Anyone know why Religion was removed?

[Kruelgor]

I actually liked the religion aspect in Civ IV. I thought it was pretty cool.

So, anyone know why it was removed? They receive some death threats from Al Qaida or something?

 

[JoeHollywood]

You can always put it back in, when you make your mega mod...

When can we expect that again? 4 weeks or so?

 

[Fin]

I think they said it was removed because it overly-influenced diplomacy or something like that. I can see that reasoning, personally. I'll miss it a little bit, but I'm not that upset about its removal.

 

[cheesemijit]

this has been discussed to death. i am glad to see the back of religion, it wasn't fun to play when you are hated just because you happened to be next to a minority buddhist or hindu.

 

[Alsark]

Religion was removed, I believe, because the developers didn't like its role in diplomacy. Basically they didn't like that religion could secure allies/rivalries, and that there was a rush to convert a whole bunch of people to your religion. That is why they added in city-states: to have another thing to spark diplomacy in religion's place.

 

[Kab00se]

It tampered with relations too much, causing a hate/love relation solely depending on religion. It didn't fit in the diplomacy system they were aiming for.

 

[Scramble]

Arbitrary numbers affecting diplomacy in such gigantic ways for no other reason than for their own sake were no fun.

 

[timster]

Personally, I'm glad that it is gone. I think that it never really was implemented properly, and it added much confusion. Basically, if you weren't the first to found a religion, you were screwed, so it doesn't really fit in with the way a real civilization works. If the real world matched the way that the game implemented it, then I believe that everybody would be speaking Italian nowadays!

 

[Spatzimaus]

It was WAY too powerful in Civ 4. Not "powerful" in the sense most people think of; perhaps the better term would be "pervasive". It couldn't be turned off, because too many civics and buildings depended on it, and it dominated diplomacy. And yet, the AI still didn't handle it well; sure, an AI player would want to found a religion, but they'd never spread it efficiently, and an AI with two religions in their territory wouldn't go out of their way to pick the same one as their allies.

There have been many good suggestions on implementing Religion in a more balanced way in Civ 5, such as the "Holy City State" suggestion. But I can easily see why they didn't put it in the initial game. That being said, I can easily see an expansion that adds it. Remember, Civ 4 basically had two expansions, one that improved warfare/barbarians and one that added better diplomacy/espionage. (Then Colonization.) It looks like the diplomacy is already a better part of the core game in Civ 5, so I could easily see a religion/espionage expansion. (My dream: as they did with the Colonization expansion for Civ 4, I hope they do an Alpha Centauri expansion for Civ 5.)

 

[Drawmeus]

I'm sure it's a candidate to come back, but it'd probably be a radically different system, rather than cIV's diplomacy-oriented version.

 

[Kruelgor]

You can always put it back in, when you make your mega mod...

When can we expect that again? 4 weeks or so?

Sooner. The map and scenario will be within 2 weeks. I'll call that version 1.0

 

[JoeHollywood]

Moderator Action: *snip* no trolling.

 

[Exterminas]

I will try to explain why I don't like religions, I'm pretty sure some of that was part of the devs reasoning.

1. Religions in the early game were randomtastic. Here are two examples from my games:

- I found a religion, rest of the world converts to different religion, despite me wasting my early production on missionaries, because the AIs religion gets spread better via random trade routes. So I want to convert to the swarm, to not be stomped. But I can't because, nobody from the AI bothered trying to convert me, and my own religion hardens random spread from trade routes.

I get to choose between converting to no state religon (major happynes mallus) or getting stomped.


2. Religious Techs were boring.
Going for the early religions can be a huge advantage, if the numbers from point 1 play along well, but even then they are boring. Sure, you can built the oracle and snatch another early tech, but if you say, beeline to monotheism, to get two religions in your starting city, you will be out of the early expansion and might be suffering greatly, if someone like shaka is your neighbor, who isn't impressed by shiny temples.


3. Religions are hard to found on higher difficulties.
I have to guess here, because I don't play higher than monarch, but I don't think a player has a chance to found a religion on deity or immortal, making it a AI-only thing.


4. It sucks to not have a religion around.
Some Civs aren't in the position to found a religion, especially the ones without mysticism. Some Civs can make up for that by being financial, having fishing or a heap of gold infront of their doorstep, to get juadism or taoism.

Now, while this isn't a problem on your standard pangea map, I fancy mainly highlands and archipelago maps, where you are seperated from the ai, during the early ages. (by ocean or a vast hill land full of barbs). And it sucks to have to spend gold for archers maintenance, to gain happyness via monarchy. Makes the gap between you and the guy who has a religion + shrine around, even wider.

 

[Kruelgor]

I think the mechanics of religion was actually very realistic. The part which wasn't is that it was missing the subdivisions (denominations). You take a look at Islam in the real world, for example, you have the Shia and the Sunni of whom both hate each other. Then within Christianity you have Protestants and Catholics who have a history of hating each other, etc...etc....etc.... Then you have agnostic or atheistic governments like communist China. Then you have governments set upon the notion of separation of church and state. It was missing some critical elements in the equation.

 

[Zhahz]

I think the mechanics of religion was actually very realistic.

I don't.

I thought religion was a fun game mechanic in Civ IV. I didn't like diplo much in Civ III because it often felt very random to me, so for IV, the religion system brought order to diplo. But the more you play IV, the more religion feels like it dictates diplo instead of just being a factor. Fun at the time, fun for a while.

I won't miss religion at all in 5.

Shafer has commented on religion in a few of the many interviews (dude is a machine) and I agree with their rationale for ditching it, and for not putting in a flimsy version of it to replace it.

 

[Schuesseled]

Religion wasn't put in civ 5, because they had to edit out the diplomacy modifiers which they no longer wanted, and then all it was, was a boring mechanic to improve happiness and culture, which you basically always needed to get.

It didn't fit the way it was, so it was left out, i'm sure that if they can find a way for it to actually properly fit into civ 5, they'll put in at a later date.

 

[Kruelgor]

Well, as long as they have some religious structures and wonders in Civ 5 which give some kind of benefits then that should suffice.

 

[Alsark]

Well, as long as they have some religious structures and wonders in Civ 5 which give some kind of benefits then that should suffice.

Yep, there are plenty of religious wonders in Civilization 5. The Hagia Sophia and Sistine Chapel are a couple of examples.

 

[Minmaster]

gotta save something for expansion packs

 

[silentknight111]

I think I like the removal as well. I've played a lot of Civ 4, and every time I did well I got religion early. In Civ 4, you could basically fix every problem. Not enough money? Once you get a great prophet you jsut build your religion's building and you're rich. Not enough allies, spread em your religion! Not enough research, build the University of Sankore!