Balancing religions would improve your civing experience?

There is a lot of thread about how religions aspect in civ4 is implementated.
A lot of people are angry about the unbalancements existing in this system, so do you think that balancing the religion aspect is a feature which will really improve your gaming experience or it's just a secondary question?

Would it improve yours?

The only way they need balancing IMO is to make later religions like Islam and Christianity to have higher spread values. Besides that, they're pretty reasonable.

HectorSpector said:

Would it improve yours?

Click to expand...

Yes a lot .
Religion is one of the best addon of this game but to make it funnier it needs a lot of balancement.

it would be nice if religion spread into cities that already have a religion (theocracy aside ) without the use of missionaries.

that would help alot

Enigma256 said:

it would be nice if religion spread into cities that already have a religion (theocracy aside ) without the use of missionaries.

that would help alot

Click to expand...

There is a random element that causes it to spread. Also, later religions do get a free missionary. Religions historically spread via missionaries of some sort.

Chieftess said:

Also, later religions do get a free missionary. Religions historically spread via missionaries of some sort.

Click to expand...

Yes but in terms of balance between religion one missionary isn't enough. in all my games i have a world divided between indu and buddhist civ with 3-4 judaic civs.Confucianism,Taoism,Christian and Islamic religion together are not comparable to any of the first 3 religion (probably all 4 religions can be comparable to judaism ).
More missionaries needed or change the speed of how later religions spread.

Enigma256 said:

it would be nice if religion spread into cities that already have a religion (theocracy aside ) without the use of missionaries.

that would help alot

Click to expand...

I think this actually reflects history.

Try sending Christian missionaries into Mecca and let's see how successful they are.

drkodos said:

I think this actually reflects history.

Try sending Christian missionaries into Mecca and let's see how successful they are.

Click to expand...

Ok except here is one very significant mscomunnicating pattern I see in this forum.
The point was more based around employment/deployment capabilities, not historical accuracy directly. I for one think that religion and culture are bsically one in the same. Parralel values of a populace or society if you will.
I think that the influences of culture should also bare the frequency of religion, so that the influence may spread upon bordering influence outreaches. And the volume or intensity of the influence is the prevelent. And again, some civis settings and governments hold the potential for intervention here as well.
Whilest missionaries are warriors of this direct cause.

Then again I rather do become rather weary of randomism.

Perhaps the cost of missionaries could be made a bit cheaper?

monolith94 said:

Perhaps the cost of missionaries could be made a bit cheaper?

Click to expand...

K, that's also an idea. The affects of religion might also be checked, if not shifted:hint hint:.

Englor said:

I for one think that religion and culture are bsically one in the same. Parralel values of a populace or society if you will.

Click to expand...

An interesting concept that I think has some merit, if one has some lattitude in their definitions. They basically serve the same function, operate along the same lines, and manifest themselves in similar fashion.

Back to the topic.

Regarding deployment/employment mechanisms, what would be the point in having multiple religions made easier? Once a culture gains a belief system (cultural or religious) then there is little need to develop another, unless the make-up of the people in the civilization changes demographically.

So, in that regard, I think the game does a decent job of both imitating real life, and providing a game mechanism that works very well. It cannot be all things to all people, and it is not.

drkodos said:

So, in that regard, I think the game does a decent job of both imitating real life, and providing a game mechanism that works very well. It cannot be all things to all people, and it is not.

Click to expand...

Ok, though I'll simply never stop professing my arguments and insights so far as should I continue to have any. I do understand the reality of limitation and practicallity however.

I think religions should offer some diversity. Different religons could confer different bonuses. That way, late religions would be more viable. However, it's simply not possible to do so because it would undoubtedly be 'politically incorrect'.

Personally I have no problem at all with the way religion works in the game. I do, however, recognize that others have concerns, and some thoughts on how they could be addressed. In the doing, we could add some improvements to the game that no-one could possibly object to, I think, and would be welcome to all players (including me).

My view of other people's objections is that they are:
1) Tired of the "fixed" setup, where Buddism is first/easiest, then Hinduism, etc; where Christianity/Islam have an inherent disadvantage to spreading, etc. (This is a gameplay reasoning.)
2) A little bored with the lack of distinction between religions. (This is a gameplay reasoning.)
3) A little concerned that the game has identical effects on society by the different religions. Say, Hinduism is identical in effect to Taoism, which frankly is absurd. We're not talking about the beliefs of those religions, which of course are different, we're talking about the effects on society. (This is a storyline/realism reasoning.)
4) Concerned about the cost of missionaries. (This is a gameplay reasoning.)
5) Concerned about percieved high failure of missionaries. (This is a gameplay reasoning.)

Frankly, I think #4 and #5 they got just right, so I'm not going to suggest any alternatives.

#1-#3 can easily be addressed by two things:

Suggestion One-- allowing the player to choose the name/symbol of the religion when a religion is gained. Gameplay is identical, except instead of "Buddhism", it prompts you to see which one you want.

Suggestion Two-- when you get a religion, you get to choose a benefit from a list of choices. The list will not be mutually exclusive (two religions could choose the same benefit) but the benefits will not be cumulative (if the same civ has two religions which have the same benefit, then that civ only gets x1 not x2). These benefits will replace the Shrine gold bonus. So, you could pick the Shrine gold bonus, and your game will be exactly the same as now. Or, you could pick something else (from the list of half-a-dozen choices) such as,
"Your holy warriors (all units) get +15% strength on attack"
"When at jihad (war), your civ produces military units at +25% production"
"Religion is expansionist and spreads 25% faster"
"Emphasis on family, city population growth requires 25% less food"

Just some thoughts.

Wodan

Wodan said:

Suggestion Two-- when you get a religion, you get to choose a benefit from a list of choices. The list will not be mutually exclusive (two religions could choose the same benefit) but the benefits will not be cumulative (if the same civ has two religions which have the same benefit, then that civ only gets x1 not x2). These benefits will replace the Shrine gold bonus. So, you could pick the Shrine gold bonus, and your game will be exactly the same as now. Or, you could pick something else (from the list of half-a-dozen choices) such as,
"Your holy warriors (all units) get +15% strength on attack"
"When at jihad (war), your civ produces military units at +25% production"
"Religion is expansionist and spreads 25% faster"
"Emphasis on family, city population growth requires 25% less food"

Click to expand...

the problem here lies within the "default values", or what the AI chooses.
i see alot of people getting upset

Enigma256 said:

the problem here lies within the "default values", or what the AI chooses.
i see alot of people getting upset

Click to expand...

Perhaps, unless we don't have a default. Why not random?

I don't know but I am sick of one thing the world been dominated by either/and/or Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish religions. Simply because they're the earliest religions and nuts like Isabella, Montezuma and co will hold onto their own for the rest of game.

Chrono285 said:

I think religions should offer some diversity. Different religons could confer different bonuses. That way, late religions would be more viable. However, it's simply not possible to do so because it would undoubtedly be 'politically incorrect'.

Click to expand...

^ Another argument front that both deserves and demands more scrutiny and "liberation" for the sake of gameplay that does not originally entitle exact repliacation of the accounds of history directly.

I just wrote that in "trade routes explained" and it totally fits into this thread.

I'd love to have the distance factor of trade routes calculation reversed, thus closer foreign cities with the same size are prefered.
This would enable a more constant and especially regional spread of religion by trade routes which allows a better passive spread of the later religions and emphasizes forming of religious blocks.
Spread of religon has to be harder over distance, too.

Also I've never experienced this "random event" of an additional passive spread from a religion into a religious city. I always blame it on missionaries I haven't recognized the rounds before they add another religion to my city.
If there's really a random event, it will need a higher probability to get triggered.