Those annoying AI's always have so much culture

[Aceman101]

Hey! I like building temples! Though then again, I DO mostly build 'em so I can get a cathedral which can then give 6 contents with the Sistine Chapel, But still, since when is building temples early on a bad thing? I guess it's from a warmongerer's point of veiw then...

Building temples early on halts your expansion period by building near-useless buildings that have only the slightest effect. And early on, your cities will not be very productive. Settlers are probably the most important feature in the game. So, instead of a temple you could be building 2 settlers. Which gives you these benefits:

• 18 More Tiles.
• 2 more population, which will grow more.
• 2-10 More shields per turn.
• 2-5 More commerce (gold) per turn.
• A larger civilization with more population
• A higher chance of discovering resources in your borders
• Possibly having more luxury resources to make your people happier.
• The ability to produce more troops, in a shorter amount of time.

And probably even more.

So, you're throwing those things away by building temples and not settlers.

And by building temples you gain... Let's see....

• 2 more culture per turn.
• One citizen content in the city it's built in.
• Borders expand, but still not as much as a settler building a city.

Mmm... Yeah, I think i'll go with the two settlers.


btw, it is not only from a warmongers point of view. Builders also understand that building temples too early isn't a good strategy... Well, maybe one temple you can get away with for the culture-doubling, as Jazzmail stated, but I'm still not a fan of that.

Edit: of course this is your game and you may do with it as you wish.

Edit2: Also temples cost 1 gold per turn. You may not think that's much but if you built one temple 50 turns into the game, then you would have spent 490 gold for the whole game. And that's just one temple...

 

[Jazzmail]

So, instead of a temple you could be build 2 settlers.

A settler costs 30 shields and 2 pop.
A temple costs 60 shields OR 20 shields and 2 pop (rush).
In other words: a temple is actually 10 shields cheaper than a settler.

A religious civ can even make a temple for the price of a swordsman and those guys drop like flies.

 

[Aceman101]

A settler costs 30 shields and 2 pop.
A temple costs 60 shields OR 20 shields and 2 pop (rush).
In other words: a temple is actually 10 shields cheaper than a settler.

But rushing causes unhappiness and drops down your vital population...

Also, because it reduces two population, you won't be able to build a settler for a while (Until the pop goes back up again), so it is delaying vital settlers from coming in...

A religious civ can even make a temple for the price of a swordsman and those guys drop like flies.

A swordsmen can capture many towns if used effectively. Ok, maybe not 1 swordsmen. But 5 or 6 swordsmen will almost destroy if not seriously damage an AI civ very early on. For the same price you get 5 or 6 temples that don't attack other units, that don't move, that don't pillage any tiles, that don't cause any damage whatsoever apart from culture. And in most cases you won't be a religious civ, so temples cost more than swordsmen.


Edit: I had to laugh it this:

A religious civ can even make a temple for the price of a swordsman and those guys drop like flies.

Edit2: I don't know what I found so funny about that... But on topic again, IMO temples can be on some occasions useful if they're built when the expansion period is over.

 

[Jazzmail]

But rushing causes unhappiness and drops down your vital population...

Also, because it reduces two population, you won't be able to build a settler for a while (Until the pop goes back up again)

Apart from the unhappiness bit, which is true, a population drop of 2 is exactly what the settler also does, and you won't be able to build another settler for a while either.
Ofcourse if you plop a town you get one pop back, but that is the inherent usefulness of the settler; not part of the cost. You were comparing the price, so you cannot argue both ways: "a settler may cost 2 pop, but you get 1 pop back later, so it's really only 1 pop AND the new town will already start with 1 pop ALSO".

You can't get two settlers for 1 temple by a long shot.
In fact, if the shield production is high and the food production is low, you can even build a temple in between settlers and it wouldn't even affect the rate of settler output.
If on the other hand the food production is high and you pop-rush the damn temple, then next unit(a settler in this case) will actually pop out sooner, because we spent 10 fewer shields.

A swordsmen can capture many towns if used effectively. Ok, maybe not 1 swordsmen. But 5 or 6 swordsmen will almost destroy if not seriously damage an AI civ very early on. For the same price you get 5 or 6 temples that don't attack other units, that don't move, that don't pillage any tiles, that don't cause any damage whatsoever apart from culture. And in most cases you won't be a religious civ, so temples cost more than swordsmen.

Very situational.
If my temple expands my cultural borders to include a fish tile early, it could well be the start of a succesful settler factory in my core.
Maybe I wanted to build the colossus or another wonder so I needed as many content shield workers as my city can hold, without having to increase my luxury by another 10% nation-wide.
Perhaps the best thing those 6 swordsmen got me is 2 or 3 corrupted and resisting towns.

 

[fishjie]

as i said in another thread, i build temples to expand my borders so i can some better tile, like a whale or a cow (itd be better to just build it next to the cow, but i try to keep my cities spaced by two tiles so my troops can easily switch between towns on the same turn as necessary). then i disband temple after it hits 10 culture.

with the money ive saved by not building temples, and with research at 10% (and eventually with just a lone scientist), i can then trade for techs and broker them for great justice. yeah i think ive figured out monarch. after a few more wins, ON TO EMPEROR!

 

[Aceman101]

Apart from the unhappiness bit, which is true, a population drop of 2 is exactly what the settler also does, and you won't be able to build another settler for a while either.
Ofcourse if you plop a town you get one pop back, but that is the inherent usefulness of the settler; not part of the cost. You were comparing the price, so you cannot argue both ways: "a settler may cost 2 pop, but you get 1 pop back later, so it's really only 1 pop AND the new town will already start with 1 pop ALSO".

Ok, you're right. But even if a temple only cost 20 shields, wouldn't it be better to build a settler or swordsmen for 10 extra shields and no gold per turn costs?

Very situational.
If my temple expands my cultural borders to include a fish tile early, it could well be the start of a succesful settler factory in my core.

Point taken, temples can be useful to get those fish. But this isn't true most of the time.

Maybe I wanted to build the colossus or another wonder so I needed as many content shield workers as my city can hold without having to increase my luxury by another 10% nation-wide.,

Or perhaps by building some swords instead you can capture the lux resources you want, and thus reducing unhappiness.

Perhaps the best thing those 6 swordsmen got me is 2 or 3 corrupted and resisting towns.

But you gain more territory, shields, and you probably get another lux resource. And you'll probably even get another strategic resource, perhaps one that you don't have. It is worth it IMO. And besides, if it was your neighbour, then those cities may not be so corrupt later on...

 

[Jazzmail]

Ok, you're right. But even if a temple only cost 20 shields, wouldn't it be better to build a settler or swordsmen for 10 extra shields and no gold per turn costs?

That depends on how much I need an extra swordsman, what locations are left to settle on and if I got a project planned for a city or a coastal town somewhere.

Or perhaps by building some swords instead you can capture the lux resources you want, and thus reducing unhappiness.

It's really a question of building some MORE military or a temple. I hope it didn't appear I was advocating total negelect of the army in favor of temples everywhere. I'm not.
I build enough troops for my needs and an extra margin and then still leave some shields for other stuff.
For every lux I get I will try to increase the population in a wonder city by 1. Or when I don't have any projects I will try to lower the luxury to 0%. A well placed temple can help in this regard.

But you gain more territory, shields, and you probably get another lux resource. And you'll probably even get another strategic resource, perhaps one that you don't have. It is worth it IMO. And besides, if it was your neighbour, then those cities may not be so corrupt later on...

Well, if it's my only neighbour (could be a smaller continent) I will not even consider a war before my boats reach the other civs. Then I'll do everything to complement their tech research, trade, and hope by the time I discover the rest, that I will not be so far behind as to be cut out of the trade loop.

In the case where I can afford to hamstring my neighboor, a good culture will still help me in small ways.
So my army was a bit smaller due to my other projects, ok. I'm slower to capture more towns, true, but the towns I do capture are alot less likely to flip to the AI and also far more likely to stop resisting or not resist at all. Which means I dont have to raze them and build more settlers, instead I can use the foreign towns as tax farms almost right away.
It's just pawltry stuff. Just a few taxmen for a few coins, but it helps. And frankly, 2 or 3 fewer swords is just small stuff too, and so is 1 upkeep for a temple. It's all so petty and marginal.
Hell, even if didn't build culture and choose to raze and settle agressively, I'm making all that big effort for just marginal tax/science farms still. Might aswell do some temple and keep those foreigners for a little extra coin then.

My point: that there is no need at all for this strange temple allergy. A player can build a couple of temples and still benefit, also have a big army, etc, aslong as you plan them in more suitable locations and don't randomly plop them everywhere. That goes for all improvements really.
For religious civs: you got a nice bonus there. I say use it. Stop razing everything, have culture and start taxing.