Civics Improvements Suggestions

Due to my low vision, i prefer Subjugation icon is best.

Arakhor said:

You played Stone Age too, Vokarya? El Triturador’s mod was my absolute favourite, besides RoM, of course.

Click to expand...

I haven't played Stone Age, just downloaded it for ideas/parts. Good graphics are really hard to make, so I look for other mods with good ones we can use.

Ah. I always used to check other people's mods when making basic scripts for my own mods in Morrowind.

Atheism really needs some more downsides to it. Maybe have the positive stability turned into negative stability?

And maybe other penalties outside stability.

Lord Bigfoot said:

Atheism really needs some more downsides to it. Maybe have the positive stability turned into negative stability?

Click to expand...

I have always assumed it was meant to be a bit of a bonus for a civ that has failed to get any religions. So in this case the downside is to have been backward and/or isolated and also having had no access to the advantages of having a religion for the rest of the game. It seems to me that the -1 happy per religion is enough to put one off this civic if you have been exposed to religion spread. Do you think it is worth going for even if you do have multiple religions?

Samson said:

I have always assumed it was meant to be a bit of a bonus for a civ that has failed to get any religions. So in this case the downside is to have been backward and/or isolated and also having had no access to the advantages of having a religion for the rest of the game. It seems to me that the -1 happy per religion is enough to put one off this civic if you have been exposed to religion spread. Do you think it is worth going for even if you do have multiple religions?

Click to expand...

I always felt like it was worth it even if you had three of four religons in a city. +20% science and gold is such a huge bonus at that point that you can easily make up for the lower population. Coupled with the fact that the AI avoids the civic because of the happiness penalty, and a player running it could quickly outclass everyone if they were remotely close to them before.

triplebassist said:

I always felt like it was worth it even if you had three of four religons in a city. +20% science and gold is such a huge bonus at that point that you can easily make up for the lower population. Coupled with the fact that the AI avoids the civic because of the happiness penalty, and a player running it could quickly outclass everyone if they were remotely close to them before.

Click to expand...

Plus by late game when it's introduced unhappiness is entirely negligible thanks to the later era happiness buildings and national wonders.

Secular civic should (I hate that word) nullify " We do not do business with unbelievers" or else change the civic description that describes religious tolerance.

oldnooob said:

Secular civic should (I hate that word) nullify " We do not do business with unbelievers" or else change the civic description that describes religious tolerance.

Click to expand...

That depends on who's using it. If you're using it, other religious civs will think you're an unbeliever. That's perfectly normal. If you say that some other civ running secular calls you an unbeliever, that's a problem. But it shouldn't happen AFAIK. Is this what's happening to you?

No, I cannot ally with any other civ because of the religion difference. that is absurd . Where in history have countries failed to band together to face an immediate common threat? I believe that religious differences will almost always take a back seat to national defense when the threat is immediate.
I can understand that as an academic you live in a sheltered world but the reality of the real world is that countries will band together to stave off an immediate threat and not necessarily refuse offers of help from other nations based on religion alone.
Having said that I would like to see your justification for such a rigid, narrow-minded stance, not allowing the normal optional switch to undo this "feature".

Dial back the hostility, please. It's not going to get you anywhere.

Oldnoob, I don't get your point. Weren't you talking about secular civic? Is it you running secular or other civs? Because if it's you, then you're seen as an unbeliever and it's perfectly normal. That's one point.
It's something different if you say you can't ally with other civs because of religion difference. But this has nothing to do with secular because it depends on both you and AI. IIRC, afforess tuned down this difference effect some revisions ago. It could still be too strong but I didn't have any problem with it yet and have no other reports of this problem beside yours. So, if someone else has problems like this using latest revision (865), please let me know.
Thanks.

Edit: and I'm no academic.

Sorry about the academic.

The usual civs that I ally with cyrus, for example, refuse me as an unbeliever. I then changed my religion to secular and he still refuses to ally with me . we both use intervention. he is pleased. We have common enemies. I cannot ask him to change his religion so the only way to ally is for me to change my religion. that is to one sided. The cornerstone of diplomacy is negotiation. this "feature" does not allow negotiation. I do understand that diplomacy is one of the least developed feature of all of the civilization games and DO give your team full credit for making huge strides in improving diplomacy in this mod. I do feel that some form of "opt out" should be available for this religion hard line feature.

OK, now I got it. It makes no difference if you switch to secular because it depends on his civic. You could try forcing him to change civics, using spies or UN resolutions. As I've said, this isn't a feature, it's a programmed behaviour. Afforess tuned it down lately but we might consider further modification if more people have problems with it. In the meantime, thanks for your report

Forced civic changes in AND are very expensive (Sometimes I feel, way too expensive. Planting a nuke is barely more costly in most cases) and often not worth it. Actually, given that the AI can swap back in a fraction of the time it takes you to accumulate the ESP to make the change, I don't think it's worth it period anymore.

I do think the "We won't deal with unbelievers" aspect is a bit stingy still, but it's gotten better in recent revisions I do agree.

Well thanks guys for your input. I will have to rationalize that Aforess was trying to add another challenge to the diplomacy area. to me this feature appears to be a step in the wrong direction. I would think that some more verbal intercourse with the civs would be a more productive means to add diplomacy challenges, particularly if the conversations and demands were two sided.
Think demand + rebuttal + counter = negotiation.

I think it's a good idea in theory, especially for religious fanatics like Isabella and Justinian - where they would literally hate you the second you're running anything but their religion and quite honestly do hate you the moment you do so. Heck, Isabella is as far as I know the most likely to go to war with someone if they're running another religion and has a very high diplomatic penalty for rejecting a request to change yours or for running a different one. It totally makes sense on someone like her. I don''t know if any of the AND leaders or the Mega Pack leaders have higher ratings, but amongst the BTS leaders she's completely insane when it comes to religious fanaticism.


Overall it seems to be a bit restrictive at times. When I had no religion in a GEM game and had no way to get one, Asoka who had founded Zoroastrianism could have benefited by opening borders with me, but refused because I was an Unbeliever - even though I was bordering Friendly with him. In the end, a different religion spread to the nation in the south, and then he opened borders with me - at cautious - and sent a missionary over. We ended up conquering most of Asia and Europe together, and wiped Asoka out.

It could have ended up very differently if he had just opened borders with me centuries before
Asoka's one of those guys who will be very easy to befriend too, so that just confused me a ton. There was literally nothing I could do with him simpy because I was a pagan at the time - and there wasn't anything I could do about that either. It was not exactly what I would call strategic or fun.

Would it be possible to make the Atheism civic make religion decay - as the mod option does.

That would not make the Civic weaker BUT an Atheist society would, over time lose more and more of the benefits that religious buildings would bring...

youmakemefart said:

Would it be possible to make the Atheism civic make religion decay - as the mod option does.

That would not make the Civic weaker BUT an Atheist society would, over time lose more and more of the benefits that religious buildings would bring...

Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible, and a reasonable idea too...