• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

(2-NS) Remove diplomatic penalties against other founders if no possibility to regain religion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Solic

Warlord
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
262
Proposal:
Remove "Religious differences strain your relationship." and "They are spreading their own religion, but you converted some of their cities to your religion." diplomatic penalties if that founder no longer has any city with the founder's majority religion and does not have any great prophet/inquisitor/missionary of the founder religion.


Rationale:
It's a sunk cost fallacy for the AI to still hold a grudge if you have no way of regaining your religious benefits and in fact you should welcome being converted than more so just like a non-founder. You might get world religion benefits for instance or at least any benefits.

The very niche ways of still being able to conjure back your religion however briefly like getting a great prophet through leaning tower of Pisa or recapturing a stolen missionary are not worth the likely inevitability of actually losing the religious race in the long run.
 
I wouldn't forgive them, if they wiped my religion out. Besides, pressure could still turn it, depending on the global situation. Rushing a couple Prophets on a small nation doesn't justify evading the diplomatic penalty.
 
Why shouldn't they hold a grudge when you destroy their religion? Should they not hold a grudge after you kill their civilians and take their cities? They won't be able to get those back either.
 
I wouldn't forgive them, if they wiped my religion out. Besides, pressure could still turn it, depending on the global situation. Rushing a couple Prophets on a small nation doesn't justify evading the diplomatic penalty.
How could pressure still turn it if all cities would not exude that pressure anymore? It was my impression only cities with a majority religion do so.
Why shouldn't they hold a grudge when you destroy their religion? Should they not hold a grudge after you kill their civilians and take their cities? They won't be able to get those back either.
It's not the same situation, because continuing to have cities be taken or civilians be taken will hurt the AI, so it makes sense to hold a grudge and be more hostile. Now it will actively hold them back, because they will not get any religious benefits. They also can definitely recapture their cities or civilians?
It's perhaps similar to capitulation erasing diplomatic penalties, because it serves them more to now be friendly under your rule. If you similarly dominate someone religiously and effectively kill their religion, why does a penalty still make sense for a rational AI (meaning they will actively avoid gaining your/any religious bonuses).
 
How could pressure still turn it if all cities would not exude that pressure anymore? It was my impression only cities with a majority religion do so.

It's not the same situation, because continuing to have cities be taken or civilians be taken will hurt the AI, so it makes sense to hold a grudge and be more hostile. Now it will actively hold them back, because they will not get any religious benefits. They also can definitely recapture their cities or civilians?
It's perhaps similar to capitulation erasing diplomatic penalties, because it serves them more to now be friendly under your rule. If you similarly dominate someone religiously and effectively kill their religion, why does a penalty still make sense for a rational AI (meaning they will actively avoid gaining your/any religious bonuses).
Iirc, the Holy city always exudes pressure for the founded religion, regardless of Majority religion.

Hard disagree with outright removal of diplomatic penalties the moment you convert all cities of a rival. I fear it would make the game too easy (diplomatically).

I would be in favor if the diplo penalty instead tapers off over time like Warmonger penalties.
 
Iirc, the Holy city always exudes pressure for the founded religion, regardless of Majority religion.

Hard disagree with outright removal of diplomatic penalties the moment you convert all cities of a rival. I fear it would make the game too easy (diplomatically).

I would be in favor if the diplo penalty instead tapers off over time like Warmonger penalties.
I think you can remove holy city status pressure if you conquer it and use an inquisitor however, but I must admit I'm not sure.
 
If civ A lost a religion to passive pressure (happens quite a bit on pangaea-style maps), and civ B has never spread their religion to A prior to that point, then I don't see why civ B should get any penalties for spreading now.
If, however, civ B actively contributed to the eradication of A's religion, then penalties should remain. If civ B keeps spreading after A's religion is gone, then maybe the penalties should keep growing.
 
Iterating through all units to find prophets/inquisitors/missionaries will have a performance cost, considering this needs to be done every time the AI's opinion of or approach towards any other player is evaluated.
 
Iterating through all units to find prophets/inquisitors/missionaries will have a performance cost, considering this needs to be done every time the AI's opinion of or approach towards any other player is evaluated.
Could only do this more expensive check, if firstly it is found that there are no cities with founder's majority religion, which should be in memory somewhere as it's in the religious overview?

Could potentially run these checks after every conversion of a city instead if that's cheaper. Just spitballing as someone who has never looked at VP code.
 
Could only do this more expensive check, if firstly it is found that there are no cities with founder's majority religion, which should be in memory somewhere as it's in the religious overview?

Could potentially run these checks after every conversion of a city instead if that's cheaper. Just spitballing as someone who has never looked at VP code.
I'm taking that into account, yeah. Checking every city and every unit for every player towards every other player multiple times a turn is costly - not incredibly so, but it's worth noting.
 
How could pressure still turn it if all cities would not exude that pressure anymore? It was my impression only cities with a majority religion do so.

It's not the same situation, because continuing to have cities be taken or civilians be taken will hurt the AI, so it makes sense to hold a grudge and be more hostile. Now it will actively hold them back, because they will not get any religious benefits. They also can definitely recapture their cities or civilians?
It's perhaps similar to capitulation erasing diplomatic penalties, because it serves them more to now be friendly under your rule. If you similarly dominate someone religiously and effectively kill their religion, why does a penalty still make sense for a rational AI (meaning they will actively avoid gaining your/any religious bonuses).
If they truly won't be able to get their religion back, it's still more likely the player will hold a grudge and welcome a different religion into their civilization.
 
Proposal failed due to lack of sponsorship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom