First, I'd like to see that in hotseat it allows more than just eight players. That's pretty self-explanatory.

Second, I'd also like to see religion incorporated into the game somehow. I don't exactly know how, but by building certian types of churches or temples might cause to population to sway towards on religion or another. Any suggestions?

Third, it would be nice to see cities expand more, say if one builds a city along a river, it can eventually spread across both backs. And when an enemy attacks a city that is that big, it doesn't take all of it, but maybe half or a third.

Last, it would be cool to name certian historic landmarks on the map. For instance, a place where a big battle was fought, or where a city was destroyed, or to name a fort or a mountain, etc. I think that would be fun.

Tell me what you think.

no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...

I like the idea about the naming landmark thing.

I like the i dea of cities expanding. I would also like that overtime colonies become cities.

Originally posted by Xen
no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...

Geez, sorry to offend you, but how do you feel on the other topics too? And I never meant that only monotheistic religions would exist, I'm sorry that's the impression you received. Personally, I think it would be cool to have all the major religions, monotheistic or otherwise. Or maybe they turn up in the game (timewise) historically near the same time as they did in real life. However, they don't have to go away at the same time, that would be up to the (in)competent leader when his culture's religion died out or the enemies.

I love the Other ideas, with exception of the partial-city conquests, that might be a good editor tool, but might make conquest abit difficult...

as far a s religions go...we are re-writing history, ambey the game could go as in-depth as Atheism, Monotheism, and polytheism, but there ino guarantee that christianity, or Roman polytheism or such would have been devised... differnt circumstances, might mean diffent beliefs...

I agree totally. I just think it would be a neat feature. And what if you couldn't control your religion of you nation. And I'm not saying the Americans have to be Protestants or the Chinese have to be Buddhists (it could be the other way around and every culture be random). Either way, it's all good.

They could do something with religion along the lines of Call to Power. Maybe there could be a small wonder that would be the center of your religion and allow you to build priests. If you converted other cities it could increase the chances of culture flip. If you converted other leaders it could improve relations with that civ, or it could be worth while to convert to another civs religion for the sake of building alliances. This could be done without mentioning any specific religion.

Ahh, that's interesting. What would also be cool is if one could name his own religions, just like cities or units. Oh, I can see the creativity now.

There was a discussion about having religion in the game in the Creation&Customization forum. It _is_ possible to implement it without offending anyone. What you have to do is to stay strictly generic with it. Religion can be a VERY touchy issue so that really is the only answer: strictly generic.

One possible implementation could be to refer to the religions as "the Roman religion", "the German religion", etc. Of course, if you yourself then mod these names to your liking in the editor then that's entirely your private business. OTOH a generic reference does have the advantage of not having any "semantic ballast" going with it so you can play it with an open mind. After all civ is pretty much an alternate history simulation.

But then the big question: What would religion mean in the context of the game rules?

It has to have meaningful game related effects. Otherwise there would be no point in adding religion in the first place.

Religion could act as a complement to the governments and culture and bring to the game a degree of social engineering. For example with a simple definition that "a religion" (in the game engine sense) is a combination of attributes and their values you can do quite much:

The German Religion at 4000 BC:
Domestic: 0
Trade: 0
War: 0
Culture: 0
Science: 0

Notice my choice of attributes: they correspond directly to the "advisor screens" of the game. Their names could be changed to more descriptive ones but I want to explicitly refer to these aspects in this example.

A ruler can't (really) determine the religion of his people. Religions emerge, form and evolve. (No disrespect meant; just a simple historical observation; add Divine Guidance if necessary). This ought to hold true in Civ, too. However, what the ruler can do is to lead his people. So after building lots of warriors and spearmen (War), maintaining social peace with troops (Domestic) and not building many temples, libraries or courthouses (Culture) and pretty much ignoring scientific research (Science) but building lots of roads, marketplaces and trade with neighbors (Trade) there has emerged for the Clever German Folk a religion:

The German Religion at 1 AD:
Domestic: +1
Trade: +2
War: +2
Culture: -2
Science: -3

And now we have something to work with. These attributes can have direct effects in the game related to their meaning. As there are both bonuses and penalties it's always a trade off which keeps the game interesting. Also, as the player does not have a direct control over the religion of his people it works as a "cause and effect" feedback to his actions.

And what about the religions of other nations?

Naturally the more the religions are similar the better their relations ought to be, although not necessarily peaceful. An attitude modifier based on the religion difference ought to be an easy one. Also, going to war against a civ with a similar religion might invoke discontent in your people: "Stop the aggression against our brothers in faith!"

Religions ought to have far-reaching influence, too. This could mean that two nations having trade deals and/or sharing a border influence each other's religions bringing them closer together over time. Perhaps so that the culturally more powerful civ has an advantage in this. In cultural city flips the distance of religions might give a modifier, too.

If religion were introduced in some way, culture groups (mediterranean, middle eastern, etc...) should have some impact on the way it evolves.

Originally posted by Pembroke
There was a discussion about having religion in the game in the Creation&Customization forum. It _is_ possible to implement it without offending anyone. What you have to do is to stay strictly generic with it. Religion can be a VERY touchy issue so that really is the only answer: strictly generic.

One possible implementation could be to refer to the religions as "the Roman religion", "the German religion", etc. Of course, if you yourself then mod these names to your liking in the editor then that's entirely your private business. OTOH a generic reference does have the advantage of not having any "semantic ballast" going with it so you can play it with an open mind. After all civ is pretty much an alternate history simulation.

But then the big question: What would religion mean in the context of the game rules?

It has to have meaningful game related effects. Otherwise there would be no point in adding religion in the first place.

Religion could act as a complement to the governments and culture and bring to the game a degree of social engineering. For example with a simple definition that "a religion" (in the game engine sense) is a combination of attributes and their values you can do quite much:

The German Religion at 4000 BC:
Domestic: 0
Trade: 0
War: 0
Culture: 0
Science: 0

Notice my choice of attributes: they correspond directly to the "advisor screens" of the game. Their names could be changed to more descriptive ones but I want to explicitly refer to these aspects in this example.

A ruler can't (really) determine the religion of his people. Religions emerge, form and evolve. (No disrespect meant; just a simple historical observation; add Divine Guidance if necessary). This ought to hold true in Civ, too. However, what the ruler can do is to lead his people. So after building lots of warriors and spearmen (War), maintaining social peace with troops (Domestic) and not building many temples, libraries or courthouses (Culture) and pretty much ignoring scientific research (Science) but building lots of roads, marketplaces and trade with neighbors (Trade) there has emerged for the Clever German Folk a religion:

The German Religion at 1 AD:
Domestic: +1
Trade: +2
War: +2
Culture: -2
Science: -3

And now we have something to work with. These attributes can have direct effects in the game related to their meaning. As there are both bonuses and penalties it's always a trade off which keeps the game interesting. Also, as the player does not have a direct control over the religion of his people it works as a "cause and effect" feedback to his actions.

And what about the religions of other nations?

Naturally the more the religions are similar the better their relations ought to be, although not necessarily peaceful. An attitude modifier based on the religion difference ought to be an easy one. Also, going to war against a civ with a similar religion might invoke discontent in your people: "Stop the aggression against our brothers in faith!"

Religions ought to have far-reaching influence, too. This could mean that two nations having trade deals and/or sharing a border influence each other's religions bringing them closer together over time. Perhaps so that the culturally more powerful civ has an advantage in this. In cultural city flips the distance of religions might give a modifier, too.

That's great. Yeah, it sounds good to me. And then, if you conquer a civ with a totally different religion, that gives its people more cause to rebel. Fanatics can be (re)incorporated. Neat, I must say.

I think thats a great idea too. But as an extra thing, if the country in which the religion originated is conquered or even of a different culture group there could be a new church set up in one of the surviving/different countries that could differ slightly from the origional. Also if the home nation is under attack there could be a crusade called that would not necessarily require the participation of all nations of that religion, but if you didn't participate, the others would shun you. And to participate you could do it militaristically, financially, or politically.

I dunno... I feel like a civilization-based religion may not be the best route. The main reason is that many civilizations have had the same religion. For example, most of the civilizations in the game were/are Christian. It should maybe be based on cultural groups (European, American, Asian, Middle Eastern).

Some other things to consider about religion is that monotheistic religions tend to bring greater stability because in most polytheistic cultures, the people have patron gods or regional gods that prevent national unity. Of course, this is not always true, but its generally true... at least in older cultures when communication was worse. And in general polytheistic religions developed in agriculturally-based societies, and monotheistic religions in more shepard herder societies...

good idea

Originally posted by Xen
no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...
ummm, i don't see how you draw that conclusion, the Roman empire, the Greeks, the Egyptians, granted they were all ancient, but the Indians are polytheistic and they did okay. you have to admit trying to make historical game to be politically correct in say 1100 ad is bull sh*t.
i like the idea of being able to mess with religion, every empire would start out polytheistic and things would happen along the way, like a leader would appear like Jesus or Mohammed and you could either not support them and kill those who do (and risk a rovolt) or kill the people who didn't (and again risk a rvolt). It would give the game an interesting more realistic feeling.

I totally agree that religion should play a big part in the game. Many nations throughout history have gone to war for religious purposes.

Civil wars and discontent in cities have resulted as well in a mixed religion environment.

Oh yes, I definetly agree with that second point, ther, Purple. And Johann, that's a genius one too. It would add some excitement during the late ancient age period.

i'd like to see religious tolerance in some way be incorporated. How different would the US be if Europe had been more religiously tolerant in the 1600/1700s? Today most military conflicts are still religious based (middle east, northern ireland, pakistan/india, former USSR republics).

Isn't the current 'culture border' and 'culture' rating the Current version of religion, But they had to be politically correct and call it culture?

If It isn't, Maybe a Religeon border and religion rating could exists also, each civ would have its own 'government' and 'religion' and swapping could also have its own 'anarchy' effect. Finding the best 2 to combine the best results for your race at that given time in history. Religous races could get Golden Era by Religeon changing into the 'Ideal religion' for that race...

Each religion would have its own Science/Ent/Gold Max settings, its own military police, happiness, worker ratings, etc etc

Or something like Alpha Centauri the Government and the Religoen would have a +/- rating to effect the 'normal' status...

the problem is that culture also includes education and entertainment. They clumped it all together and called it culture. I would like to see religion seperated so that specific places of worship, and a civ might only allow one type, and gain city happiness but cause unrest with civs with different religions. or they can allow all types of worship, but sacrafice some internal happiness, and be at odds with all non-religiously free civs but at a lessor extent.

Leave religion out of it.

Next thing you know, we'd be having religious anarchy, cities in disorder for some abstract concept that cannot be quelled by military units, only by priests/shamans/holy goldfish, domestic advisors insisting we go to war against some neighbor because they're of a different religion, even if it serves no purpose as far as additional luxuries, resources, or anything else.

Yes, this would make it closer to real life, but it's a game, and games are to be played, and, ideally, enjoyable. I could give a crap less about religion in real life. I suspect if you incorporate this aspect into the game, you'd have fundamentalist zealots of every sect up in arms, and Sid might be the only man pursued bu the same cretins that went after Salaman Rushdie, but a group of enraged southern Baptists that interpreted that his implementation of religion was not what they wanted to see.

Can of worms.

Do not open.

So says me.

Your mileage may vary.



Later!

--The Clown to the Left

Originally posted by Benderino
Last, it would be cool to name certian historic landmarks on the map. For instance, a place where a big battle was fought, or where a city was destroyed, or to name a fort or a mountain, etc. I think that would be fun.

Or a river, or an island... I always wanted to see that in Civ! I agree it would add to the fun of the game.

Cheers,

Mad Hab

In my opinion, there is a way to incorporate Religion more, in the game, without offending anyone-and it doesn't even need that much new code to achieve (some of it can be done by editing the standard game!)
Basically, ALL religious "Techs" should be available in the ancient age, and all of them should be non-prerequisite. My ideas were for Early monotheism, which represents Judaism, Christianity and Islam; Eastern Philosophy-which represents religions/philosophies such as Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism and Eastern Religion-which represents Hinduism and Shinto. The first religion would have a prerequisite of Code of Laws/writing and Polytheism. The second would be based on Philosophy and mysticism, and the third would be based on Philosophy and Polytheism! Please note that these are merely possibilities, and I haven't quite settled on what techs should be which. This would then allow a polytheistic faith, like Shinto and Hinduism, to survive side-by-side, into the modern age, with monotheistic faiths!! Give each type of religion it's own set of buildings and units, and suddenly religions do take on a whole new shape in the game :). The new stuff, though, would be to have a form of 'religious espionage'. This could incorporate things like the Sacrifice=culture idea that has been mentioned for C3C, but could also include a form of "Religious Propoganda" to help simulate conversion via cultural conversion. You could even set up a "Religious Embassy" or sabotage religious improvements of other Civs! All of these are reflected in Espionage, but there should be a seperate one especially for religion!
Anyway, that's just my thoughts, plz feel free to let me know what you think :).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

ClowntotheLeft, I don't know what else to say other than I disagree. All those "terrible" things you mention about priests and wars....they sound great! They not only make it more realistic, but I still think it would be more fun as well. And I think there are plenty who would agree with me.

Aussie, I love your idea. One thing...If the computer controlled India, would the AI choose to be Hindu all the time, or would it be random? Would Spain always be Catholic (Christian)?

Thanks for your thoughts.

In my opinion [different kind of] religion must be achieved as a tech advancement, must be choiched as a government form;
finally his socio-economical charachters must be applied as normal consequences of the given government form

Bendorino, I feel that, unless it was a scenario, it would be completely random-that way, you could have a Modern Day France that had "Eastern Religion" for instance-and which had discovered the joy of "The Eightfold Way" (Possible Great Wonder). Wheras you could have a Monotheistic India!! After all, isn't the object of the game to "re-write history"-so to speak!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Personally, I still feel that the addition of religion in Civ would be fun, and though I have forgotten my original blueprints for adding it [check in the old "Ideas for Civ 4" thread in General Discussions, on the second to last page to read them.] I would still fine that some, any, implementation would be interesting.

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Bendorino, I feel that, unless it was a scenario, it would be completely random-that way, you could have a Modern Day France that had "Eastern Religion" for instance-and which had discovered the joy of "The Eightfold Way" (Possible Great Wonder). Wheras you could have a Monotheistic India!! After all, isn't the object of the game to "re-write history"-so to speak!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I agree that it should be random, however, just to play devil's advocate for a moment if I may, then shouldn't the architecture be random as well? Personally, I don't think so, but if we are re-writing history here, then who's to say the Zulus should have Middle-Eastern and not European or American?

I guess that they want to keep at least some elements historically "accurate", but then leave the rest up to chance! That is to say, French and Greeks are European, wheras Zulus are African!! It's just a lot better than simply calling them Civ A, Civ B etc!! How they develop, from then on, is entirely up to you! I like playing on a real world map, for instance, as the Iroquois (on a lower difficulty level), then sending my ships out on a Voyage of discovery to the "New World" of Europe!! Of course, it'd be even more funny if my Aztecs, with all of their "Blood Sacrifice", went on a similar voyage, and enslaved, sacrificed and assimilated the primitive peoples of Europe ;)!! That'd be sooo funny :D.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well said.

A nation is builted on religion most wars are fought over religion
i say religion is what this games needs to become a real civ. game!!!

Darn tootin!

Originally posted by Drewcifer
They could do something with religion along the lines of Call to Power. Maybe there could be a small wonder that would be the center of your religion and allow you to build priests. If you converted other cities it could increase the chances of culture flip. If you converted other leaders it could improve relations with that civ, or it could be worth while to convert to another civs religion for the sake of building alliances. This could be done without mentioning any specific religion.

I like your idea very much. Would be nice to have tis features.:egypt:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Some other things to consider about religion is that monotheistic religions tend to bring greater stability because in most polytheistic cultures, the people have patron gods or regional gods that prevent national unity.

I disagree with you, polytheistic religions have a pantheon of Gods, just because you (or your city) favors one god over another does not mean that you diregard the other. In Greece, although Sparta and Athens were rivals, and favored different gods, both regarded each other as helenic people.
And monotheism was never a a uniting force, Italy and Germany are two examples, only recently their respective different regions formed an unity.


Of course, this is not always true, but its generally true... at least in older cultures when communication was worse. And in general polytheistic religions developed in agriculturally-based societies, and monotheistic religions in more shepard herder societies...
The assyrians, sumerians, babylonians were polytheistic. The Egypt, for a short period, was monotheistic.

Originally posted by GusmanC.Harris

In Greece, although Sparta and Athens were rivals, and favored different gods, both regarded each other as helenic people.



Sure, that may be true, however, they still fought a lot. "Rivals" is quite a euphemism here. There wasn't stability between these two powers, regardless of whether they thought the other was Hellenic or not.

Originally posted by Benderino


Sure, that may be true, however, they still fought a lot. "Rivals" is quite a euphemism here. There wasn't stability between these two powers, regardless of whether they thought the other was Hellenic or not.

Agreed, but the instability was not caused mainly by the fact that they had a polytheistic religion. The Roman Empire was able to maintain a relative degree of coesion despite the fact taht it was a polytheistic power dominating several others polytheistic cultures (and monotheist as well :)) .
When there is the want to fight one can find any pretext.

This game is not realistic without religion

what if you give a different tech tree to a civ depending in their religion, i know that in mideival times the middle east cultures were more advance than europe,

Originally posted by GusmanC.Harris


Agreed, but the instability was not caused mainly by the fact that they had a polytheistic religion. The Roman Empire was able to maintain a relative degree of coesion despite the fact taht it was a polytheistic power dominating several others polytheistic cultures (and monotheist as well :)) .
When there is the want to fight one can find any pretext.

You are absolutely right on that one. :)

@EddyG17, brilliant idea. Its true, the Muslims were more advanced during the middle ages than Europe, and so were the Chinese. They should give different techs per different religion, and different looking units. The medieval infantry unit wouldn't look the same in the Middle East as it did for Europe. It could be Almohad or janissary or something to that effect. For Eastern religions, there could be "warrior monks". This is just a more interesting way to distinguish cultures. Another thing, there are Asian looking units in PTW (for Japan at least), so why not Middle Eastern. A lot of them would look something like the Immortal, with scarves and turbans and such.

ok make religion like goverments each with is good things and bad.

Hmmmm, that's a great idea as well. Then we can have all sorts of combinations of government/religions so each nation will truly be unique.

that what i mean

Excellent then.

I think this is great but a little (a lot) carried awa for an expansion that comes out next month.
I feel you ought to be able to name your Religion at the start, thus one could choose to be devotees of the Athiest religion.

About the system mentioned earlier, if Germany suddenly focussed all its attention on Science (For which it had a -3 rating) would this cause discontent among its citizens?

Yeah would be good if you start a holy war e.g lets invade Germany to destroy Christianity etc... Countries of the same religion would defend each others interest and take a rep hit if it befriends a country who attacked a country with the same religion as theirs? Next month are you serious? Whens it out in the UK?

It said October didn't it? Wait that's two months away. Ah the long wait untill my birthday.
I'm not sure about the rep hit business for befriending, though.

Originally posted by Ian Beale
Countries of the same religion would defend each others interest and take a rep hit if it befriends a country who attacked a country with the same religion as theirs

Indeed that's a great idea: religious similarity have to substitute [or at least be equal to] ethnical similarity: I'm a little bored of Indians-Chinese-Japanese Axis....

how about you can choose to have a secular or a religious nation. a religous nation would have an official religion, producing 1 content citizen and one happy citizen per non-border city (only 1 happy citizen[the religious zealots] after the "Theory of Evolution" is built) but causes 2 unhappy citizens in your border cities. having a non-secular(religious) nation also cuts science rate by 20% (like the Fundamentalism government in Civ2 but not as bad). you can change without a revolution. a religious nation will also have slightly less corruption, since pretty much all religions discourage stealing.

it's a great idea, sim!
I support it

Originally posted by sims2789
how about you can choose to have a secular or a religious nation. a religous nation would have an official religion, producing 1 content citizen and one happy citizen per non-border city (only 1 happy citizen[the religious zealots] after the "Theory of Evolution" is built) but causes 2 unhappy citizens in your border cities. having a non-secular(religious) nation also cuts science rate by 20% (like the Fundamentalism government in Civ2 but not as bad). you can change without a revolution. a religious nation will also have slightly less corruption, since pretty much all religions discourage stealing.

I agree with that, except I think the option for "secularism" shouldn't come around until democracy is discovered. Or maybe after that.

@ Nini, Benvenuto al CFC!

Perhaps tolerant is a better tag than secular. Theres no reason to delay it till Democracy though. Both Persia and the Punic empire pretty much left their religious minorities alone despite being religious themselves.

we have military great leaders, now scientific leaders coming, how about religious leaders?
You must admit that "Great Leaders" like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and others had a major impact on shaping civilizations, perhaps more than any military leader ever did.

How would this play out in a game? Perhaps send a religious leader out to rush a culture flip of a rival city. Or their presence could double the effect of temples, etc... so one could be stationed in a discontent town to make it functional.

Originally posted by Pirate
we have military great leaders, now scientific leaders coming, how about religious leaders?
You must admit that "Great Leaders" like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and others had a major impact on shaping civilizations, perhaps more than any military leader ever did.

How would this play out in a game? Perhaps send a religious leader out to rush a culture flip of a rival city. Or their presence could double the effect of temples, etc... so one could be stationed in a discontent town to make it functional.

That's a wonderful idea. I like the 'rush a culture flip' thing, also they could give a bonus in culture or something. Or allow a certain small wonder (Piece of the True Cross for Christians or St. Peter's Cathedral, Western Wall for Jews, etc.)

So you'd sacrifice them for culture like workers only there worth a lot more?

Originally posted by Furius
So you'd sacrifice them for culture like workers only there worth a lot more?

I suppose martyrdom would be an option. Sacrifice your religious great leader to increase your entire civilization's culture. It would certainly make getting to a 100k culture victory more competitive.

So what are religious "Great Leaders" good for?
-Rush a culture flip of a rival city
-Reduce unhappiness in cities where they are present (this means keeping them alive so you only have one at a time)
-Sacrifice them to increase total culture (no ressurections, please)

How about...
-building army's with them, sort of like a crusade leader? The Conquests preview shows a priest-like unit. Perhaps they can add bonuses to these units.

Do you think religious great leaders should be it's own thread?

<edit> New thread created http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62493

Definitely think religion should be incorporated into the game. Its obviously done in C3:Conquests, with human sacrifice to boot. Its good to see that the game makers are moving more toward realism, and not worrying too much about controversy. Religious conflicts were HUGE parts of real civilizations, and should be in the game. Are there no limits to what could be in the game? I don't ask for that, but Religion and its influence SHOULD be in the game, in some regard. Such things are done in that rather popular game "Europa Univeralis".

As for it being too controversial, I would think that most of the folks who would find it offensive are not playing Civ that often.

woton its only able to be done so well in C3C because its focused on limited scenarios. how to put religion into the main game is much more difficult an issue

brian, that is an excellent point. How do you think religion could be incorporated into Civ successfully? What are the major drawbacks?

The reason it could be offensive to people is because you would be taking people's serious beliefs and turning them into a plaything. I think the religion should be kept annonymous or given gobbeldgook names like Dozerjanglism or something.

The one major drawback of religion in Civ III in my mind, though, is that it might end up being overly complicated for the part it plays in the game. The system has to be kept simple.

But, some people feel even more adamently towards their nationality or race than their religion. That way, if one was Hindu, they could play as such if they liked...or not, it's all good. :)

i think to avoid the whole risk of making a lot of people angry we should just keep everything nice and abstract.
what if each time you discover a religious tech you got prompted to choose a characteristic of the religion to improve? but if you get a religious tech from someone else, copying their religion, you get what they chose. then maybe set it every city gets the first point bonus, cities with temples get the second, cities with (improovment dependent on chosen characteristic) get the third and cities with cathedrals get the fourth. of course if you decide you want to change your religion it can take a lot of work, cost whatever...

idealy I'd make the religions if the game worked just a little differently I'd also suggest making the religions seperate cultures...

Good ideas. Also, there shouldn't necessarily be cathedrals, that's only for Catholicism, right? In our version, depending upon one's religion, that makes what religious building they can build. Then (As in Med: Total War) cities can fluctuate and be predominantly one religion but have a certain percentage of others that can influence you negatively or positively. How's that?