Apostolic Palace - kinda backwards?

[DrewBledsoe]

So? The Caravel will carry Missionaries, and it only needs Optics - not exactly an advanced tech.

I'll give you Theocracy, although most civs don't run it full time. But what does it matter that the AIs spread other religions? It doesn't matter if a city has multiple religions, as long as it has yours as well. That's all you need to do, put your religion in one city. In fact, the AIs spreading their religion actually helps you, because it makes it less likely your religion will spread to lots of cities of other Civs, thereby ensuring they don't gain a large voting block.

Sure, but the random events are just that - random. And specific events like that must not be too likely, as I haven't seen it in any of the games I've played so far.

I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulty here. Beeline to Theology, build the Palace, go straight to Optics, and it's pretty much game over at that point. All you need to do is make sure to pick a state religion that hasn't spread well already. Usually choosing the religion you get with Theology is a good choice, because the earlier ones have probably already spread around.

Sure, assuming that you (a) only have one religion, and (b) have got a GP to build the shrine. In my mind it's much more advantageous to be able to have 5 other Civs declare war on your enemy than it is to get a bit of extra gold every turn.

I have NOT found this to be the case btw. The last game, I was the holder and builder of the AP, and when 3 nations dogpiled me (all AP members too) no resolutions came to my aid, I had to slug it out until I could negotiate peace. If there is EVER a situation where a vote should kick in, i.e. when the AP palace owner is getting his ass kicked, then it should be then. The motions are just too random for my liking.Anyways.Bh

Firstly, maybe you play smallish or normal maps, with only a handful of civs, I don't know but I play huge with 13 or 14, and several will automatically hate me, and won't vote my way. The beeline ok, I'll give you is possible, but getting open borders with all the overseas civs? Ok maybe possible in some games, if you gift them an immense amount of stuff (taking again that you have something to gift them). But it still only takes one to refute you and you can't do it.I'm not saying its impossible, but assume that at least some of the testers tried it, and apparently no-one ever managed it (you can find the tester list in BTS credits, most are very competent players).

And I'll repeat, I agree with you about

Oh, and the whole point of my original post, wasn't just to point out that the situation is exploitable - although I maintain it is. It was to point out that it's completely contrary to the very idea of the Apostolic Palace. The whole point of it should be about converting the heathens, but the way it's set up actively discourages you from converting the heathens. At least, beyond a single small heathen city.

this bit, but something you didn't state or think of, is that if you're and the AP's state is only spread to a tiny part of most other civs cities, then by default, they'll probably be another religion, and will probably dislike you anyway. It's hard to survive in this case, unless you are very powerful.

 

[Phrederick]

And I'll repeat, I agree with you about this bit, but something you didn't state or think of, is that if you're and the AP's state is only spread to a tiny part of most other civs cities, then by default, they'll probably be another religion, and will probably dislike you anyway. It's hard to survive in this case, unless you are very powerful.

That's probably the biggest reason it's not too counterintuitive that the AP discourages spreading your religion. You'll want friendly allies sharing your religion so that you aren't facing too many enemies. It'll be another tradeoff: do you want to share voting power with a big civ in return for a big friendly civ, or do you want to share less voting power with a smaller civ in return for not being able to rely on as much assistance?

 

[Bhruic]

Firstly, maybe you play smallish or normal maps, with only a handful of civs, I don't know but I play huge with 13 or 14, and several will automatically hate me, and won't vote my way.

So your counter-argument is that it's not really an exploit because it doesn't work on huge maps with lots of players? I'm not really sure that's going to prove your point. I found it pretty easy to maintain open borders with everyone simply by not selecting a state religion early on. That gave me plenty of time to seed missionaries. But yeah, on a huge map, that probably would have been more difficult. But just because something doesn't work on a huge map doesn't mean that it's "fine".

And I'll repeat, I agree with you about this bit, but something you didn't state or think of, is that if you're and the AP's state is only spread to a tiny part of most other civs cities, then by default, they'll probably be another religion, and will probably dislike you anyway. It's hard to survive in this case, unless you are very powerful.

No, if you re-read my first post, you'll note that it's very easy to get them to like you, even if not part of your state religion. I had a -4 relationship with one of my neighbours who had 1 city with my religion. First off, I forced open borders with all members. Next, I got everyone to declare war on someone who attacked me. Very shortly, I got +7 relationship (+2 open borders, +5 shared war) with the -4 person, giving me +3, and enough to trade. After which I very quickly got them up to +8. So they went from hating me to liking me, and all because I could control their actions with the AP. So I don't need them to have my state religion in order to get them to like me. And barring the shrine income, there doesn't seem like a compelling reason to want them to switch. Especially if they are large and popular - they just become a rival for control of the AP.

Bh

 

[winddbourne]

This needs a fix immediately if not sooner. I don't want to have to turn off the diplomatic victory now, but I probably will if this is as easy to exploit as people are saying.

Not to mention . . . the AI shouldn't have any say in what I do if I have only one city with his AP religion. I don't think that it should have to be my STATE religion, since that is also an easilly exploitable situation, but for me to count I should have to have a certain percentage of my people belong to the enemy religion.

A good percentage could be somewhere between 30-35% of my people. That's less than half of my people belonging to the enemy religion, but enough to actually influence my government. It also could still work out to be one city early in the game. If you only have four cities converting one could easily get you.

Another thing is that the "Inquisitor" unit mentioned in the "Old Gods" mod should be brought in (if it's not in already) to get rid of those pesky religions. So I could purge "cordoba" of the "muslims" and the "jews" at a huge hit to diplomacy with muslim and jewish people.

That would give me a way to drop out of the AP, and it would take diplomacy and espionage to get me back in. It might also require adding a "most hated religion" to the list as well as a "most favored religon" for each AI though.

Still it seems like an easy fix.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

So your counter-argument is that it's not really an exploit because it doesn't work on huge maps with lots of players? I'm not really sure that's going to prove your point. I found it pretty easy to maintain open borders with everyone simply by not selecting a state religion early on. That gave me plenty of time to seed missionaries. But yeah, on a huge map, that probably would have been more difficult. But just because something doesn't work on a huge map doesn't mean that it's "fine".



No, if you re-read my first post, you'll note that it's very easy to get them to like you, even if not part of your state religion. I had a -4 relationship with one of my neighbours who had 1 city with my religion. First off, I forced open borders with all members. Next, I got everyone to declare war on someone who attacked me. Very shortly, I got +7 relationship (+2 open borders, +5 shared war) with the -4 person, giving me +3, and enough to trade. After which I very quickly got them up to +8. So they went from hating me to liking me, and all because I could control their actions with the AP. So I don't need them to have my state religion in order to get them to like me. And barring the shrine income, there doesn't seem like a compelling reason to want them to switch. Especially if they are large and popular - they just become a rival for control of the AP.

Bh

I think you were fortunate to get the option to come up for everyone to attack your agressor. I've been in about 10 wars (only 2 of which I've started) in 2 games as AP resident. In NONE of those 8 wars (in which I was attacked) did I ever have the option for anyone to join me. The only option I had in a few of those 8, was for them to stop attacking me, which was handy, but didn't get anyone to like me more. In the current game, I proposed open borders, and everyone else voted no...we have no open borders between anyone at all on my continent (probably because I've got aggressive ais setting).

Yes, I believe it can be done, but do it, with at least a standard fractal map, and standard amount of civs, and then I'll be impressed.

 

[weimingshi]

From what I read here, firaxis definately need to change how AP votes work. The whole idea of full member and voting member is a mistake. it should be either a country follows that religion and give a damn about AP or that county don't follow that religion and don't give a damn at all about AP. After all its the kings do the voting for his whole country, not a mayor of one of the most insignificant city, or any one city, does the voting for the whole country. SO if the king himself Don't give a damn about AP's religion why would he bother to vote and be forced to follow the resolution. Doesn't make any sense to me.

While we are at it, I think firaxis should expand the idea of AP. Make it that all 7 religions can build their own AP. So that all christian countries can vote for stuffs amongst themselves, all buddhism countries can vote for stuffs amongst themselves and so on. This will be interesting since this can actually setup a holy crusade kind of scenario just like what happened in medieval times. Imaging, a chrstian country attacks an islam country and in the upcoming christian AP vote, he ask all christians aide him in his war effort against that country and it passed, all christian country declare war on the islam country. On the islam country side, when it comes to islam AP voting time, islam country asks all other islam states to aide him to defend against his enemies and it passed. Bang you got a holy crusade between christians and islams.

 

[Ammar]

From what I read here, firaxis definately need to change how AP votes work. The whole idea of full member and voting member is a mistake. it should be either a country follows that religion and give a damn about AP or that county don't follow that religion and don't give a damn at all about AP.

I disagree. The way it works is ok mechanically. The AI needs to smarten up about it. If they have only one city with the Religion and don't like you, they should just defy the Resolution to go to war for you and accept that a few of their citizens are a little unhappy.

I agree about their being an AP for every Religion, though. I wouldn't even mind adding the AP's function to the Shrine. There are enough other Wonders as it is.

There should be a minimum spread for your religion to enable the Victory, though. 30% upwards or so.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

From what I read here, firaxis definately need to change how AP votes work. The whole idea of full member and voting member is a mistake. it should be either a country follows that religion and give a damn about AP or that county don't follow that religion and don't give a damn at all about AP. After all its the kings do the voting for his whole country, not a mayor of one of the most insignificant city, or any one city, does the voting for the whole country. SO if the king himself Don't give a damn about AP's religion why would he bother to vote and be forced to follow the resolution. Doesn't make any sense to me.

While we are at it, I think firaxis should expand the idea of AP. Make it that all 7 religions can build their own AP. So that all christian countries can vote for stuffs amongst themselves, all buddhism countries can vote for stuffs amongst themselves and so on. This will be interesting since this can actually setup a holy crusade kind of scenario just like what happened in medieval times. Imaging, a chrstian country attacks an islam country and in the upcoming christian AP vote, he ask all christians aide him in his war effort against that country and it passed, all christian country declare war on the islam country. On the islam country side, when it comes to islam AP voting time, islam country asks all other islam states to aide him to defend against his enemies and it passed. Bang you got a holy crusade between christians and islams.

A nice idea, but what if you control 4 of the religions? You obviously can't build 4 APs yourself. And what about countries with a "unique" religion (e.g. found Tao in isolation)? What's the point for them? It's also possible to flip someone's religion to your own through espionage (albeit temporarily). If they have their AP, and you have your AP, you may end up being able to get them to join a crusade on themselves

 

[azaris]

I think people are overreacting again.

We have one game lost in the 1700's with only three civs where the player could easily have prevented the loss (the AP had probably existed for a 1000 years) had he known about the mechanic beforehand.

Then there is exaggerated speculation about how easy it is to spread one religion to every civ in the game (better do it before Theology, AI civs love to adopt Theocracy) while simultanously building many many cities of your own with said religion and preventing said religion from spreading into AI cities beyond the first one required.

So how about a challenge? First one to pull off a diplomatic AP victory in the medieval times on a reasonable difficulty level? Six AI civs, standard size map, choose your own map script to make it a bit easier.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I like the AP just fine the way it is. Its added a lot of interest to my game when I ended up defying the palace's resolutions to return my captured cities. Ending up with -10 the world thinks you are a villain unhappiness in two cities.

It acts as an anchor against constant early war - the palace was able to muster a 3 civ alliance against me.

You can try and dominate it - makes a religion emphasising strategy viable and more interesting. You can fight it - close your borders or run theocracy to keep out unwanted religions. You can join the faithful and ignore it but accept that you aren't completely your own master any more. It adds a dimension to the game that makes each game and strategy different - which is all I want.

Lets pull off the theological diplomatic win before we complain about how easy it is. We don't know what actions the AI will take to prevent it. Possibly if the palace becomes too powerful they might switch to that religion abandoning their own and spreading it internally. Or they might hate it so much they rise up and attack.

On a small pangaea map it might be easy. But on a regular map with at least the standard number of AIs it might be a lot harder than we think. Random spread to new cities will probably see the AI proportion of the vote become higher than an self voted win will be possible with.

 

[weimingshi]

A nice idea, but what if you control 4 of the religions? You obviously can't build 4 APs yourself. And what about countries with a "unique" religion (e.g. found Tao in isolation)? What's the point for them? It's also possible to flip someone's religion to your own through espionage (albeit temporarily). If they have their AP, and you have your AP, you may end up being able to get them to join a crusade on themselves

Well, those are minor details that can be rectified easily. I don't quit get what you mean by control 4 religion. AP can be build by any civ with that religion as state religion. So you can only build AP of your state religion but not the other 3. Other civs that has them as state religion can choose to build the AP for that religion. As for your worry of ''unique'' religion, its not a issue at all. If you have the ability to do something, doesn't mean you absolutely need to do it. If build an AP has no advantage at all because to few country is following that religion, simply don't build it thats all. In all fairness on a huge map with 18 civs If you have 3 majorly influencial religion that most civs follow and they all have their own AP, that would already be able to create some awesome game results. those one state religions, well, they either choose to play with their own religion or join one of the big boys and have some group fun. As for flipping religion, just make it that country that built the AP cannot flip to other religion, either willingly or unwillingly until free religion shows up. So you better be damn sure you want that state religion for the rest of the game before you decide to build it.

Total realism mod has a pretty good revamped religion system, under total realism system, If you found a religion but don't make it state religion, after 25 turns the holy city of that religion goes to a random civ that adopted that religion as state religion.

 

[winddbourne]

The problem Stalke is one of scaling. It's like the bug with poison water. If your on a small map the bug does exist, if your on a larger one it's not such an issue. I have no problem with poison water lasting 7 turns and having 7 unhappiness, major problem when it gets into the 20's.

The game has multiple time scales and multiple map sizes and the rules need to balance with this. That is why I suggested a "Percent of population" earlier. It's self correcting. Either way you need to infiltrate a good portion of each enemies cities, and thus give him/her a decent voice in the vote, before the AP actually comes into play.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

The problem Stalke is one of scaling. It's like the bug with poison water. If your on a small map the bug does exist, if your on a larger one it's not such an issue. I have no problem with poison water lasting 7 turns and having 7 unhappiness, major problem when it gets into the 20's.

The game has multiple time scales and multiple map sizes and the rules need to balance with this. That is why I suggested a "Percent of population" earlier. It's self correcting. Either way you need to infiltrate a good portion of each enemies cities, and thus give him/her a decent voice in the vote, before the AP actually comes into play.

I never play anything smaller than standard and I think this will be challenging enough on a standard map. I agree it appears highly exploitable on smaller maps and if that gets confirmed then something should be done.

Poison water I agree is a bug. The amount of unhappiness shouldn't scale, just the duration.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Well, those are minor details that can be rectified easily. I don't quit get what you mean by control 4 religion. AP can be build by any civ with that religion as state religion. So you can only build AP of your state religion but not the other 3. Other civs that has them as state religion can choose to build the AP for that religion. As for your worry of ''unique'' religion, its not a issue at all. If you have the ability to do something, doesn't mean you absolutely need to do it. If build an AP has no advantage at all because to few country is following that religion, simply don't build it thats all. In all fairness on a huge map with 18 civs If you have 3 majorly influencial religion that most civs follow and they all have their own AP, that would already be able to create some awesome game results. those one state religions, well, they either choose to play with their own religion or join one of the big boys and have some group fun. As for flipping religion, just make it that country that built the AP cannot flip to other religion, either willingly or unwillingly until free religion shows up. So you better be damn sure you want that state religion for the rest of the game before you decide to build it.

Total realism mod has a pretty good revamped religion system, under total realism system, If you found a religion but don't make it state religion, after 25 turns the holy city of that religion goes to a random civ that adopted that religion as state religion.

Personally, I just think that idea (even though I love the concept), would be too difficult to apply in practice. When could you build all these APs, would each civ have to discover Theology first? And if I'm building the Jew AP, and someone else builds it first, can I switch to Hindhu and start on another Ap?

I also think it would make religion too powerful a modifier, which thankfully with BTS seems to have been lessened. In warlords, a great majority of the time, all civs of the same religion were permanent best friends. This isn't so prominent in BTS thankfully, as neither was it in history,,,(Europe all Christian, kicking the crap out of each other for more than 750 years for example).

Anyways, as I said, a really nice idea, not knocking it. If you can make a foolproof way of implementing it, then go for it

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The issue would probably be to allow greater levels of defiance if you have only a few cities of the religion

(although as a correction for the Diplomatic Victory of the AP/UN...
1. Allow a player to defy the vote (options: candidate A, candidate B, Abstain, Never)
2. If 2/3 of the vote is won, a Player becomes "UN Leader/'Religion' Emperor"
3. Anyone who Defied is Permanently out of the UN/Apostolic Palace
4. The UN/Apostolic Palace Voting is replaced by Edicts (the UN Leader/'Religion' Emeror alone decides on Resolutions that cannot be Defied by those still in the AP/UN)
5. once all Defiers are Eliminated/Vassalized, then
the UN Leader/'Religion' Emperor AND Every player that voted for them Wins.*
*That is key to giving someone a Reason to support you in a Diplomatic Win.

 

[winddbourne]

I agree, if I vote "never" on the win then they had better have to conquer me before they can win. Also a "never" vote should be permanent even if the rest of the vote fails. THAT person will need to conquer me to even has a chance to win at some later point.

If the vote fails, of course, and I voted never, I should still be in the AP/UN, and perhaps later I can get the vote myself, or someone more palatable may get it.

 

[DreamingOfYou]

I haven't had much experience with the Apostolic Palace yet, but if it ends up being too easy for a religious victory, i like the minimum spread of the religion required idea.

Regarding theocracy, I suppose one possible strategy for if someone is running it would be using espionage, and the 'Influence Civics' mission, to get them away from it. Dunno if this works, anyone tried it?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree, if I vote "never" on the win then they had better have to conquer me before they can win. Also a "never" vote should be permanent even if the rest of the vote fails. THAT person will need to conquer me to even has a chance to win at some later point.

If the vote fails, of course, and I voted never, I should still be in the AP/UN, and perhaps later I can get the vote myself, or someone more palatable may get it.

Well if the Vote Fails, that 'Never!' should be like any other 'Never!' with the standard Penalties, and method of getting back in, and your ability to change it if you so choose, next time it comes up.

If the vote succeeds, then of course the nature of it should change. One player gets massive diplomatic power (effective control over War/Peace state of all the followers through the Resolutions)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It is not hard to place one limit (like 1) on the number of a building/wonder a player can build and another limit (like 7) on the total number that can be built. The tricky part of allowing multiple APs is making sure they control different religions (although it might actually be much more interesting if 2 different civs could control 2 APs of the same religion, causing a religious schism. Each civ would be forced to take sides in a dispute between a "Pope and Anti-Pope")

Personally I like the idea of allowing multiple APs, but having 1 per religion seems like too much. I would probably allow 3 or 4 total, but only 1 per civ.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I haven't had much experience with the Apostolic Palace yet, but if it ends up being too easy for a religious victory, i like the minimum spread of the religion required idea.

Regarding theocracy, I suppose one possible strategy for if someone is running it would be using espionage, and the 'Influence Civics' mission, to get them away from it. Dunno if this works, anyone tried it?

Not when they were in theocracy, but lots of times in one game, and they just change back to their orig religion after the 4 or 5 mandatory turns.