Is Civ 4 going to make Religions Civ-Specific like Greece (Pagan) America (Christian) Arabia (Muslim) China (Buddhist) India (Hindu) Israel (Jewish) etc? 7 Relgions should be Pagan(Rome and Greece and ancient countries), Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shaminism (Native America, African)

That is what religions should be, Shintoism would also be a good option. They should have religions civ specific too and do and Athiest factor too. Religions need to be historic too, lol dont want Christianity coming into play 2000 years before Christ comes would not make much sense.

No, religions are not civ-specific in Civ4. They are linked to particular techs and the first to discover the associated tech found the religion. So if you are the first to discover Polytheism, you found the Hinduism religion.

Which does kind of suck, as you really should be able to CHOOSE what kind of Polytheism you want to found-be it Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, South American or Hindu. In fact, you could easily have a system wherby you have around 3-4 real world religions for each tech you can discover, be it monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrism and Mithraism), Animism (Dreamtime, Native American, Shinto, Paganism, North African Animism-the precursor of Vodoun) or Eastern Mysticism (Buddhism, Taosim, Confuscianism and Zen). The key, though, is to lock other nations-from the same culture group-out of founding the religion if they don't get the tech first. So for instance, if Rome gets the monotheism tech first-and selects Christianity- then Greece, Carthage and Spain, as Mediterranean civs, cannot found any other monotheistic faiths, only adopt a pre-existing one. I just think this would have worked a lot better than the system they have put forward so far.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think we do not know every nuance about religion yet...
IMO, it would be disturbing to see matching civs and religions haphazardly.
How is a hinduist Germany or a chrisitian China?
I dislike that...
If this will be allowed,then what the heck is religion for, as such?

Civilization is a game that refers to the history of mankind, I guess...
As for me, I like and need the connection to real history to some level...
(if I understand it, Aussie Lurker thinks so, too...)

Oh, well, let's wait and see...

I do not think religions should be civ-specific. In fact, that would be a horrible idea.

The game is not a simulation about history. If so, why are the US in, why do Sumeria live on in the industrial ages, why does Babylon win a diplomatic victory or the Egyptians a conquest victory? Because it is not a simulation. It is a "what-if" game that focuses on empire building and just uses real civs as a foundation to build on.

If factions had been used like in Alpha Centauri or just random names like in Master of Orion, then people couldn't have cared less, but the appeal to the gamer is higher if they can imagine that they are beating down the Russians and removing them from the map.

Because of this it is not right to say that civ X should definately be religion Y. If you want that, then you should be playing Europa Universalis II.

Take my nation. We started out believe in what is now known as Norse Mythology, then converted to Catholism and later to Protestantism. Interestingly enough the old beliefs are actually resurfacing now and gathering converts.

But that is three religions in one nation. Simply put, it doesn't matter. I know there are some religious "fanatics" who would fume at the thought of America being Islamic, but come on... it is just a game. An escape from the real world. Don't take it too seriously. :)

Actually, V. Soma, I am more in line with Harleqin. I don't see Civ as a historical simulation, so have no problem with a Protestant China, or a Bhuddist Persia. My big beef is that I feel like players are going to be railroaded-to a degree, because of a lack of choice. Hence, why should India become Hindu JUST because it was the first to discover Polytheism? They should be able to choose the Hellenic (Greco-Roman) Pantheon, Osirian Pantheon etc etc. If you can CREATE that choice, through the editor, then I will have far fewer problems with this element of the game. Otherwise, it will leave religion as nothing more than 'eye-candy'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

CIV should have only one link with real world : names. It has no real impact in the game play. What is the real gameplay difference between having for Rome leader Ceasar or Marius? You can change the names if you want. Battle for religion founder shouldn't even be between mediterranean civ, but between neighbour civ. If you have Carthage on one continent and Greece on another, Carthage can't get the religion as Greece, at least at the beginning. It is more likely they will get Iroquois religion if they are neighbours (I'm not sure how to spell it, sorry, if I'm wrong, say it). If you are on archipelago maps, you should be able to get your on religion, and in pangea, you have better chances to get another religion. Civ should ot have one only religion, but diversity, and your main religion is the one you have the most. You can have muslims and christians in the same civ. It should work a little bit like a mix between culture flips and national assimilation.

CIV should have only one link with real world : names.

Exactly. Because "names" bring information, common knowledge
from the real world and therefore illusion into Civ...
It is not simulation I need when playing but I need "feeling".
And hey, I just do not get it with a "hinduist Germany",
say, with a leader named Montezuma...
Hm, you say, the Germany have leader named Bismarck?
There you go... names, illusion... therefore
- religions will be generic, after all -
just let that religion be somewhat referring to reality in NAMING...

Battle for religion founder shouldn't even be between mediterranean civ, but between neighbour civ. If you have Carthage on one continent and Greece on another, Carthage can't get the religion as Greece, at least at the beginning. It is more likely they will get Iroquois religion if they are neighbours (I'm not sure how to spell it, sorry, if I'm wrong, say it). If you are on archipelago maps, you should be able to get your on religion, and in pangea, you have better chances to get another religion. Civ should ot have one only religion, but diversity, and your main religion is the one you have the most. You can have muslims and christians in the same civ. It should work a little bit like a mix between culture flips and national assimilation.

I agree with it, when considering gameplay and theoretic characteristic
of this way of working of religion as a game element... :)

Only those pairings (civ+religion), how will they "sound"...
/taken this basic game when we have civs put randomly on a random map/

It is odd to see a "Hindu" China, since the word "Hindu" itself is connected to the word "India". Strictly speaking Hinduism isn't even a single religion but rather, an umbrella term.

In any case, it would make more sense to have the general tech, such as polytheism but have different names for every civ. If India discovers polytheism it becomes "Hindu". But if Rome discovers polytheism it gets the Greco-Roman religion. The naming could perhaps be tied to the culture groups.

I am also not sure how they would distinguish between Islam and Christianity since the enabling "tech" for both would be Monotheism.

Anyway, to conclude, it offends my senses to see essentially national religions, such as Hinduism, being given to any civ. On the other hand, it doesn't bother me so much when universal (as oppsoed to national/tribal) religions such as Christianity or Islam are adopted by many civs.

Shinto, Hinduism, Judaism and the Roman religion may be examples of national religions where it would look funny if ahistorical civs adopted them. On the other hand it doesn't bother me to see ahistorical civs adopt Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. If history had turned out differently there might have been an Islamic Europe, a Christian Arabia, an Islamic India or a Christian Japan and so forth.

Hopefully, if the game is a modable as they say, we will be able to fix religion to fit our tastes. We might even mod modern "religions" such as Communism, Nazism, secular humanism, or liberal-democracy into the game. Even though these ideologies are not religions in the strict sense they could be said to behave as religions in the modern world. After all Buddhism or Taoism are not a theistic religions but more philosophies or belief systems, yet they are considred "religions".

what i'd really like to see is xenophobia in the game, like, your people begin to hate other civs with different religions and call you to go to war with that particular civ, there could be crusades and such, I would think that would be fun as long as it wasnt over inforced and you werent going to war every turn. Maybe it could only take place in ancient and middle ages and in industrial and modern you get deportations... i dunno, just a thought.

As far as I see it, the Civ series now has reached a critical point.

Up to and including C3C, the only "link" to the real world was by the nations' names. That was good, since this was the "hook" to give the impression of realism.
Beyond that, everything was more or less very abstract. Ok, you had military units like swordsmen or tanks (and there are still debates ongoing, why the one has these stats and the other has those), but the abstraction was still strong enough to allow us to put our own imagination in.

Now, at least in Civ3 we have the chance to easily change certain parameters and values. If I would like to have expansionistic and agricultural Germans, I change the values and after that, I'm fine with playing.
But what would have happened, if my only chance would have been to change a nation's name? Then I would have to play with the whatever (forgot, which nation has those traits in C3C...) And my settlements would have strange names like "Zdasfu", "Ifzcjee" or whatever. They wouldn't have German names and by that, the feeling of realism would have gone....

Now, about religions.
Most of us understand themselves as members and parts of a certain nation. When you are asked, who and what you are, what you are determined by, you will quickly find that after you have told us about your name, gender and age, you will point out your nationality. You would tell us: "I am Pierre. I am 23 years old. I'm a male. I am FRENCH" (or whatever is true for you).

And with this nation, you would have told us a lot about the cultural and religious influences you have experienced in the past. This stands true for all of us (o.k., let's say for 98%).
Europe HAS been determined by Christianity. The arabian world HAS been determined by the Islam. Japan HAS been determined by Shintoism (? - I hope I'm correct here, please don't take this as an confrontation in case I would be wrong) - and so on.
Religions automatically determine the way we are thinking and acting, due to the virtues and instructions which are linked to them - even if we understand ourselves not much as being a "believer". By our sheer presence and living in such a community, we soak up quite a lot of those convictions, even - and especially - if we are not aware of it.

Now, what does this mean?
It means that if you have one "hook" (your nation's name) you get the feeling of "realism", but you still know that it is an abstract concept.
As soon, as more "hooks" are given, the feeling of realism becomes deeper and deeper, by that turning the game from an "what-if" imagination towards a simulation. And simulations don't work, if their inherent realism is broken.
So, having a simulative game in which you are British, but are "doomed" to play with Shintoism as your main religion, it will give you a feeling of unease. If you would have to use Babylonic names for your cities, you just would throw the game off from your hard disk.

Conclusion:
I think it is dangerous to have the real-world religions in, as they establish another step into "simulation" - because of all the things you subconsciously put into the religion's designator.
I really think that more generic polytheistic and monotheistic designators would be the better idea in terms of allowing you to put your own imagination into the game your are currently playing.
I guess it would be more "acceptable" for one's imagination to play with the British "Believers in the silver moon" than to play with the British "Bhuddism". Again, as long as you are "forced" by the game settings to have the one or the other.

Commander Bello, I couldn't have said it better myself ;)! I have NO objection, personally, to religion being in the game-as anyone reading my Sig can tell!! However, I just feel that it could have been done in a way so as NOT to create that extra level of realism Bello talks about. Giving players the OPTION-either to PICK the name of the religion they want to found from a list (like Christianity, Islam or Judaism for Monotheism tech-or Bhuddist, Taoist, Confucianist for Eastern Mysticism) or, better yet, to simply NAME a generic religion for yourself, would have been the best route to take.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This gripe-fest about religion, etc is tiresome.

If you chaps are unhappy with the game, then simply do not buy it when it comes out.
Your opinions, while worthy, are unlikely to count for all the fans out there.
Also, pouring bitter remarks over every new release of info is hardly any
help or any use.

I don't see any of the moan-meisters doing a new CIV game,
or developing new turn-based games software for the community -
So please stop the wails.

Until you are in the position make an 'informed' judgement (EG: when
the game is out) you are merely armchair critics...Just because you
want something, does not mean the rest of us are wanting it too!
Just who on Earth do you guys think you are, anyway? ;)

The whole religion aspect is a minor cherry on top, in terms of the overall product.
The game mechanics and AI, along with intuitive interaction are by far the
most important things, I can imagine your presonal, ego-stroking demands
are not high on the developers 'to-do' lists, to be brutally frank.

So can we give it a break and stop savaging every aspect of an 'as-yet-not-released' game...

You can always go back to RTW if you wish...:D

I, for one are just happy that they are at least making a new CIV game.
I am patient and sensible enough to realise that the proto-version we are
seeing in the screenies, etc will be no doubt vastly different in due time.

Now, Please! Quit the bickering!

*goes for a lie down*

Im not overly worried about religion, as long as you will be able to mod it around in the editor, I only play scenarios anyway.

What *does* worry me is the prospect of religion giving different benefits to their civs. For example Id hate it if Christianity is the umtimate religion for a peaceful civ and islam the best religion for a warlike civ, with the more original religions being altogether useless :) .

Im not overly worried about religion, as long as you will be able to mod it around in the editor, I only play scenarios anyway.

What *does* worry me is the prospect of religion giving different benefits to their civs. For example Id hate it if Christianity is the umtimate religion for a peaceful civ and islam the best religion for a warlike civ, with the more original religions being altogether useless :) .

I don't think that is the case. They have said that religions do not give benifits, therefore all of them are exactly equal.

Yeah, I think dodging traits was a VERY smart idea.

Religions are "empty labels". No contraversy. Each religion is whatever you think it is, good or bad.

@Curt

It seems odd to come to a forum designed to complain, criticize, and give our opinions and rail the posters for doing so.

@Commander Bello

I actually like the idea of including more 'hooks'. What has always bothered me was the fact these 'hooks' were tied to gameplay effects. For example, why does being Egyptian automatically mean you are Agricultural and Religious? It only does because of some data in a file. So if they make it so that gameplay effects from what civ you play, then you can do cool things with the civs.

All the units would have unique(maybe some shared) graphics for units and definitely names and civpedia info. Their should always be Roman Auxilla, Legions, whatever tanks the Italians used, etc. City names are already unique, so should city graphics. Another neat idea, each revolution puts up a new leader(although you are still in charge). Also, your 'religion' could change like it did in history.

NOne of htis matters if the choices you make are not tied to these unique factors. This means if you play England twice, the Anglicanism that emerged could take totally different directions because thier are no inherent traits to Anglicanism. So if you make each civ unique except for gameplay, people play as the party they want to roleplay, not the ones with the bonuses they like to play with.

It seems to me that if you don't get all religions at the same time, and yet they offer essentially the exact same benefits, then why would you ever switch from the first religion? I thought I read somewhere that if you switch, the AI will 'remember' that you used to endorse a different faith. So really if Hinduism is the first religion you get, then why would anyone ever switch away from it? Why not just pick the first religion that comes available and leave it that way. Any thoughts? Or am I missing a big part of the puzzle.

Good point there, TVA... I guess we just have to wait to get an answer for this... :)

It'd be interesting if the runners-up to a religion might have a chance to make a schismatic version of the religion, perhaps a use for a Great "Religious Leader". So different versions of Polytheism or Christianity or Islam that were culture-specific, and localized to a civ.

I'm assuming that the runners up of reaching a particular religion then automatically share cultural-fealty with the civ that founded that religion.

@Curt

It seems odd to come to a forum designed to complain, criticize, and give our opinions and rail the posters for doing so..


Really?

And for what reason do people make these complaints, etc?

I just get sick of people shredding the developer's work,
while arrogantly claiming to come up with better ideas...

It gets stale rather quick, don't you think?

.

In an institution designed specifically for that purpose, no. What wold you propose occur here instead?

What wold you propose occur here instead?

Sir Schwick, here are my ideas for the new Civ Fanatics Forums.

- No more ideas
- No more criticism
- YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! RELIGION YAYYY CIVICS YAYYYYYYYYYYYY

@CurtSibling: As it seems that you adressed your reply to my posting, allow for some comments:
This gripe-fest about religion, etc is tiresome.
I don't see a gripe-fest, I see some posters explain their view of things, based on what is currently available as information.

If you chaps are unhappy with the game, then simply do not buy it when it comes out.
Be assured, I for my person will follow this valuable recommendation.

Your opinions, while worthy, are unlikely to count for all the fans out there.
May I assume that you are appointed to speak for each and every fan, all over the world?

Also, pouring bitter remarks over every new release of info is hardly any help or any use.

I don't see any of the moan-meisters doing a new CIV game,
or developing new turn-based games software for the community -
So please stop the wails.
But spending standing ovations at every bit of information improves the quality?
Many of those who you seem to name "moan-meisters" at least analyse the current information, state their opinion and are giving other ideas. You
seem to only try to bash them.
What may be better?

Until you are in the position make an 'informed' judgement (EG: when the game is out) you are merely armchair critics...Just because you want something, does not mean the rest of us are wanting it too!
You seem to have a much better insight, so why don't you share it with us?
And the pure fact that you have decided to like what is coming, at all costs, makes us to have to like it as well, and at minimum at least that much as you like it?

Just who on Earth do you guys think you are, anyway? ;)

Frankly, based upon your postings as of the last days, I think to be more contemplative and interested in the game to be of the best quality possible, than you. Not to mention the difference in our individual intellectual skills, if you allow me to mention this.

Honestly, I understand that you are already trembling with excitement about the idea that mommy is going to buy you that game for Christmas. And I truely wish you to be satisfied with the final product.
Until then I would like to kindly ask you to take more naps before trying to bash people who seem not to like to play with you at the playground.

Ahem... Lets calm down, respect each other’s opinions and get back to the original discussion please...

I hope the assimilation rate (for the spread of religions) is moddable. I would like to be able to introduce parasitic infestations into the game, like the Ithkul of MOO3, and have them spread and take over empires. I know we don't yet know whether religion will be able to give any bonuses (besides happiness, if your state religion matches the religion in a city), but it would be nice if religion could grant bonuses (or penalties, even better). I'm imagining the possibilities with Aliens, the Flood, plague, the possibilities are endless.

Hopefully, if the game is a modable as they say, we will be able to fix religion to fit our tastes. We might even mod modern "religions" such as Communism, Nazism, secular humanism, or liberal-democracy into the game. Even though these ideologies are not religions in the strict sense they could be said to behave as religions in the modern world. After all Buddhism or Taoism are not a theistic religions but more philosophies or belief systems, yet they are considred "religions".
Why do people keep insisting that government forms have to be 'religions'? At least separate the philisophical portion of them from the political.
(ie Communism-> Collectivism/Materialism, Nazism-> Supremacy/Nationalism, ect.)

I hope the assimilation rate (for the spread of religions) is moddable. I would like to be able to introduce parasitic infestations into the game, like the Ithkul of MOO3, and have them spread and take over empires. I know we don't yet know whether religion will be able to give any bonuses (besides happiness, if your state religion matches the religion in a city), but it would be nice if religion could grant bonuses (or penalties, even better). I'm imagining the possibilities with Aliens, the Flood, plague, the possibilities are endless.
Absolutly right. Exactly my opinion. My advanced opinion is that your core's religion gives your civ his religion. Your colonies may disagree with you when you attack an ennemy with the same religion, even if the ennemy attacked another civ with your official religion.

the Flood
Halo fan?

My question is does the first Civilization to discover Monotheism found Judaism, or Christianity (or possibly Islam, but I doubt it)?

Actually, on the issue of what Sir_Schwick said, I too would like to see civ traits (Agricultural, Militarisitc etc) be influenced-not by civ, and not by leader, but by the conditions and gameplay that eventuate in each game. So, a civ with lots of plains, rivers and grasslands might naturally become agricultural-wheras a civ in a desert or jungle environment might end up becoming expansionist-again depending on how the player DEALT with his starting environment. Then, if the player pursued a consistently different path later in the game, then those traits would change too.
I guess for me its all about having an 'evolutionary game' which increases player choice, and generates more replay opportunity.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Actually, on the issue of what Sir_Schwick said, I too would like to see civ traits (Agricultural, Militarisitc etc) be influenced-not by civ, and not by leader, but by the conditions and gameplay that eventuate in each game. So, a civ with lots of plains, rivers and grasslands might naturally become agricultural-wheras a civ in a desert or jungle environment might end up becoming expansionist-again depending on how the player DEALT with his starting environment.


Yes, that would be more close to what really influenced civilizations to be agricultural, expansionistic,...
That would be phenomenal. Really good idea.

I mean, some ideas on this forum are remarkable, maybe they'll be never used, but they're still invaluable, since they raise our demands for Civ. Demand dictates supply.

As I understand religion concept in CivIV, religions are there only to spice up diplomacy. I expect, religion will have influence on relations with other civs, so if a civ has the same religion, relations are better, and vice versa. But I expect also, religion will also have some effects on war weariness. If you're in a war with civ that has same religion, your people will dislike this war more than they would dislike the war with any other civ.
That seems not a bad idea.

But I certainly hope that is not only improvement to diplomacy.

@CurtSibling: As it seems that you adressed your reply to my posting, allow for some comments:

I didn't really aim my comments at you specifically, but feel free to boost your ego thinking so.

I don't see a gripe-fest, I see some posters explain their view of things, based on what is currently available as information.

Fair enough.

Be assured, I for my person will follow this valuable recommendation.

Again, fair enough.

May I assume that you are appointed to speak for each and every fan, all over the world?

Of course not, but do a few individual poster's ideas constitute a guiding light for the game's developers?

But spending standing ovations at every bit of information improves the quality?
Many of those who you seem to name "moan-meisters" at least analyse the current information, state their opinion and are giving other ideas. You
seem to only try to bash them.
What may be better?

I named no-one, I was making an observation on premature judgements.

You are running ahead with yourself here.

You seem to have a much better insight, so why don't you share it with us?
And the pure fact that you have decided to like what is coming, at all costs, makes us to have to like it as well, and at minimum at least that much as you like it?

Amusing paranoia.

I have no idea if the game will be what I imagine, just like you.

However, I choose not to sit and gripe about my fears and await to see the innings.

I only wish to see people pouring scorn on the project, without having a clue about it...

Compris?

Frankly, based upon your postings as of the last days, I think to be more contemplative and interested in the game to be of the best quality possible, than you. Not to mention the difference in our individual intellectual skills, if you allow me to mention this.

If you can gauge a person's intellect from a bulletin board, I then have
to assume you are wasting your time here and should be pursuing a
lucrative career in psychology...In short, you are speaking drivel, sir.

Honestly, I understand that you are already trembling with excitement about the idea that mommy is going to buy you that game for Christmas. And I truely wish you to be satisfied with the final product.

My mother would have to somehow renconstitute from the ashes she was
cremated into, in order to by my a gift for a festive celebration I do not
partake in. I thought your hyper-intellect would have worked that one out.

Your flailing attempt at sardonic humour here is priceless.

Until then I would like to kindly ask you to take more naps before trying to bash people who seem not to like to play with you at the playground.

30-year old men do not need naps, my good fellow. And my opinion is what
I will give regardless. I care not for the carbolic words of antagonistic types
like your good self. I tend to challenge unfair judgements, so get used to that.

Now toddle off and talk to a mirror, so you can indulge your ego and paranoia simultaneously.

:)

PS
I will say no more about this debate, my apologies Civrules!

.


You don't have to prove anything to anyone else, so you shouldn't have responded either way.

Don't feed the trolls. I've already said to get back to the original discussion...

What i've found in the screenies:

research monotheism = discover judaism (on one of the first screenshots the symbol of judaism is in the icon of monotheism)

code of law = another religion, I think it is islam (on the landbridge screenshot you could see a religion-symbol in the code-of-laws-icon)

theology = christianity (at the same sc, you found a cross in the theology-icon)


But maybee until september this could change...

But what will be your religion at the atart of the game. Will there be any?
If yes, I suppose all civilizations will have the same?

I guess they'll have a default religion like anarchy? Or maybe the default will be "no official religion"?

Actually, on the issue of what Sir_Schwick said, I too would like to see civ traits (Agricultural, Militarisitc etc) be influenced-not by civ, and not by leader, but by the conditions and gameplay that eventuate in each game. So, a civ with lots of plains, rivers and grasslands might naturally become agricultural-wheras a civ in a desert or jungle environment might end up becoming expansionist-again depending on how the player DEALT with his starting environment. Then, if the player pursued a consistently different path later in the game, then those traits would change too.
I guess for me its all about having an 'evolutionary game' which increases player choice, and generates more replay opportunity.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Include this with, say after the ancient age, your leader changes, and has those traits. If you were at war alot and on the sea he would be militaristic and seafaring, or if you built alot of markets and farms, he or she would be commercial and argicultural.

Let the players actions dictate the outcome. I would rather have 2d leaderheads and have ten different ones for each civ, then have 3d leaderheads and only one or two.

I would guess animism, as even cavemen had some form of religion.

So far we have:

Poly--Hinduism
Mono--Judaism
Theo--Christianity
CoL (?)--Islam

what other ones? I hear meditation will be a new tech, sounds like the gateway to Buddhism.

I would guess animism, as even cavemen had some form of religion.

So far we have:

Poly--Hinduism
Mono--Judaism
Theo--Christianity
CoL (?)--Islam

what other ones? I hear meditation will be a new tech, sounds like the gateway to Buddhism.
This is what I was afraid off. Yes, each religion would be 'generic'. i.e. no one better or worse than any other as far as game advantages, but the fact that you are locked into discovering a set religion with a set tech is bad news to me.

Why Code of Laws and Islam? What if I prefer the Christian code of laws for my Civ...i.e. I'm Roman or Spainish or English? Why does theology give me Christianity? Isn't Islam theological? Etc.

Game play may not be mechanically hurt...(but speaking for myself only) I will have a much harder time suspending my disbelief and spending hours in a Civ fantasy world.

Finally I have also read in many posts here where a lot of people get a lot of their history knowledge from the Civ game...they rave about the Civlopedia. Now will we have a new generation of Civ players thinking that Islam started the concept of code of Laws? (Ever hear of Hammurabi, or King Solomon or Buddha?) And that Hinduism is the first polytheism...or theology is the main deveopment of the Christian folks...

All for what seems to be minimal effect on play...a happy face, extra war weariness in cities you capture who are not of your religion perhaps, more of an attitude from Civs who worship different from you.

I have no problem with a more enhanced (compared to Civ3) version of Religion in the game; but as several others here have suggested, lose the real world names. Or at least give us a real choice of which religion we discover - if each is the same, what matter would it be if we choose Christianity or Judaism or Shintuism or Cult of the Comet-ism when we research code of Laws?

JMHO :)

It will be interesting to see what empire-wide happiness (or unhappiness) effects the religions and changing of which will have.

I hear the choice of civics and religion will affect neighbouring civs, that is another intriquing avenue...

.

I don't see a big problem in linkage between religion and tech. Even so far connections between techs and thinds they enabled, wasn't very historically correct.

Kosez and Oldstatesman are both right. A lot of people will learn the wrong thing from Civ. And Civ is filled with much more historical inaccuracies than what tech enabled what project. I'm not sure we can expect much more.

This is what I was afraid off. Yes, each religion would be 'generic'. i.e. no one better or worse than any other as far as game advantages, but the fact that you are locked into discovering a set religion with a set tech is bad news to me.
Well, you're not 'locked' into choosing a religion once you discover the matching tech. As we've seen in the screenshots, you can just pass it by and wait for the next one to come along.

No, religions are not civ-specific in Civ4. They are linked to particular techs and the first to discover the associated tech found the religion. So if you are the first to discover Polytheism, you found the Hinduism religion.

I just came back from a visit to a Hindu ashram. One of the first things they explained is that Hinduism is monotheistic, not polytheistic. Think of a man who's called dad, brother, boss, son, friend, etc. He's still the same person. Different humans relate better to different aspects, but it's all the same, single, deity.

Yeah, it's a fuzzy line. Even Christianity has the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity, and yet one God.

I'm only interested which of the two Christianity and Islam they will put with Monotheism and which with Theology?

mfG mitsho

Who says Judaism won't be with Monotheism?

The number of 7 world religions tells me somehow that there's no place for this 'little' religion. (Also historically and from the number of believers it is just a too small group, sorry)

mfG mitsho

You have a point. I think something like 2% of the world's population is Jewish, compared to the double digits of the big three. But somehow, I couldn't see them passing it up, for its historical significance to the western world. Civ is a pretty western-centric game.

So which religions do you figure will be among the 7?

Christianity(catholic AND protestant?)
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Shinto

??

still leaves atleast one

- "Polytheism" in its broadest sense (If its Roman or Greek Or Egyptian or Carthaginian or Sumerian or Mayan or Aztec or Persian or or or)
- Animism as a really first sort of religion
- another Monotheistic (here Judaism is an option besides Zoroastrism or Mithras/Sol Victor)
- + all the Asian and American (African?) options I do not know well enough to decide between
- from gameplay reason: Perhaps they do not want every religion to start really early (all of the above are - in civ3 terms - ancient or early middle age), something that starts later on: Protestantism (leaves problem that Christianity is split into 2 with the third big part (orthodox) left away), (modern) sects, ....

You see, I haven't ruled out Judaism completely, it's just not top priority in my eyes.

mfG mitsho

Despite being a christian, I'd be slightly peeved if 3 out of 7 of the world religions were sects of christianity. Even 2. That would just push the game from slightly biased to blatantly so.

I just don't get this religion stuff so far... :confused:


If I understand it well, certain religions will be tied to certain techs.
Now, will then certain such techs come sooner than others?
GUess, yes.

Say, hm, for instance, that the first religious tech is Polytheism.
Now, does it mean that the first civ to discover Polytheism
can FOUND the religion attached to it and
get the advantages of this founding???
(I think of the presumed influencing effect of MY FOUNDED religion
to other civs - maybe converting their cities, people to me?)

Does it really mean all other civs can adopt this religion (with Polytheism)
but with the notion that by this they pick up a main religion of an other civ?

Would not that be TOO much advantege for that civ which
first discovered Polytheism?

-

I just hope that all this above way thoughts-chain is in vain,
for the game will not play like this

Yeah if Christian subsects (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) are in, then they should have subsects of other religions (Sunni + Shiite Islam, etc.)

In terms of best seven I'd say the big 4
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism (PS if one objects to polytheism causing Hinduism, just say it is a refinement of Polytheism that sees the truth behind the many gods that they are all one, as opposed to seeing one of those Gods as so overwhelmingly dominating the others that they are not even real...could be a good note for the developers in the civilopedia)

Then for the remaining 3
Judaism (due to lack of assimilation by its seperate, much larger offshoots)
Confucianism (probably...actually would be a good one for 'Code of Laws')

and any of
'Early' (sort of like despotism, some purely local starting default religion...if the model uses that)
Non-Theistic modern 'religions' (ie Humanism...Appears with Evolutionary Theory?)
'God-King' ...purely local with Monarchy
Shintoism (although this is more of a Buddhism subsect...or a modern example of the 'God-King')

I just don't get this religion stuff so far... :confused:


If I understand it well, certain religions will be tied to certain techs.
Now, will then certain such techs come sooner than others?
GUess, yes.

Say, hm, for instance, that the first religious tech is Polytheism.
Now, does it mean that the first civ to discover Polytheism
can FOUND the religion attached to it and
get the advantages of this founding???
(I think of the presumed influencing effect of MY FOUNDED religion
to other civs - maybe converting their cities, people to me?)

Does it really mean all other civs can adopt this religion (with Polytheism)
but with the notion that by this they pick up a main religion of an other civ?

Would not that be TOO much advantege for that civ which
first discovered Polytheism?

-

I just hope that all this above way thoughts-chain is in vain,
for the game will not play like this


I think you are right but with the exception that founding a religion gives you no advantages as far as we can tell. (other than that the religion first appears in your country)

So if India founds Hinduism, they may then adopt it as an official religion, but It then spreads to neighboring countries who may then also adopt it as an official religion (with the happiness benefits and diplomatic effects that occur with that) [possibly even if they haven't dicovered polytheism yet]

So it is not like Philosophy where you want to Rush for a particular tech to get a bonus...let someone else rush to it and you get the bonus a few turns later.

And if my civ is between two founders, then I have problems...
because of the spreadings?

The thing that concerns me about religion is that they offer no unique bonuses. I realize that religion is a touchy subject for many people and the developers probably decided to play it safe and make them generic. They wouldn't want to offend anybody by making one religion better for warmongers and one for peacemongers... I mean, builders. In the end we would probably just end up using the same religion every time because it was the "best", like the way most people here say Republic is the best government in Civ3.

So, back to my original point, because I was starting to contradict myself. Allthough I understant the idea of making all religions the same to appease the masses, what becomes the point if there is no difference? Why would I care if my nation is Buhdist or Christian? If there is no difference between religion A and religion B, they really are the same thing. They should have just made it generic and have for example...
"You have discovered religion, would you like to become a religious nation. You would get ... happy faces." (whatever the bonus of religion would be)

IMO, better still would be the made-up religions people here have suggested. The Cult of the Cow would get different bonuses than the Wheatanarians and the Worshipers of the Gold God. This would offend nobody (my apologies to any acutal Wheatanarians out there), and would enhance gameplay. Now I can choose the best religion that fits my goals in the game or my current situation.

In conclusion, these are just my thoughts at this time. Unfortunately, we are going on what little info and screenshots that have been made publicly available at this time. I am reserving my final judgement for when the game comes out. Hopefully they implement this religion thing as well as possible, and make it moddable to please those unhappy with the regular version.

religion does have an affect on gameplay, however subtle.

1, happiness
2. diplomacy
3, tech research (whichever is more convenient to start a religion)

they shouldn't start changing to make the game focus more on this matter, since everyone has different opinions anyway. the civics will be the controls for bonuses and stuff.

What about this compromise:

First, you choose your religion and that by itself means nothing. Later techs allow you to set the direction of 'religious' evolution in more technical terms. This means you can make decisions along the way that make your Christianity or Islam more militant or trans-cultural or whatever works. That way the Christianity that emerges each game might be different, same with the others. Esesntially you do the same with CIvs now. If you play as the Aztecs, you see what would have happened if they are not colonized, etc.

religion def. can be a touchy subject, but i think making it generic may be inconsistent w/ the how civ has been handled - the game has always been based somewhat on history - good and bad. historically, christianity, hinduism, buddhism, etc. have made and continue to make an impact on people, culture, and world events. while understandably religion can be an awkward element, it can be just as awkward having germany take over the world, or mao leading china (in civ3), etc. it's just my opinion, but i rather still have my civ receive hinduism than the religion of space monkeys or something. haha, sorry that was random. lol

I think that compromise is on the right track Sir Schwick. If you look at some earlier posts of mine (in either this or the 'Religious Thoughts' thread) you will see that there has been the suggestion that, whether or not your have Real World or Generic Religions, you can have a method to make an initially Generic religion develop its own unique traits. This could be done via techs, civics settings or both (I prefer the latter option myself).
For instance, if the Germans found Islam, and their civics settings mark them as very authoritatian and very theistic, then its likely that Islam in this game will have the Fundamentalist Trait (resistance to outside conversion, increased conversion of citizens within your nation, low tech rate and poor relations with nations of differing religions). If they were Militaristic and Theistic, then it would have the Militant trait (greater chance of converting citizens of captured cities, lower war weariness from war with differing religion, poor relations with 'non-believers', greater chance of religious schisms and sectarianism within your boundaries).
Of course, no religion would be set in stone, and if the founder changed their civics settings for long enough (or if head of the faith passed to a different civ) then these traits may be lost and new ones gained.
Another interesting possibility would be that, if the civics settings that lead to the traits of a religion are wildly different from the civics settings of a nation which adopts the faith-then there should be an increased chance of a new Sect of that religion appearing within that nation. For instance, lets say the English have a low Theism and Authoritarianism levels, but adopt Germanic Islam, after a while, there may be an increased risk of a Reformist Islamic sect appearing within one of the English cities-this could lead to the formation of a breakaway English religion, with its basis in Islam.
Hope all that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

why do people always say it is a touchy subject? How many of you got pissed about Age of Mythology and Pagan groups killing each other with Coptic, Hellenic or Norse priests. You guys need to relax. When they added the Byzantines and Ottomans together I did get all pissed and say but Turks have the same cities as Byzantines and they kill each other. Its not a big deal, and if it is to some of you, get over it, its just a game.

what's the point of all this? too much fuss over a little flavor. since religion will not play a big part in victory conditions, there's no point in them making them a focal point in gameplay. you're not supposed to change religions like you're changing pants. Monday Buddha, Tuesday Jesus, Wednesday Muhammad.

I don't see a problem with renaming religions. In fact, I think this is a halfway decent idea. Players should be able to rename religions if they discover them.

Although as a side note, it sounds to me like religion will be a huge tech tree race. Who can make it to the key technology that unlocks the religion first? That's not a bad thing, though. It's kind of like an early mishmash of the space race.

The number of 7 world religions tells me somehow that there's no place for this 'little' religion. (Also historically and from the number of believers it is just a too small group, sorry)

mfG mitsho

Are you going by current religious numbers or by historical following? This is a history game, remember.

There was a time when Mitharism was a vast religion, being the leading faith of the Roman Empire...

By that count, should Mitharism be one of the seven?

.

As you may have read I put Mithraism in the list of possible religions in my second post in this thread, so yes, in my opinion, it would be a deserving faith, Probably more deserving than Judaism, but this is very subjective (and as others have put it touchy, so I'm not gonna make a list!).

I did neither go with current or with historical following numbers, I myself went with my subjective perception of historical signifiance, and in there, this religion isn't in the top7, but just shortly out.

I didn't try to be objective, because I can't.

mitsho

Historically, some religions were based on others...Christianity did take many ideas from ancient hebrew lore.

But this is a mere PC game, not a massive history document - The final say is with the developers, I deem.

:)

Historically, some religions were based on others...Christianity did take many ideas from ancient hebrew lore.

and? What has this to do with historical significance? Many sons became much more important than their fathers once were...

But you're right, it's the decision of the developers. And they know how they've implemented religion, so they probably know too which religions suits their system best.

mfG mitsho

I don't think theyre hardwiring the religions to the civilizations, but I do think they'll let the civs they've chose inform which religions make it in.

@dh_epic I'm sorry, I know English is not my mother tongue, but I simply do not get your sentence. So could you explain it to me again?

mitsho

I don't think theyre hardwiring the religions to the civilizations, but I do think they'll let the civs they've chose inform which religions make it in.
But from the discussions/analysis of the screen shots it seems that the deduction is that religions are tied to certain techs, so civs have nothing to do with the choice.

Sorry, I can be really unclear, especially when trying to be concise.

I think that the list of 19 civs will help make their decision about the 7 religions that make it in. HOWEVER, I don't think they're hardwiring them either. It's just that whatever they favor civ-wise will probably play into what they favor religion-wise.

From the look of things, New World religions (native to N. and S. America) are going to be completely forgotten in the game. How balanced is that? It would also be sad if the religion race ended in the middle ages, and modern religions were not represented. I think it is very important to keep it relevant throughout the ages, so that Civ4 doesn't become another game that is most engaging in the first half and predictable in the second half. Just because Western Civilization has become less religious doesn't mean that our "what-if" world shouldn't have the possibility of religion remaining a major force in the late game.

I'm wondering what gameplay is going to be like if your empire founds 2 or 3 world religions. If you have already founded one religion, would there be an incentive to let someone else found the other ones, so that your civ would be able to preserve some of its religious homogeneity (it sounds like homogeneity will help happiness, since only cities whose religion matches the state religion will get the benefit).

Or at least give us a real choice of which religion we discover - if each is the same, what matter would it be if we choose Christianity or Judaism or Shintuism or Cult of the Comet-ism when we research code of Laws?

I really like oldStatesman's idea about getting to choose from a menu of "polytheistic" religions when you research polytheism, etc. Maybe the first to research it should get first pick, second to research it would get second pick, and then there would be no more polytheisms to choose from? Two or 3 religions for each religious tech should not be hard to handle.

I also wonder if being the founder of a world religion will affect the appearance probability of the Prophet great leaders. It sounds like that might also be an incentive to race to the religious techs, depending on what the effects are of Prophets in the game.

And please, oh please, do not make the number of religions hard-coded (I know there is little chance of this, since the prerelease info has said that almost nothing will be hard-coded). I look forward to adding religions to the game. Hail the Holy Banana Eaters.

But if every civ could choose their own religion, there would be no civs with the same religion, and thus no diplomatic bonuses or locked alliances and stuff, and I think tahat's way they invented religion in the first place (in CivIV off course).

By not hardcoding the number of religions, I think he meant especially for modding, not for the normal game. But then they said everything would be moddable wiht xml and python. Let's hope that means everything for real ;)

If you look at my earlier post on this subject, though, I pointed to the fact that-even if you have a dozen religions-you can still make it so that civs share the same religion by only allowing the FIRST civ in a culture group-to discover the prerequisite tech-to actually found a religion based on that tech.
So, if Rome is the first Mediterranean civ to discover Polytheism, then it gets to found a Polytheistic religion-be it Greco-Roman (Hellenistic), Ossirian, Hinduism or Celtic. Lets say that they pick Celtic, this means that the Spanish, the Ottomans, the Byzantines and Greeks must either adopt Celtic Polytheism, adopt the Polytheistic faith of another culture group (Middle Eastern, West European, East European) or try and be the first to discover Meditation, Code of Laws, Monotheism or Theology. Can you see where I am coming from?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

A thought that occured to me; there is a way to reward the first civ to found a certain religion without giving any "value" or such to the religion in itself.

How about making the capital, or some large city within that civ, to become a Holy Site for that religion, with pilgrimages and whatnot. A city being a holy site could give a population and trade boost to that city.

I like the idea of choosing your own religion because people who want that extra hook can have it and people who dont want to have it can make it less realistic.I hope though even if another civ has picked that religion yuo can still pick it because you could choose yuor relgion for diplomatic ends eg. ifyuo had a large powerful neighbour you could pick the same relgion as them so you would be able to make lliances with them and hopefuly prevent a war which yuo can not win.i also hope that you will be able to change your religon when yuo want like you could with goverments in civ 3.

ifyuo had a large powerful neighbour you could pick the same relgion as them so you would be able to make lliances with them and hopefuly prevent a war which yuo can not win.i also hope that you will be able to change your religon when yuo want like you could with goverments in civ 3.....

hmmmm, that's all well and good, but can you really choose the religion of your entire nation? I mean, you can definitely have a state religion, but just because you decide it's time to move to Christianity doesn't mean all those hardcore polytheists in your cities will automatically switch faiths. I think you should have the choice of founding, supporting, and to some degree, enforcing a religion, but I think the ultimate decision of who is of what faith should be out of your hands.

I definately think that choosing a state religion should not be as simple as choosing a state government type. Of course the ruling party (you) of a state can pick how to run your empire (government and civics), but it should cost time and resources to enforce a state religion - ESPECIALLY if you are changing from one religion to another, or trying to convert conquered citizens to your religion. Likewise, a nation should enjoy some economic and happiness bonuses if it allows religious freedom for it's people. Of course, both methods should have pros and cons for balanced gameplay.

I didnt mean that it would be the case but if Americas state religon was islam regrardless o the amount of muslims in the country would have 9/11 happened.Also in the case of the Malian Emperor whos name i forget changed his relgion to islam and although it was recented by the majority of the population it opened huge new trading avenues for the merchants to buy and sell there goods.So changing the state relgon could have diplamatic reprecussions which should be takeen into consideration whetther they be good or bad.

mmm... a jewish superpower... I cant wait.

Conclusion:
I think it is dangerous to have the real-world religions in, as they establish another step into "simulation" - because of all the things you subconsciously put into the religion's designator.
I really think that more generic polytheistic and monotheistic designators would be the better idea in terms of allowing you to put your own imagination into the game your are currently playing.
I guess it would be more "acceptable" for one's imagination to play with the British "Believers in the silver moon" than to play with the British "Bhuddism". Again, as long as you are "forced" by the game settings to have the one or the other.

commander you are right on the money. very well said.

perhaps.. and of course we are all just musing at this point.. but perhaps each nation does have a specific religion (or chain of religions) that is available on their own tech tree. that would make it so that different civs would have different branches off the tree, and happening at different times. those are some good variables for replay. it satisfies the issue you bring up, but also leaves it up to the player to decide how (if at all) religious you want your nation to be.

it's like how in C3C there are a few wonders that you can only build if you meet a requirement; like the statue of zeus (ivory) and the secret police HQ (communism). it makes it so that not all the civs progress the same. there are more unique treats for each civ in each condition. personally i just can't see firaxis doing something like that.. like making the american state religion hindu or the indian state religion catholicism. for the reasons commander already stated. they are smarter than that, and that is not a small step backwards.

Would be good to have to have different nations with different techs and o on but realy it is a what if not a historic simulation and adding further layers of realism could debase the whole game and turn it in to some sort of simulation andin some ways i am opposed to religoins for thos reasons because they add more realism to the game but they would e cool things to have

Ok, just a quick question here: if religions are tied to techs (as it seems to be the case) what happens wen a civ trades a religious tech to another civ? will it creates converts in it? And what if the second civ doesn't have a state religion yet?

Food for thought

If they dont have a state relgion we should probaly assume that they would get given the relgion that comes from that tech but im not sure if they would be given the relgion of the civ they got the tech from or if they could choose.That is if there are multiple religions for each religous tech.If not then they would either convert to that relgion or keep thereown if they have one or a mixture of both.

commander you are right on the money. very well said.

perhaps.. and of course we are all just musing at this point.. but perhaps each nation does have a specific religion (or chain of religions) that is available on their own tech tree. that would make it so that different civs would have different branches off the tree, and happening at different times. those are some good variables for replay. it satisfies the issue you bring up, but also leaves it up to the player to decide how (if at all) religious you want your nation to be.

it's like how in C3C there are a few wonders that you can only build if you meet a requirement; like the statue of zeus (ivory) and the secret police HQ (communism). it makes it so that not all the civs progress the same. there are more unique treats for each civ in each condition. personally i just can't see firaxis doing something like that.. like making the american state religion hindu or the indian state religion catholicism. for the reasons commander already stated. they are smarter than that, and that is not a small step backwards.

I seriously disagree with that for a few reasons,
1. The limited number of religions
2. The 'Great Wonder' Example (although things like Newton's University and Shakespeares Theatre may be tied to Great people...making them more reasonably named when the Chinese build it) A game that has the Great Wall of Japan where Japan is totally landlocked and the Aztecs as the scientific leader of the world in the Industrial Era building the Theory of Evolution, seems perfectly reasonable for Hindu Germans and the Jewish state of China.

... and as you can see on one screenshot, we have the situation of a Jewish Mali fighting a (perhaps only religious, perhaps more) war against the Islamic states of Babylon and England (!). already, one city of them (Walata) has become muslim, (or is it christian, could be as well).

--> assumption: religion will result in fight, cool!
--> each city will have its religion. Not that cool, but probably a needed abstraction. :)

mfG mitsho

Daoist influence can also allow you get gold from Daoist cities. Having your own religions spread throughout the world can have some profound tactical influences.
from http://pc.ign.com/articles/616/616871p2.html

Did I miss this so far or is this new?? If it is this might make religion an even bigger issue than it is already! Sending out missionaries like hell (an oxymoron! At least: almost ;) ) to gain the upper hand in economic terms? Could work for me, although there aren't enough information about this so far...

They will probably have a counter against this: Missionaries hard to get (either expensice what I do not believe, or they get spawned by the holy cities). Otherways, this will be exploited and would lead to massive micromanaging to get the most gold squeezed out to win in upper levels. --> no thanks

They will probably have a counter against this: Missionaries hard to get (either expensice what I do not believe, or they get spawned by the holy cities). Otherways, this will be exploited and would lead to massive micromanaging to get the most gold squeezed out to win in upper levels. --> no thanks

:hmm: You are right about MMing. But what, if you get a holy city (different from your own) and therefore get gold from other civs and their religion. Or it may be a civic only available later in the game, when missionaries won't be build any more (or a lot less)?