The Religious sides don't make sense

SammyKhalifa · Oct 18, 2012

Drawmeus said:
They are some weird choices as the BEST religious civs in the game. Arabia, India, and Spain are all quite a bit more closely associated with religions than Ethiopia or the Celts. For new civs, Nepal and Israel would have made more sense.

Well, Arabia and Friends were already in the game pre-religion and already had special abilities. Sure they could have retooled everything, but I don't blame them for just giving religious abilities to the new civs instead.

Rooftrellen · Oct 18, 2012

Drawmeus said:
They are some weird choices as the BEST religious civs in the game. Arabia, India, and Spain are all quite a bit more closely associated with religions than Ethiopia or the Celts. For new civs, Nepal and Israel would have made more sense.

However, I'm just happy to play with more civs. The more they release, the happier I'll be, as long as they don't screw my game up too much with stuff that's just so ridiculously overpowered that I can't put up with it in single player - and I can handle Maria Theresa.

As much as people imagine Portugal as "yet another naval European civ" they could have come into G&K with a nice religious boost. There is a story that in one battle against the Moors, a man (who would later found and become first king of Portugal) saw a cross in the sky and begged God...not him, show the Moors, they were the ones that needed it. :lol:

You might have to take a leader that doesn't smack you right in the face to get someone known for religion however.

Arabia and Spain are highly connected with religions due to their efforts to spread religion. England and the Netherlands could be just as connected to religion for the same reason as Spain (and perhaps more so because they not only spread Christianity, they both pursued religious changes, leading to...problems with the Catholic Church).

America would have made for an interesting religious civ as well. Depending on how a research is done, America generally ranks from one of the most religious countries in the world to extremely religious for being a rich country with European roots, and early American history certainly would have made room for a religious UA.

Brazil would have been an interesting choice. It was a prime target for the Jesuits and, in fact, a depressing (for any American that might move to Brazil and need to learn about the culture, literature, etc.) amount of Brazilian literature from the colonial times are very religious in nature.

Well, there are a lot of potential sources of religious civs, so long as we can avoid the trap of labeling some as "primitive." The Celts and Maya were strong choices, and I'm a bit surprised that the Aztecs didn't get their UA changed to give faith (in vanilla culture was used for religion as well, just look at the old piety tree).

Ethiopia got a UB, not a UA, associated with faith, and, as far as my limited knowledge goes, that is perfectly logical, even if the time may be a bit off.

Not that there aren't more religious civs out there, but the choices aren't strange. They are pretty darn logical in fact.

Drawmeus · Oct 18, 2012

SammyKhalifa said:
Well, Arabia and Friends were already in the game pre-religion and already had special abilities. Sure they could have retooled everything, but I don't blame them for just giving religious abilities to the new civs instead.

Understood, but now we're in a position where if we see Spain in the game, religion is no big thing (she'll try her best, bless her little heart, but she's not very good at it), but if we see the Celts, better hurry up and get a Pantheon because they are blitzing to an enhanced religion!

It's weird.

SammyKhalifa · Oct 18, 2012

Drawmeus said:
Understood, but now we're in a position where if we see Spain in the game, religion is no big thing (she'll try her best, bless her little heart, but she's not very good at it), but if we see the Celts, better hurry up and get a Pantheon because they are blitzing to an enhanced religion!

It's weird.

Yeah. I would like to see some tweaking--though Spain near a religious landmark is probably the best religious civ from what I've seen.

I've been a supporter of Nepal or Tibet making the civ list for a while too--would be interesting and unique choices.

Crafty Bison · Oct 18, 2012

What? By far my biggest objection to this thread is the uniform inability to spell Wales. It's a country 40 miles from where I live, not Japanese 'scientific research'. Also, Scotland has only one 't'.

In terms of the OP's point, true, but like worse stuff doesn't happen to history in civ.

edit: Also, who says Spain don't get a religious bonus?

Maledict · Oct 18, 2012

Neither do the science nations. The best science nations in the game are a civilisation that died out thousands of years ago, the Mayans who remained incredibly unadvanced relative to the rest of the world and Korea. Nations that actually changed the world in terms of science (Greece, Arabia, England) don't get a look in.

Just a side effect of having one big ability per nation - you can't have everything that makes sense, so you end up with some nations being better at things than others who historically would have crushed the,

Seabastian Civ · Oct 18, 2012

Princeofnigeria said:
. . . However I feel your arguements for etheopia are invalid. While it may have ADOPTED many of the worlds major religions, it had very little to do with there spread . . . And as for rastafarianism, thats exactly my point when I say "a religion that isn't globally important", as it has far less followers than Even sihkism and shintoism (5 million and 2.75 million respectivly), the two smallest of the 11 religions in G+K.

Ummmm, Ethiopia has been a fortress of Christianity for over 1700 years, surrounded by other, often hostile religions. So, regardless of what you think, historians almost universally agree that it is a religiously important civilization. Moreover, Rastafarianism might not have high numbers of followers, roughly a million, but its cultural influence is enormous.

Secondly, Sikhism is the fifth largest organized religion on the planet, with at least 30 million members. Shintoism was the de facto religion of Japan for a thousand years, and it is estimated there were 114 million shinto in the world at one point... so i have no idea where you get these "facts."

Arachnofiend · Oct 18, 2012

Maledict said:
Neither do the science nations. The best science nations in the game are a civilisation that died out thousands of years ago, the Mayans who remained incredibly unadvanced relative to the rest of the world and Korea. Nations that actually changed the world in terms of science (Greece, Arabia, England) don't get a look in.

Just a side effect of having one big ability per nation - you can't have everything that makes sense, so you end up with some nations being better at things than others who historically would have crushed the,

To be fair the Mayans during their heyday were way ahead of their Old World counterparts, especially in the field of Astronomy. I'm still not quite sure why they picked Babylon for a science civ, though; it seems that it would make more sense to give them a tall-style production bonus considering Nebby's obsession with renovating the capital.

Princeofnigeria · Oct 18, 2012

Yes, Etheopia DEFENDED a religion made elsewhere, by someone else, from more expansive religions. But it didn't SPREAD Christianity to any of the neighboring countries in a signifigant way, while nepal did trade, modify, and spread many major religions. Second, it is true that I missrepresented the Sikh religion, and for that I appoligize, it was a mistake and didn't mean to misrepresent them. But your number is also about ten million higher than there actual number. Also, the cultural signifigance of the Rastafarian movement is not usually seen in the western World Many people know the Name, but few know anything else except "like... Uhmmm... Bob marley?... Or something? I dunno...". And thirdly, sorry for my atrocious inability to spell the names of Wales and Scotland. I've allways had trouble spelling names and places (you should see my pathetic attempt at spelling the capitol of Mynmar, which I'm not even going to attempt here). As for the science civs, Babylon made HUGE technological advancements for its time, and the maya pyramid temples were also schools, and observatories, which I think is the basis behind its bonus. And I'm not going to comment on Korea, as I know practically nothing about the country.

Crafty Bison · Oct 18, 2012

Yeah you get more leeway with Scotland cos it's more confusing.
For instance, the country is Scotland, but people there are Scottish. You can call someone a Scot (nationality) or you can call them a Scott (common surname in Scotland. I think common first name in US?). Also, they may well be independant from the UK by 2014 so I'm not as bothered about defending them as I am the Welsh

.

JFM2796 · Oct 18, 2012

I feel as though the religous bonuses of the civs in question are well deserved, and I'd rather see new civs recieve these bonuses rather than have them reworked into old civs.

As far as Nepal's inclusion as a civ, I would like to see that. We need more civs to bridge that gap between the east and the west.

On a sidenote, if Ethiopia is considered a religous civ just from its building, why shouldn't Egypt and Songhai?

Princeofnigeria · Oct 18, 2012

Becaus there religious bonuses come too late to gain a worthwhile religion, thus disqualifying them as "religiously focused" side. And the mud pyramid moque is better for cultural advancement

Crafty Bison · Oct 18, 2012

JFM2796 said:
I feel as though the religous bonuses of the civs in question are well deserved, and I'd rather see new civs recieve these bonuses rather than have them reworked into old civs.

As far as Nepal's inclusion as a civ, I would like to see that. We need more civs to bridge that gap between the east and the west.

On a sidenote, if Ethiopia is considered a religous civ just from its building, why shouldn't Egypt and Songhai?

Because the bonuses don't add more faith than their standard counterparts (I think, though have only played Songhai once since GnK), wheras the stele adds +2 faith to a monument, the pyramid adds +1 faith to a shrine (as well as +2 science) and they get a free GP.

Also, Egypt does have a religious advantage in building SH/HS/GMoD.

Genghis.Khan · Oct 18, 2012

Rooftrellen said:
As much as people imagine Portugal as "yet another naval European civ" they could have come into G&K with a nice religious boost. There is a story that in one battle against the Moors, a man (who would later found and become first king of Portugal) saw a cross in the sky and begged God...not him, show the Moors, they were the ones that needed it. You might have to take a leader that doesn't smack you right in the face to get someone known for religion however.

Arabia and Spain are highly connected with religions due to their efforts to spread religion. England and the Netherlands could be just as connected to religion for the same reason as Spain (and perhaps more so because they not only spread Christianity, they both pursued religious changes, leading to...problems with the Catholic Church).

America would have made for an interesting religious civ as well. Depending on how a research is done, America generally ranks from one of the most religious countries in the world to extremely religious for being a rich country with European roots, and early American history certainly would have made room for a religious UA.

Brazil would have been an interesting choice. It was a prime target for the Jesuits and, in fact, a depressing (for any American that might move to Brazil and need to learn about the culture, literature, etc.) amount of Brazilian literature from the colonial times are very religious in nature.

Well, there are a lot of potential sources of religious civs, so long as we can avoid the trap of labeling some as "primitive." The Celts and Maya were strong choices, and I'm a bit surprised that the Aztecs didn't get their UA changed to give faith (in vanilla culture was used for religion as well, just look at the old piety tree).

Ethiopia got a UB, not a UA, associated with faith, and, as far as my limited knowledge goes, that is perfectly logical, even if the time may be a bit off.

Not that there aren't more religious civs out there, but the choices aren't strange. They are pretty darn logical in fact.

Well D. Afonso Henriques as a Portuguese Leader is intersting. I would love Portugal as an DLC Civ. But as a Sea Based Civ. I mean, it wasn´t Spain to start the Discoveries, they started with the Portuguese Conquest of Ceuta in 1415. Just get a look at the Treaty of Tordesilhas. We discovered the sea route to India, Brasil, explored the coast of Africa... Hell, we even reached Jaoan! Some japanese words are actually portuguese! Of course it would need a huge religious part as well. Portugal is the country with more churchs per square kilometer (every single town has a church in Portugal). It could be a wide civ, spawning coastal cities, having a strong Navy, loyal, not very agressive and maybe cultural.

Im going to mod that

Crafty Bison · Oct 18, 2012

There's a cool scenario mod out at the moment on medieval Japan with its many factions that, a litte like the polynesian scenario, has european first contact, but this one's with the portugese.

Dunno what to give Portugal that would be different from Carthage. Maybe Religious UA and UU is carrack, like a (slightly weaker) caravel but replaces galleas?

Morningcalm · Oct 18, 2012

India really does need a faith bonus, India has been renowned in world history for its faith, esp. since both Hinduism and Buddhism began there.

If you want to add in Jewish civs, you could add the Khazars and Hebrews in the expack--that would be nice to see.

whyidie · Oct 19, 2012

Morningcalm said:
India really does need a faith bonus, India has been renowned in world history for its faith, esp. since both Hinduism and Buddhism began there.

If you want to add in Jewish civs, you could add the Khazars and Hebrews in the expack--that would be nice to see.

I'd like to see a UA like religious tolerance. Something that would actually increase faith bonuses in cities with foreign religion...

Morningcalm · Oct 19, 2012

Yeah, it's much harder to have coexisting religions like in Civ IV, which severely limits peacenik options. Having an official state religion and tolerance of many others should play into diplomacy. Right now, they don't--it's "we like your religion until we found our own" or "we hate your religion because it's encroaching on our own religious spread."

Heinage · Oct 19, 2012

Crafty Bison said:
There's a cool scenario mod out at the moment on medieval Japan with its many factions that, a litte like the polynesian scenario, has european first contact, but this one's with the portugese.

Dunno what to give Portugal that would be different from Carthage. Maybe Religious UA and UU is carrack, like a (slightly weaker) caravel but replaces galleas?

Perhaps their UA could have a bonus tied to mercantile city-states and how about a special bonus to their carrack which allows stacked embarked units to cross the ocean with it?

Civciv5 · Oct 19, 2012

four religious countries and none of them are nepal

Maybe because the Nepali civilization isn't number 1 on the waiting list?
I think the Maya, The Celts and Ethiopia are fine religious civs (and more well known and important than Nepal).
Also, before you add Nepal, we need a Tibetan civilization, because they were more important and influential than Nepal and also more well-known Himalayan civ.
Maybe some day, in the far future we will have a Nepal civilization in a civ game...

The Religious sides don't make sense

Deity

King

Emperor

Deity

King

Chieftain

King

Perturbed Pugilist

The illustrious

King

Warlord

The illustrious

King

Person

King

Keeper of Records

Emperor

Keeper of Records

Khan

Grand Emperor

Similar threads