Oooooohhhh siiiiighhhhh, here *I* go again (milking the exasperation for all it's worth)
The problem with a temple or a cathedral is the opportunity cost.
Can't say as I've ever had a 'problem' winning any game, Temples or not. You mean you don't *have* to therefore you don't. You don't *have to* build anything, it's quite possible to 'win' by just spamming soldiers, in a SPECIFIC SCENARIO.
Sure there are specific reasons and victory conditions why you would build a temple.
Barking at the moon are we?
Otherwise there is almost always something better that you can do with the shields and the maintenance costs.
Of course there is. For you and the way you play.
Yes, building a temple is a matter of preference.
Yes, using the items the game provides with which to 'have fun' is indeed what one would call a 'preference'.
Just like playing an isolationist civ is a preference.
Wow, it's like in your games you settle on all 8 Luxuries and have automatic roads to all the other Civs! Oooo, can I try that start location?
For that matter, building a coastal fortress is a matter of preference.
No, the Coastal Fortress is *glitched*. It *doesn't... work*. It would be a preference in the same way assigning your Great Scientific Leader to Increase Scientific Production would be a 'preference'. *Facepalms* (waits for pedantic post-wasting about the definition of the word 'preference')
My dislike of temples is not irrational.
Yes... yes it is. I believe there are clinics which specialise in similar compulsive disorders.
As they do not fit my goals, my dislike is not irrational.
Oh right, so you play every single game exactly the same way with the same goals do you? Wow, aren't you, like, *bored* yet?
Speak for yourself, not for me.
That is the general intention of my posts, yes, well spotted.
First, a temple for a standard civ is 60 shields.
Wooooo, scary stuff!
In a corrupt city I won't be building this to keep the population happy
Well, apparently, you wont be building one at all...?
the unhappy citizens will be scientists and that will control happiness.
Yes, that's what most people do, Temple or no Temple.
The purpose will be to expand the borders by 12 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups).
So now you *are* building a Temple...?
Instead of using that 60 shields to build a temple I can produce 2 settler and have the added bonus of removing unhappy citizens.
That's what you do *every* game?
The 2 new settlers can then found 2 new cities to pick up 18 tiles (maybe more with some gap pickups).
So you prefer quantity over quality? Yes... I can see where this is going...
Now I have 2 new cities (that are providing great unit support under Monarchy)
And a whole lot more unnecessary screens to manage.
and I can produce 4 more settlers or two temples.
So now you're building Temples again?
Two temples=24 tiles. Four settlers=36 tiles.
You wont get any Ocean squares (including Whales) without expanding Cultural borders. You can't put Settlers into the Sea. I like how your 'calculations and statistics' are, as per usual, skewed worse than a politicians.
I can pay 2gpt to maintain the temples (or sell them after the expansion and waste all the shields or money used to rush them) or I can have 4 new cities giving unit support (even if those units are peaceful workers rather than knights, etc.)
And a shed load more screens to manage as your eyes get pulled out their sockets by a Unit Control Interface which thinks it knows what you want to manage in your empire and when better than you yourself do. Sounds cripplingly horrifying to me.
and those cities will also be supporting scientists or taxmen part of the time.
They can do this with or without a Temple.
Of course if you chose the temple at the 1st city you are 21 tiles for that city while in the other example you have 5 cities at 45 tiles (with more settlers on the way).
Ooooo, yes, more Settlers, more Cities, more screen yanking, that's the ticket, go the full epilepsy route just to save yourself... 1 gold per turn...
You tell me who is going to reach the domination limit first.
Ah, I knew it, it's the old 'but I will finish first' argument. Wow, so predictable. Dude if you hate the game so much that you want it over as quick as possible just play tiny maps and spam soldiers. Seriously dude, two Cities with a Barracks in each, game over in 2 hours, you'd love it!
Second, if you are a Monarchy you can build a 10 shield warrior as an MP and pay the same 1gpt maintenance for the same happiness.
I had no idea you were such a fan of Monarchy. You should try Republic sometime, it rocks! Plenty of money for Temples.
Added bonus - the warrior can attack/defend if the enemy or barbs come knocking.
Bonus? That's the whole point of soldiers. If they didn't do that I'd be rather unhappy with the game...
Well... obviously...
As I would only use MPs in my core cities these cities will be gaining their culture via libraries/universities.
That's going to be a looooong wait if your stuck on an island with not much going for it.
(unhappy citizens in corrupt cities are scientists, jokers, starve or become workers/settlers)
You let your people starve do you? Hmmm, not sure if I like the sound of this. Ah well, lucky it's just a game heh, hope no-one thinks it's some form of educational 'reality'.
Even better, the MP can move from city to city as they change and grow to put the happiness where it is needed.
You're really digging for every thought possible on why you're too tight fisted to by a Temple aren't you...
A temple is in the city whether it needs it or not.
Yes. That's why they are called 'Buildings' as oppose to 'Mobile Units'.
Often a city fluctuates between needing that extra happiness or not.
Mmmmm, fluctuations.
So you either keep paying for a temple you don't need or you sell it and the 60 shields are gone and its not there when you need it.
Why would you sell something you might need? Do you close down a Fire Station while there's no fires... to save money...?
You get to keep the culture, though.
Yes, you do. Tell me, do you sell all your buildings when you are two turns from victory? After all, you don't need them any more. And when you've done that, what do you spend the money on?
Note: The other time MPs are need is to stop resistance in a city.
I have no idea why we've moved onto discussing Resistance suppression, building is not allowed while a city is in revolt, but what the hey, I'll humor you.
The added bonus here in Monarchy is that those MPs are also moveable 'happiness' giving a newly conquered city the instant benefits for happiness.
I thought we were mainly interested in expanding borders in conquered cities in order to facilitate a Domination Victory? I dunno, maybe you just fancied a chat about MPs because you haven't had one in a while?
These MPs could be the difference between starving the city and converting them to specialists.
Or they could all be lost in a Cultural Conversion. Or they could die from a counter attack. Or they could have a nuke drop on their heads. Or, or, or, or,... where's this going exactly?
However, unless a city population is really needed most of the time it is just 'starved' or turned into settlers or workers to solve happiness problems.
All sounds a lot more complicated than just sticking their build screen to 'Temple' and forgetting about it while you pummel your foe.
Rushing a temple here doesn't seem to make sense to me, particularly because the temple is lost if the city flips.
But the city has less chance of flipping with a Temple, interestingly enough, and, I think someone said that the Culture stays when you re-conquer it? Now, who was it who said that?
MPs can move in and out of the city as it flips back and forth and starves down.
But they have no Culture.
Third - On the note of libraries vs. temples - religious/scientific civs aside,
Yes, concentrating on Religious Civs would really hamper your argumentative pleasures I suspect.
a temple costs 60 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 2 culture per turn. Libraries are 80 shields, maintenance of 1gpt and 3 culture per turn. On both a shield and gpt basis (per point of culture), libraries win.
Except they don't make people happy, there's no Wonder to give you them free, there's no later Wonder which increase their worth, they're more expensive to rush build, they're not available for the first few thousand years. Yes, it must be so obvious how Libraries 'win' so easily.
Fourth - With the exception of some VCs, building an early temple is when you pay the highest opportunity costs and is likely to need the temple the least.
How about if you want to catch a Whale Tile on a small island? Or how about if you have nothing else to build and it's that or Wealth? How about if a rival civ settles in the middle of your 'area' and you think a quick Conversion would be easier than a war? How about if... Oh I don't care any more...
This is also why the opening moves of a game have such a huge impact on the game as a whole.
You mean like the difference between starting next to a Cow on a River surrounded by Grassland and starting on a small Tundra island? Is it THAT big a difference? Or are we talking something a bit more 'debatable and unverifiable'?
Your early cities are creating workers and settlers, happiness fluctuates and you need so many other things that sinking 60 shields and 1gpt in a temple is probably not the best choice.
I dunno, depends on the SCENARIO really.
Use the luxury slider to prevent early unhappiness (you can't use the money for much else anyway particularly if you are an isolationist civ).
Oh, I thought you didn't like Temples because they cost money, now it appears you have oodles of money you don't know what to do with.
Cathedrals are in basically the same category.
Oh right, we're moving onto Cathedrals now are we? *Yawns*
If you have Sistines they may be worth it.
Erm... no. If you have the Sisteen Chapel then they *are* worth it.
I'd rather have Bachs, generally speaking.
Yeah, it's great when you have a choice isn't it.
Besides, they have a prerequisite of having built a 60 shield, 1gpt temple first.
There's that disorder reappearing again.
Ultimately there is no right or wrong here.
Thank heavens, you've finally noticed.
It is preference, just like Monarchy vs. Republic.
Yes. A bit like *everything* in the game really. Well... except Coastal Fortresses, Increasing Science Output, Courthouses in Capitols...
But to say that my preference is irrational is just silly.
It is? Oh, I take it back then, you obviously have no disorders whatsoever.
My actions are rational in accord with my preferred playing style.
Awesome!
In my opinion I find it interesting that you use temples and Monarchy.
I do believe they are included in the game's software code and don't seem to add any huge complexity to the game, so, yes, I find them usable sometimes.
Because of the MPs in Monarchy it would seem to me to be the least in need of the happiness provided by a temple.
I wasn't aware that I combine the two on a regular basis. But even then, Monarchys need Whales as much as Republics and Despotisms.
But if you are playing an isolationist approach, I can see how that makes sense.
All games start out isolationist.
However to base your argument on a very specific set of conditions does not make for good 'general' advice.
I feel sure it's better advice than 'Temples are as useless as Coastal Fortresses'...
