I think, similar to Earth's reality, different religions bringing hatred is a sensible concept for CIV4. Before free religion, it triggers many wars. Most of minus AI attitude comes from that. And that makes a game harder. Especially in a terra/pangaea map, some of your neighbours will hate you because of this.
The second effect might be civics selections.
The other effects like "you traded with our worst enemy" are also side effects of past religious or civic-based hatred.
I like the attitudes based on such things, and find it sensible. OK.

BUT, what I don't find logical is that why a neighbour of mine hates me when I founded a religion myself but select another religion as my state religion. Let me give an example.

polytheism and judaism are born in my lands. i have 10cities with judaism and 6 cities with polytheism. 2 cities have both.

i have 2 neighbours and both neighbours have both religions with different rates. 1 have judaism more spread like me and the other vice versa. one of them chose state religion as polytheism, he hates me and the other chose judaism as state rel and he loves me.

the minus AI attitude of the one with polytheism can even go up to -4 heathen religion. In fact, he also has both religions in his land like me. He might have chose the other one, but he just didn't.
Moreover, his state religion is born in my lands, he should have soem respect.
why shall i change my state religion to be good with him. he, meaninglessly, asks me to share "his" state religion. but he doesn't understand that his religion is in fact mine.

I don't really understand the reason for this. and this is happening so frequent.
i think that this is a bug.
maybe he could still feel broken with me, that i didn't choose poly as my state religion but -4heathen religion and just being annoyed with this is, an exaggurated response.
-4 attitude means he will probably attack me sometime.

if i select polytheism as my state religion, then the otehr will attack me. :)

anyway, who agrees that -4 attitude is an exagguration for this case?

Think about Israel. They have the Holy City of Judaism, Christianity and also holy sites of Islam. Do the muslims "respect" them for it? Quite the contrary :lol:

In your scenario the religion may have been founded in your land, but as a state you don't support it, but have chosen another religion. There is no reason for the followers of the "minority religion" to like you (that is, the king/government/ruling party of your civilization). It may even be a special reason to hate you because their Holy City is in the hands of an infidel ;)

Think about Israel. They have the Holy City of Judaism, Christianity and also holy sites of Islam. Do the muslims "respect" them for it? Quite the contrary :lol:

In your scenario the religion may have been founded in your land, but as a state you don't support it, but have chosen another religion. There is no reason for the followers of the "minority religion" to like you (that is, the king/government/ruling party of your civilization). It may even be a special reason to hate you because their Holy City is in the hands of an infidel ;)

yes, i accept that chosing one will always make sone people angry. but -4 attitude is exaggurated, i believe.

still "+2, our divine city (shrine) is in your lands" type of good attitude could be there :)

ISRAEL is a different example. most persons in Israel land are Judaist (now). Very less minority only maybe.
and vcie versa, very few persons in Arabic lands are Judaist (now). So both cultures&territories are nearly totally seperated between 2 religions.

in my example, my hating neighbour and I, we both have both religions.
i swear, as soon as he switches the state religion to the other one, a +1 attitude will come instead of -4. and +1 will rise more, when time goes on.

this is not sensible.
only thing sensible here is that, I think so, his judaist cities will loose some happiness points when he declares war on me.

If anything I would think that having the shrine of their religion, but following another would be a cause of outright hatred between the civs. For a real life example consider the Crusades. The Christian holy city was in a country running Islam as a state religion, which precipitated a war to capture it.

I really can't see an argument for a bonus to relations except (maybe) if you are running free religion instead of a state religion.

still "+2, our divine city (shrine) is in your lands" type of good attitude could be there
Why not

-6 Our holy city is under your heaten hands! It would be more consistent with RL

But you have some reason: the game diplo was made for the religions to provoke major diplo cleavages between civs. I also don't like it, but probably if it was like you state the game would become a peacenik fest.....

Think about Israel. They have the Holy City of Judaism, Christianity and also holy sites of Islam. Do the muslims "respect" them for it? Quite the contrary :lol:

In your scenario the religion may have been founded in your land, but as a state you don't support it, but have chosen another religion. There is no reason for the followers of the "minority religion" to like you (that is, the king/government/ruling party of your civilization). It may even be a special reason to hate you because their Holy City is in the hands of an infidel ;)

by the way, let me correct one thinh in your comment. and i think you will agree what i will write now.

1) yes, israel is a homeland for judaism, christianity and many more prophets were born in that land. but is this already a proof to what I say? most of the christians respect ISRAEL and believe it is their divine land. and some types of the christians' attitude is even more "GREEN" because Jesus Christ was a Jew.

2 the holy land of Islam is in Saudi Arabia, not Israel. But still, there are some holy Islamic places -as you told- in Israel. And Jerussalem is a holy city for Islam as well.
and yes, there is still a dislike between Arabs and Jews. BUT I BELIEVE THIS DISLIKE BETWEEN 2 CULTURES IS MUCH OLDER THAN THE BIRTH OF ISLAM.

Why not

-6 Our holy city is under your heaten hands! It would be more consistent with RL

But you have some reason: the game diplo was made for the religions to provoke major diplo cleavages between civs. I also don't like it, but probably if it was like you state the game would become a peacenik fest.....


yes you are right. crusades happened because of such attitudes. so it could even be -6 :)

but in my example, both my neighbour and me have both religions. so should the attitudes be a little bit less? -2 for example.

The issue is that we are talking about State religions, not about people's religions. The other civ governement decided that wanted to be Hindu, end of story... people religion is irrelevant. And that is historical: just look at the history of the Europe in the High middle ages fights between arian christian governement and catholic christian governements, in spite of both base pops were majorly catholic and/or pagan

Why not

-6 Our holy city is under your heaten hands! It would be more consistent with RL

But you have some reason: the game diplo was made for the religions to provoke major diplo cleavages between civs. I also don't like it, but probably if it was like you state the game would become a peacenik fest.....

-4 heathen religion +2 our divine city is your lands still makes = -2.

i was trying to tell that -4 was exaggurated.

I don't agree with crusades example.

Islamic state later took Israel. That state is not the state that Judaism is born into. That is, Judaism and Islam isn't born into the same civilization.

but in my example, polytheism and judaism is born into the same civilization.

The issue is that we are talking about State religions, not about people's religions. The other civ governement decided that wanted to be Hindu, end of story... people religion is irrelevant. And that is historical: just look at the history of the Europe in the High middle ages fights between arian christian governement and catholic christian governements, in spite of both base pops were majorly catholic and/or pagan
hmm that's right :) that example supports your idea.
but christians respecting israel also support my idea.

but anyway, i'm talking for the game purpose here.
is it not an exagguration for the game?

you have foudn 2 religions. 2 neighbours select different ones. 1 hate you, the other loves. you select 1, and happen to fight with 1 of your neighbours all the time. you have to share religions with only 1 of them but in fact both are "your" religion.

Christian respect to Israel jews is a very recent thing, probably so recentr as the Muslim hate for Israel Jews and most likely has much more to do with politics than with religion in it self. Just look at the Crusades time: when the first Crusade captured Jerusalem one of the first targets was the Jew comunity in there and when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslim side the jews weren't touched.

On game: like I said , it is a matter of state religions. Probably diplo could be a little more refined to include the effect of religion distribution in the civs but I think that it could create a royal mess....

On game: like I said , it is a matter of state religions. Probably diplo could be a little more refined to include the effect of religion distribution in the civs but I think that it could create a royal mess....

exactly! that's what i also thought. sure, there should be some hatred as 2 civs having different state religions but its effect might be a little less, or worsening slower (getting from -1 to -4 more slowly) depending on what you defined, according to the distribution in civs.

but maybe unless the polytheist minority is RED in happiness points! if all 4 polytheist cities are unhappy with me, making this a random event in BTS which will trigger an increase in his hatred for me, might be sensible.

shortly, i believe the formula could be a little bit complex by including such realities in game. a more complex idea like the following could be implemented maybe. (requires more complex examinations)

if 2 religions are solidly seperated in 2 different civs, then the hatred would be more. but if they are mixed in 2 civilziations and if there is no problem with any happiness points in minority cities, then those 2 religions might be evaluated as having more peaceful relations.
and all civilziations which differ by these 2 religions might have -2 attitutude at most instead of -4.

all religions hating each other with up to a -4 is too simple. for sure, some religions are more similar and more easier to get along with. that could be implemented.

But it is not always -4, only with some very fundamentalist leaders. There are a lot of leaders that don't care much about religion, or are tolerant to "heathens". They give you -2 at most, or even only -1. Which supports the idea that it's all about the leader, not his/her population.

Muslims don't hate Israel for not being muslim, they hate Israel for stealing their land and marginalizing the muslims who live there.

I agree with the OP though, having the holy city for another civ's state religion should give a bonus reguardless of my state religion.

still "+2, our divine city (shrine) is in your lands" type of good attitude could be there :)
On the contrary, I would think it more realistic to have

"-2, our divine city (shrine) is in your lands"

You could even have this as a random event (if it isn't already): Crusade to liberate our holy city from the infidels!

The only way you should be able to benefit diplomatically from having the shrine of the state religion of another Civ is to run that religion yourself.

Which is exactly what is in the game right now! :)

It already exists a crusade quest.... you can get a free shrine.

If you think about it... having a state religion implies that this and only this religion is official and that followers of other religions have fewer rights or may even be heavily discriminated or prosecuted. Like medieval christian countries or most of today's muslim countries. So it's absolutely correct how it is in the game right now, civs running a state religion that is disadvantaged or prosecuted in your land have good reason to dislike you - especially if you're occupying their Holy City!

A country where one religion may be prevalent but everybody has equal rights to exercise any religion he wants, like all modern democracies, is a civ running Free Religion in Civ4 terms.

Muslims don't hate Israel for not being muslim, they hate Israel for stealing their land and marginalizing the muslims who live there.
some unfortunate events continue in that land, yes. But some of you may not know the history of Mid-East much. so let me add sth

Some richman, offered Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid huge money to purchase whole lands of Israel during the beginning of 1900s. He replied:
"that country was once captured with the blood of our war heroes. so it is not mine, how can i sell?"
then soon after Arabic "independence", all those lands were sold to Jews. And conflicts started again.

But it is not always -4, only with some very fundamentalist leaders. There are a lot of leaders that don't care much about religion, or are tolerant to "heathens". They give you -2 at most, or even only -1. Which supports the idea that it's all about the leader, not his/her population.
i didn't notice that. but that is fine if it is coded like that. sure each leader has a personality and the ones favouring religion might think more fundamentalistly.

It already exists a crusade quest.... you can get a free shrine.
I'm not surprised there is. Now we're discussing an event that targets an existing shrine city, however. :)

Thanks /Z

I'm not surprised there is. Now we're discussing an event that targets an existing shrine city, however. :)

Thanks /Z
The quest does not require that the holy city is shrineless.
Quest9:
Crusade
Prereq: State religion but you do not control the Holy City
Obsolete: None
Active/Weight: 50/1000
Aim:
Declare War on the owner of the Holy City, stay in war until you conquer the Holy City
Result:
1.get 0.5*default number of players for this world size+1 conscript units (4 for standard)
2.build the shrine for your state religion
3.spread your state religion to default number of players for this world size cities (7 for standard)

I'm not a star on history but even in today's world you can see that different religions can lead to much strife. In the middle ages it was even more important. You mention -4 as modifier, if you've Izzy in the game the negative modifier can amount to -7 over time. Looking at inquisition and crusades it's even realistic too.

Game wise religion makes lots of sense, it adds spice to the game, for instance it's important to know that Izzy'll be hostile to you directly after you choose a different religion than she has, Leaders like Shaka or Han don't care that much though it will eventually amount to a -2 or -3 modifier even with them.

Thanks, rolo!

I'm not a star on history but even in today's world you can see that different religions can lead to much strife. In the middle ages it was even more important. You mention -4 as modifier, if you've Izzy in the game the negative modifier can amount to -7 over time. Looking at inquisition and crusades it's even realistic too.

Game wise religion makes lots of sense, it adds spice to the game, for instance it's important to know that Izzy'll be hostile to you directly after you choose a different religion than she has, Leaders like Shaka or Han don't care that much though it will eventually amount to a -2 or -3 modifier even with them.
maybe it happened to me as well, but i didn't notice. most of the time, i look at the attitude details but sometimes when i mouseover, i just look if he's cautious or annoeyd etc. maybe there was a sum of +6 other plus attitudes open borders, or trade plus attitude etc.

by the way, i also believe that failure possibility of a comissionary who is tasked by the state itself to spread a religion to 1 of his OWN ities, is sth i don't understand. if the state itself is willing this, how can a failure happen practically, even if that will be the 6th/7th religion? of course a failure possibility should be there for a comissionary against another civilization.
i also think similarly for the corporation executives. failure is meaningless for your own state.

by the way, i also believe that failure possibility of a comissionary who is tasked by the state itself to spread a religion to 1 of his OWN ities,

The acceptance of a religion has more to do with the people - in the game I've noticed you get failures when there is already religion in the city and failure increases as the number of religions in the city increase.

I can't remember failing to spread religion to a city that doesn't yet have one, you'll almost certainly sucess if you do that.

The acceptance of a religion has more to do with the people - in the game I've noticed you get failures when there is already religion in the city and failure increases as the number of religions in the city increase.

I can't remember failing to spread religion to a city that doesn't yet have one, you'll almost certainly sucess if you do that.

yes, true.
but still if you lack lux resources or for your high pop cities later in the game more happiness points are just fine with free religion.
still, i believe that every state can spread a religion with 100% success rate if she wants.

No, you can't force people to become true believers.

Someone posted the exact formula for religion spreading somewhere. Success is indeed 100% when no religion is present, and becomes lower the more religions are already present.