Best CIV that can FULLY IGNORE Religion

[GKShaman]

This is a bit of an odd question but I am curious which CIV is suited to FULLY ignore religion.

Obviously there are CIVs that NEED/LOVE faith in the game: Celts, Ethiopia, Byzantine, Maya

Civs can benefit greatly from founding a religion: Songhai and Indonesia.

Then there are civs where faith is I'd argue necessary to offset some disadvantages: India (early unhappiness can get offset via pagodas or pantheon.

But are there any civs that can just full ignore a religion and not suffer?

I realize that technically every civ can ignore religion, but I find with Germany's UA of free and cheaper military - the cities can just continuously build units, culture, food, and science.

Thus Germany is most poised to just ignore religion. No religious tenet enhances the Hanse, benefits faith from barbs etc. In fact religious heathen may hurt their UA? Not sure.

Also when you do found a religion - Dont you technically need to get a Reformation? What do with all the faith sitting around? I guess only GEs if you did Tradition or if you finish Rationalism get the scientists...

Best Games I've had are when I have gone Trad + Piety with Jesuit or Lib + Piety with Glory and that resulted in awesomeness.

 

[Chum]

Why would you want to?

Religion offers powerful advantages. You don't even need to found your own to get them. Sure, if you do found your own, you get to tailor your beliefs somewhat to your map and possibly end up with free buildings. But the fact that you can buy great people with faith basically says "Ignore this mechanic at your own peril."

There is no civ where ignoring buying great people post industrial era is a good idea.

 

[Dushku]

But are there any civs that can just full ignore a religion and not suffer?

I think this is a trick question. All civs are playing with less gold when they don't have Tithe for example than when they do. Is less gold suffering? Also, when you don't take a religion, the computer will force one upon you. You'll want faith anyways for buying their buildings and/or great people.

 

[TheKillerNacho]

Typically when you start a question with "What is the best civ for..." you can just assume the answer is Poland.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

The warmongers who can go on like a steam roller pretty early dont need a religion. So Attila, Shaka, Genghis etc

 

[Matthew.]

I don't understand the question.

If you are asking in regards to being able to just "ignore" the religion mechanics because you don't want to deal with it, but don't want to get screwed out of the bonuses... then someone like Persia or Egypt, since they get happiness bonuses just by building buildings.

If you are asking in regards to missing out on the founders bonus... then someone like China or Arabia, if you are looking to replace the missing gpt from Tithe/Church Property.

Also Celts are pretty good for ignoring religion, despite having bonuses to faith. If you mean ignoring religion so you don't need to worry about prioritizing shrines/temples, then Celts build up faith by just playing near forests, which is similar to shrines without building shrines. Ethiopia I guess qualifies as well, since you build monuments anyway.

If you are asking just out of a thought experiment, as in which Civs can function as athesists without missing out too much, then the typical powerhouses apply. Poland, Arabia, etc.

 

[stormtrooper412]

You can ignore religion with just about anyone, but for the sake of argument, Mongolia. All you need is Keshiks

 

[Sclb]

All of the early warmongers basically can ignore religion.

 

[reddishrecue]

America, Shoshone, maybe Poland? All good civs that could ignore religion.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

Babylon. They only need faith to buy GSs. And sometimes you get a decent one from your neighbors.

 

[poom3619]

This is a bit of an odd question but I am curious which CIV is suited to FULLY ignore religion.

Obviously there are CIVs that NEED/LOVE faith in the game: Celts, Ethiopia, Byzantine, Maya

Civs can benefit greatly from founding a religion: Songhai and Indonesia

Then there are civs where faith is I'd argue necessary to offset some disadvantages: India

But are there any civs that can just full ignore a religion and not suffer?

Ignoring religion is like "refrain" yourself from in-game bonus for a reason.
If you think getting no bonus from religion is not suffering then nothing about religion is. So my answer is every civ you didn't list above that I didn't strike out.

You can disband any great prophet you got, or send him to barbarian camp instead of thinking how you'll use surplus faith without religion. If I understand your question right.

 

[GKShaman]

So I got some answers in the direction I wanted.

My main issue is always in any map there are fewer religions than civ. Thus some civs will not found a religion - at that point whats the reason to get shrines and temples?

Whenever I get a religion I tend to want to go down piety (Usually neighbors have religion and I want to make the most out of the faith points or I will just be beaten on the religion spread game.

Thus all my games tend to be Trad + Piety or Liberty + Piety. I am just trying to play a game where religion isn't a big focus or main focus. I am not opposed to getting a religion spread to me. But the early hammers for a shrine is a big deal.

Thus I also wanted to know when people ignore religion or at least founding a religion in a game. When you spawn next to Ethiopia OR India - Do you halt the production of shrines? (I notice those two are relentless and will just spread their religion no matter what kind of approach).

I like Poland and Babylon. Makes sense that they are top tier and their bonuses are just nice and not religion related. Also late in the game based on WHAT trees you finish you can benefit of great people.

Also I am starting to think with Indonesia's Candi - you shouldn't found. The religious diversity will be great -> Give everyone open borders. Just make tons of faith and buy a good mix of religious buildings.

 

[poom3619]

I never build shrine to get religion, I build when I want to get Pantheon and I would actually use wonder to found religion (Stonehedge and Hagia Sophia)

Maybe you can use everything that you would have invested in religion to build military and take the holy city instead

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So the question is more
Which civ can best avoid investing in Faith as a resource.

Benefits to Faith besides founding a religion

The Religion spread to you has
Pagodas, Mosques, Monasteries, Cathedrals: Faith gives you culture, possibly happiness
Jesuit education: Faith can give you science
bonuses to Temples/Shrines: Faith is a side effect of getting more happy, culture, food

If you Finish Tradition, Rationalism, Commerce, OR Aesthetics (and to a lesser degree Exploration or Honor): Faith->Great Persons


So Faith/Religion is most Ignorable if
1-the religions spread to you have no special buildings/faith building benefits
2-Your strategy/civ relies very little on Great Persons

Since #1 has nothing to do with Your civ.
#2 is the guiding principle..which civs favor strategies tend to ignore mid-late game Great Persons (and also have no faith/religion bonus)

Probably ones that go for Early Domination..since they will have plenty of Generals mid-late game

So.. Huns, Mongols, Assyria

 

[GKShaman]

So the question is more
Which civ can best avoid investing in Faith as a resource.

So Faith/Religion is most Ignorable if
1-the religions spread to you have no special buildings/faith building benefits
2-Your strategy/civ relies very little on Great Persons

Since #1 has nothing to do with Your civ.
#2 is the guiding principle..which civs favor strategies tend to ignore mid-late game Great Persons (and also have no faith/religion bonus)

Probably ones that go for Early Domination..since they will have plenty of Generals mid-late game

So.. Huns, Mongols, Assyria

So its either invest in faith heavily or go for super quick early domination? It seems brave new world made religion or the faith resource a MUST. Which is ok?

I mean Science is a must, culture is a must, faith is a must, happiness is a must.

so gold and tourism are not superbly vital. It just more directions to spread out resources. Thats all I'm debating.

Also maybe Sweden? Fighting isn't productive for faith - Thus Sweden can gift the extra great generals.

 

[poom3619]

So its either invest in faith heavily or go for super quick early domination? It seems brave new world made religion or the faith resource a MUST. Which is ok?

I mean Science is a must, culture is a must, faith is a must, happiness is a must.

so gold and tourism are not superbly vital. It just more directions to spread out resources. Thats all I'm debating.

Also maybe Sweden? Fighting isn't productive for faith - Thus Sweden can gift the extra great generals.

KrikkitTwo is answering your first question. You asked for Civ that can fully ignore Religion so he list a civ which relies very little on it.
Faith is hardly a must for most civ.

Faith is a must if you don't want to ignore Byzantine UA, India's worse-than-nothing UA and some civ that have ability to generate faith faster. That's all. You can totally found religion in Medieval and let it spread by it's own while focus on only real must of the game, science to volley enemy army of pikemen with rifle and bombard enemy castle-town with artillery. To have strong science, you need a few thing and faith is rarely one of it.

 

[beetle]

Civs can benefit greatly from founding a religion: Songhai and Indonesia.

I would put Arabia in that short list, but they have a desert bias, so probably not a problem! What is the particular perk Songhai gets from founding?

IMHO, you want a shrine in your cap early, every game. The temporary pantheon benefit just on its own justifies the lost opportunity cost.

Thus some civs will not found a religion - at that point whats the reason to get shrines and temples?

You want faith late game for GP. If you don't start early, you might only get one GP. So you want enough faith early to faith-purchase any buildings that come your way (since they payoff their faith cost -- iff you get them early). If you don't have a faith-based pantheon, you will need shrines and temple for this. If you do not found, once you get a couple faith buildings, there is no pressing need to build more shrines and temples. Sometime they come with a happy (from a foreign religion), so maybe building shrines and temples then. Or maybe much later in the game when they only take a turn or two.

Whenever I get a religion I tend to want to go down piety

That is a trap. Most games, those piety policies come at the expense of other trees -- almost all of which are better. Pursing piety just because you founding is converting free benefits (tithe plus your follower perks) into a net drain on your game.

Usually neighbors have religion and I want to make the most out of the faith points or I will just be beaten on the religion spread game.

You get the most out of the faith points by buying buildings early. That is irrespective of founding. It is no problem getting beaten on the religion spread game. What is the benefit of winning the religion spread game? Competing on that front is very costly, and generally a lost cause anyway. You want to found so that (1) you are able to spread to CS to fulfill quests. From the mid-game on, (2) you want your religion in your cities to get the gold from tithe. That is it, and neither of those two require anything from Piety.

If I found, about half the time I will open Piety as my spare policy waiting for rationalism to unlock. So as to get the cheaper temples in the expos. That is about all I do differently in games when I found versus not founding.

I am just trying to play a game where religion isn't a big focus or main focus.

That sounds like just about every game to me. This is from a guy who almost always puts a shrine as the third thing in my build queue. I love founding, but if it happens, I hardly do anything differently.

Thus I also wanted to know when people ignore religion or at least founding a religion in a game.

Unless I am Byzantium, Celts, Eithiopia, or Indonesia, I don't try to found if their is no faith-oriented dirt. I always build the early shrine, no matter the dirt and no matter the neighbors.

Also I am starting to think with Indonesia's Candi - you shouldn't found.

I strongly disagree. You want to found because you need as many religions as possible. Giving up founding means one less religion in every city. The only thing I might do differently with Indonesia is not stress at all about converting my core cities at all. I might pick follower benefits differently, and skip any religious buildings.

 

[GKShaman]

I would put Arabia in that short list, but they have a desert bias, so probably not a problem! What is the particular perk Songhai gets from founding?

...

That is a trap. Most games, those piety policies come at the expense of other trees -- almost all of which are better. Pursing piety just because you founding is converting free benefits (tithe plus your follower perks) into a net drain on your game.

...

I strongly disagree. You want to found because you need as many religions as possible. Giving up founding means one less religion in every city. The only thing I might do differently with Indonesia is not stress at all about converting my core cities at all. I might pick follower benefits differently, and skip any religious buildings.

Solid Answer! Addressed all my points.

So Songhai has the special temple that gives culture. I was just going to add that founding and getting choral music can really help Songhai add a lot of culture.

Why is Piety a trap? It gives gold, culture, a whole reformation belief that can be game changing, and a second pantheon. Patronage in my opinion is weaker. It takes a lot of effort to make Patronage work. Also the only real bonuses are the science and great people which are pretty late in the tree.

 

[beetle]

It all comes down to if you are struggling or not. Every Deity is a challenge to me, so any late game pick that is not in Rationalism or my Ideology needs careful consideration.

So Songhai has the special temple that gives culture.

The UB works irrespective of founding. That said, founding fits their character. I feel the same way about Maya. I enjoy the roleplay.

Why is Piety a trap? It gives gold, culture, a whole reformation belief that can be game changing, and a second pantheon.

The gold and culture buffs are weak compared to picks available from other trees.

The reformation beliefs are great fun, don't get me wrong, so they are game changing in that they are a good excuse to do things differently. But they are not make-or-break-your-game like Rationalism policies and Ideology tenets are.

Most of the time, the second pantheon is of zero benefit in half your cities. In any case, pantheon benefits are weak to the point of being irrelevant by mid game.

Patronage in my opinion is weaker. It takes a lot of effort to make Patronage work. Also the only real bonuses are the science and great people which are pretty late in the tree.

The best policy in Patronage is just one pick in. Piety takes three to get to Reformation. I would not recommend filling out Patronage at the expense of Rationalism or Ideology picks either!

 

[Dushku]

so gold and tourism are not superbly vital.

If somebody declares war on you, purchasing a single archer type unit could hold them off without slowing your game. The ability to will yourself happiness, along with any currency you'd like by bribing a CS should not be underrated. The ability to pay an AI to war somebody else to distract them from you and weaken their army/production in the meantime can be a game saver. I could go on.

As for tourism, you'll feel differently when you're in a game where you're suddenly hit with a couple dozen unhappiness overnight. There's no reason not to; you want to work your guilds anyways since after Renaissance and before you have Secularism and Free Thought, culture is science. So why not inflict that extreme unhappiness onto your opponents instead? Check out my video Tourism Made Easy to learn how/why tourism is important and easy to do: https://youtu.be/HvgyqhmoRCw

India's worse-than-nothing UA

Indian cities provide less unhappiness overall starting at 6 pop. The disparity grows larger the higher the population the cities being compared are. This cannot accurately be described as worse than nothing. Iroquois are the only civ with a unique something that is actually worse than nothing.