

what is an effective way of balancing maintenance costs of cities/workers, military and luxury/tech? right now as delphi456 pointed out, i'm running around with nearly 40 cities and 4 warriors protecting the entire empire.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . for me, cities dont reach population sizes of 21 or greater until very late in the game...

They don't reach those population sizes for anyone until late in the game. It's not just you. You need hospitals to exceed size 12.

what is an effective way of balancing maintenance costs of cities/workers, military and luxury/tech? right now as delphi456 pointed out, i'm running around with nearly 40 cities and 4 warriors protecting the entire empire.

Plant more towns for unit support. Road every tile that you're going to work. Build some markets. Expand more. You've got a ton of land to fill.

Where's your cash going? You need to find a way to support a larger military, or the AI will see you as weak (I suspect it already does) and attack you.

Edit: Looking at your save, it doesn't look like you've got any cities >size 6. In C3C, Republic has a unit support of 1/3/4, so there's a big leap in unit support between 6 and 7. Join workers to those towns on fresh water that can handle an extra settler. That'll help a little with finances.