Preventing Other Civs From Spreading Their Religion

^^ It is hard to know, but I would not have expected the AI to give up so quickly. (1) Inquisitors are quite useful for the task. If I can spare the faith early, I will buy on or two on speculation, while they are very inexpensive. (2) If they are sufficiently frustrated, GPr will give up. But (3) the AIs like to use GPr to explore, which makes very little sense, but it is pretty common. If the GPr saw you had a garrison in your city, that might have just spared you a DOW!

But pretty much, yes, inquisitors can very efficiently deter the AI GP?

Inquisitors are a very efficient way to prevent cities from being converted. But no, I think it was just RNG that the GPr wandered away.

If you want to know for sure, reload the game from the turn you purchased the Inquisitor -- then don’t purchase it! Does the GPr then go and convert one of your cities? Or does the foreign GPr still wander off?

The whole system with GP's is messy.

I wish there was a way to reliably tell if the GP was going to convert a city in your territory or not.

Inquisitors are nice and all, but sinking 600-1000 faith into something like that IS wasteful if they were just exploring your territory. that usually costs you and industrial GP at LEAST or some early buildings. Also, often the GP's in my games are from friends so DOWing is a bad option diplomatically. I usually can't tell since they wander about if they are going for a city or just exploring as they move in lines in both cases and it's a real shame to DOW and cause a diplo incident if they were just doing some friendly exploring. The other option is to produce so much military they can't move around you and dance for hundreds of years blocking them or waste 6 units pinning one but this wastes units and time and makes you less prepared for defense.

This is why I wish you could request they not convert your cities ahead of time rather then waiting for them to do it once. At least then they will have a diplo penalty for lying if they pull a sneaky conversion which is a slight deterrence that they usually violate anyway, but it's something at least. Celts as neighbors are the worst. I can usually build good enough relations with Ethiopia if they are a neighbor that they are hesitant to pull this stunt but Boudicca seems like she never agrees to stop converting her neighbors and she ALWAYS goes full conversion religious every game. Honestly she's so annoying that if I have a religion and she is nearby I'm tempted to form a coalition just to wipe her out.

Seriously, one continents game she appeared on the other continent and I was ethiopia. By the time I found her every city on her continent was her religion and she'd completely spammed England's religion to nothing. Somehow she STILL had 3 prophets which as soon as she could sent to our continent along with missionaries. We had 2 religions. Mine owned the north and was slightly more dominant, and songhai had the south. I met her first and definitely should have had friendlier relations then songhai with all the early trading we did. Songhai's cities were also closer to her. Also, she got a lot of resources and a couple luxes from me. She could have been a good friend but just like she always does those 3 prophets beelined my cities and started being a pain. She completely ignored every city of songhai's religion and went straight for all my cities. Every CS or songhai city that songhai's religion was in was ignored studiously. It was rather curious. I checked and they weren't friends or anything. I asked her to stop and of course she refused. We could have been friends but she apparently had global religion aspirations so there was no chance of that...Seriously was ticked at her this game for ignoring Songhai. I used military troops to guide her GP all the way to songhai borders (took forever) till she was 2 tiles from huge songhai cities and she still ignored them all and kept trying to get around my troops to MY cities. Because the AI is silly and never changes conversion targets apparently. If she'd gone after songhai like I tempted her too she could have gained 10 more cities to her religion but because she went after me she got nothing on my continent. I trapped all her prophets and converted back the CS she went after just to spite her after seeing this ridiculous preferential behavior to attack me. Even though I didn't technically do anything against her she still became very angry as my religion grew in prominence. I think she's programmed to go after the strongest religious competitors in order or something and grow angry at other religious people. She soon grew so vehement she wouldn't even buy luxes from me even though I never did anything against her. As a result of her illogical decisions I not only stopped trading with her but kept her from converting any cities on our continent. It was my revenge for her stupid choices that game. I left her in the dust technolically and launched the ship when she was still warring England with ironclads. So long humans of earth.

danaphanous said:

I wish there was a way to reliably tell if the GP was going to convert a city in your territory or not.

Click to expand...

I wish there was a way to tell if they had four spreads or not. I will happily DOW for a plantable GPr!

Inquisitors are nice and all, but sinking 600-1000 faith into something like that IS wasteful

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I will often buy one early while they are still cheap. I would rather pay the couple gpt for 200 turns and have an extra Industrial+ era GP.

At least then they will have a diplo penalty for lying if they pull a sneaky conversion which is a slight deterrence that they usually violate anyway, but it's something at least.

Click to expand...

Sorry to say, but I don’t think it is something. AI lying to the player is without diplomatic repercussions (unless the players DOWs or denounces).

I thought that might be the case but I hoped! Every AI seems to know when you lie so I was wondering if they knew about each other.

For me this is one of the most irritating features in Civ5. You're doing fine for half the game, but suddenly post astronomy that tiny civ (usually Ethiopia or the Maya ) with one city and last on the scoreboard decides to spam you with prophets and refuses to stop even when told not to The worst part is how despite having no military or anything, they still blatantly refuse your requests and set off to "enlighten your citizens". For me that is very poor game design. If somebody wants to spread their religion, either they should do it with the permission of the city owner, or simply do it by force (i.e "Let me show your people the One True Faith or I'll just take your cities and then do so"

To say nothing of the times when the AI actually says it isnt going to convert your city and then proceeds to do so on the next turn without any repurcussions whatsoever

This was one of the main reasons I shifted back to civ4 now. I mean yeah, I could just declare war on the overly zealous civ and kill their prophets (sometimes even war does not deter them, and they continue suiciding their prophets ), but honestly this whole thing just breaks the realism of the gameplay for me.

/rant

danaphanous said:

Every AI seems to know when you lie so I was wondering if they knew about each other.

Click to expand...

Most lies only effect diplo with the civ you lie to, the notable exception being the demand to move your troops or DOW. Can you think of others? If I tell civ X that I will stop spying (or stop settling near them, or stop converting their cities, or stop digging up their artifacts) but then do not stop, for sure civ X hates me. But civs A, B, C, etc. never care about that!

Akbarthegreat said:

For me that is very poor game design... but honestly this whole thing just breaks the realism of the gameplay for me.

Click to expand...

I have the opposite reaction. Minor nations doing what they can to cheese off the player seems more like real life to me!

Actually I guess you're right. I never really though about it much but I've only seen the lying modifier on civs I've done it too. Never lied about moving troops in a long time but I remember it being a serious faux paus so I've never repeated the mistake. These days I just DOW straight away if they ask.

As for the other lies, that makes me bolder to do it more often haha. I could care less what certain civs think as long as I can keep a few friends.

I have the opposite reaction. Minor nations doing what they can to cheese off the player seems more like real life to me!

Click to expand...

How exactly does that seem like real life at all?

^^ North Korea and ISIS grief the western world to the best of their capability. The analogy is far from perfect, but if GPr were a real thing, for sure minor countries would be sending them abroad to their large enemies! The minor nation is daring you to DOW over their GPr spam. I think that is compelling behavior from the game.

beetle said:

^^ North Korea and ISIS grief the western world to the best of their capability. The analogy is far from perfect, but if GPr were a real thing, for sure minor countries would be sending them abroad to their large enemies! The minor nation is daring you to DOW over their GPr spam. I think that is compelling behavior from the game.

Click to expand...

Well that really isn't much of an analogy at all. That would be nice if I got support in the ensuing war. But no, even the other leaders following my religion will hate me for being a warmonger

Regardless, if you send your great prophets over, you need to have permission. I really don't see how what the great prophets do is even remotely similar to what a terrorist does.

Akbarthegreat said:

That would be nice if I got support in the ensuing war. But no, even the other leaders following my religion will hate me for being a warmonger.

Click to expand...

But again, this is like real life. Circumstances have to be really remarkable for a superpower to DOW a small country or CS. And the warmonger hate follows when they do.

Regardless, if you send your great prophets over, you need to have permission.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure what GPr look like in real life, at least not in the last couple centuries, but no, they would not need to have permission! Evangelists go into countries where they are not invited and are not welcome. All the time. I suppose though, those are more like missionaries than GPr? Maybe we should be grateful that GPr do not really have real-world incarnations? But if we did, why would you expect them to respect national borders? Also, what does a GPr spread action look like in real life? A whole city converting from one faith to another? When is the most recent historical example of that?

I really don't see how what the great prophets do is even remotely similar to what a terrorist does.

Click to expand...

They are disrupting cities. Aside from rebels, civ5 does not have an analog for terrorist/terrorism. It is a poor fit, I agree, but not entirely unreasonable I do not think.

I see the analogy a little differently. I think general "evangelists" that go where they want regardless of government are wrapped up in the passive religious "pressure" mechanic. Missionaries and GPr in civ V are government sponsored and government controlled as opposed to people of a faith acting on their own like passive pressure. This is why it doesn't entirely make sense that you don't need open borders to use them.

They are like privateers in that they are directly controlled by the government but somehow exempt from agreements like open borders. There's attrition for missionaries at least in absence of OB but GPr make little sense and there's nothing like them in real life either. I suppose they are supposed to represent the major "revivals" and "religious movements" that converted whole cities and countries to various religions throughout history, but the best examples of this are the founding of new religions like Buddhism, Islam, & Christianity where the old religions were displaced quickly in the founding region. I'm not sure why they were also given the OP conversion ability unless it was to give players a way to bounce back their religion if it was nearly wiped out. If so you don't need the ability to travel anywhere though, especially because they are government agents. Personally I think GPr should have to follow open borders agreements and only missionaries should be able to move into foreign lands in absence. It'd be more balanced and take out some of the annoyance. It's not as if you can claim you can't control your own prophets. You're directly controlling them so movement into foreign territory without permission should be an act of war in my opinion. Many players take it this way anyway and just attack the prophets because they are so annoying.

beetle said:

But again, this is like real life. Circumstances have to be really remarkable for a superpower to DOW a small country or CS. And the warmonger hate follows when they do.

Click to expand...

That is not the way it worked for most of history. Countries taking the moral high stand with respect to aggression that does not affect them directly or indirectly is a very recent phenomenon.

beetle said:

Well, I am not sure what GPr look like in real life, at least not in the last couple centuries, but no, they would not need to have permission! Evangelists go into countries where they are not invited and are not welcome. All the time. I suppose though, those are more like missionaries than GPr? Maybe we should be grateful that GPr do not really have real-world incarnations? But if we did, why would you expect them to respect national borders?

Click to expand...

Can you imagine European missionaries being able to get into the Abbasid caliphate and carry out conversions? Or the opposite?
Why would you expect them to expect national borders? Well that why my goddamn military is there Historically, conversions most of the time took place when the converting civilization had more or less subjugated the targets. Or when the ruler himself had a change of heart.

beetle said:

Also, what does a GPr spread action look like in real life? A whole city converting from one faith to another? When is the most recent historical example of that?

Click to expand...

Well I have no idea what these units were ever supposed to represent in any of the games.

Although in my opinion civ5 did well in terms of religion, by making all religions unique, something vanilla civ4 lacked. On the other hand (other than the annoyance of having your cities randomly converted) it unfortunately gives religion little to no role in diplomacy. The player isn't encouraged to stick to a religion, just try to found a new one.

danaphanous said:

I see the analogy a little differently. I think general "evangelists" that go where they want regardless of government are wrapped up in the passive religious "pressure" mechanic. Missionaries and GPr in civ V are government sponsored and government controlled as opposed to people of a faith acting on their own like passive pressure. This is why it doesn't entirely make sense that you don't need open borders to use them.

They are like privateers in that they are directly controlled by the government but somehow exempt from agreements like open borders. There's attrition for missionaries at least in absence of OB but GPr make little sense and there's nothing like them in real life either. I suppose they are supposed to represent the major "revivals" and "religious movements" that converted whole cities and countries to various religions throughout history, but the best examples of this are the founding of new religions like Buddhism, Islam, & Christianity where the old religions were displaced quickly in the founding region. I'm not sure why they were also given the OP conversion ability unless it was to give players a way to bounce back their religion if it was nearly wiped out. If so you don't need the ability to travel anywhere though, especially because they are government agents. Personally I think GPr should have to follow open borders agreements and only missionaries should be able to move into foreign lands in absence. It'd be more balanced and take out some of the annoyance. It's not as if you can claim you can't control your own prophets. You're directly controlling them so movement into foreign territory without permission should be an act of war in my opinion. Many players take it this way anyway and just attack the prophets because they are so annoying.

Click to expand...

Agree. The religion mechanic could have been made a bit more complex- for instance give later founded religions a sudden increase in pressure. Would love to see a RFC-esque reformation, though I don't think that can happen in a base game anyway.

inquisitors are the answer (standing them nearby seems to deter missionaries and prophets), but especially early game, having an AI convert your cities isn't the worst thing. if it's the religious leader in the game doing it then their beliefs are probably pretty solid, and if they landed pagodas or mosques before you then it doesn't hurt to reap the benefits in the affected cities before replacing the religion with your own

Akbarthegreat said:

Can you imagine European missionaries being able to get into the Abbasid caliphate and carry out conversions? Or the opposite?

Click to expand...

Well... there were missionaries going into Europe, but the Europeans tended to murder them. Also, there were and are muslims in the balkans and Spain.

The muslims sent missionaries into China, to the point where there are ancient historical mosques there even if the country remained buddhist. Same for India and Indonesia.

The missionaries who went to North America in the 16th - 18th centuries were generally welcomed and lived among the indigenous peoples. There's still historical letters and diaries they wrote about their experience.

miaasma said:

inquisitors are the answer (standing them nearby seems to deter missionaries and prophets), but especially early game, having an AI convert your cities isn't the worst thing. if it's the religious leader in the game doing it then their beliefs are probably pretty solid, and if they landed pagodas or mosques before you then it doesn't hurt to reap the benefits in the affected cities before replacing the religion with your own

Click to expand...

Inquisitors do cost a lot of faith, especially if have a large empire. In such cases its much better to create a traffic jam to slow down (or stop) the prophets.
But that really isn't the point. It's irritating and immersion breaking.

Volcanon said:

Well... there were missionaries going into Europe, but the Europeans tended to murder them. Also, there were and are muslims in the balkans and Spain.

The muslims sent missionaries into China, to the point where there are ancient historical mosques there even if the country remained buddhist. Same for India and Indonesia.

The missionaries who went to North America in the 16th - 18th centuries were generally welcomed and lived among the indigenous peoples. There's still historical letters and diaries they wrote about their experience.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Missionary activities were carried out where either the target country was okay with it (because the predominant religion didn't mind it, like China), or when it was too weak to say no, or a combination of the two (native America). If a country doesn't fit into any of those categories, they are not going to welcome the 'enlightenment' of their population.
Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkans were more a product of the Umayyad Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire respectively.

Akbarthegreat said:

Inquisitors do cost a lot of faith, especially if have a large empire. In such cases its much better to create a traffic jam to slow down (or stop) the prophets.
But that really isn't the point. It's irritating and immersion breaking.

My point exactly. Missionary activities were carried out where either the target country was okay with it (because the predominant religion didn't mind it, like China), or when it was too weak to say no, or a combination of the two (native America). If a country doesn't fit into any of those categories, they are not going to welcome the 'enlightenment' of their population.
Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkans were more a product of the Umayyad Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire respectively.

Click to expand...

You've never heard of a holy war? The Crusades? Jihad? ISIS? Buddist Fundamentalist Terrorists? Christian Evangelicals (and I don't mean Republican Evangelicals)?

I love the addition of aspects that can/do lead to holy wars in this game. Far more realistic for countries to war over religion than it is that they war over some Oranges and some Black Dye #1.

Religion is the #1 reason for going to war and that's a fact regardless of what Era you are in, in game or in real life.

And Inquisitors are only 200 Faith if you get them early and you don't need 1 for each city. Keep 1 in the cities on the borders of nuisance civs and keep them on the road so they can move to another city if you see missionaries/prophets heading there instead. Even a wide empire can handle 3 inquisitors. Well worth the investment if this is your biggest worry in regards to international relationships.

sixty4half said:

You've never heard of a holy war? The Crusades? Jihad? ISIS? Buddist Fundamentalist Terrorists? Christian Evangelicals (and I don't mean Republican Evangelicals)?

I love the addition of aspects that can/do lead to holy wars in this game. Far more realistic for countries to war over religion than it is that they war over some Oranges and some Black Dye #1.

Religion is the #1 reason for going to war and that's a fact regardless of what Era you are in, in game or in real life.

And Inquisitors are only 200 Faith if you get them early and you don't need 1 for each city. Keep 1 in the cities on the borders of nuisance civs and keep them on the road so they can move to another city if you see missionaries/prophets heading there instead. Even a wide empire can handle 3 inquisitors. Well worth the investment if this is your biggest worry in regards to international relationships.

Click to expand...

Read my above posts. A holy war is what I want. Religion should be associated with holy wars. If somebody wants to convert my empire to 'the True Faith', they should invade and do it 'by the sword'. Check out the Sword of Islam (civ4 mod) for how well that can be done. Not by sending GPrs who can, for whatever reason enter all lands without anybody's permission. That makes absolutely no sense.

Hmm I will try that, even though it is a waste of faith. Also, like a previous poster said, you really dont know if they're going for your cities or not. You can ask them, but not like the bastards get a penalty or something for lying

danaphanous said:

The whole system with GP's is messy.

I wish there was a way to reliably tell if the GP was going to convert a city in your territory or not.

Inquisitors are nice and all, but sinking 600-1000 faith into something like that IS wasteful if they were just exploring your territory. that usually costs you and industrial GP at LEAST or some early buildings. Also, often the GP's in my games are from friends so DOWing is a bad option diplomatically. I usually can't tell since they wander about if they are going for a city or just exploring as they move in lines in both cases and it's a real shame to DOW and cause a diplo incident if they were just doing some friendly exploring. The other option is to produce so much military they can't move around you and dance for hundreds of years blocking them or waste 6 units pinning one but this wastes units and time and makes you less prepared for defense.

Click to expand...

Although that still doesn't detract from the original point, that a small civilization with a paltry military refusing to stop converting my cities is frankly ridiculous.