Religion gone from Civ V is a Blessing

[JLoZeppeli]

Moderator Action: *snip*

Please don't offend me with such words, i'm specialized in roman archeology and i'm working in an ancient pottery lab, this summer i worked on a site in Mauretania Tingitana, so i'm sure what im' speaking of. You are wrong, i'm sorry.

Cheers.

 

[SlothMD]

Please don't offend me with such words, i'm specialized in roman archeology and i'm working in an ancient pottery lab, this summer i worked on a site in Mauretania Tingitana, so i'm sure what im' speaking of. You are wrong, i'm sorry.
Cheers.

Argument from authority.

 

[jjkrause84]

its rediculous to think one nation will fall under one religion. Good riddance religion!!

I think it's bluediculous to claim this when empires in Civ4 almost always had multiple religions (unless they were theocratic) and orangediculous to want to see a key component of human history taken out of a game which is about...human history.

 

[SlothMD]

I think it's bluediculous to claim this when empires in Civ4 almost always had multiple religions (unless they were theocratic)

Which was blackiculously implemented - people unhappy? Just spread six different competing religions to your 1 citizen in that city and make him go to all their temples.

and orangediculous to want to see a key component of human history taken out of a game which is about...human history.

Religion wasn't removed from the game - it still exists in the civics, techs, and buildings. The only thing removed was the cartoonish and dumbed-down "he who controls the most holy cities has the best economy and diplomacy and happiest people and can build the most culture/happiness/tech/gold buildings" mechanic.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

But religions are way more than a building and an upgrade, please, i prefer a better religion system than IV, but not no one, it's way too awful to see. Maybe an indipendent religion system from the tech tree or a religion per civs could be better. I like the idea of Roman syncretism, if you understand.

 

[Misterboy]

Thought I'd jump in on this:

It's naive to think that religions were the cause of major wars in history. High school history books simplify things to this level, but it's almost completely not the case. SlothMD is right. Religion is often used as a propoganda tool to persuade a population, or as an excuse to justify other motives. It rarely, if ever, has been the real cause of conflict.

For example: the current "War on Terror" is not religiously based. Islam is not at war with Ango-Christianity. The Nightly News may try to claim this to be the case, but it's simply not.

Sorry to burst anyone's world-view.

Finally, I hated religion in Civ 4 and I'm a builder/dove (dove? ...ick). Why... because although I LOVED the idea of religion, founding them, etc... and I loved playing with them at first, I quickly realized that it broke the game. Religion was massively overpowered for the reasons stated above. They never fixed it. I couldn't play the game because I didn't want to just exploit the AI.

(I should note, I never played a mod that re-balanced religion/corporations, which is a pity).

So many people lament the changes to Civ V and say it is "broken" here and "broken" there. The problem is, they ever only cite examples where they used to like to exploit Civ IV. I have heard legitimate complains about Civ V, but they are few and far between, and they have been discussed ad nauseam and will almost certainly be fixed in patches (I hope).

In conclusion, I'm much happier about religion in Civ V when compared to Civ 4.

 

[ohioastronomy]

It's incredibly annoying to have people projecting their real-life dislike of religion into a discussion of a *game.*

You don't like playing the religion game in Civ 4 - you don't play it. It's there for people who like it. The equivalent is removed in Civ 5, and it offends logic to make believe that what remains serves even remotely the same purpose in the new game that it did in the old game.

It wasn't "broken" in Civ 4. YOU DIDNT LIKE IT. That doesn't make it broken.

EDIT: those claiming religion was broken in Civ 4 don't understand the concept of opportunity cost: if you went for a religion strategy that means that you were not going for something else, there were significant risks, and it was simply a different style of approaching the game. You didn't need to do it if you didn't want to. That ingredient is utterly gone in this simplified game, and people find that to be a loss.

 

[andrewlt]

I'm happy with the removal of religion. I'd rather have Civ 5's crazy warmonger AIs than Civ 4's "if my name is not Montezuma I'm adapting the same religion as my neighbors and we'll be in peace for the entire game" AIs. Civ 4 felt way too much like all the AIs are on same side, no matter what game you have.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Thought I'd jump in on this:

It's naive to think that religions were the cause of major wars in history. High school history books simplify things to this level, but it's almost completely not the case. SlothMD is right. Religion is often used as a propoganda tool to persuade a population, or as an excuse to justify other motives. It rarely, if ever, has been the real cause of conflict.

For example: the current "War on Terror" is not religiously based. Islam is not at war with Ango-Christianity. The Nightly News may try to claim this to be the case, but it's simply not.

Sorry to burst anyone's world-view.

Finally, I hated religion in Civ 4 and I'm a builder/dove (dove? ...ick). Why... because although I LOVED the idea of religion, founding them, etc... and I loved playing with them at first, I quickly realized that it broke the game. Religion was massively overpowered for the reasons stated above. They never fixed it. I couldn't play the game because I didn't want to just exploit the AI.

(I should note, I never played a mod that re-balanced religion/corporations, which is a pity).

So many people lament the changes to Civ V and say it is "broken" here and "broken" there. The problem is, they ever only cite examples where they used to like to exploit Civ IV. I have heard legitimate complains about Civ V, but they are few and far between, and they have been discussed ad nauseam and will almost certainly be fixed in patches (I hope).

In conclusion, I'm much happier about religion in Civ V when compared to Civ 4.

Do you understand that the perception of religion today is way different than in the medieval era? How can you make a statement on modern terrorism to counter the importance of religion in the history and as a reason of war? You need to open not middle school books, please... So you will learn of the Catars, or the war waged by Spain vs Elizabeth, most of it was caused by the fervent devotion (and crazyness) of the King of Spain. Or the crusaders, or the French religion wars, or the war against muslim waged by Charles Magne, i can go on as you want, until the war of the Teotonic Order versus pagans of Lituany. And i not speak of buddhish wars, that are quite a lot...

Of course there are also political reason behind, but denying that is totally wrong, please refrain from repeat this mistake...

 

[SlothMD]

It's incredibly annoying to have people projecting their real-life dislike of religion into a discussion of a *game.*
It wasn't "broken" in Civ 4. YOU DIDNT LIKE IT. That doesn't make it broken.

Wow, it's like you didn't even read the detailed explanation of how and why it was broken, and in fact how particular mods fixed it.

 

[logintime]

Religion wasn't removed from the game - it still exists in the civics, techs, and buildings.

So it only exists in the most shallow lip-serviced form? Religion is barely noticeable in Civ5. If there wasn't a building called a temple, or if they'd just changed the themed words of the piety branch (which they well could have), it wouldn't exist in game at all. As is, it barely has any presence, especially not in relation to gameplay.

The only thing removed was the cartoonish and dumbed-down "he who controls the most holy cities has the best economy and diplomacy and happiest people and can build the most culture/happiness/tech/gold buildings" mechanic.

Which is a misunderstanding of the religion mechanic. Trying to get holy cities was a great way to instigate conflict between civs. Diplomacy wasn't always helped as any civ of a different religion treated you with suspicion. The economy benefited if you built the shrine, but that required obtaining the GP. And again, it added another gameplay element to it. I can't tell you how many rounds I spent knocking out missionaries to convert every city I could just for the sheer fun of it.

 

[skallben]

Again, religion is not left out of Civ 5. Religious buildings, wonders, and Piety social policies.

So you completely ignore the meaning of my post and reply to one sentence. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that religion in V is not even a fraction as big a part of the game as it was in IV. Oh, it exists like a shadow it does, it has no actual meaning in gameplay. It exists as an abstract force behind those buildings and wonders.

 

[SlothMD]

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that religion in V is not even a fraction as big a part of the game as it was in IV.

Yes, we understand. Religion was a big part of the human player's game in Civ IV. It was a big, broken, exploitable, dumbed-down part. Nobody is saying that there are more broken religious-themed parts in Civ V. We're just saying that A) It is untrue that "religion has been removed," and B) We're not upset that the most broken mechanics from Civ IV didn't carry forward.

 

[For Nall]

Religion resulted in having permanent allys that would love you and just sit there waiting for you to backstab them. How is that fun? How is that balanced?

 

[polypheus]

Yes, we understand. Religion was a big part of the human player's game in Civ IV. It was a big, broken, exploitable, dumbed-down part. Nobody is saying that there are more broken religious-themed parts in Civ V. We're just saying that A) It is untrue that "religion has been removed," and B) We're not upset that the most broken mechanics from Civ IV didn't carry forward.

You have already admitted many times that mods had fixed many of the flaws of vanilla Civ4 religion. Therefore it is completely false to say that Civ5 is good for not carrying forward the flawed aspect when as you admit solutions to fix the flaws already exist!

No one is saying to carry over Civ4 vanilla religion from scratch. People are saying that it should have in Civ5 using known fixes.

And no religion does not exist in Civ5 at at all, at least not in any meaningful way. All it is is names of buildings and policies which could be totally renamed to be without religious reference.

 

[SlothMD]

You have already admitted many times that mods had fixed many of the flaws of vanilla Civ4 religion. Therefore it is completely false to say that Civ5 is good for not carrying forward the flawed aspect when as you admit solutions to fix the flaws already exist!

Yes, it was fixed in certain mods. Mods are not the game. Most players in fact will probably never download or play a mod, and certainly most will never download or play any particular mod.

And no religion does not exist in Civ5 at at all, at least not in any meaningful way. All it is is names of buildings and policies which could be totally renamed to be without religious reference.

The same is true of the religion in Civ IV - the mechanic could have been rethemed as trading guilds or noble families with absolutely no change in mechanic. Holy Cities -> Guild Headquarters|Family Seat, Missionaries -> Branch Offices|Family Offshoots. I'm not really sure where you're going with that argument. Heck, the mechanics actually would have made more sense if they'd re-themed it to something other than religion - the bland "all religions are exactly the same and give you 1 happy face, 3 culture, and 2 beakers, are thoroughly directed by the national government, and serve as money mints for the government which owns the founding city" theming for religion was borderline offensive.

 

[polypheus]

Yes, it was fixed in certain mods. Mods are not the game. Most players in fact will probably never download or play a mod, and certainly most will never download or play any particular mod.

What does that have to do with putting religion into Civ5 exactly? If in your opinion and many others mods fixed religion, what exactly is the problem with putting in religion in Civ5 with the fixes? Is there some prohibition to putting in mod ideas into the main Civ5 game???

I don't get it, what does it have to do with whether people played those mods or not??? In fact, if people DIDN'T play those mods, putting it the fixes helps such people to realize that religion was not fundamentally broken in Civ4, only needing some tweaks that already exist that they can now enjoy without the need for mods.

As for your other point that, again these issues were "fixed" or at least improved upon in mods so again it is irrelevant how bad it was in vanilla Civ4.

The point is that these fixes could have been put into Civ5's main game. I don't understand the relevance about most people never downloading mods.

 

[Koheleth]

The sole western exception might be Judaism, which likewise doesn't really have a evangelical aspect.

A common mis-perception. Judaism proselytized quite heavily until the rise of Christianity and Islam. It only really stopped seeking converts when both Christian Rome/Byzantium and Caliphate made its attempts to seek converts from Christians and Muslims punishable by death.

 

[Peregrine]

Gee whiz, I just finished reading chapter 3 of "Comparative History of Civilization in Asia," The Crisis and Ethical Protest in the Mid First Millenium B.C. /600 B.C. to 450 B.C. The general thesis is that the early world religions in Asia (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddism) all acted as unifying agents for the various culture hearths in an era when the early universal empires were breaking up due to regional centrifugal forces and the rise of endemic, predatory warfare.

It's news to moi that all those scolars who contributed to the study didn't know what they were talking about. That religion just didn't matter or become a factor in historical processes. How about that. (/sarcasm)

Religion has certainly played in integral part in historical development over time and any attempt to assert otherwise would be laughed at, even by grad students. CIV didn't implement the historical function of religion as well as I would've liked, but at least it was there. Brave step in the right direction for a game that is called CIVILIZATION.

The astonishing absence of it in CiV is only one of the MANY reasons I opted not to purchase the game. It matters, not just in the historical sense, but as a purchasing point. The latter assertion is proved by my failure to purchase. I'm certain that I'm not alone in that.

 

[callum]

i liked how it just spread like a virus... infecting city by city, even outside of my borders. i also think it can make diplomacy more interesting. mixed in with some social policy tweeks it could become more valuable to keep some neighbor around..? (ive never had a single strong ally in CiV..... except city states)

+ if you choose to go on the religous path you sacrifice in other areas. i used to rush for budhism... thus -> sacrificing my early horsemen rush, delaying it a slight bit.

also the concept of holy citys was quite immersing..