The future of Religion in Civ V

One of the ideas behind the AP was to make a Diplomatic victory available earlier, as it was quite possible to get early conquest victories. I think they addressed that issue in Civ5 by making all early victories more difficult. Early conquest is going to be more difficult with global unhappiness and it effect on the fighting strength of your units, and early cultural is going to be more dificult because some social policy branches only unlock in the Industrial era.

I think the idea is to make it really hard to win the game before the Modern era.
 
I thought that RELIGION was an awesome and irreplaceable addition to the Civ series.

Religion continues to play a critical role in conflict across the globe to this very day, its such a critical component of civilizations -- what a cop out that they took it out instead of trying to improve it.
 
I'm very disappointed that religion is out of the game, even though I didn't necessarily like the way it was implemented - i.e., the fact they were all equal and that they gave science bonuses instead of penalties.

I think each religion should have had some kind of tolerance variable attached to it, which would determine the degree of its influence inside a civilization. That variable may vary, but only gradually (perhaps by means of the player allocating resources for "propaganda", which determines how fast that variable changes, and the player decides whether it is in the direction of more fundamentalism/more religious freedom).

For example, if people took the religion seriously, they would be very intolerant of other religions - as well as, to a lesser degree, moderately-practiced religions depending on the religious fundamentalism variable; hatred of atheism (with it full-science bonuses) should be set so that it is even greater than that of other religions, but the civilization hosting that religion with a high intolerance would gain bonus units such as suicide bombers (for Islam), inquisitors (Christianity), as well as other offensive bonuses, but at a huge expense when it comes to research and culture. At the opposite end, an atheist civilization, you would get apathy and war weariness, but a huge boost to research and culture.

Also, communism, nazism, nationalism (fascism) and environmentalism should be treated in-game as religions of the industrial or modern eras, each with distinct bonuses but with science and other penalties. For example, environmentalism should generate unhappiness and even riots every time a settler establishes a new city or cuts a forest, etc, nationalism/nazism should generate unhappiness from other nationalities inside civilization borders, and all religions should generate unhappiness of people of other religions (or atheists/secularists).

What I don't like is that Firaxis seems to be going the politically-correct way by not reflecting the negative aspects of religion in Civ, as well as not accurately modeling ideologies of all kinds - for most of its history, humanity was (and still is, although to a lesser degree than in the middle ages) driven by parasitic ideologies on the one hand and science and art on the other. No accurate simulation of history can be made without taking both aspects into consideration, although I am aware that doing so would definitely negatively impact sales. Perhaps there is still a possibility for a mod that does what I just said.
 
One of the ideas behind the AP was to make a Diplomatic victory available earlier, as it was quite possible to get early conquest victories. I think they addressed that issue in Civ5 by making all early victories more difficult. Early conquest is going to be more difficult with global unhappiness and it effect on the fighting strength of your units, and early cultural is going to be more dificult because some social policy branches only unlock in the Industrial era.

I think the idea is to make it really hard to win the game before the Modern era.

Happiness limitations are less of a problem if you just set fire to all of the cities you pry from enemy control.
 
Religion should have two roles: It should provide a diplomacy bonus/penalty to city states that aren't trying to win the game anyway and there should be an equivalent of the Apostolic Palace for each religion. You can, with your other brethren can vote on things like whether to declare war as a group on the infidels, or things like that. Religion should impact how you deal with people around you, but shouldn't automatically make them like/dislike you.
 
Happiness limitations are less of a problem if you just set fire to all of the cities you pry from enemy control.

True, but razing cities now cost one turn per pop, and I assume you need a unit in that city for the whole time, which is going to slow down your advance.
 
Well my hopes for religion are pinned on the genius modders out there... thank the Civ "higher beings" for them!
 
I too was hoping it would have been improved and expanded upon in civ5 not simply discarded.

Now if only religion could be removed from the real world with such decisiveness... ;)
 
I too was hoping it would have been improved and expanded upon in civ5 not simply discarded.

Now if only religion could be removed from the real world with such decisiveness... ;)

We'll get right on that. As soon as we've worked out how to take a UN vote that makes everyone forget how to make nukes. :lol:
 
I like the idea of religions. I liek that it was an added motivator for AI actions and decision making. I like that it provided some nice but not game breaking elements like spying on cities of your religion for free. I liked that it helped differentiate more thouroughly between civs. I think some form of it should be implimented in a Civ5 expansion.

However,
At best, civs of different faiths consider each other unimportant and expendable. At worst, an important resource will be put out of reach, or settlers will refuse to found cities on land that could otherwise be settled, and the two

This really shouldn't apply. Look at say India and China. Or China and Russia. Or Russia and France. Different religions didn't make these countries hate each other or view each other as expendable. Heck, look at Spain and Italy. Or France and England. Just because you have the same religion (a major one, not sects thereof) doesnt mean you're best friends either.

Religion should be included but in a more subtle nuanced way. Rather than the be all and end all of diplomacy.
 
Ive thought of way you could introduce Religion into Civ5

You make The Temple of Soloman, Church of the Navity, The Masjid Al-Haram etc into build-able wonders that produce resources the same way Wembely/Hollywood/Gracelands produce Football events/Movies/Record did in civ4. Except the Church of the Navity produces the "Christianity resource", the Masjid Al-Haram produces Islamic resource etc

Each wonder produces say 10 "Religion X Resources" which can be traded or given to other civs
Using Christianity as an example:
You remove the Generic Temple that comes with civ5 (and replace it with religion specific temples) and make it so the city has to have access to "Christianity resource" before a christian temple can be built. A Christian Temple would also produce 1 Christianity resource which would allow you to continue to spread the religion within your empire even if your trade agreement for christian missionaries ends as you now have a domestic supply of Christians.

A city would have to have a Christian Temple before it could build a Christian Cathedral or Monastery

Church of the Navity (Wonder)
Provides 10 Christianity trade resources
Provides a Christianity to every city in your empire (This means that they can build a Christian church in any of there city's straight away)
Provides 1 gold for each Christian Church in the game

Christian Church
Works as Temple in Civ5
Produces 1 Christianity Resource
Prerequisite: Must have the Christianity trade resource

In Civ4 you spread a religion by building Missionaries in Civ5 you do it through trade and building Temples

Thoughts?
 
One thing that would be interesting would be to have different styles of religion. There's a difference between an expansionist religion that seeks converts vs a 'chosen people' religion that acts as a cultural unifier. And I don't know enough about eastern religions to say whether they fit into either mold or have a different way of affecting their culture.
 
Just as wyqtor said. The system was not the best I think possible. But none is not better either. The biggest problem was the lack of any negative effect from the religion other than diplomacy really. I could give a ton of suggestions but primarily I would say for the more positive effects so should come more negative effects.
 
Umm.. O_o

They actually removed it.. First they said it would of not be significant for gameplay..

Now they seem to removie it :p

Such a total and utter cop out.

Am I the only one who thinks they went the wrong way on Civ V, i.e. bulking up the war mongering aspect at the expense of things like religion and culture?

I mean the way I see it, in the gaming world, you are totally spoiled for choice if you want to satisfy your bloodlusting -- that is exactly why I love Civ -- it is (or was) supposed to give you you more intelligent ways to conquer the world.
 
Happiness limitations are less of a problem if you just set fire to all of the cities you pry from enemy control.

Actually this is wrong, domination will not be possible "really quickly" this time around,

Because you can't raze a capital and you need to capture all capitals to win, so happiness limits will slow your ascent to domination.
 
Am I the only one who thinks they went the wrong way on Civ V, i.e. bulking up the war mongering aspect at the expense of things like religion and culture?
That has not been my take on it at all: They have made culture more important by attaching it to the Social Policy mechanics; they have made diplomacy more important by introducing City States and by only giving each Civ/City State 1 vote in the UN; they have changed the Culture Victory and made it easier and more meaningful; By removing tech trading and introducing research pacts, they have made it so that civs that have friends will tech faster.

The combat mechanics have changed, but you can no longer use war to achieve the other victory conditions through the back door, like you could in Civ IV. You will have to pay more attention to warfare, rather than being able to rely on "he who builds the biggest army" wins.

The way I see it they have made warfare more interesting, but lessened its importance.
 
Top Bottom