View Full Version : How are religious CS going to fit into things?


eazyseeker
Apr 14, 2012, 07:47 AM
So we know they will generate faith. However, realistically they should follow a certain religion, which brings me to this point:

Will religious CS provide faith only to civilizations that share their religion? If so, are they going to be able to be converted to other religions just like normal cities?

Because I can't really imagine say, Vatican City providing faith to both followers of Christianity and Buddhism. It just wouldn't work, realistically.

CYZ
Apr 14, 2012, 08:06 AM
Good question, it's hard to say. If religious CS work like the others they will most likely give faith regardless of their religion or yours. Since there probably won't really be something like state religion this seems fine by me.

But it could mean that a Christian Vatican gives faith to an allied civ that is mainly or even only Buddhist. And that does seem a bit odd.

Louis XXIV
Apr 14, 2012, 08:11 AM
I'd imagine for simplicity, they'll give faith to any religion. However, if you convert them to your religion, they're more likely to like you and give you faith.

Buccaneer
Apr 14, 2012, 09:19 AM
While on the topic of city-states, I have this question. Arioch said "Another report said that gold and Workers could be extorted in this way, but that it may cause the City-State to ask another civilization for a pledge of protection against the aggressor." What value does protection have anyways and what difference would it make who is "protecting" them? I get these messages when allying with a c-s of leaving the protection to an AI. Whatever, it didn't seem to affect anything anyways, esp. when I (or any human player) would/should never attack a c-s. Is this mechanism changing to something useful in G&K?

smallfish
Apr 14, 2012, 09:25 AM
While on the topic of city-states, I have this question. Arioch said "Another report said that gold and Workers could be extorted in this way, but that it may cause the City-State to ask another civilization for a pledge of protection against the aggressor." What value does protection have anyways and what difference would it make who is "protecting" them? I get these messages when allying with a c-s of leaving the protection to an AI. Whatever, it didn't seem to affect anything anyways, esp. when I (or any human player) would/should never attack a c-s. Is this mechanism changing to something useful in G&K?

Adds more diplo hits to you with the civ that was protecting the CS. If that civ was large or just as large as you, it may also trigger war (and chain denouncements/war by other parties).

MadDjinn
Apr 14, 2012, 10:36 AM
Adds more diplo hits to you with the civ that was protecting the CS. If that civ was large or just as large as you, it may also trigger war (and chain denouncements/war by other parties).

While on the topic of city-states, I have this question. Arioch said "Another report said that gold and Workers could be extorted in this way, but that it may cause the City-State to ask another civilization for a pledge of protection against the aggressor." What value does protection have anyways and what difference would it make who is "protecting" them? I get these messages when allying with a c-s of leaving the protection to an AI. Whatever, it didn't seem to affect anything anyways, esp. when I (or any human player) would/should never attack a c-s. Is this mechanism changing to something useful in G&K?

but otherwise it was a waste of time in Civ 5.

so maybe they enhanced it as well.

CYZ
Apr 14, 2012, 10:48 AM
I'd imagine for simplicity, they'll give faith to any religion. However, if you convert them to your religion, they're more likely to like you and give you faith.

Actually, I suspect religion will affect influence decay for all CS. Thus sharing the same religion will mean influence decreases slower, allying CS with the same religion is the most atractive then too.

To get another bonus upon that with religious CS is possible but perhaps not even needed.

turingmachine
Apr 14, 2012, 10:56 AM
Vatican City will not be tied to a specific religion. The in-game religions have been said to only be aesthetic, and it would give one religion an advantage if their city-state happened to randomly spawn.

If you are friends with a religious city-state, they will give you faith points. Simple as that. Converting a city-state to your religion will do nothing more than make it easier to be and stay friends with them.

They didn't re-write the whole city-state mechanic just for one city-state type.

Eagle Pursuit
Apr 14, 2012, 11:26 AM
There was a mysterious civilian unit that belonged to a city-state seen during a PAX demo. It makes me wonder if religious city-states can produce missionaries.

CYZ
Apr 14, 2012, 11:31 AM
There was a mysterious civilian unit that belonged to a city-state seen during a PAX demo. It makes me wonder if religious city-states can produce missionaries.

Possibly all CS can, but religious CS are more likely to. That'd make sense.

AriochIV
Apr 14, 2012, 12:25 PM
I would expect that a Religious city-state provides Faith to its friends and ally in the same way as a Cultured city-state provides Culture.

Some of the Beliefs (such as Papal Primacy) specifically mention city-states following a religion, which implies to me that city-state follow world religions, rather than having their own. Since having a different religion imposes a diplomatic penalty, it wouldn't make much sense for Religious city-states to have their own religions, because then by definition they're going to have a different religion than you. So, I would guess that even Religious city-states start with no religion (or perhaps a Pantheon), and convert to another religion normally.

As to how religion affects diplomacy, I'm going to guess that having the same or different religion just adds an influence bonus or penalty. But that's a guess -- it could be more complicated.

There was a mysterious civilian unit that belonged to a city-state seen during a PAX demo. It makes me wonder if religious city-states can produce missionaries.
That would be my guess, but if so, it is an intriguing question of why a city-state would want to produce Missionaries. The owner of the unit in question was Brussels, which is (as far as we know) a Cultured city-state.

but otherwise it was a waste of time in Civ 5. so maybe they enhanced it as well.
This is one of those cases where the feature is useless unless the AI is smart enough to respond properly. There was nothing wrong with the "pledge to protect" mechanism except that the pledge did not appear to have any effect on the actions of the AI civilizations. When the AI made the pledge, it did seem to come with a real diplomatic penalty as a consequence for attacking a city-state, but I almost never attack city-states, so I totally ignored these pledges. The advantage of the new "threaten" system is to offer a real reason to mess with city-states (but not conquer them, which is counter-productive), so that pledges may be meaningful. But they still will have problems if the AI's don't respond properly to them.

Beefie
Apr 14, 2012, 01:15 PM
That would be my guess, but if so, it is an intriguing question of why a city-state would want to produce Missionaries. The owner of the unit in question was Brussels, which is (as far as we know) a Cultured city-state.




Maybe Religious city-states help spread the religion of their ally, as well as providing faith to ally and friends. Though this being Brussels really scuppers this idea if it's still cultural

nokmirt
Apr 14, 2012, 01:41 PM
.This is one of those cases where the feature is useless unless the AI is smart enough to respond properly. There was nothing wrong with the "pledge to protect" mechanism except that the pledge did not appear to have any effect on the actions of the AI civilizations. When the AI made the pledge, it did seem to come with a real diplomatic penalty as a consequence for attacking a city-state, but I almost never attack city-states, so I totally ignored these pledges. The advantage of the new "threaten" system is to offer a real reason to mess with city-states (but not conquer them, which is counter-productive), so that pledges may be meaningful. But they still will have problems if the AI's don't respond properly to them.

Perhaps, but I do like the new CS war weariness system where they band together against a civ that conquers them, or keeps bullying them.

Say your playing as the Mongols and go on a CS conquering spree, which you can do now without diplo penalty in Gods and Kings. However, if you do, you will lose influence with CSs who band together against you, and that influence with them will go down to a default negative value. The agressive civ would then have to work twice as hard to regain positive influence with City States. The point is you can conquer them if you choose, but there is a backlash if you do so. Later in the game, you may decide conquering city states is not a worthwhile enterprise, but it will be difficult to regain trust with them. And you cannot just buy them off anymore. The diplo penalty for doing this kind of thing used to last all game.

With G&K diplomacy with CSs has been worked out for the better. This way you can be a warmonger again if you choose to be a bad guy. Also, the new system makes it so you can change the direction of the game, it does not have to get stuck in one direction and remain there until the end. I like that part.

Buccaneer
Apr 14, 2012, 03:15 PM
Even as the Mongols, one would never need to, nor never should conquer city-states. What would be the point? It sounds like that would be even less of a point in G&K.

smallfish
Apr 14, 2012, 03:18 PM
Even as the Mongols, one would never need to, nor never should conquer city-states. What would be the point?

Easy fix to uranium/aluminium when you don't have them, and you need them fast!

CYZ
Apr 14, 2012, 03:25 PM
Even as the Mongols, one would never need to, nor never should conquer city-states. What would be the point? It sounds like that would be even less of a point in G&K.

Conquest? No. Threatening? Yes.

Imagine the Mongols moving their army close to Brussels and demanding their worker, Brussels is intimidated and gives in. But does ask you to pledge to protect them in the future, in trade for influence. You do so but Mongols threaten them again anyway. Brussels demands you do something...

smallfish
Apr 14, 2012, 03:26 PM
More seriously, there are a few reasons why you want to conquer a CS (in vanilla).

Say you and Germany are on the same continent, and you want to rush Germany early-game. In between your lands is a city-state, one he has allied. Here you are presented with two choices - you can naturally build up your infrastructure across the rest of the continent and hope that you can out-match the AI in tech, culture and wonders, hope that with the CS in between Germany he will not try and rush you himself. Or you can take out that city-state, AND rush Germany's capital. Then you can build a road to link your conquered lands with your own, and depending on placement of cities and proximity, this could easily lead to cheaper maintenance costs.

The other is late game resources like uranium for those who just can't afford to buy off a CS.

tofofnts
Apr 14, 2012, 03:30 PM
What if one of the missions you need to do to be friends with a religious CS is to convert to it's religion.

MadDjinn
Apr 14, 2012, 03:47 PM
I think the point was that the 'permanent' wars ended up causing far more issues than being a deterrent to conquering CSs.

Plenty of situations where an enemy is in permanent war with a CS on their borders, you push them back/take a few cities, liberate the CS and make peace. Now the enemy AI has at least 10 turns to rekill the CS with you not being able to do much about it (other than permanently leave units there).

At least this way, the CSs won't like the enemy, but can't be stuck in permanent war + they will be really hard for the enemy to pick up again.

oh, and there's still likely going to be diplo penalties for conquering CSs, but it might not be the 'warmongering' ones anymore. Major civs have CS flavours, so I'm sure Greece and Siam (plus others) will hate you for it just the same (especially if they pledged to protect - which was something that happened in vanilla already).

Civsassin
Apr 14, 2012, 07:18 PM
Even as the Mongols, one would never need to, nor never should conquer city-states. What would be the point? It sounds like that would be even less of a point in G&K.

Actually, in a recent game, I snatcehd a couple of workers from two nearby CSs, and they and one other declared permanent war on me. My solution was to conquer them when I didn't see a way to restore relations.

Buccaneer
Apr 14, 2012, 07:27 PM
Actually, in a recent game, I snatcehd a couple of workers from two nearby CSs, and they and one other declared permanent war on me. My solution was to conquer them when I didn't see a way to restore relations.

That makes sense.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 14, 2012, 07:54 PM
Wow.. you guys are technically off topic :| xD...

I think you might get a bonus faith points if the city state is following your religion.

There's also the Papacy belief that adds a 15 bonus, to something... not sure, they didn't decypher yet.

nokmirt
Apr 15, 2012, 06:55 AM
Easy fix to uranium/aluminium when you don't have them, and you need them fast!

Thats right, there are times when its a good thing to conquer CSs. In my game now I have not messed with CSs at all, although I was at war with Singapore for a time. After I defeated their backstabbing protector. I just simply made peace with them.

The point is its not about whether you should or should not capture/threaten CSs. It is that you can do it if you choose to do so. The Mongols are extremely good at conquering CSs. But in vanilla you cannot conquer city states without diplo penalty, so the Mongols UA benefits against CSs are pretty much wasted. With Gods and Kings however, things will be a lot different. You can grab a lot of valuable luxuries by conquering CSs. And luxuries you do not have to pay for, that you can sell. If the CSs band together against you, who cares, let them, your the Mongols!

I am not sure if conquering a mercantile CS will be a good idea though, unless you can still get the benefit of the special resource it produces. Somehow I doubt that will be the case.

To be on topic, I am not sure extacly how religious CSs will fit in. The obvious reason for them is a faith bonus. I hope in some cases they spam an unbiased religious military unit of some sort for an allied civ. That would be pretty cool. I would love to see some more gameplay explaining, or showing some examples of their role in the new expansion.

GenjiKhan
Apr 15, 2012, 08:07 AM
They should change the Mongol's UA,like removing the unhapiness/per city from conquered city states or making them maintain the bonus they give to allies even if they are conquered or even removing the diplomatic hit from Conquering a city-state .

Gucumatz
Apr 15, 2012, 09:55 AM
They should change the Mongol's UA,like removing the unhapiness/per city from conquered city states or making them maintain the bonus they give to allies even if they are conquered or even removing the diplomatic hit from Conquering a city-state .

I agree. For some reason the Mongol UA just doesn't click to me as it is.

CYZ
Apr 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
I agree. For some reason the Mongol UA just doesn't click to me as it is.

As said before. It is very likely the new ability to threaten CS and thereby demand stuff from them will be even more effective for Mongolia. They will be perfect CS bullies, well, they already are... but in the expansion this will be much more usefull.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 04:46 PM
would you be surprised if they just cut-pasted the religious city-states from echoes of ages?

i like the simplicity in that mod regarding religions giving a small bonus. instead of chasing my favorite religion or waging war against the xians it feels like i will be pursuing the bonus of preference - which could be a good thing unless game balance dictates on religion is just better than the others based on bonuses, in which case im sure xanity will be hard-forced down everyone's throat.

nokmirt
Apr 17, 2012, 05:01 AM
As said before. It is very likely the new ability to threaten CS and thereby demand stuff from them will be even more effective for Mongolia. They will be perfect CS bullies, well, they already are... but in the expansion this will be much more usefull.

If your going to just bully them then why the wasted combat bonus? I say why have a middle man? Destroy them piddly little CSs and simply take their resources. Also, the Mongols did not pay tribute for influence with others. The Mongols only received tribute from others, or else they would come visit those miscreants, and kill every living thing that breathed in up to a hundred mile radius.:eek:

CYZ
Apr 17, 2012, 05:24 AM
If your going to just bully them then why the wasted combat bonus? I say why have a middle man? Destroy them piddly little CSs and simply take their resources. Also, the Mongols did not pay tribute for influence with others. The Mongols only received tribute from others, or else they would come visit those miscreants, and kill every living thing that breathed in up to a hundred mile radius.:eek:

Hmmm... Here's how I see it.

If a standard civ moves 4 swordsmen near a CS and says ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of, let's say 100 (random number).

When the Mongols move 4 swordsmen near a CS and say ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of 130 (+30%).

If the level at which the CS is going to give in to the demand at a threat of 120, the Mongols will succeed and the other civ won't. Thus in the case of the mongols, the CS will give away their worker as a tribute to avoid war.

See what I mean?

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 05:32 AM
Hmmm... Here's how I see it.

If a standard civ moves 4 swordsmen near a CS and says ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of, let's say 100 (random number).

When the Mongols move 4 swordsmen near a CS and say ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of 130 (+30%).

If the level at which the CS is going to give in to the demand at a threat of 120, the Mongols will succeed and the other civ won't. Thus in the case of the mongols, the CS will give away their worker as a tribute to avoid war.

See what I mean?

We. Are. Very. Off. Topic.

The_J
Apr 17, 2012, 06:20 AM
We. Are. Very. Off. Topic.

Right, back to the religious CS please.

nokmirt
Apr 17, 2012, 11:23 AM
Hmmm... Here's how I see it.

If a standard civ moves 4 swordsmen near a CS and says ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of, let's say 100 (random number).

When the Mongols move 4 swordsmen near a CS and say ''we want your worker or we're gonna give you trouble''. The AI percieves this as a threat of 130 (+30%).

If the level at which the CS is going to give in to the demand at a threat of 120, the Mongols will succeed and the other civ won't. Thus in the case of the mongols, the CS will give away their worker as a tribute to avoid war.

See what I mean?

Yes that puts it into perspective. Thank you. When the Mongol comes knocking they tend to get quite nervous.

One question though, does the CS give in so easy if it is protected by or allied with another civ? This must factor in too, doesn't it?

Oh and I am sorry about being off topic. Things come up in conversation which steers it in another direction.

nokmirt
Apr 17, 2012, 11:29 AM
Right, back to the religious CS please.

Is there another city states thread that is more general? I would not mind moving the discussion there.

The_J
Apr 17, 2012, 11:47 AM
Not that I'm currently aware of any. But feel free to open one yourself ;).

And please don't respond to moderator actions in public, it's against our rules.

thadian
Apr 18, 2012, 04:21 AM
Is faith going to interact with espionage by means of religion sabotage i wonder.