I want to find out how people here feel about the announcement that LOS will be the special ability granted to Holy Cities in Civ IV.

Each religion gives you certain benefits and advantages, and you can build missionaries to try to export your religion to other cities and nations. What this means is that if you can expand your religion to your neighbors, odds are that you'll get along better with them. You'll also receive line-of-sight advantages in that city, and if you capture or control the main holy city of each religion, you will get lines of sight in all of the cities in the world that have that religion.

Don't get me wrong. I love the game I'm seeing. I think Firaxis is doing an incredible job with Civ IV and I'm really looking forward to playing it. But I don't like this feature, and I know now that I won't like playing with it. It's too powerful, it's too unbalancing, and in a game which should provide you with less information than it does now about what goes on outside your borders, it provides you with more.

But that's just one man's opinion. I was wondering whether it was just me. How does the rest of the community feel about it?

It seems really overpowered, being able to see the whole map, as it appears from Soren's video on Gamespot. I'm sure they've thought of that though.

I agree with it for the most part. In the ancient world, religion pretty much defined what you were. If you had a neighbour country who practiced the same religion as your country, chances were that you'd likely be pretty good friends compared to having a neighbour who practiced judaism when your civilization is roman catholic (teehee).

Following the path of the same religion as your neighbour would build a stronger sense of partnership and loyalty to each other, and with that trust comes the sharing of knowledge and ideas.

I think it's a decent idea, so long as they balance it out, and don't allow a civilization to build 5000 missionairies to get LOS from every city on the map. I'm sure there will be situations where you simply cannot convert a city's religion to the same as yours due to distance or whatever. We'll see how it goes...

The game is in pre-alpha after all (right?).

If its balanced, it shouldn't be a problem. It gives some reason to join another religion. Also, there are stuff like religious tolerance to consider (change your state religion to something else and opress all other religions and I'm sure you won't have to worry too much about line of sight).

It's not that I don't think that members of the same religious community don't share information or view each other more favorably. I just think there are other, better ways of representing that in the game than LOS. I like the other ideas I've seen with religion. This one I don't like.

I feel the same way. Not only do I feel that conversion should be done in a 'non-unit' based way, but I also feel that there could have been better and more balanced benefits for successful conversion. It would have also been nice for religions to 'accumulate' traits over time, based on the gameplay style of its founder. Still, as a bare-bones concept, religion is looking pretty good-just so long as the modding community can build up around these bones!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The way I interpreted it there is only one Holy City per religion. This is like the Pope being able to keep tabs on what is going on in every area that practices Catholicism. It is fairly realistic. It does imply that you need to get a city to practice your faith. I think you need to control the Holy City to get this benefit. If missionaries cost support like military units, then I am okay with them giving LOS also. Think of it as them sending reports back to their superiors. The church and state were rarely separated in the past.

I'm reserving judgement till I try it though. We are all going by misinterpretation of meager quotes at this time.

But Warpstorm, can you tell me one positive reason why giving cities LOS for religion is an improvement in the gameplay? When there are other ways to model the power of a Holy City (gold from pilgrims, increased culture, higher status in diplomatic negotiations, luxuries brought as offerings or sent by foreign leaders)? And when it changes such fundamental parts of the game as fog of war and exploration? Keep in mind also, if you're concerned about system requirements, that revealing more of the map will work your processor harder.

I know we're all leary of complaining about the game when Soren & company have been working so hard, and the game that they're putting together looks so good and includes so many good ideas from here and fan sites on the net. And we don't want them to feel discouraged by any complaining either. But they're professionals. And if the game that we see in November is less than it could have been, and we had a chance to say something when it could have been changed, then we're to blame just as much as anyone if it isn't the best it can be.

If you are able to control all 7 holy cities, which are probably on different continents and far away from each other and heavily defended, you're most likely in a winning position anyway, so I don't think the LOS is too powerful.

But Warpstorm, can you tell me one positive reason why giving cities LOS for religion is an improvement in the gameplay? When there are other ways to model the power of a Holy City (gold from pilgrims, increased culture, higher status in diplomatic negotiations, luxuries brought as offerings or sent by foreign leaders)?

Why do you assume that it won't give all of those? I was assuming that it would, in addition to giving you the ability to call Jihads or Crusades.

But they're professionals. And if the game that we see in November is less than it could have been, and we had a chance to say something when it could have been changed, then we're to blame just as much as anyone if it isn't the best it can be.

True, but the beta testers (who I know have to be out there by now - and I suspect I know who many of them are) are not exactly the kind of guys (and gals) to keep their opinions to themselves. I suspect that the tester list in the credits will be interesting.

If you are able to control all 7 holy cities, which are probably on different continents and far away from each other and heavily defended, you're most likely in a winning position anyway, so I don't think the LOS is too powerful.

On second thought, I'm thinking it wouldn't make sense to get the benefits of more than one religion at a time. You probably should only get the LoS of a religion that is your state religion.

I'm doubtful. Very doubtful, to be correct.

Even more, as LOS seems to be connected to having the "holy city" which in turn seems to be granted solely by founding one of the religions and that in turn being based on being the first to discover the related tech.
That could turn out to be a HUGE advantage, and seems to force you to go for such an opening in the game.
Well, we'll see, I guess

You guys make some good points, but I'm gonna take the wait and see it and try it approach.

its cheap!! just cus a city way off on another land has the same religon as u dosent mean u see what millitary units are moving whear and what the worker crew is bulding!! its such a stupid, unrealistic rts type of thing!!!

I disagree, vc. The Pope in the Middle Ages had a real good handle on what was going on in all of Christendom (or at least the Catholic portions). It's amazing what people will say in confession.

Even more, as LOS seems to be connected to having the "holy city" which in turn seems to be granted solely by founding one of the religions and that in turn being based on being the first to discover the related tech.
That could turn out to be a HUGE advantage, and seems to force you to go for such an opening in the game.
Well, we'll see, I guess
Just a thought that struck me: if having missionaries and such is benefit by virtue of being the first to a given religion, obviously emphasis is put on getting there, which would imply a more sort of builder/cultural strategy. This in turn balances out the fact that you have free data on enemy civs: you're going to be using it mostly in a defensive role because you deemphasized military capability to get it in the first place.

Of course, you could likely trade for military techs and use it for an offensive advantage, but initially you'll likely be using it to know what the AI (or human) is doing to counter it, rather than use it to vanquish them.

Define 'line of sight' in that context (I can only think in terms of tactical games on that term).

Does that mean free spying into the city, easier culture flipping, combat bonuses, etc..?

Being able to 'teleport' missionaries along religious links that crossed international lines might be an interesting kind of culture war.

Having holy cities that are actually worth something in cultural mechanics would be interesting, and allow for crusades, and papal wars (over who was the seat of the papacy).