Why Kongo is still the best

[tedhebert]

Even if I have all the luxury resources available (from own improvements and buying from the AI), I tend to still have 0 or +1 at best, sometimes even negative amenities if I have a lot of space to expand. I definitely need to also add Entertainment Complexes. And yes, I usually run Liberalism. Later on New Deal.

Also, Water Park is straight up better because it reaches 3 tiles further. Plus, more importantly, the AoE amenities from Water Park stack with those from Entertainment Complex. In an ideal world, you cover every city with both.

I guess the only situation where no Entertainment Complexes would be needed for me is if I were to go tall, with at most 7 cities, get the tall Government Plaza building, and put a Governor in every city.

well it certainly DOES depend on the number of cities you have... I'm usually in the 12-16 cities, depending on map... and I usually easily get by with luxuries only... I rarely go Dom... almost always geyt either SV or Diplo Victory... guess it goes with my play style, and also the fact that I almost always play huge maps immortal... makes culture, dom and religious victories too tedious

EDIT: So as someone already mentioned here
on this thread, my district priorities usually goes
like this: 1) decide if I want a religion or not... this is usually greatly influenced by the Civ I chose ... so of I do, then that district goes first (at least for the 2 first cities) 2) Campus 3) CH or Harbor depending on map 4) Theatre Square .... somewhere in there I will have built Gov Plaza in my capital
for the settler rush... AFTER all that, then I will figure out what's best for my game... maybe 1 defensive encampment if I'm being annoyed by an aggresive civ or barbs in early game but that's
unusual for me... SO... there's not much room in there for ED, much easier to manage happiness with luxuries... of course of you're unfriendly or at war with everyone, it might just not work out

 

[Leyrann]

well it certainly DOES depend on the number of cities you have... I'm usually in the 12-16 cities, depending on map... and I usually easily get by with luxuries only... I rarely go Dom... almost always geyt either SV or Diplo Victory... guess it goes with my play style, and also the fact that I almost always play huge maps immortal... makes culture, dom and religious victories too tedious

EDIT: So as someone already mentioned here
on this thread, my district priorities usually goes
like this: 1) decide if I want a religion or not... this is usually greatly influenced by the Civ I chose ... so of I do, then that district goes first (at least for the 2 first cities) 2) Campus 3) CH or Harbor depending on map 4) Theatre Square .... somewhere in there I will have built Gov Plaza in my capital
for the settler rush... AFTER all that, then I will figure out what's best for my game... maybe 1 defensive encampment if I'm being annoyed by an aggresive civ or barbs in early game but that's
unusual for me... SO... there's not much room in there for ED, much easier to manage happiness with luxuries... of course of you're unfriendly or at war with everyone, it might just not work out

Yeah, I have no clue how you're managing happiness in that number of cities (quite normal for me too) without ECs...

I could've done it before the patch that made cities require an amenity at size 1, I guess.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm fascinated by several players here who genuinely declare playing WITHOUT an emphasis on religion and holy sites to be superior! Yes, it is possible to play that way .... yes, it would be an excellent and unique challenge for top players..... yes, Kongo must adapt a unique style and play like this due to its traits.... but this doesn't place Encampments or probably most other districts above HS in terms of general game-wide utility. Cases could be made for campus, industrial zone and government plaza being of similar value....but encampments and entertainment hubs? Not for me.

I agree, there are better districts than encampments such as campuses, holy sites and cultural districts. I am not saying encampments are better than any of these districts because the other districts mentioned earlier provide better long-run benefits. Even financial districts may come in handy for upgrades for the promoted units, maintenance or whenever a gold deficit comes up which also hasn't been mentioned and will keep science going.

Holy sites (and ideally, founding a religion) and spamming faith as a currency are virtual prerequisites to survive on highest difficulties and to be in a position to push for all victory types, especially for domination, for reasons already listed and a few others (particularly: GM Chapel, Crusade belief, monumentality dedication, work ethic). This gambit is actually game breaking and most players probably feel slightly guilty when they survive the early game and are then in a position ripe for exploiting these mechanics.

I have seen this faith mechanic work in civ 5 many times where in the long term you can purchase any type of GP for any type of victory you may need (GS for science, GA for cultural, etc.). It seems that this strategy works in civ 6 also.

 

[Linklite]

Yeah, I have no clue how you're managing happiness in that number of cities (quite normal for me too) without ECs...

I could've done it before the patch that made cities require an amenity at size 1, I guess.

Yeah, I'm not sure how either.

A pop 13 city requires 6 amenities, and that's good for 4 cities. If you have 12 cities, that means 18 different luxuries, just to have sufficient amenities - no bonuses. That's impossible on Standard maps and a steep ask on larger ones. I can rarely get the AI to trade them with me.

 

[Leyrann]

Yeah, I'm not sure how either.

A pop 13 city requires 6 amenities, and that's good for 4 cities. If you have 12 cities, that means 18 different luxuries, just to have sufficient amenities - no bonuses. That's impossible on Standard maps and a steep ask on larger ones. I can rarely get the AI to trade them with me.

I'd say more than 10-12 luxuries isn't realistic unless you're going domination. And that's including trading for more whenever possible.

 

[tedhebert]

Yeah, I'm not sure how either.

A pop 13 city requires 6 amenities, and that's good for 4 cities. If you have 12 cities, that means 18 different luxuries, just to have sufficient amenities - no bonuses. That's impossible on Standard maps and a steep ask on larger ones. I can rarely get the AI to trade them with me.

Well I never said I don’t sometimes put in one of the +amenities cards, especially from industrial age on… but as I said, I play on huge map and rarely (if ever) go on dom spree… I will usually have 1, max 2 civs that dislike me all game because they pissed me off early game and I made them pay, but that also means 8 to 10 neutral to allied civs… those will usually trade their luxuries for low gold, some strategic resources or some diplo, and of course all those multi luxuries you have, so really it’s not THAT hard…also, if I’m only in the +10% bonus range instead of the +20% I don’t go bonkers over it… I also usually pays special attention to the CSes and great merchants that have those special luxuries… If they’re in game I’ll work hard to get them

Edit: I’m on a cruise ship in Alaska atm, but when I get back home around may 18/19 I’ll load up some recent end game save to see where my amenities come from and post some images here

 

[rgp151]

I'm fascinated by several players here who genuinely declare playing WITHOUT an emphasis on religion and holy sites to be superior! Yes, it is possible to play that way .... yes, it would be an excellent and unique challenge for top players..... yes, Kongo must adapt a unique style and play like this due to its traits.... but this doesn't place Encampments or probably most other districts above HS in terms of general game-wide utility. Cases could be made for campus, industrial zone and government plaza being of similar value....but encampments and entertainment hubs? Not for me.

Holy sites (and ideally, founding a religion) and spamming faith as a currency are virtual prerequisites to survive on highest difficulties and to be in a position to push for all victory types, especially for domination, for reasons already listed and a few others (particularly: GM Chapel, Crusade belief, monumentality dedication, work ethic). This gambit is actually game breaking and most players probably feel slightly guilty when they survive the early game and are then in a position ripe for exploiting these mechanics.

Hats off to the OP's unique play style though, and it's really nice to read about such a finely tuned unique style that taps into a precise Civ's traits so elegantly. Still, it is then quite an unrealistic stretch to declare holy sites as anything below a "top tier" district just because Kongo doesn't use them. If someone suddenly replaced all my Holy Sites with encampments or even..... entertainment complexes (*shudder*), I would not be able to sleep at night.

I basically never build them for any civ, unless going for a Religious Victory, or Russia. Faith can be gotten in other ways. As for Naturalist and Rock Bands, yes, those are good, but I typically only get 2-4 of those. I guess I just play a much more Gold/Trader oriented game. I usually have tons of gold, and between 12 and 20 trade routes. The policy card that gives +4 Gold and +1 Faith to every trade route generates a lot by itself. The only thing I even specifically buy with Faith is Naturalists or Rock Bands. I might buy other stuff sometimes, if I happen to see that I have unneeded Faith and nothing better to do with it. But usually its all about the Gold, in large part because of Big Ben, which allows you to double your Gold, so a big part of most games for me is getting Big Ben with over 5K gold on hand, sometimes over 10K.

But to me, building Holy Sites just for Faith seems like a waste. Getting a religion is almost never worth it. To get one you have to sacrifice a lot of other early development. Then in order to keep it you need to keep investing in spreading it with Apostles (which uses of Faith). To me Religion/Faith is an all or nothing proposition, either go all in or not at all. Going in half way never seems worth the investment and if I go all in then I'm going for Religious Victory.

 

[Linklite]

I only ever build HSs in four situations:

1. I'm going for a Religious Victory. Duh.
2. I'm going forna CV and plan to use Rock Bands to do the Tourism thing, so I build HSs to collect Faith ready for it, plus I use Hallyu to get the Dial it to 11! promotion.
3. I'm attacking loyalty, so same logic, except I use the Indie promotion instead.
4. My civ has become large and entering late game so I've run out of useful districts, so why not?

 

[reddishrecue]

Holy Sites are very good.. however, there are times when you have to build your defenses. You can't worship your god/gods that well when you're under attack so defend yourself well first.

In times of peace however holy sites do take a time to build up in the beginning but pay off majorly in the end. I would do it when I am safe.

 

[Leyrann]

Holy Sites are very good.. however, there are times when you have to build your defenses. You can't worship your god/gods that well when you're under attack so defend yourself well first.

In times of peace however holy sites do take a time to build up in the beginning but pay off majorly in the end. I would do it when I am safe.

If I haven't been attacked by the end of the Classical Era (or often even if I haven't been attacked by the end of the Ancient Era), I know I won't be attacked at all.

 

[rgp151]

When going for a Cultural Victory, Earth Goddess, Stone Circles, and Religious Idols can all be good ways to get Faith without building Holy Sites. Of course Earth Goddess got nerfed in GS, but still. When going for Cultural you have lots of Breathtaking tiles anyway.

Consider the opportunity cost of taking those pantheons and getting passive faith, vs using up a district slot and spending production on a district that doesn't provide GPPs (unless Russia). The only value of Holy Sites most of the time is just generating faith, and that's it, whereas other districts provide GPPs and often other benefits. Of course if you are going for some kind of relic strategy then it would make sense to build Holy Sites, but again, the thing I find about religion is that if you are going to go into religion at all, then you may as well just go for Religious Victory.

I don't think I've even been in a situation where, after founding a religion, it would have been faster and easier to get a Cultural Victory than a Religious Victory. That's the thing that always seemed poorly designed around religion. Every now and then a religion will fall into your lap, and in those cases, yeah I've used Holy Sites, when I see that in like the Medieval era no one is going for religion and there are still like 3 or 4 prophets left, then maybe I'll snag a religion just because or something, but rushing for religion screws up your entire start. Building Holy Sites without a religion just to get Faith is a waste, when there are other less costly ways to get Faith. Investing in maintaining and spreading a religion isn't worth the opportunity cost if you aren't going for a religious victory or aren't playing a specific strategy that uses it, like Arabia - Science or something (but who does that?).

So yeah, again, if playing for Cultural Victory, I'd usually rather simply snag a Faith Pantheon, of which there are many, than invest in Holy Sites.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Consider the opportunity cost of taking those pantheons and getting passive faith, vs using up a district slot and spending production on a district that doesn't provide GPPs (unless Russia). The only value of Holy Sites most of the time is just generating faith, and that's it, whereas other districts provide GPPs and often other benefits.

Let me be blunt here: This is where you are very wrong.
I'll elaborate:

Holy sites are not "just about the faith", this is a huge misconception.
The strength of the holy site lies in the extreme synergy and snowball potential that it offers under certain circumstances.
I'm talking about picking adjacency pantheons > plant +4 (and higher) adjacency holy sites > pick work ethic > pick monumentality > rush Moksha x4 > rush the Scripture card.
The snowball in this combo is so broken, to the point that more traditional openers for the most part are just inferior.
It allows you to churn out settlers at an obscenely fast rate, getting those new cities set up immediately with an instant district, while letting your core cities use that production to build early wonders (which you usually wouldnt or shouldnt rush on deity) or a huge army to take out your neighbour(s).
And most importantly, it both works and is rather easy to pull off on Deity.
What you need is decent amounts of nearby tundra/desert/jungle, and an early faith source to try to snag an early pantheon - at that point you're all set to abuse the mechanic.
Who cares about using up an early district slot, when you can get obscene amounts of early production and expansion speed that essentially let you do things you weren't supposed to at this stage of the game?

Can you play like you say without faith?
Absolutely, go ahead and do so, it works just fine and I often do so myself.
But if we're talking about the pure strength of the Holy Site (as outlined above), saying that the holy site is weak is ridiculous, as it's actually broken under certain (rather easy to achieve) circumstances.
As I said earlier in this thread, I frequently abuse this snowball, roughly in 1/3 to 1/2 of my games, because of how easy it is to set up and execute.
It's just too strong to pass up on, if I get the opportunity.

 

[rgp151]

What you say is true, but what I find is that if I go for this strategy I may as well just go for Religious victory. Now maybe this isn't true on larger maps, I can see that. But on Small and Standard maps, which are the only sizes I play (or smaller), Religious victory is often the fastest and easiest type of victory to get. I guess in my mind, once I've sunk enough cost into founding a religion I figure I may as well just go for Religious victory. Once I have that religion up and going I start thinking about next steps -- what makes the most sense, etc. and I always end up at, "Well the fastest thing to do would be to get Religious victory." So I tend not to mess with religion at all, because I don't like going for Religious victory, but I find that logically it always makes the most sense once I've gone to the effort of founding an early game religion.

I've tried other victory types with religion. I've done Scientific and Cultural Russia, Scientific Arabia, etc., and I always thought, "Hmmm, Religious victory would have been much simpler and faster," once all was said and done.

So I guess that's the thing. While there are advantages to religion, it seems to me like once you found an early game religion (not talking about cases where you just happen to luck into a mid or late game religion), the optimal victory condition is Religious Victory. So if I don't want to go for Religious Victory I don't found a religion at all, and if I don't found a religion, I don't bother with Holy Sites just to get Faith. Having said that, much more of my experience with Religion has been on Vanilla as opposed to GS, but the overall conclusion seemed the same to me in GS. Once the religion is founded, (on moderately sized maps) Religious victory is the most direct path to winning.

 

[Leyrann]

What you say is true, but what I find is that if I go for this strategy I may as well just go for Religious victory. Now maybe this isn't true on larger maps, I can see that. But on Small and Standard maps, which are the only sizes I play (or smaller), Religious victory is often the fastest and easiest type of victory to get. I guess in my mind, once I've sunk enough cost into founding a religion I figure I may as well just go for Religious victory. Once I have that religion up and going I start thinking about next steps -- what makes the most sense, etc. and I always end up at, "Well the fastest thing to do would be to get Religious victory." So I tend not to mess with religion at all, because I don't like going for Religious victory, but I find that logically it always makes the most sense once I've gone to the effort of founding an early game religion.

I've tried other victory types with religion. I've done Scientific and Cultural Russia, Scientific Arabia, etc., and I always thought, "Hmmm, Religious victory would have been much simpler and faster," once all was said and done.

So I guess that's the thing. While there are advantages to religion, it seems to me like once you found an early game religion (not talking about cases where you just happen to luck into a mid or late game religion), the optimal victory condition is Religious Victory. So if I don't want to go for Religious Victory I don't found a religion at all, and if I don't found a religion, I don't bother with Holy Sites just to get Faith. Having said that, much more of my experience with Religion has been on Vanilla as opposed to GS, but the overall conclusion seemed the same to me in GS. Once the religion is founded, (on moderately sized maps) Religious victory is the most direct path to winning.

Religion is the fastest victory to get regardless of map size or anything because the AI is incredibly bad at defending against it.

The thing is this. If you always play purely for the win, this game gets trivial. Instead, I always go for a specific strategy, whatever I feel like. For example, as a rule, if I get a religion, I do not spread it further than my own cities unless I'm going for a religious victory.

 

[rgp151]

Religion is the fastest victory to get regardless of map size or anything because the AI is incredibly bad at defending against it.

The thing is this. If you always play purely for the win, this game gets trivial. Instead, I always go for a specific strategy, whatever I feel like. For example, as a rule, if I get a religion, I do not spread it further than my own cities unless I'm going for a religious victory.

Yeah, I guess that's the difficulty. If I get a religion then I'm like, "Ok, I've covered my cities, but I'll get more benefit if I convert their as well... oh and now I may as well just convert a few more and I'll win..." Which is why I either go all the way with it or not at all. Its like once I get an early religion, it seems like the only thing that make sense at that point is Religious Victory. Anything less and I feel like I'm just intentionally handicapping myself. Which is why I tend not to build Holy Sites at all, or really have strategies that revolve around them in any way.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Anything less and I feel like I'm just intentionally handicapping myself.

You are already handicapping yourself by never building holy sites, even for non-RV victories.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here, as it sounds rather similar to refusing to build campuses, because once you do and get a decent science output rolling, then you might as well just switch and play for a SV every time.
It's still a good idea to build campuses when going for a CV, just as much as building holy sites can be a good idea, because they both support your CV game into a faster win time than just spamming purely theatre squares would do.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Commercial districts and ind. zones are OK to place at pop 7 & 10, since early yields are not so good.

Why you would ever prioritize getting an industrial zone over a holy site in a culture game is honestly beyond me.
The added production does practically nothing for your win condition in the late game, while the faith does (dramatically so even), plus you ruin your appeal so there's that as well.

 

[Leyrann]

Yeah, I guess that's the difficulty. If I get a religion then I'm like, "Ok, I've covered my cities, but I'll get more benefit if I convert their as well... oh and now I may as well just convert a few more and I'll win..." Which is why I either go all the way with it or not at all. Its like once I get an early religion, it seems like the only thing that make sense at that point is Religious Victory. Anything less and I feel like I'm just intentionally handicapping myself. Which is why I tend not to build Holy Sites at all, or really have strategies that revolve around them in any way.

I have to echo @Oberinspektor Derrick here. You're either handicapping yourself by not spreading your religion when you can, or you're handicapping yourself by not building Holy Sites. What does it matter where you apply this intentional handicap?

In fact, I would even go so far as to say it's far easier to apply the personal handicap of not spreading you religion further. I always have more than enough to spend my faith on all kinds of stuff, to the point where I often go "oh wait, I have a religion, I shouldn't forget to spread it to my cities for the benefits".

I will add, it's not like I always rush Holy Sites, or anything like that. I usually build them early if I find good adjacencies (unlike some other people in this thread, I tend to not go for the better adjacency pantheons unless I'm in a really specific situation), or somewhat later on if I don't, often around the time districts start receiving discounts. Occasionally I end up not really building any, in yet other games I notice there's still a religion or two left so I decide to build some Holy Sites to snatch it up, and so on. Basically I go with the flow of the game. (if I don't do that it might get boring; to illustrate, while not a perfect example, I won a turn 101 domination victory on a standard map on Settler with the Aztecs when I was trying as hard as possible)

 

[rgp151]

Well, I've tried a few games with Spain recently and that's worked out well in terms of making use of Holy Sites and religion. Spain provides an incentive not to spread your religion, and little need to develop a strong religious strategy, other than keeping you own religion among your own cities, so that seems to work out well for me.

 

[reddishrecue]

As long as you keep your religion in your civilization you'll be good unless there's a religious victory imminent to a different player.