Aren't the apostles and missionaries most annoying units?

Well, since you guys apparently aren't fans of the "Apostle Stomp" strategy.... :mischief:

If you don't found a religion, and you don't allow military units to stomp on missionaries, then how does someone without a religion prevent religious victory? Should there be a dark apostle or angel of death (or something) that someone without a religion could purchase to attack other religious units?

I play on large maps, so religious victory is usually not possible. Because of this, I have extended the range of religious combat victories to 10 and doubled religious pressure from cities. I also have been able to change the number of religions, but apparently 7 is the hard cap max without adding to the beliefs table (that looked like more work than I wanted to do, but at some point I will do it). So, in place of the angels of death, we could also make it to where every player gets to found a religion. I'm not sure why that's not currently the case anyway, other than pure laziness on the part of the designers (seriously, there isn't even the possibility of 8 beliefs for huge maps in the base game).

Which solution is better? As long as everyone is allowed to make religious units, I don't see why military units would ever be involved in religious warfare -- the religious units could be immune. But if you have no means of expelling the units, something has to be possible.
 
If you don't found a religion, and you don't allow military units to stomp on missionaries, then how does someone without a religion prevent religious victory?
We've now gone full-circle. If you're not going for a religious victory, it's my opinion that preventing a religious victory is the ONLY reason that justifies investing in a religion.
 
missionary/apostle spam is so much better than it used to be. I just remember how it was at game launch. *shudders*. Civs like India can still crank out a lot of apostles, but that's okay, as it's an important ability for that civilization.
 
Top Bottom