We're hearing a lot of rumours that religion won't be re-appearing in Civ V. Now I hope that this rumour is totally untrue, but I'm curious about what other people here think. Should it be removed? Should it be retained, unchanged, from Civ 4? Should it be retained, but modified-(if yes, how)?
Remember that we *know* people from Firaxis & 2K visit this site, & value our opinion, so I think this is a discussion worth having.
For my part, I'd like religion maintained, but with some modification. I'd like to see greater emphasis on the vast array of pre-Christian polytheistic faiths from Europe, Africa & South/Central America. I'd also like to see religions change over time-in response to your nations social policies (think Civics)-& have them possibly generate schisms. Hope that makes sense

They must be expanded to become more realistic if they stay the same they're useless. I want to be able to create a more customized religions with effects on your civ not just making you happy with another civ.

Yes but I would like to see some changes:

1) Religion should not be the #1 factor in diplomacy as it so often is in Civ IV.
2) They need to represent more of the world's religions, not for some political correctness reason, but simply for the coolness factor.
3) The founding of a religion should come about in a multitude of ways. It should not only be tied to technology research (i.e. great prophets would found one or perhaps a random event could cause the people to begin worshiping something / someone etc.)

4) When you read 'city states,' who else thought VATICAN? I mean seriously, think of the potential there...

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. For me I want religions to be less.....static. If you get a religion from another nation, but your social policies diverge after that, then I'd like to see your version of that religion eventually differ from the original-to the point where you can even break away & form a *new* Sect (like Protestantism breaking away from Catholicism). I'd also like to see religious leaders play a greater role in the policies of your nation (i.e. non-state actors). I liked religions in Civ4, but definitely felt they could be improved upon!

Aussie.

I think religion should be retained, but modified.

- I would like to see religion have even more of a diplomatic/ military effect in the game to represent religious crusades, etc... at least early on in the game. I would like this to fade away to some degree towards the modern ages, as it presently does with the adoption of Free Religion Civic.

A much more secondary, and less important, modification I would like to see would be for religions to be founded in the appropriate civs, or at least as close as possible. For example, I do not want buddhism being founded in America or France. Or Hinduism being founded in Spain, etc... This is not really very important to me, but I would value the aspect of realism this would bring.

So i guess in a way I would enjoy somewhat 'static' religiouns. At least in terms of which countries were likely to adopt which religion. However, I am not a fan of absolute realism all the time, so there should be some flexibility.

I confess that I don't care much about who founds a religion, but there should be more to founding religions than just getting the tech. You should have to develop a national pantheon in the earliest part of the game &-if you have the combination of tech & underlying religious development-then you should get a chance to found the appropriate religion (i.e. there should still be a tech component to it, but also a degree of pre-existing spiritualism as determined by what religious buildings you construct & your social policies, amongst other things).

Actually voted wrong in poll - at least, to fully explain. I don't want to introduce "real-world differences" between religions like "Muslims can't have pigs." In that sense the religions mechanics wise should be similar. People can mod stuff if they want.

But the system as a whole definitely needs to change. The AI behavior about religion, how it ties into tech (so two earliest religions dominate) etc... could all be improved upon. Oh and the Apostolic Palace is utterly awful in Civ4 imo - though fixable if they removed/fixed how the victory and voting and all work and made all religions able to have similar religious councils.

I confess that I don't care much about who founds a religion, but there should be more to founding religions than just getting the tech. You should have to develop a national pantheon in the earliest part of the game &-if you have the combination of tech & underlying religious development-then you should get a chance to found the appropriate religion (i.e. there should still be a tech component to it, but also a degree of pre-existing spiritualism as determined by what religious buildings you construct & your social policies, amongst other things).

That is a really good idea. I hope something like that would/could be incorporated.

Well I can't speak for Civ V, but I'm in the process of implementing such a thing in CivIV-a reappearance of the True Prophets Mod (sorry, shameless self-promotion there ;) ).

What I always imagined in my mind was that religions could "evolve" based on the player's choices. For example, if a player wanted to make his religion violent and full of hype about holy war, then he could do so. I guess it'd sort of be like a combination between the civics and technologies. Personally I feel that ideally that'd make the religions unique, but not offensive, since any religion could be anything depending on the player's choices. It could also be pretty interesting for alternative history purposes - what if Buddhism developed a doctrine of holy war, which it waged against the pacifistic Christians and Muslims? That kind of thing.

The only problem is that it could be rather complicated to implement, since unlike civics, which applies to only one civilization at a time, religious 'changes' could apply to a whole swath of religions.

Well I can't speak for Civ V, but I'm in the process of implementing such a thing in CivIV-a reappearance of the True Prophets Mod (sorry, shameless self-promotion there ;) ).

No problem ;), still sounds like a cool idea. It should make a pretty good mod.

Yes, but they should make changes...


They should expand how they are founded (AussieLurker had a good idea above with developing a pantheon). Maybe some religions should be linked or chained. In order to found one Christianity, for example, you need to have Judaism in your borders.

There should be more available. Not just the current big ones, but historical ones too. Although many of the obsolete religions are now considered myths, they were just as important to the people that followed them as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, is to people today. If there would be limits to the number available due to map size, that is understandable, but the largest maps should allow for all available religions (again, more than 7... at least 10)

In order to adopt a religion as a state religion, the religion should be present in the capital city. This would prevent a civ from immediately adopting the first religion to pop into its borders and be more believable. After all, how can the leader convert to a religion if he/she is not exposed to it personally?

Better adherance to Favorite Religion by Leaders


I don't care too much about diversifying the religions (other than aesthetically, like in Civ IV... temples, missionaries, Shrines, etc). I just want to see expansion and more believable.

I want to have religions kept, yet in a modified way.

First, I think the founding of a religion by exploring a tech is nonsense.
It could be a combination of research and culture, instead. Even better, early "religious" buildings like shrines, monuments for ancient gods and the like could give you some kind of "religious" culture (counting to the normal culture as well), and after meeting a certain threshold your nation would found the next religion.

Second, I would like religions to have different "consequences" or "attitudes". There could be religions which give you advantages in the field of military, or science, and so on.
Since I understand that such settings are hard for a company to bring to the market (say hello to political correctness), in the "out of the box" version the religions would still be of the same values, but could be changed in the respective xml-files.

Third, if your nation becomes either extremely weak or extremely powerful and rich, there would be the chance to have to face schisms (spelling?). Just to illustrate the frustration of people with their gods in case of being very poor or of having become bold and corrupt (think of the church in medieval times).

Keep but change. My opinion is elaborated in the other thread.

We'll see. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here. If they removed explicit religion it was quite likely for a good reason. I imagine that they just "designed them out" unintentionally at some point and decided not to leave a pointless vestigial organ in the game. I do not want each successive Civilization game to get more and more cluttered.

Sometimes you just gotta take that mechanic out back and put two between its eyes. That's likely what happened here.

I voted keep but change but am indifferent if its gone entirely.

Religion is not an essential element in Civilization games. Though the way it was implemented in 4, made it pretty darned important in the gameplay, since it modified so many things.

They can still keep it in Civ 5 as a random element affected by player actions. But because it will pop by chance, I would assume its effects would naturally have to be minimized to the point of being a good bonus. That said, the bonus can still be good enough for players to follow a particular social policy path, but not essentially being required as it is in Civ4.

From the sources of this rumor I take away that religion will no longer impact diplomacy. That doesn't mean it won't be in the game at all. It might not, but I think at the very least it should remain a part of the culture system.

I don't think it would hurt to take religion out of the main release, as long as mechanisms were there to mod or expand it back in. This relieves Firaxis of the responsiblity of having to think about and PC religion. Let modders paint the picture, you just provide the canvas.

Its not near as important an issue as the tactical combat on the strategic screen. However, I'd like to see population levels less abstract, ie actually representing population not these small logarithmic integers. And then having some way to define portions of the population that have ____characteristic. One of which can be religion.

OK, so this might seem out of left field, but this might be a good way for you to differentiate between religions without offending sensibilities.
-for the sake of argument, lets say one of the "Social Policy" settings are 'Values', namely the core values of your civilization (e.g. Survival, Faith, Power, Wealth, Liberty, Knowledge, Tolerance, Asceticism, Nationalism). The values of your civilization at the time you found a religion would dictate the nature of the religion & the benefits it would confer to cities which have that religion-both within & without your civilization.
So as a case in point, if Knowledge was your core value, & you found Judaism, then all Jewish cities might get a bonus of +2 beakers & +1 happiness from libraries & universities.
Jewish religious buildings might also have bonuses related to knowledge.
However, if you switch values to-say-Power, then you risk a schism breaking out, especially if the new value is antithetical to that of your religion. The longer you adhere to the new value, the more likely you'll be asked if you want to change the value of your religion. Whether you do or not, it could lead to an outbreak of religious civil war, & a possible diplomatic falling out with all those civs who currently adhere to the existing version of the faith.
So lets say you switch to Power as your core value. After several turns you're asked if you want this to be the new Tenet of your religion. If you say yes, then you lose the knowledge bonuses, & instead gain bonuses to military production & experience (after 1 turn of anarchy), but there is a chance that some of your Jewish cities might break away & either (a) join an existing Civilization or (b) form their own civilization.
Hope that makes sense.

Aussie.

I disagree about religion not being an important part of civ games. True it wasn't important up until Civ IV, but that has always been a major *failing* in my view. Civ IV made a good effort at bringing it in, but I felt it lacked sufficient depth-particularly outside of the 7 "major" religions.

Aussie.

I enjoyed religions, but they ultimately became an early game must have, not matter the civ or leader. As a game mechanic, either having founded your own and spreading it, or joining a neighbors and spreading their religion always created a nice barrier and usually have a city specifically focus on that task.

-for the sake of argument, lets say one of the "Social Policy" settings are 'Values', namely the core values of your civilization (e.g. Survival, Faith, Power, Wealth, Liberty, Knowledge, Tolerance, Asceticism, Nationalism). The values of your civilization at the time you found a religion would dictate the nature of the religion & the benefits it would confer to cities which have that religion-both within & without your civilization.

Aussie_Lurker, I'd take this a slightly different direction depending on other game mechanics (that's always the trouble with limited knowledge of other changes). Using core values like you have laid out, let us create a system based more on in game choices and less on technology progression. This would allow a backwards civilization found a religion.

At map generation, each religion type would have its combination of values randomized within a preset range (hopefully exposed to the mod community). As you play, like you've stated above, your civs values increase. Once the values are reached, a group of your citizens founds a religion. Afterwards, the state can decide how to utilize it. This would lead to some interesting experiences, as your opponents' actions could push your people to found a religion that wasn't expected as your reaction to threats or unexpected overtures of peace or trade.

Whatever the implementation, I'd like the civs' Culture and social policies to have more influence in the spread of the religions and less on nationalist units. Random rolls to convert a population was always a little undesirable. Again, social policies could help here.

Nearly all the suggestions here are pretty good imho :cool:.

What I always imagined in my mind was that religions could "evolve" based on the player's choices.

A RPG system for religions would be pretty cool.
But every civ would have to customize it's religion by itself...or maybe not...:think: difficutl.

I do like the idea of religion being in the game but the implementation defiantly needs to be changed. I agree that the founding of religion shouldn't be tied to technological development. Personally I would like to see each country have a Unique Religion like they have a unique building and that religion gets founded once that civilization reaches a certain amount of culture, and then the user should be able to choose where it's founded. Where I see the challenge for this approach is coming up with a different religion for each country and what happens when two leaders from the same country are playing in the same game.

Religions should spread like they do in Civ IV, but the fact that you need Monasteries to build missionaries and the fact that Monasteries obsolete really annoys me. The city that founds the religion should be able to build missionaries throughout the course of the game without a Monastery.

I think it would be cool if the development of religions was tied to cultural output, great person points and the era one is currently in, with later eras having less chance of seeing a unique religion.
I think religious buildings such as temples and such should still be discovered via technologies though... I'm not so sure how that would work.
Having religions evolving depending on player output sounds too confusing to me, I wouldn't like it if I wanted a warlike religion but ended up with a financial religion or something like that, I might be tempted to restart. :sad:

OK, so I've thought about this a bit further & this is what I'm thinking:

-assuming yields & commerces are the same, then introduce a new commerce-"Belief". Religious Buildings & Religious Techs boost "Belief", as do priest specialists & certain social policies.

-as a city's Belief increases, there is an increasing chance that one of the "Major" religions will appear in that city. A Great Prophet 'sacrificed' in the city raises that chance to 100%.

-when a religion gets founded in a city, you get a pop-up screen with a random selection of *all* the available religions for you to choose. The era you're in might have some impact on the selection, but ultimately any could turn up (think Choose Religion Option from BtS).

-your values/social policies at the time of founding a religion will dictate the character of that religion, & the bonuses the religion provides in your cities. So if you select Christianity at a time when you're running a wealth oriented society, then it will be Mercantile in nature-with obvious commerce related benefits from the religion & its associated buildings.

-if you fundamentally change your values/social policies, then cities containing a high Belief (& your State Religion) have an increasing chance of generating a schism. Your choice then is either to re-embrace your former values/social policy, or to form a new, break away sect of the faith (which will result in these cities breaking away).

-once you have a "Major" religion in your empire, then you will get frequent requests from the religious authorities asking to boost belief (with the chance dependent on your current social policies). This could work in a similar fashion to Events in BtS, where you have multiple choices on how to deal with these requests-with each choice carrying their own combination of benefits & penalties.

Anyway, just a thought.

Aussie.

^I remember Johny Smith was trying something like that in his Rapture mod, where there was "Spiritual Commerce" or something like that.

I like religions to be in the game, but with some minor or not controled by the player impact. In real life you don't see Russia asking Sudan to change its religion. That feature in the game always felt strange.

I'd like to see the spread of religions change a bit. It doesn't make sense that religions don't decay in Civ 4. Clearly religions have come and gone in the real world. There should be a way for a religion to enter into decay and disaper from cities, or be replaced by a rising religion.

Maybe a religion would decay if the host civ didn't build enough religious buildings for it, if they lost a war against a rival religious power, of if there were some kind of hostile civics enacted.

Having religions decay would allow late founded religions to compete with early founded ones. In most of my games Islam Christianity and Taoism only spread to significant parts of the world in rare cases where a civ is issolated and doesn't get an early religion.

Im going to assume the banana option was "I dont care"

Religion in civ was only good for diplomacy or roleplaying imo

1 - During milleniums, the major religions were shamanism, animism, Earth mother or ancestor cults...I always found it strange to begin with buddhism&meditation..

2- War between Catholic and Protestant were very bloody and important in Europe, orthodoxy covers eastern europe and Russia...so the different parts of christianity and schism have a great influence

3- What about azteks, mayas, sioux, incan, zulu??? They didn't wait euopeans or asians to have their own religion or cult


More religions please!!!!!

The problem I had with religion in Civ4 was that it was cool, but cool wasn't good enough. There were times where I felt it was broken or annoying, especially with diplomacy and religion spread. If they impimented many of the ideas from this thread in Civ5, I'd be happy.

Also, I want people to worship Zeus in 2048, that's not too much to ask is it?

I don't want the number of religions increased, as seven is quite a lot. I would like Zoroastrianism though. So what if it's no big deal now ... it's certainly more important than Judaism for the ancient and early medieval periods (and at least, unlike Judaism, some leaders in the game were adherents!).

They should slow the spread before the classical/medieval eras. The late religions like Christianity and Islam were the big religions after all. I hate the fact that if you don't select "Choose religions", most games end up dominated by Buddhist and Hindu Europeans (esp. when Justinian or Isabella are in the game).

All I want to have is a system of schism.

Also, I want people to worship Zeus in 2048, that's not too much to ask is it?

No it's not! I am 100% with you. After all, part of the fun of Civ is seeing what the world could be like if things in history played out a little differently. If Constantine never converted to Christianity, could we end up having temples to Jupiter/Zues, etc dotting the European and American landscapes?

1) make the number of religions dependent from number of starting civilizations/map size. (the number of required theatre for the Globe Theatre are already linked to the map size)

2) Only one religion can be found by a single civilization, for example the first 4 out of 7 civilization that discover the tech Religion found a religion.

3) Give the religion a name connected to the Civilization, for example the "German Myths" or "American Belief", don't use Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. The first Religion founded could then be better/stronger then the second one.

1) make the number of religions dependent from number of starting civilizations/map size. (the number of required theatre for the Globe Theatre are already linked to the map size)

2) Only one religion can be found by a single civilization, for example the first 4 out of 7 civilization that discover the tech Religion found a religion.

3) Give the religion a name connected to the Civilization, for example the "German Myths" or "American Belief", don't use Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. The first Religion founded could then be better/stronger then the second one.

I agree with 1 and 3. Not so sure about 2. Though with 3, maybe the name of the religion could better be done as Americanism, Germanism, etc. (or something like that). I wouldn't base it on techs but certain techs would decide what type of religion it is... polytheistic, monotheistic, or philosophical.

I agree with 1 and 3. Not so sure about 2. Though with 3, maybe the name of the religion could better be done as Americanism, Germanism, etc. (or something like that). I wouldn't base it on techs but certain techs would decide what type of religion it is... polytheistic, monotheistic, or philosophical.

2 has the advantage of less or more a equally chance of spreading to other cities/civilizations instead of 2 civilization owning them together and having only 2 dominant religions.

The name you propose would also do, as would Sidhism of onemoreturnism. It doesn't really matter, the companies have fake names, let the religions have fake names as well.

The name you propose would also do, as would Sidhism of onemoreturnism. It doesn't really matter, the companies have fake names, let the religions have fake names as well.

...or let the players name them.

Well I think that it would be great to:
Include Zoroastranism(not sure about the spelling) and some other ancient religions.
I also like the religion changing with your values but only in your nation not everywhere in the world.
If you controlled the holy city you could ask to begin a crusade/jihad style conquest of the infidels.You should also make old religions and minor religions in your empire get replaced with newer and /or more major ones.There should always be the choose religion option on but the AI leaders should choose it depending on some values (Isabella founding christanity rather then hinduism)And for the end you should built the Grand temple of the religion to found it.(for example temple of solomon for judaism).
EDIT:I just saw my post and forgot to write that one or two of those new features would be great not that all should be present.

Yes but I would like to see some changes:

1) Religion should not be the #1 factor in diplomacy as it so often is in Civ IV.
2) They need to represent more of the world's religions, not for some political correctness reason, but simply for the coolness factor.
3) The founding of a religion should come about in a multitude of ways. It should not only be tied to technology research (i.e. great prophets would found one or perhaps a random event could cause the people to begin worshiping something / someone etc.)

4) When you read 'city states,' who else thought VATICAN? I mean seriously, think of the potential there...

agree with that :)

I'd like it to return, but to branch off into denominations.

Also, they should really remove Judaism. It's the only religion that's really bound to race, and since the Jews aren't even in the game (not going to be, apparently) just get rid of it. It's just silly to have half the world follow the Jewish faith without having actual Jews.

Religion has played such an important role in human affairs and it adds a lot of color to the game, so I'd hate to see it go. But I'd be totally OK if they fictionalized the religions just as they did with corporations.

Some changes I'd like to see:

1) Religious schisms modeled in some way. This could have interesting diplomatic implications. If you look at history many of the worst religious conflicts arose over finer points of doctrine. If civ A and civ B shared religion X and suddenly B switched to X', then two leaders could go from friendly to unfriendly very quickly. This could break up some of the static diplomatic blocs you typically see forming.

2) Bring in the inquisitor idea to remove unwanted religions.

3) Historically, most religions were founded or at least first widely spread by charismatic individuals: Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Lao-Tzu, etc. I'd therefore like to see religions founded by Great Prophets rather than by reaching certain techs first. Maybe if you get certain techs first you get a free Great Prophet and you can then use him/her to found a religion or not. That also has the advantage or letting you choose the holy city.

I am going to be sorry to see Religion go, I hope they bring it back in "Civ 5: The gods return"expansion pack.

I think it is tribute to how well it was implemented in Civ IV, that after 3 pages of suggestions. I find none of the suggestions better than how it was done in Civ IV. Although the AP wonder could be improved.

I will say from a game play perspective if I could found the dominant religion on a continent and keep the Shrine from being captured, I'd almost always win the game.

The main problem with religion in civ4 was that it seemed tacked on and not very well thought out. In civ5 they should have favorite religions and give more verity to cover the civs they included (Taoist Mayans anyone).

When you read 'city states,' who else thought VATICAN? I mean seriously, think of the potential there...

Where did you hear about city states?

I'd like for religion to make a difference in online play. Perhaps implement significant happiness penalties in cities that have the same religion of the civilization with which you are at war.

I really want religion to be in CIV V, I really liked the dynamic it ended in terms of diplomacy and it was a useful way to garner power/commerce. I also think there needs to be a way to remove religions from your city, if you have Christianity as your state religion for example, there should be a way to remove say, Buddhism from the city. This happened in real life and would be interesting in the game, you could have crusades and such. I also like the idea proposed that a religion first has to be in your capital before you could convert.

I'd like it to return, but to branch off into denominations.


Sects would have been a great addition to the game. At some point in Civ IV all those happy Christians, Muslism, etc etc should of had a schism due to war between countries sharing the same state religion.

I voted bananas. I'd like to see what they have in mind for the replacement to religion before making a judgement. I only hope that we find the nuances in gameplay enhanced overall rather than stripped down.

They could leave it out and possibly introduce it in an expansion if needed. It's an interesting feature but meaningless if done wrong. I didn't think it was that good in Civ4, so it's better to focus on the core game first.

The easiest way to "fix" religion is to simply prompt the founder of a religion for the name they want to give it (with a prompt of currently unused names of common religions, or you can do a custom name), plus allow selection of the benefit it provides.

The easiest way to "fix" religion is to simply prompt the founder of a religion for the name they want to give it (with a prompt of currently unused names of common religions, or you can do a custom name), plus allow selection of the benefit it provides.
How about benefits and demands of each religion. Be careful with those human sacrifice religions, you'll need to find victims or your people will riot.

Also I want to see benefits to founding and sticking to a religion, rather than being a pushover and taking someone else's religion for diplomacy. You might be the only Jewish nation, but your people are dedicated, etc.

I don't like the idea of a religion having to be present in the capital for the civ to be able to adopt it. A leader, especially a very autocratic one, could force a religion (or almost any other idea) upon his or her subjects without that idea or religion needing to be present in the capital.

Many ideas have become national policy, without that issue physically being located in a civs capital. For example, US policy regarding Native American relations during the 1800s was dictated in part from Washington DC, on a federal level. However, the indian wars were not actually going on IN Washington DC itself. Yet the "civ" was still able to adopt a policy towards it.

Another example could also be the abolitionist movement, it did not necessarily need to necessarily be in Washington DC for it to still become a central issue of debate and politics in this country.

It would seem reasonable that with religion a leader could look beyond the borders of the capital to formulate ideas and policy with this as well.

I don't like the idea of a religion having to be present in the capital for the civ to be able to adopt it. A leader, especially a very autocratic one, could force a religion (or almost any other idea) upon his or her subjects without that idea or religion needing to be present in the capital.

Many ideas have become national policy, without that issue physically being located in a civs capital. For example, US policy regarding Native American relations during the 1800s was dictated in part from Washington DC, on a federal level. However, the indian wars were not actually going on IN Washington DC itself. Yet the "civ" was still able to adopt a policy towards it.

Another example could also be the abolitionist movement, it did not necessarily need to necessarily be in Washington DC for it to still become a central issue of debate and politics in this country.

It would seem reasonable that with religion a leader could look beyond the borders of the capital to formulate ideas and policy with this as well.

The issue with Native Americans was very different from religion. Religion is a belief system of the people. It makes no sense whatsoever for a nation to adopt a religion as its state religion when none of the heads of state even know what the religion is! Constantine would not have converted to christianity if it did not exist anywhere in Rome or Greece.

One of the main reasons that I suggest it is because it prevents the AI (or a player) from being able to change to a new religion the second it enters the borders.

The issue with Native Americans was very different from religion. Religion is a belief system of the people. It makes no sense whatsoever for a nation to adopt a religion as its state religion when none of the heads of state even know what the religion is! Constantine would not have converted to christianity if it did not exist anywhere in Rome or Greece.

One of the main reasons that I suggest it is because it prevents the AI (or a player) from being able to change to a new religion the second it enters the borders.

I agree, Native American policy is quite different than religion. However, the point is that heads of state can still determine policy without having to have the issue take place in the capital. The Sioux never needed to be present in Washington DC, or torch the city, for the Federal government to still take the views that it did in crafting a national policy. Even in Washington DC, they were aware of the existance of the Natives - similar to leaders potential awareness of religions within their civ.

So I guess in a sense I think some consideration should be taken for the fact that heads of state receive information from more distant parts of the empire. Also, heads of state can and do leave the capital cities and visit other parts of the world/ their empire, which should be accounted for in some way.

Now granted, the likely-hood of a leader adopting a religion that is not even within its borders is slim. I would not like to see a Constantine in CivV adopt Christianity under the circumstances you pointed out. But on the other hand, what if religion has spread all throughout the country-side, to places like New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc... but it has not spread to Washington DC. Should the leader still be prohibited from adopting the religion because it has not spread to the capital yet? I have played games in civ where my capital has always remained a religious anomaly in that it never aqcuired the religions of the other cities.

I understand what you are saying about the restrictions on spread of religions, and I agree there need to be restrictions of some sort. But, there are too many variables, and information, especially in more modern times spreads quickly.

EDIT: The abolition analogy would probably have been better than the one of Native American National Policy. But both focus on issues and ideas that were managed on a Federal level to some extent, regardless of the presence of the idea/issue within the capital. Washington DC did not need to be located within a "free" state for the head of state to take the position he did. Likewise, I don't think the capital needs to be located right in an area with a certain religion to still adopt a policy towards it.

EDIT, again: Sorry. Maybe there should be a comromise to address these issues. Maybe religion should be present within a certain percentage of the nation for it to be adoptable.

I agree, Native American policy is quite different than religion. However, the point is that heads of state can still determine policy without having to have the issue take place in the capital. The Sioux never needed to be present in Washington DC, or torch the city, for the Federal government to still take the views that it did in crafting a national policy. Even in Washington DC, they were aware of the existance of the Natives - similar to leaders potential awareness of religions within their civ.

So I guess in a sense I think some consideration should be taken for the fact that heads of state receive information from more distant parts of the empire. Also, heads of state can and do leave the capital cities and visit other parts of the world/ their empire, which should be accounted for in some way.

Now granted, the likely-hood of a leader adopting a religion that is not even within its borders is slim. I would not like to see a Constantine in CivV adopt Christianity under the circumstances you pointed out. But on the other hand, what if religion has spread all throughout the country-side, to places like New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc... but it has not spread to Washington DC. Should the leader still be prohibited from adopting the religion because it has not spread to the capital yet? I have played games in civ where my capital has always remained a religious anomaly in that it never aqcuired the religions of the other cities.

I understand what you are saying about the restrictions on spread of religions, and I agree there need to be restrictions of some sort. But, there are too many variables, and information, especially in more modern times spreads quickly.

EDIT: The abolition analogy would probably have been better than the one of Native American National Policy. But both focus on issues and ideas that were managed on a Federal level to some extent, regardless of the presence of the idea/issue within the capital. Washington DC did not need to be located within a "free" state for the head of state to take the position he did. Likewise, I don't think the capital needs to be located right in an area with a certain religion to still adopt a policy towards it.

EDIT, again: Sorry. Maybe there should be a comromise to address these issues. Maybe religion should be present within a certain percentage of the nation for it to be adoptable.

In any case, I still have to disagree with you here. I feel that, in the case of religion, the leader would have to be exposed to it and know about it before he/she would consider adopting it as a state religion. It may exist in a remote region of the empire, and the existence of it may have been brought to the attention of the leader, but I really doubt that they would say

What is this? Some people in a far off city, miles from here, have started to convert there religious beliefs to some religion called Bobism? Maybe we should adopt it for the state, then!

I think that your examples, be them abolshment of slavery or native american policy, would be more comparible to pushing a religion out, not bringing one in.

Still, in the very remote chance that they would say that, then another suggestion could be that if the religion is not present in the capital city, then the period of anarchy is increased corrolating to the distance from the capital. How is that for a compromise? :)

I actually felt religion was very well done in Civ4. The only thing was that on Emperor it was really hard to spread yours when you had civs like Justinian seemingly popping out missionaries at every turn. The only thing I didn't like about religion was the negative diplomatic points... I feel in history trade trumped religion in diplomatic importance. I know they are revamping diplomacy, but if I were the developers and included religion, I'd allow each religion an Apostolic Palace and really allow collusion so there could be holy wars and crusades. It would be amazing to have global holy wars... so fun.

In any case, I still have to disagree with you here. I feel that, in the case of religion, the leader would have to be exposed to it and know about it before he/she would consider adopting it as a state religion. It may exist in a remote region of the empire, and the existence of it may have been brought to the attention of the leader, but I really doubt that they would say

Hence why I said there should still be some kind of restrictions. I just don't agree that it must be present in the capital before it can be considered for adoption.

I think that your examples, be them abolshment of slavery or native american policy, would be more comparible to pushing a religion out, not bringing one in.

In the case of these examples, especially the abolition of slavery. I consider emancipation to be bringing a "religion" in and making it national policy. Simply because the abolition movement had a doctrine and a set of principles, as well. However, I'll agree that in a way, for the purpose of this topic, a "religion" was being kicked out as well, albeit replaced by another, because slavery was based in its own doctrine as well.

Still, in the very remote chance that they would say that, then another suggestion could be that if the religion is not present in the capital city, then the period of anarchy is increased corrolating to the distance from the capital. How is that for a compromise? :)

Again, which is why I think there still should be some kind of restriction imposed, to nullify those slight odds while at the same time taking into account the fact that religion can still become a mainstream part of a culture, without necessary being planted directing into the capital itself, as seems to be the case for me frequently on CivIV.

A lot of bloodshed could have been avoided in places like Kansas as they were fighting over which "religion" to adopt. They simply should have been required to wait for the first one to reach the steps of their capital before making any decisions ;). But seriously, I can see why you want this restriction on civs. I don't like seeing them convert immediately either. I just seem to have so many instances in CivIV where my entire civ will have a religion and my capital will have another.

I voted yes, but I have an idea.
If the border are not going to be influenced with culture, and that is better option, since borders were/are created with wars, culture could be used instead of religion. How :confused:
Simple, you spread your culture and get bonuses, similar to religion ones in Civ IV. This could be more complex, for example culture could have more elements: movie, music, philosophy, food, dressing, sports, holidays, etc.
For example if movies from your country are popular, than you generate more money, or if you build movie corporation they get more revenue.
Similar, if you build food/dressing corporation, they get more money.

Diferent aspects of culture, could bring different bonuses. For example, if you spread your holidays, you don't get money, but you get attitude bonus from influenced civilizations.
Possibilities are endless. Another aspect of culture could be promoting your ancient wonders. By doing this promotion in some country, you get more tourists from that country and get money from tourism.

Now, how culture is going to be spread? Missionary unti, or just giving money for it ?

The only thing I didn't like about religion was the negative diplomatic points... I feel in history trade trumped religion in diplomatic importance.
I thought the diplomatic penalty was the exact reason why religion was introduced into the game as a mechanic: it tried to create a few power blocks rather then loose civilizations.

I thought the diplomatic penalty was the exact reason why religion was introduced into the game as a mechanic: it tried to create a few power blocks rather then loose civilizations.


yeah but the negative diplomatic points is really stifling. The only civs I felt you could consistently trade with if you were different religions was Egypt, Mali and sometimes the Dutch/Ethiopians. The idea of power blocs is awesome, but being totally excluded from trading techs because of religion over one's own trading or military interests I feel is mostly inaccurate

I like religion in Civ. I think however that there should be more options available including being able to Customise your own religion. I want my civ to adopt Pastafarianism after all.

There should also be more conflict between religions where there is precedent for war, and you should be able to pump out your own kind of "fanatic warrior" similar to what was in Civ 2. I also think religions should also get into ideals like capitalist economy, communism etc. Forms of religion unto themselves.

As it happens, in the Mod I've been working on (seemingly forever ;) ), you start with founding religions (as normal) then just around the time they become less significant (i.e. Free Religion), you get Ideologies starting to appear instead (like Socialism, Fascism, Absolutism, Fundamentalism, Capitalism & the like). That way you have power blocs in every era of the game (much like in real life ;) )!

Aussie.

in civ 4, if you were different religions than someone else, it caused a big negative relation. I think they need to rework this, because it's not really fair that way.

I like that idea Aussie, and each one belief should have their own bonuses and setbacks.

I also think you should be able to customise a religion when you get it to how you want it to benefit your civ. It would be entirely upto the player to choose those bonuses and traits to avoid political sensitivies. You could have a violent religion, peaceful, etc etc.

If you are Christian and start a war with a civ with the Hindu religion then this would create a precedent for war amoing your two civs. The longer and more drawn out the conflict will become, the longer the hatred exists between your two civs. There would need to be precedent for religious conflict however and not have the silly system from Civ4 of diff religions automatically have dislike.

in civ 4, if you were different religions than someone else, it caused a big negative relation. I think they need to rework this, because it's not really fair that way.

I don't agree that it isn't fair - it is an important feature of the religion component in CIV if you want the game to be interesting (i.e. battles). There have to be reasons for war, and conflicting religions was one of the good ways to cause them to start. It was also a good way for the computer opponents to bully the player (and for the player to capitulate to the demands of the opponents to keep them from attacking them when the player could not afford it).

I find it least fun when a civilization would declare war for no apparent reason. Yes, there are a few leaders that will do that, but its better to see your neighbours get angrier with you over time because you're different.

I also tend to resist starting a war with a neighbour who choses my religion. I don't have to, but its playing along with the concept of religious buddies.

I concur Rexflex, but would have liked to see it done on an even deeper level in Civ4. For instance, you get a relatively small base penalty (say -1 or -2) for being of a different religion, then a further penalty if you're in a religious civic which penalizes *his* religion (like running Theocracy), then an additional penalty if you attack cities containing *his* religion (esp. if that civ founded said religion). Equally, it would have been great if, under certain civics, you could actually *remove* certain religions from a city-causing even more enmity with foreign nations. Another thing I would have liked to have seen in Civ4 is for multiple religions in a city to cause angst for that city under certain Religious Civics (again, like Theocracy) & for differing religious Civics to impact on Relations between Co-religionists (so, for example, antipathy between a Christian Civ practicing Theocracy & a Christian Civ practicing Pacifism).
So, far from *removing* religions, I actually think there is massive room for expanding religion in the game, all without upsetting the PC crowd!

I wish they kept religion, just because I don't like the thought that maybe my Civ doesn't really follow mine (I'm weird like that). Plus, I enjoy culture as opposed to constant militarism in the game. Religion helps out with that.

I would, however, like to see more religions in the game, particularly major Christian denominations, as well as Norse mythology and even an "extras" thing like New Age, but mostly Christian denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist (which is actually not protestant), Evangelical/non-denominational and unitarian.

Come to think of it, personal customization would be preferable.

Nice necromancing bud!

It's still a good discussion to have, regardless of age.

Personally, I think happiness should be awarded for a DoF with a civ whose state religion is the same as yours, since that's how it generally is in reality. And expanding on the policyesque/customization idea, I feel like somebody who follows a religion that they haven't founded themselves should be able customize it themselves, but have it considered a new religion (so America, having followed French Islam, decides to go war focus as opposed to growth, and American Islam would be born).

Adding religion into the game would be a major thing at this point. If they put that much effort into something, I'd rather have a better working and fuller diplomacy options.

CiV has to have a different system for religion. I had the suggestion of adding a religious policy tree. We could call them RPs. Each tree is a different religion, in Ancient and Classical times, the first three early religion trees would be open. What could these early possibilities be. Let's say Tribal or Pagan, Two sets of Polythesistic religions, one based on Mesopotamian beliefs, that there is no afterlife. The person is basically a vessel put on earth to do the bidding of the gods. The second form of religion instills the belief in the people who practice it, that there is an afterlife gained upon death. Indicitive of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, that afterlife can be shared by all, not just Pharaoh. Every person has a ba, which remains attached to the body after death, the ka, or life force, through funeral rituals is released, and rejoined to the ba, into an akh a form of afterlife. It was belief that the corpse be preserved so the ka could find the ba each night to recieve new life.

This form of Polytheism based on belief in an afterlife, could promote happiness, people live knowing as long as they live a good life, they will be rewarded with a glorious afterlife, they are not just some vessel for their gods amusement, or pleasure. The feeling is instilled that they are actually worth something.

Asian religions would have to be added as well. I think a religious policy tree would make the game more interesting. It could help give civs a certain identity, which can help mold diplomacy and other issues, among those how they deal with civs of different religions. Certain civs would get a type of bonus for taking on religions that they would more easily be associated with. Certain religions may hate others, like Christian and Muslim. Then again there should be a chance they can work together for a time.

As you can see I have not worked out exact details, but it is a feasible idea. The civs do need something to identify themselves from each other, something I believe the game is lacking.

The other way religion could be installed in the game is through certain religious buildings (a building would represent a certain religion, if a civ decides to change religion it sells the old religious building and builds the building for the newly chosen religion), perhaps religious wonders (which could act like a national wonder from civ 4), these buildings would give that civ certain advantages in certain areas, perhaps disadvantages in others...

Heresy could be one, Catholics (during the Spanish Inquisition for example) believed ingenuity, or inventive, scientific thought to be heretic, so if you use Catholicism, there may be a hit to science, but a substantial gain to gold or wealth, or happiness (the selling of indulgences to get your aunt or uncle out of the hot place).

Whereas the Muslims seemed to go right along inventing new things, and rewriting the classics, studying science. Science could be their big advantage. Gold as well, perhaps coastal trade becomes a plus. The details need to be worked out, but I believe that these ideas are workable. Keep in mind these are just thoughts I have come up with, thinking and reading posts about what the game could use to make it better. :)

I voted bananas because I feel they could have a significant impact on gameplay..!

I voted bananas because I feel they could have a significant impact on gameplay..!

Surely it will, I hope they use it to try something, to help make the game a bit more in depth. The AI civs are too static, too many of them act exactly the same. The sameness needs to change, players should feel that they are truly part of a unique world with a whole diverse variety of people that act differently, believe differently, from each other. In this way, it is fun to see how a civ that is different from another can work together, through differences, yet in relative peace. On the other hand, how they use different outlooks to conquer and destroy each other. This is the way of the world, this is mankind, if I may use the expression, this is how we roll! :)

I think we shall use the "culture" concept instead of religion.
Religion was transmited together with culture and the cultural impact that Arabia brought to the Middle East and that China brought to Korea and Japan is enormous.
Besides, I think that religions as they were present in Civ4 affect our imagination ( e.g. asian religions in european maps) in game and thus become a problem to what I think that is the coolest thing in Civilization: the opportunity to rewrite history.

I have been playing lately and civ diplomacy is very unsurprising. Nothing interesting ever really happens. The civs act like the same clone with different names, there is no identity. Does firaxis understand that people may be people, but they are different, with serparate ways of thinking and solving problems. Does anyone out there have any ideas of there own, that may help firaxis see this issue in a better light?

The other thing Firaxis needs to look into is giving amphibious operations naval escorts. Is it truly hard to help one of these cloned civs, build a naval escort or two to protect their troops that are embarked?

The AI still makes some odd amphibious landings as well, landing troops where they can be easily killed. However, the AI has impoved much over time.

How many more patches will it take, I wonder, to fix these problems?

This game is on the threshold of being great, it is fun now more than ever. My empire is much more balanced than it has been in previous patches. I have not been so frustrated, and I am having a great time building my empire larger and larger as the game progresses. I want to thank Firaxis for making the game better. A few things added to this game, could make it the best civ to date. Better diplomacy, naval ops, AI. Add a privateer and dive bomber, maybe give civs an extra UU, UB, or UA. This would help to give civs more identity. Perhaps they could be given a optional leaderhead, that helps the civ act differently. IDK the sky is the limit, use your imagination. :)

I'd like them to make changes. I don;t know what those changes should necessarily be, but I feel the decision to make them identical in civ4 was not one of game balance, but one of political correctness, and perhaps not wanting to get themselves bombed or shot by members of certain "unspecified" religions.

FFH had it easy in that respect because they could choose religions that didn't relate to any real religions.

The way to resolve the political correctness problem (or potential problem) is pretty simple, actually. All that's necessary is to make the benefit provided from a religion user selectable. i.e., when you found a religion you get to pick the benefit that it will provide from a list of available options.

I'd like to have custom religions similar (but not identical) to the social policies.
After some specific achievement (being the first to have a wonder, to settle near a natural wonder, to reach a new era, to have a great person ...)
or beeing the first one to get a certain tech or settling near a natural wonder you would found a religion and over the course of the game try to spread it to neighbours.
The customisation could be similar to a policy tree: You pick Monotheism, Polytheism, Reincarnation, or what have you and unlock new aspects (for example Monotheism -> Trinity, or Reincarnation -> Karma). These new aspects would like polices bring certain bonuses and interact with policies. "Divine Right" or "God King" would enhance Monarchy but be useless if you ignore the Tradition tree.
Now what makes this different from Policies ? The diplomatic impact. You can spread your faith and all the bonuses would then apply to any other civ which chooses this particular state religion, making different religions more or less attractive to other leaders depending on their policy choices and styles.
Improved relations are a given, and declaring war against a brother in faith would give the aggressor a happiness penalty and possibly a combat penalty. These penalties would be higher if the attacked party is the founder of the religion. Now besides the central tenets like Polytheism or Afterlife that are set by the founder (or possibly influenced by how he got to found it), other civs could modifiy some "minor" aspects to suit their taste which could eventually lead to schisms if the differences become too large. The minor modifications would be more similar to civics in cIV than to policies and can be activatet or deactivated at will (and at a price: culture cost, temporary happiness hit...). The neighbors might come to their senses, stop the heresy and readopt the orthodox version, or other civs with the same religion could join him in his heresy. That way games where only one religion is present on a continent don't become too peaceful.

Throughout all of history, religion has been a major driving force in shaping the planet earth. Religion is too important in history to be left out of a historical video game and I think it must be a part of civ v as to keep up with its predessecor in terms of greatness.

They should definatley have them in there, like social polocies or just have different religions in the Piety policy, but i dont think that would work well.

my thoughts:

want something social policy like that develops over time
you could have the option to spend you culture on either normal social policies or to get religion policies

you found a religion by spending your culture on the opening policy. could have a limited number of religions that can be opened with each era.

the religion policies would effect everyone with the religion and anyone with that religion can buy new policies. that way you are trading off a shared development via religion or social policy development just for you.

religion policies would cost more for more cities like social policies but would be counting cities for all civs.

putting your own culture into the religion would then give you the benefit of directing its progress

the religion policies picked would determine things like +ve, -ve diplomatic modifiers, CS bonuses etc rather then being fixed.

there could be mutually exclusive branches that lock each other out (war vs peace branches) - then you can add an option to create a schism and form a breakaway religion by choosing a locked out branch. Then everyone in that religion would have to choose to follow the breakaway or stay orthodox (with big -ve diplomacy modifiers for the 2 sides).

in civ4 you had to have lots of religions to get full benefit this got a tad boring for me. too much missionary spam, always building another temple - so in this model you'd get greater benefit by developing an existing religion over create more, and more

I'd also like to see the idea of secular idealogies take over from religions once you hit industrial era. These would be like the order/autocracy/freedom social policy branches and would work pretty much the same way as the religions but with maybe quicker progression (to make up for later start), and different bonuses (culture bonuses to libraries, universities and schools for instance).

would need some kind of religion victory condition - be the leader of the religion that converts the world...

The existing social policies would have to be reworked - particularly piety vs rationalism

would need missionaries to convert city states (and get influence) but you'd want these to stay active and not be used up. I'd tend to avoid having to convert every single city and make everything state level though.

I would like them to keep religion out of regular games, but make it a concept in Scenarios.

Yes, bring religions back. Maybe with them we could move away from this boring diplomacy and start having real friends and enemies again.

Well if religion was an AI Flavor-then your religious choices could impact on some civilizations more than others, that would add another interesting layer to diplomacy. Also, it would be interesting if we had Spiritual City States!

Aussie.

Well if religion was an AI Flavor-then your religious choices could impact on some civilizations more than others, that would add another interesting layer to diplomacy. Also, it would be interesting if we had Spiritual City States!

Aussie.


This is my problem, where you see Religion as adding flavors to the AI, I see it as adding dumb mechanics that make the AI act stupid. Several dev videos on the CiV changes talk about this with good reason.

It wasn't all bad, it did add some dynamic to the various Civs (Spiritual was one of my favorite traits because of religion) and it did give you something else to "rush" other than Wonders and Eras. However, religion as something that would help diplomacy is terrible.

Btw... Don't need to revive such an old Post to discuss adding something like religion...

This is my problem, where you see Religion as adding flavors to the AI, I see it as adding dumb mechanics that make the AI act stupid. Several dev videos on the CiV changes talk about this with good reason.

It wasn't all bad, it did add some dynamic to the various Civs (Spiritual was one of my favorite traits because of religion) and it did give you something else to "rush" other than Wonders and Eras. However, religion as something that would help diplomacy is terrible.

Btw... Don't need to revive such an old Post to discuss adding something like religion...

Actually it depends. What i found bad in Civ IV is that religion simply had too much impact on certain civs. You could get like -/+ 7 due to religions, which was a bit too much and made religions the must have diplomacy tool. But religions having a small diplomatic impact would be nice. I remember sending those priests "en masse" to AI's for diplo. It added something extra to think about on top of simply sucking up to them.

Overall i'd like religions to be back but with some tweaks. Like i just mentioned a lesser but still existent impact on diplo. certain city states being "spiritual" which would give certain boosts to religions. Maybe some unique units for certain religions would be nice as well? And each religion giving a unique bonus instead of all of them being exactly the same.

It would be good if there was like a great person, a Great philospher or something, or it could be you have to put alot of culture towards him and, once he is born you move him to a location it could be city or it could be in the middle of nowhere and he creates a HQ for that religion, and you can see like culture, it spreading but it spreads alot faster and can spread through other peoples cultural boundaries and if you build any citys after that, it starts spreading out of them, it alot similair to culture except this culture doesnt define political boundaries.

For example im Arabia, a great philosper or Prophet is born , i move him to mecca i selct Islam as the desired religion, it has atrributes that i have not thought of yet, and he builds a special building which is now the centre of that religion, with some sort of new interface you can see the religious cultural borders which spreads much faster and can spread through out the land, if a civ has not founded a religion it is more than likely that nearby civs will have that religion come into their religious borders ad they will become that same faith, if two faiths collide, then the relgion it stops there, unless you make a new unit called a pilgrim or something that can only be used by the civ that has founded that religion and go up to the borders ( much like the great artist except that religios culture and culture are too completley seperate things ) and use a relgious culture bomb, then that religion has taken up an area that once was, lets say hindu.
and this can create tension between two civs.

Remember that this is an very basic idea.

So far I can read how religions....

- shall be founded
- shall spread
- shall develop

and most of it looks verry interesting and worth to be implemented.

But what will be the EFFECT of religions?

- "You" (as far as I did follow this thread) don't want to affect them diplomacy, because you don't like the block-building.
- I say: They must not effect happiness, as there is already a (meanwhile) well balanced system which is fine-tuned to limit excessive growth without making large empires impossible. Every new source of hapiness will destabilize this system and will make a new turn of rebalancing (with plenty of nerfs!) necessary. Again!
- Money is generated by an already well working system of buildings and trade routes. Here is no need for religion.
- Culture has it's own system, too, affecting border growth and SoPos. The gain of culture is balanced to Culture Victory and game length. So again: no need for a new source of culture.

While I concur that religion was and is important in the real world, I simply don't see the need for it gamewise. If it would be included, we would have to prepare for a complete new flood of balancing patches for at least a half year, changing *everything* that finally setteld down nicely. Thank you, but NO thank you!

To be honest, the ONLY effect of religon I see, is diplomacy!
Maybe not as negativ modifier that makes good relations impossible, but as a positiv modifier (which still are rare, even after the latest patch).

Or do I miss the obvious? What should be the EFFECT of religion in YOUR opinion?

Sorry for beeing such a crank, but never the less very interested in your proposals,
Deggial

I'd like to have custom religions similar (but not identical) to the social policies.
After some specific achievement (being the first to have a wonder, to settle near a natural wonder, to reach a new era, to have a great person ...)
or beeing the first one to get a certain tech or settling near a natural wonder you would found a religion and over the course of the game try to spread it to neighbours.
The customisation could be similar to a policy tree: You pick Monotheism, Polytheism, Reincarnation, or what have you and unlock new aspects (for example Monotheism -> Trinity, or Reincarnation -> Karma). These new aspects would like polices bring certain bonuses and interact with policies. "Divine Right" or "God King" would enhance Monarchy but be useless if you ignore the Tradition tree.
Now what makes this different from Policies ? The diplomatic impact. You can spread your faith and all the bonuses would then apply to any other civ which chooses this particular state religion, making different religions more or less attractive to other leaders depending on their policy choices and styles.
Improved relations are a given, and declaring war against a brother in faith would give the aggressor a happiness penalty and possibly a combat penalty. These penalties would be higher if the attacked party is the founder of the religion. Now besides the central tenets like Polytheism or Afterlife that are set by the founder (or possibly influenced by how he got to found it), other civs could modifiy some "minor" aspects to suit their taste which could eventually lead to schisms if the differences become too large. The minor modifications would be more similar to civics in cIV than to policies and can be activatet or deactivated at will (and at a price: culture cost, temporary happiness hit...). The neighbors might come to their senses, stop the heresy and readopt the orthodox version, or other civs with the same religion could join him in his heresy. That way games where only one religion is present on a continent don't become too peaceful.

Yes, I love these ideas. This is a surefire way to begin to open up diplomacy, and begin building a fully customizable civ through interesting choices. This would help each game begin to take on a uniqueness which generally is missing.

Throughout all of history, religion has been a major driving force in shaping the planet earth. Religion is too important in history to be left out of a historical video game and I think it must be a part of civ v as to keep up with its predessecor in terms of greatness.

A very important point! Religion is the yeast CiV needs for it to rise.

I voted bananas simply because it's closer to what should really be done than implementing a new mechanic in a game where several mechanics only work right a quarter of the time.

only if it ties in with culture

One way that the developers could achieve a greater variety of religions would be if every civ started off with a national religion. Almost every Civ in the game had its own "national mythology" that was used in part to legitimize the authority of its rulers (Including America, surprisingly enough... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis_of_Washington) I think this should be represented somehow since these mythologies are both fun and important.

I would also like to see religion made more fluid, and a bit more complicated. As others have posted, the idea of tying religion to technology does not make a lot of sense. I would like to see religions form schism and/or blend with other religions over time. Maybe this process could be tied to social policies rather than culture? For example, Judaism could fragment into Christianity if Republic or Free Speech are being used.

@ Deggial- I think I agree that religions need to do something, and I definitely agree that there aren't many good ideas as to what it would do apart from diplomacy. On the other hand, if there is one thing I feel Civ5 lacks, it is the fun-for-fun's sake stuff from earlier civ incarnations (i.e wonder movies, palace building, etc). I would prefer that religions do something, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if they didn't.

My idea for religion:

Like civ 4, you have to 5 main religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (deepest apologies if I forgot one!)
They are founded with great people, rather than through technology. These great people would of course be great prophets, which, instead of founding a religion, could also trigger a city-local golden age for 20 turns, an empire-wide GA for however long as an other GP, or it can spread religion to three AI cities if you pop it in the AI borders (open borders is not required). There is another thing it can do, which I will explain later. You can earn a great prophet point from the construction (on a worked city tile) of a shrine, which reduces gold and food yield by one on the tile it is placed. Shrines can be constructed when you do one of the following:
Open the piety tree
Construct 3 world wonders (basically all early wonders are religion related)
Research theology (which will become a tech dead-end and will no longer be needed for a garden or monasteries for balance reasons)


Obviously, religion is going to affect diplomacy. Not nearly as much as in civ 4 though, but similar to civ 4, religion matters to some more than others and has more of an effect when who founded the religion is considered. But what does religion actually do in a city? For one, every religion in a city speeds up great people acquisition by 15%. Every religion in the empire also increases golden age length by 15%. Finally, each religion will also increase wonder production by 10%. However, every religion you adopt increases the the risk of anarchy by 4% after a new tech has been researched and time of anarchy by 1 turn . This deters a person from getting all religions, with there being a 20% chance of 5 turns of anarchy every time a new tech is researched. Would you say that this is a balanced mechanism?

Religion also influences city-states. You can build missionaries to spread religion to both the AI and to city states. City states can only hold one religion, and will automatically adopt the religion which has the most influence. Missionaries add 30 influence for whatever religion you are spreading to that city, which decays in the same way that normal influence does. Great Prophets can increase City State influence by 75 for 1/4 of the known city states on the map. Religion affects city-state diplomacy by acting as a multiplier for normal influence. This multiplier ranges from 0.5 to 2. A player's influence will be multiplied by two if the player only has one religion, which is the same as the city-state. If the player has 2 religions, one similar, the multiplier will be 1.8, three 1.6 and so on. If the player has no religions in common with the CS but 1 religion against, the multiplier will be at 0.9, 2 religions against 0.8 and so on. Again, would this be a balanced mechanism?

Researching theology would also allow you to build a tomb, which decreases unhappiness generated by that city by 10% (not sure about this) and allows to prophet specialist slots. Prophet specialists obviously earn great prophet points, and they also increase golden age points by 20% of happiness per turn. (does that make any sense?)

My idea for religion:

Like civ 4, you have to 5 main religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (deepest apologies if I forgot one!)
They are founded with great people, rather than through technology. These great people would of course be great prophets, which, instead of founding a religion, could also trigger a city-local golden age for 20 turns, an empire-wide GA for however long as an other GP, or it can spread religion to three AI cities if you pop it in the AI borders (open borders is not required). There is another thing it can do, which I will explain later. You can earn a great prophet point from the construction (on a worked city tile) of a shrine, which reduces gold and food yield by one on the tile it is placed. Shrines can be constructed when you do one of the following:
Open the piety tree
Construct 3 world wonders (basically all early wonders are religion related)
Research theology (which will become a tech dead-end and will no longer be needed for a garden or monasteries for balance reasons)


Obviously, religion is going to affect diplomacy. Not nearly as much as in civ 4 though, but similar to civ 4, religion matters to some more than others and has more of an effect when who founded the religion is considered. But what does religion actually do in a city? For one, every religion in a city speeds up great people acquisition by 15%. Every religion in the empire also increases golden age length by 15%. Finally, each religion will also increase wonder production by 10%. However, every religion you adopt increases the the risk of anarchy by 4% after a new tech has been researched and time of anarchy by 1 turn . This deters a person from getting all religions, with there being a 20% chance of 5 turns of anarchy every time a new tech is researched. Would you say that this is a balanced mechanism?

Religion also influences city-states. You can build missionaries to spread religion to both the AI and to city states. City states can only hold one religion, and will automatically adopt the religion which has the most influence. Missionaries add 30 influence for whatever religion you are spreading to that city, which decays in the same way that normal influence does. Great Prophets can increase City State influence by 75 for 1/4 of the known city states on the map. Religion affects city-state diplomacy by acting as a multiplier for normal influence. This multiplier ranges from 0.5 to 2. A player's influence will be multiplied by two if the player only has one religion, which is the same as the city-state. If the player has 2 religions, one similar, the multiplier will be 1.8, three 1.6 and so on. If the player has no religions in common with the CS but 1 religion against, the multiplier will be at 0.9, 2 religions against 0.8 and so on. Again, would this be a balanced mechanism?

Researching theology would also allow you to build a tomb, which decreases unhappiness generated by that city by 10% (not sure about this) and allows to prophet specialist slots. Prophet specialists obviously earn great prophet points, and they also increase golden age points by 20% of happiness per turn. (does that make any sense?)

Very interesting, very sound ideas. I hope Firaxis reads this thread. This is different than my idea of adopting a religious policy tree (which would have effect on culture and other things as well), but I like it. Someone mentioned an idea about linking religions to technology, where was that post??? I am not sure what to think of that, but I would like to look it over.

a more complicated system would result in even more incompetent AI. I would rather wish game system itself is kept simple, to hope for one day AIs will not cheat that much as they do today.

and one more thing, keep religion out of diplomacy system. a bonus modifer only useful for human to exploit AI behavior and not the opposite is not a good idea at all.

a more complicated system would result in even more incompetent AI. I would rather wish game system itself is kept simple, to hope for one day AIs will not cheat that much as they do today.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that attitude at all. We should not have to have a game as simple as possible for the AI to catch up, we should have a game with complexity and then competently teach the AI how to do it.


and one more thing, keep religion out of diplomacy system. a bonus modifer only useful for human to exploit AI behavior and not the opposite is not a good idea at all.

I fail to see how this would only be useful for humans. We can already see the 'we want friendly relations with your empire' modifier. Let's say that that will trigger them sending missionaries of their religion into your lands. If the AI asks you to go to war against someone, first they send in a missionary in one of the civs that will cause conflict.

CiV has to have a different system for religion. I had the suggestion of adding a religious policy tree. We could call them RPs. Each tree is a different religion, in Ancient and Classical times, the first three early religion trees would be open. What could these early possibilities be. Let's say Tribal or Pagan, Two sets of Polythesistic religions, one based on Mesopotamian beliefs, that there is no afterlife. The person is basically a vessel put on earth to do the bidding of the gods. The second form of religion instills the belief in the people who practice it, that there is an afterlife gained upon death. Indicitive of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, that afterlife can be shared by all, not just Pharaoh. Every person has a ba, which remains attached to the body after death, the ka, or life force, through funeral rituals is released, and rejoined to the ba, into an akh a form of afterlife. It was belief that the corpse be preserved so the ka could find the ba each night to recieve new life.

This form of Polytheism based on belief in an afterlife, could promote happiness, people live knowing as long as they live a good life, they will be rewarded with a glorious afterlife, they are not just some vessel for their gods amusement, or pleasure. The feeling is instilled that they are actually worth something.

Asian religions would have to be added as well. I think a religious policy tree would make the game more interesting. It could help give civs a certain identity, which can help mold diplomacy and other issues, among those how they deal with civs of different religions. Certain civs would get a type of bonus for taking on religions that they would more easily be associated with. Certain religions may hate others, like Christian and Muslim. Then again there should be a chance they can work together for a time.

As you can see I have not worked out exact details, but it is a feasible idea. The civs do need something to identify themselves from each other, something I believe the game is lacking.

The other way religion could be installed in the game is through certain religious buildings (a building would represent a certain religion, if a civ decides to change religion it sells the old religious building and builds the building for the newly chosen religion), perhaps religious wonders (which could act like a national wonder from civ 4), these buildings would give that civ certain advantages in certain areas, perhaps disadvantages in others...

Heresy could be one, Catholics (during the Spanish Inquisition for example) believed ingenuity, or inventive, scientific thought to be heretic, so if you use Catholicism, there may be a hit to science, but a substantial gain to gold or wealth, or happiness (the selling of indulgences to get your aunt or uncle out of the hot place).

Whereas the Muslims seemed to go right along inventing new things, and rewriting the classics, studying science. Science could be their big advantage. Gold as well, perhaps coastal trade becomes a plus. The details need to be worked out, but I believe that these ideas are workable. Keep in mind these are just thoughts I have come up with, thinking and reading posts about what the game could use to make it better. :)

I really like this idea too, altogether. How would you earn these RPs though? Through culture? That would mean that to achieve a cultural victory, you could never touch religion. I also worry that it might just become a sort of copycat SP. If it was done well, it would be great, if done badly, it would be a waste. I like the idea of those specific religious buildings. I agree it would be a great idea to go beyond the simple wonders founded by great people in civ 5. However, if we were to do this, it would have to be for made up religions or just for religions that nobody believes in any more. If you make Christianity and Islam have different traits, there is a chance that people could be offended if they believe one to be better than the other. You can just imagine the idiotic threads now with people saying that firaxis are 'commie b*****ds that are making muslimism look better' or someone complaining that firaxis are biased towards Christianity due to their 'blind american patriotism'. I'd really like to have certain religious buildings like you suggested to help identify certain civs and to enhance certain things. All in all, I think your ideas are great.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that attitude at all. We should not have to have a game as simple as possible for the AI to catch up, we should have a game with complexity and then competently teach the AI how to do it.
Simple rules doesn't mean it is not fun, however, as any strategy games, incompetent opponent will ruin your fun. I would of course appreciate a game with complex rules and competent AI opponents, but if I can't have both, I choose the latter.

I fail to see how this would only be useful for humans. We can already see the 'we want friendly relations with your empire' modifier. Let's say that that will trigger them sending missionaries of their religion into your lands. If the AI asks you to go to war against someone, first they send in a missionary in one of the civs that will cause conflict.
As we can see in Civilization 4, when religion modifers come into decision making, it only handicaps AIs not human. When declaring for wars, humans will almost never consider if you are about to invade someone sharing a same faith. When choosing who to befriend, humans choose religion to match their ideal friend, not the opposite.

Simple rules doesn't mean it is not fun, however, as any strategy games, incompetent opponent will ruin your fun. I would of course appreciate a game with complex rules and competent AI opponents, but if I can't have both, I choose the latter.

For a game like civ, simplicity = a dull and easy game. I don't even believe that we can't have a far more intelligent AI. All you need is people who will dedicate some real time into it.


As we can see in Civilization 4, when religion modifers come into decision making, it only handicaps AIs not human. When declaring for wars, humans will almost never consider if you are about to invade someone sharing a same faith. When choosing who to befriend, humans choose religion to match their ideal friend, not the opposite.

Hmm, this is a very valid point. Even though humans may not take into account religion, I still think that it affects them. If you have a different religion to an opponent, their relation with you is going to be worse, hence you are more likely to DOW on them and lower the risk of repercussion that you could receive if DOWing on a friend etc. Also, the AI could be programmed to artificially make relations too by use of missionaries. If they are afraid of a civ's military might, they can spread influence to it in order to stay on their good side. Also, the human player doesn't necessarily have to be the only one who doesn't really care about religion. You have have some AI flavours have their diplomatic religion flavour at 1 or 2, so they care as little about it as the AI do. The bottom line is that I'd still argue that religion can be a handicap to the human player because you can't have a successful relationship with an AI just because you want to. If they don't like you due to your religion, they don't like you due to your religion. You can try to change this, but so can the AI.

Religion should totally affect diplomacy. It's not something for the player to abuse. It's something to give leaders personalities. They should do things based on their personallities. You could clearly difference leaders in civ4. You learnt to know them.
In civ5 they are just one single AI playing chess.

Improve AI by making it take better decisions at unit management, city placement and developing, and such. Don't try to make them better by taking away personallity and only caring about winning. It's not working anyway. And it takes away the feeling of different leaders with it's own personallity.

Some pretty good ideas here.

Hopefully religion will make its triumphant return in Civ VI.

I don't think it going to happen with Civilization 5 to be honest.

Personally I am not interested in them reimplementing religion.

On the scale of the game religions were kind of an awkward fit With 7 religions and a similar number of relevant civs they just didn't match up well.

You already have temples and monasteries, and it diplomatically was too dominant. There are about 1000 things I would rather they work on before religion or espionage. More feature is not always better.

Most of them involve balancing things and improving the ai. I would really like the industrial revolution to be handled a little better and the pacing of the late game (you go from muskets to Mech Infantry so quickly).

I really like this idea too, altogether. How would you earn these RPs though? Through culture? That would mean that to achieve a cultural victory, you could never touch religion. I also worry that it might just become a sort of copycat SP. If it was done well, it would be great, if done badly, it would be a waste. I like the idea of those specific religious buildings. I agree it would be a great idea to go beyond the simple wonders founded by great people in civ 5. However, if we were to do this, it would have to be for made up religions or just for religions that nobody believes in any more. If you make Christianity and Islam have different traits, there is a chance that people could be offended if they believe one to be better than the other. You can just imagine the idiotic threads now with people saying that firaxis are 'commie b*****ds that are making muslimism look better' or someone complaining that firaxis are biased towards Christianity due to their 'blind american patriotism'. I'd really like to have certain religious buildings like you suggested to help identify certain civs and to enhance certain things. All in all, I think your ideas are great.

Thank you. I was thinking we could have religious points, or if you gain a SP through culture, you can also pick a religious policy as well. Kind of a two for one deal. I was also thinking about the religions themselves, it would be better to have them set up as in Civ 4, with a more equal foundation, each could have its own religious buildings, temple, and monastery, along with one religious wonder. This wonder would be the seat of the religions power, whatever city it is built in becomes that religions holy city.

Another thing that would be interesting, is a religious building that can create a UU for that religion. Say we built Shaolin Temple, a UU temple that builds a Shaolin monk unit. The Catholic Church could build a Temple of Solomon, which produces the Knights Templar.

An example of how this could be used, say your playing as England. You build the Temple of Solomon in London, it becomes the holy city, where you can produce this Knights Templar, or it could produce one every ten turns. Not only that this Temple could increase banking, adding a percentage of gold say +5 or 10% to every city with a marketplace and mint. The first International Bankers were the Knights Templar. So religion could be put in place to help a civ through making money, and building units. It does not have to be added to the game for diplomacy, although I believe it should. Diplomacy should be improved and religion is one way to accomplish that.

Even though i would prefer corporations more than religion, i think both these features would be nice. Religion was fresh when it came in IV, but i grew tired of it very soon. All those missionairies... Instead of bringing depth it just became a safe way to control other civs attitude towards you and another moneymaker. Didnt feel very realistic. I would like to see religion coming back but not as controlable as in IV, but more of a random feature that could spread spontaneous, perhaps with cultural expansion, and have a lesser impact on gameplay.

Should be added, but in a different form. You should start out by choosing a broad category of religion (monotheism, paganism, pantheism, polytheism, etc.), then gradually acquire more specific religious denominations as time goes on (i.e. monotheism would lead to Christianity, paganism to Wicca, pantheism to Buddhism, polytheism to Hinduism, etc.). Each would have its own benefits, similar to social policies, except you'd have to choose between having one or the other, rather than being able to buy everything. You'd be able to change, but only within your category (could go from one monotheistic religion to another, but not to a pagan one).

As I understand it, there were several key reasons why religion had an undue influence on Civ4 diplomacy:

(1) Diplomacy Modifiers were always visible, & thus highly manipulable.

(2) All Civilizations reacted equally to the sharing of religion.

(3) The bonus grew over time.....even if you never did anything else except share the religion.

Well (1) is solved by the fact that Diplomacy Modifiers are hidden.

(2) If different Civs weigh religion differently, then you won't know if its worth ditching your existing religion for a new one.

(3) This is the one which needs to change the most. IMHO, switching to another Civs religion should give you an initial *larger* bonus (+3 to +7, depending on the religion weighting of the Civ), then have this bonus decay over time if you do nothing to advance the religion further (like spreading it to other cities, building Temples, Monasteries & Cathedrals....eliminating other religions from your cities, that kind of thing). Different actions on your part will grant different bonuses-which themselves will eventually decay if you don't maintain your mantle of "defender of the faith" ;-). Similarly, refusing to adopt a foreign religion should also give a temporary large penalty, which will decay *unless* you act specifically against the other civs religious interests....like removing their religion from your cities, adopting the religion of an enemy civ-that kind of thing).

Aussie.

There are really interesting items discussed here....

I am waiting for CiV religion expansion, as well as spionage... The game is incomplete without this subsystems.

I agree with hid all diplomacy modifiers (in lower dificulty levels they can keep them visible), but I must say that diplo in Civ IV is more intresting than in Civ V


Greetings

Zeke

Excuse my english, I am doing my best :blush:

Religion should totally affect diplomacy. It's not something for the player to abuse. It's something to give leaders personalities. They should do things based on their personallities. You could clearly difference leaders in civ4. You learnt to know them.
In civ5 they are just one single AI playing chess.

Improve AI by making it take better decisions at unit management, city placement and developing, and such. Don't try to make them better by taking away personallity and only caring about winning. It's not working anyway. And it takes away the feeling of different leaders with it's own personallity.

However it WAS something the player was abusing. If you got a religion first you basically had a "pacify" option where your neighbors treated like some long lost friend... However 30 tiles further if someone got another religion, this guy somehow hates your guts, but likely didn't have the tech to fight you just yet anyways.

So you ended up with Holy Wars with people at very impractical distances, and BFFs with the guy you should smack first... and this was a game where Distance from capital was still important. Until one of the two got free religion and then it's like some spark lit up in the AIs brain that went: Oh hey... That guy could make a good Vassal and not the guy two continents away.

Like I posted earlier, it wasn't all bad, it gave you more policies to manage your empire from things like building bonuses to bonus gold. It also gave you more things to try and get first other than Wonders. However if your goal is to get an AI to play as close or better than what a Human would do, tying all it's decisions to RP modifiers will always make it look dumb. "Not wanting to take candy from a really big juicy baby" dumb. So I absolutely want them to stay away from RP diplo modifiers in favor of modifiers that make sense. "

I would love for them to add more layers to empire management, religion could be one of them, but I don't think it needs to be religion either.

Not a fan of how religon worked in cIV so I hope they drop it.

If they bring back religion they would have to seriously overhaul how it worked.

In Civ4 I used to play on contients, part of my spacerace strategy was to get all possible religions, conquer my continent and then sit back and enjoy a massive boom of science through monestary while everyone on the other contient was trapped in an unreligous hole until ocean trading came about, and even then you could hold them off by going with Merchantilism (or whatever the non-foreign trade routes was).

The impact on diplomatic relations was just an utter pain to deal with and as in the later game pretty much everyone ended up going with Free Religion, you have to wonder what the point was.

Not sorry to see it gone, but wouldn't lose too much sleep about it's return if it was well thought out and not just thrown in to fix the diplomacy issues.

People being upset that you've fallen under the influence of a heathen religon when they've only just bought a copy of the Bible themselves was a tad too annoying for words.

It should be re-introduced. Like maybe change it so that any religion u adopt will say grant u extra happyness (perhaps +5) extra research and culture. And maybe make it function like the policy tree where u adopt a religion and then from a set of 5 diff options u choose 3 of them. each could be like "Christianity- Orthodox -> 1+ Happyness, Units gain more xp" "Christianity-Catholic-> +25% research, a free great person of ur choice" etc. Maybe not exactly my way but a little modifed.

The problem in having religion involved in anything (including real life) is that you can't favour any of them as having attributes greater than any of the others.

People tend to get offended and end up making life awkward for game makers so their hands are tied to create equal bonuses and benefits.

There are so many jokes I'd like to make here now...but I'll restrain myself. :crazyeye:

Religion is an undeniable part of world history. In a game trying to emulate the concept of history, you simply cannot ignore it. Granted, civ 5 was released before it was fully completed, and religion isn't an aspect which makes the game functional - at least, not as much as culture or combat - but at least some of the money gained from sales of DLCs or not should go in to the developement of religion.

Disclaimer: This is all my opinion and I used no other resources for knwolege of civ 5 than from other forums I've read, playing the game, and some websites I've read up on Civ 5 on. =)

I voted no. If they did reintroduce it, I'd like it to be a totally different system. (Religion is modeled in the game at about the same level as global trade, by the way - there are temples, technologies and an entire social policy branch which are basically an abstraction of the effects of religion on your civ)

Eliminate player agency over it. Religions get founded and spread, your population follows them, and they have a variety of effects. They can basically step into a similar role to the random events from III/IV, but in a less totally random and more powerful way - they make the game feel much more dynamic and force you to adapt game by game to the situations.

That's where I'd go with them. The game doesn't need yet another "Choose a set of bonuses" system. Civ IV religions would be actively bad for the diplomatic game, in my opinion. The trick to bringing them back would be doing them in a way where they bring something to the table that Civ V needs, as a game.

I don't want religion in the game i think social policies offer enough. I'm sure if they did bring it out and it was brilliant i would soon change my mind :) , i just dont think it can be implemented brilliantly.

Ok, but I want the option to have an athiest civilisation from the start.

No offense, but most of these propositions are needlessly complex and wouldn't bring much actual gameplay value to the table.

If there were religions added to Civ V, I'd hope they'd simply be like communal policy trees that nations could buy into or out of with happiness effects having a simple formula based on your population. For example:

You have 3 cities that are Buddhist and 2 that are Hindu. If you select Buddhism as your state religion, you get +3 happy. Hindu would give you +2 happy. You could also select another religion if you don't like the policies that have been adopted by Buddhism or Hinduism, but then you'd get +0 happy.

As for policies, the way I see it, each player who has adopted a religion as his state religion contributes +X points (X being the number of cities he has of that religion) toward a policy tree which all members of that religion share. Each leader picks which policy they want to work toward, and each one unlocked closes off other branches. For example:


Duty|Piety

Valor/Justice|Pacifism/Spiritualism

Every religion would have the same tree, and each unlocked policy would have differing benefits. Additionally, you could not be pacifist and valorous, for example. I almost feel like anyone should be able to start a religion at any time using a previous religion as a base. For example, if you've been Hindu this whole time and those other jerk Hindus decide to go down the Justice tree but you wanted to go down the Valor tree, you should be able to schism the religion for a diplomacy hit with others of that religion, keep the Theism/Duty part of the tree, ditch the new Justice thing, and continue on your merry way.

Just some quick rambling thoughts.