Agnostic/Intolerant

[Iceciro]

Hmmm.

Oddness abounds, now.

In my spread test I was unable to get any religons from Ethne through casual religion spread, so fantastic! I was also unable to found Way of the Earthmother or Council of Esus despite being the first to both techs. This is great, but a little odd given the results in the above picture.

I wonder if it's just something with Order, a religion I often try to hit?
In any case an apology is in order as it seems everything is, barring oddities, on the up-and-up with Intolerant. 0_o. There are apparently just some wierd things in it occasionally. How odd.

 

[xienwolf]

No offense taken, just trying to keep straight in my head what still needs doing in the code. I had notes about returning to the Holy City block someday, but assumed the passive spread and founding of the religion were already blocked. Since those aren't too readily noticed (must be tested directly) it's easier to ask someone who is obviously dealing with it

 

[Iceciro]

Oh okay Some people are more testy about what people say than others and I re-read my post and thought it might sound a little bit more aggressive than it did.

Glad to see everyone's on good terms.

I'm going to start a game with a custom Agnostic civ, and see how it pans out in non-testbed play regarding spread and founding. I'd play a game with the Kahdi but they just don't interest me

 

[WarKirby]

My post about what they should/shoultn't do was a wishlist, not a description of how things are.

Although it would be pretty nice for intolerant to have some effect on a captured holy city. In my khadi game, I captured the RoK holy city, and benefited from the significant income boost from Tablets of Bambur forevermore.

 

[Iceciro]

IMHO ideally they'd not move the Holy City somuchas not get the effect... like having it there but disabled, forcing the civs of that religion to re-take it.

 

[Vehem]

IMHO ideally they'd not move the Holy City somuchas not get the effect... like having it there but disabled, forcing the civs of that religion to re-take it.

I'd agree with that one. The city would still be "Holy" to the followers of Kilmorph, but the Intolerant leaders really wouldn't care about it (other than to station some extra guards to stop all those Dwarven fanatics at the city walls...)

 

[Tarquelne]

I'd agree with that one. The city would still be "Holy" to the followers of Kilmorph, but the Intolerant leaders really wouldn't care about it (other than to station some extra guards to stop all those Dwarven fanatics at the city walls...)

Are these Dwarven fanatics in a spending mood?

Ideally - which includes xienwolf doing the work - I'd have the gold from Holy Cites (well, the religious wonder) be partially based off trade-routes with believer-civs. The believer civs in turn should get some sort of benefit, too. Happiness, maybe. So there's a tangible benefit for having a good relationship with the owner of the Holy City... which equates to a reason to be upset if it falls into hostile hands. (Beyond "I want the income.")

 

[Iceciro]

I like the idea of a bonus/penalty to your civ if you have a state religion but someone else owns the Holy City.

There should also be a happiness buff for you actually holding your own holy city, of course.