the verdict on temples

[Aabraxan]

Ah, this thread again. It just ain't a proper Temples thread until someone quotes Bede:

Ain't that the truth!

(And thanks, Elephantium. I've been meaning to bookmark that post for ages now . . . )

 

[CKS]

Bang for buck, I would think libraries are the better investment (1cpt/30shield as opposed to 1cpt/27shields). That's pretty nitpicking, though.

The other relevant comparison is culture per maintenance cost - libraries cost the same as temples after they are built, so you get 3 culture per coin for a library vs 2 culture per coin for a temple.

Re: resistors: Culture matters and government matters. Interestingly, monarchy and republic are exactly the same with regard to resistance. See the article in the war academy: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/resistance_revealed.php
This information isn't for conquests (notice that the governments don't include feudalism), but I expect that the mechanics did not change.

 

[Raliuven]

The other relevant comparison is culture per maintenance cost - libraries cost the same as temples after they are built, so you get 3 culture per coin for a library vs 2 culture per coin for a temple.

Excellent point - hadn't considered that angle!

 

[Lanzelot]

A comment on Spoonwood's screenshot: it always feels like a stab into my heart, when I see my hometown so badly misspelled...
"Heidelburg", honestly: those Firaxis developers ain't got no culture...

On topic: one application of temples that has not yet been mentioned here: "resource snatching". Assume there is an important resource (iron, horses) somewhere between you and your next neighbor, and that neighbor managed to plop down a settler right next to the resource before you got there. Also assume that you are not yet ready for war (or don't want to lead war against this particular AI, e.g. they are scientific and you still need their free tech).
You just plop down a settler on the other side of the resource, rush a temple and the next turn the resource is yours... (Works particularly well when religious, even under Despotism: you just wait 10 turns, then the town will have 10 shields in the box and has grown to size 2, so you can poprush the remaining 20s and the temple is yours on turn 11.)

Other than that I almost never build temples, for the reasons already stated by many others here.

 

[templar_x]

there are military games that can make good use of temples: ultra-fast domination games, especially with rel tribes like the Celts. in one of those games i build more temples than in my whole civ career together. and for sure i wont build a single lib in such a game.

t_x

 

[lordmacroer]

i am surprised to hear that nobody believes there is much of a benefit for a military power to have a good cultural value. Its not worth building temples to push back enemy boundries? Im talking about multiplayer games more so than single player, where base production capabilities are more level than on the harder single player modes.

so there is hardly any benefit to building an early temple in a city to gain access to outter resources in the BFC? this is of course as opposed to building lots of cities so that all resources are within the original 8 surronding tiles of a city

 

[Elephantium]

i am surprised to hear that nobody believes there is much of a benefit for a military power to have a good cultural value. Its not worth building temples to push back enemy boundries? Im talking about multiplayer games more so than single player, where base production capabilities are more level than on the harder single player modes.

so there is hardly any benefit to building an early temple in a city to gain access to outter resources in the BFC? this is of course as opposed to building lots of cities so that all resources are within the original 8 surronding tiles of a city

In a word, no. If you need the enemy boundaries pushed back, take their border cities with the two Swords you built instead of that Temple.

Why would you depend on a Temple to get a culture expansion when you can settle one tile over and get the resource in your initial 8 tiles? It's well worth it for Iron or Horses (or a lux in the early game), and by time you're talking about Saltpeter, you should be pretty well-established.

 

[vmxa]

First where is that town next to yours? If your farthest tile has the resource, but is not currently in the empire (town), is it currently in theirs? Is it in the same distance from their 9 as it is from yours? IOW whomever expands borders would have it in theirs?

In that case, sounds like what you discribe, then in the end I will have to take the town down at some point, so sooner is often better than later. Are we talking about my 28th town or 38th? Is it my 6th town?

That matters as the closer it is to my core the more I have to get that land and the tougher the game likey is. If it is my 3xth or even later town, then I sure do not have to bother with a temple there.

I merely need to take the land and that will likely be very soon. Sooner yet, should this be a needed resource. In fact, why did I not plan to get that resource prior to the town in question?

I do not see a crying need for temples in most games, that does not mean there is no use nor any circumstances where I would not make one.

 

[lordmacroer]

i find it depressing that in almost all situations, it is better to fight than to expand your boarders though military means, and that 2 swordsmen are more important than a temple that will gain you culture thoughout the entire game.



on a slightly different topic now, what about in multiplayer games? are these guidelines more or less true? Obviously you cant just take border cities from another city like you could from a human that will make their best effort to defend it. Cultural boarder battles would seem to me like they would be much more important, no?

 

[tR1cKy]

i find it depressing that in almost all situations, it is better to fight than...

why depressing? i find it awesome

 

[CKS]

If you want a military victory, fighting is better. If you want a peaceful victory, libraries may be better than fighting. Remember, the goal is having fun. If you like building temples, build them. It isn't the route to the speediest win, but civ doesn't have to be a race.

 

[Elephantium]

i find it depressing that in almost all situations, it is better to fight than to expand your boarders though military means, and that 2 swordsmen are more important than a temple that will gain you culture thoughout the entire game.

Why do you need culture through the entire game? If you're playing 20K, of course you'll build an early Temple in your culture city. If you're playing 100K, you'll want temples everywhere -- but it's still more efficient to play for fast expansion/conquest until you have 100+ cities, then rush temple/lib/colosseum/cath/uni in all of them. If you focus on early culture, you'll have those impressive border expansions earlier on, and your early temples will get the doubling effect, but you'll have a harder time getting to 100 cities.

Of course, if you're playing at DG or Deity, you'll need all that culture and a strong military so that you can kill off the 160K civ when you hit 100K

For most other VCs, military, markets, and libs will usually help win faster. Civ3 is a game that pretty strongly rewards warmongering.

 

[Lanzelot]

on a slightly different topic now, what about in multiplayer games? are these guidelines more or less true? Obviously you cant just take border cities from another city like you could from a human that will make their best effort to defend it. Cultural boarder battles would seem to me like they would be much more important, no?

I have played MP quite a bit, and I think here it is even more important not to build early temples... If you build 3 temples, while at the same time the guy next to you builds 6 horsemen, the outcome of the game will be pretty obvious...
(Unless you can make a long-term peace agreement and trust the other guy to keep it... But in that case as well, temples are pretty useless. Better build libraries and/or marketplaces.)

 

[dalgo]

I understand and accept all the reasons against building temples - but I still go ahead and build them anyway because, well, I just like temples.

Built early in my core cities they provide happiness when luxuries are scarce and I want my slider to be used for science. They also give me early expansion to claim territory when I may not have enough settlers available.

I only play on huge maps so later in the game there is a lot of conquered territory to fill and temples allow me to spread my cities out. The AI usually leaves me a forest or two to help with the build (as well as providing the slaves to cut the trees). Once Civil Engineers are available of course my temples are even quicker to build.

 

[del62]

I understand all the arguments against temples, but if in a border town that is corrupt so a library has little benefit, I am fixed into some peace treaty / trad deal and dont want to ruin my rep, I am coming under some cultural pressure that can be averted by building a temple or library, then a temple as it is cheaper makes more sense than a library.

I am not looking for culture per turn but one border expansion, and the temple is the cheapest option, this also may have the added benefit, that when I do go to war I can reach my enemies city on the initial turn with artillery and 3 hits from a cavalry army.

 

[Richie0]

only build them if i'm religious due to being cheaper

otherwise i'll use them as pre-builds for libraries in any town whose borders touch with the ai

if you want massive cultural borders that badly, go smack the ai that's built the temple of artemis

 

[dhokarena56]

I use 'em a lot more than I should. But I usually play the Iroquois, and I've recently been playing the Inca. I should go for the Celts next. 30 shield temples- that'd be really nice.

 

[web25]

i only build them near my borders of cities i have taken over after i pumped out workers.

workers....what ever is cheaper out of temple/library. but i do build both in any type of game.