Religion and Such

First, I'd like to see that in hotseat it allows more than just eight players. That's pretty self-explanatory.

Second, I'd also like to see religion incorporated into the game somehow. I don't exactly know how, but by building certian types of churches or temples might cause to population to sway towards on religion or another. Any suggestions?

Third, it would be nice to see cities expand more, say if one builds a city along a river, it can eventually spread across both backs. And when an enemy attacks a city that is that big, it doesn't take all of it, but maybe half or a third.

Last, it would be cool to name certian historic landmarks on the map. For instance, a place where a big battle was fought, or where a city was destroyed, or to name a fort or a mountain, etc. I think that would be fun.

Tell me what you think.

no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...

I like the idea about the naming landmark thing.

I like the i dea of cities expanding. I would also like that overtime colonies become cities.

Originally posted by Xen
no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...

Click to expand...

Geez, sorry to offend you, but how do you feel on the other topics too? And I never meant that only monotheistic religions would exist, I'm sorry that's the impression you received. Personally, I think it would be cool to have all the major religions, monotheistic or otherwise. Or maybe they turn up in the game (timewise) historically near the same time as they did in real life. However, they don't have to go away at the same time, that would be up to the (in)competent leader when his culture's religion died out or the enemies.

I love the Other ideas, with exception of the partial-city conquests, that might be a good editor tool, but might make conquest abit difficult...

as far a s religions go...we are re-writing history, ambey the game could go as in-depth as Atheism, Monotheism, and polytheism, but there ino guarantee that christianity, or Roman polytheism or such would have been devised... differnt circumstances, might mean diffent beliefs...

I agree totally. I just think it would be a neat feature. And what if you couldn't control your religion of you nation. And I'm not saying the Americans have to be Protestants or the Chinese have to be Buddhists (it could be the other way around and every culture be random). Either way, it's all good.

They could do something with religion along the lines of Call to Power. Maybe there could be a small wonder that would be the center of your religion and allow you to build priests. If you converted other cities it could increase the chances of culture flip. If you converted other leaders it could improve relations with that civ, or it could be worth while to convert to another civs religion for the sake of building alliances. This could be done without mentioning any specific religion.

Ahh, that's interesting. What would also be cool is if one could name his own religions, just like cities or units. Oh, I can see the creativity now.

There was a discussion about having religion in the game in the Creation&Customization forum. It _is_ possible to implement it without offending anyone. What you have to do is to stay strictly generic with it. Religion can be a VERY touchy issue so that really is the only answer: strictly generic.

One possible implementation could be to refer to the religions as "the Roman religion", "the German religion", etc. Of course, if you yourself then mod these names to your liking in the editor then that's entirely your private business. OTOH a generic reference does have the advantage of not having any "semantic ballast" going with it so you can play it with an open mind. After all civ is pretty much an alternate history simulation.

But then the big question: What would religion mean in the context of the game rules?

It has to have meaningful game related effects. Otherwise there would be no point in adding religion in the first place.

Religion could act as a complement to the governments and culture and bring to the game a degree of social engineering. For example with a simple definition that "a religion" (in the game engine sense) is a combination of attributes and their values you can do quite much:

The German Religion at 4000 BC:
Domestic: 0
Trade: 0
War: 0
Culture: 0
Science: 0

Notice my choice of attributes: they correspond directly to the "advisor screens" of the game. Their names could be changed to more descriptive ones but I want to explicitly refer to these aspects in this example.

A ruler can't (really) determine the religion of his people. Religions emerge, form and evolve. (No disrespect meant; just a simple historical observation; add Divine Guidance if necessary). This ought to hold true in Civ, too. However, what the ruler can do is to lead his people. So after building lots of warriors and spearmen (War), maintaining social peace with troops (Domestic) and not building many temples, libraries or courthouses (Culture) and pretty much ignoring scientific research (Science) but building lots of roads, marketplaces and trade with neighbors (Trade) there has emerged for the Clever German Folk a religion:

The German Religion at 1 AD:
Domestic: +1
Trade: +2
War: +2
Culture: -2
Science: -3

And now we have something to work with. These attributes can have direct effects in the game related to their meaning. As there are both bonuses and penalties it's always a trade off which keeps the game interesting. Also, as the player does not have a direct control over the religion of his people it works as a "cause and effect" feedback to his actions.

And what about the religions of other nations?

Naturally the more the religions are similar the better their relations ought to be, although not necessarily peaceful. An attitude modifier based on the religion difference ought to be an easy one. Also, going to war against a civ with a similar religion might invoke discontent in your people: "Stop the aggression against our brothers in faith!"

Religions ought to have far-reaching influence, too. This could mean that two nations having trade deals and/or sharing a border influence each other's religions bringing them closer together over time. Perhaps so that the culturally more powerful civ has an advantage in this. In cultural city flips the distance of religions might give a modifier, too.

If religion were introduced in some way, culture groups (mediterranean, middle eastern, etc...) should have some impact on the way it evolves.

Originally posted by Pembroke
There was a discussion about having religion in the game in the Creation&Customization forum. It _is_ possible to implement it without offending anyone. What you have to do is to stay strictly generic with it. Religion can be a VERY touchy issue so that really is the only answer: strictly generic.

One possible implementation could be to refer to the religions as "the Roman religion", "the German religion", etc. Of course, if you yourself then mod these names to your liking in the editor then that's entirely your private business. OTOH a generic reference does have the advantage of not having any "semantic ballast" going with it so you can play it with an open mind. After all civ is pretty much an alternate history simulation.

But then the big question: What would religion mean in the context of the game rules?

It has to have meaningful game related effects. Otherwise there would be no point in adding religion in the first place.

Religion could act as a complement to the governments and culture and bring to the game a degree of social engineering. For example with a simple definition that "a religion" (in the game engine sense) is a combination of attributes and their values you can do quite much:

The German Religion at 4000 BC:
Domestic: 0
Trade: 0
War: 0
Culture: 0
Science: 0

Notice my choice of attributes: they correspond directly to the "advisor screens" of the game. Their names could be changed to more descriptive ones but I want to explicitly refer to these aspects in this example.

A ruler can't (really) determine the religion of his people. Religions emerge, form and evolve. (No disrespect meant; just a simple historical observation; add Divine Guidance if necessary). This ought to hold true in Civ, too. However, what the ruler can do is to lead his people. So after building lots of warriors and spearmen (War), maintaining social peace with troops (Domestic) and not building many temples, libraries or courthouses (Culture) and pretty much ignoring scientific research (Science) but building lots of roads, marketplaces and trade with neighbors (Trade) there has emerged for the Clever German Folk a religion:

The German Religion at 1 AD:
Domestic: +1
Trade: +2
War: +2
Culture: -2
Science: -3

And now we have something to work with. These attributes can have direct effects in the game related to their meaning. As there are both bonuses and penalties it's always a trade off which keeps the game interesting. Also, as the player does not have a direct control over the religion of his people it works as a "cause and effect" feedback to his actions.

And what about the religions of other nations?

Naturally the more the religions are similar the better their relations ought to be, although not necessarily peaceful. An attitude modifier based on the religion difference ought to be an easy one. Also, going to war against a civ with a similar religion might invoke discontent in your people: "Stop the aggression against our brothers in faith!"

Religions ought to have far-reaching influence, too. This could mean that two nations having trade deals and/or sharing a border influence each other's religions bringing them closer together over time. Perhaps so that the culturally more powerful civ has an advantage in this. In cultural city flips the distance of religions might give a modifier, too.

Click to expand...

That's great. Yeah, it sounds good to me. And then, if you conquer a civ with a totally different religion, that gives its people more cause to rebel. Fanatics can be (re)incorporated. Neat, I must say.

I think thats a great idea too. But as an extra thing, if the country in which the religion originated is conquered or even of a different culture group there could be a new church set up in one of the surviving/different countries that could differ slightly from the origional. Also if the home nation is under attack there could be a crusade called that would not necessarily require the participation of all nations of that religion, but if you didn't participate, the others would shun you. And to participate you could do it militaristically, financially, or politically.

I dunno... I feel like a civilization-based religion may not be the best route. The main reason is that many civilizations have had the same religion. For example, most of the civilizations in the game were/are Christian. It should maybe be based on cultural groups (European, American, Asian, Middle Eastern).

Some other things to consider about religion is that monotheistic religions tend to bring greater stability because in most polytheistic cultures, the people have patron gods or regional gods that prevent national unity. Of course, this is not always true, but its generally true... at least in older cultures when communication was worse. And in general polytheistic religions developed in agriculturally-based societies, and monotheistic religions in more shepard herder societies...

good idea

Originally posted by Xen
no No NO NO!

this would only result in monotheistic religions being "better" or more "advanced", and as I polytheist, I'm VERY offended by such thoughts, just because an idea comes later, never means its better...

Click to expand...

ummm, i don't see how you draw that conclusion, the Roman empire, the Greeks, the Egyptians, granted they were all ancient, but the Indians are polytheistic and they did okay. you have to admit trying to make historical game to be politically correct in say 1100 ad is bull sh*t.
i like the idea of being able to mess with religion, every empire would start out polytheistic and things would happen along the way, like a leader would appear like Jesus or Mohammed and you could either not support them and kill those who do (and risk a rovolt) or kill the people who didn't (and again risk a rvolt). It would give the game an interesting more realistic feeling.

I totally agree that religion should play a big part in the game. Many nations throughout history have gone to war for religious purposes.

Civil wars and discontent in cities have resulted as well in a mixed religion environment.

Oh yes, I definetly agree with that second point, ther, Purple. And Johann, that's a genius one too. It would add some excitement during the late ancient age period.

i'd like to see religious tolerance in some way be incorporated. How different would the US be if Europe had been more religiously tolerant in the 1600/1700s? Today most military conflicts are still religious based (middle east, northern ireland, pakistan/india, former USSR republics).

Isn't the current 'culture border' and 'culture' rating the Current version of religion, But they had to be politically correct and call it culture?

If It isn't, Maybe a Religeon border and religion rating could exists also, each civ would have its own 'government' and 'religion' and swapping could also have its own 'anarchy' effect. Finding the best 2 to combine the best results for your race at that given time in history. Religous races could get Golden Era by Religeon changing into the 'Ideal religion' for that race...

Each religion would have its own Science/Ent/Gold Max settings, its own military police, happiness, worker ratings, etc etc

Or something like Alpha Centauri the Government and the Religoen would have a +/- rating to effect the 'normal' status...