Bloody Religion changes we want to see.

[Lazy sweeper]

As I see it, the temple of Jupiter for the Romans, it gives some happiness, passive bonuses, and that's it.

To me, every Religious structure should have a function.
Jupiter temple= sacrifice ten virgins and get invulnerability to 10 ships from every weather pattern for the next 50 turns....
Apollo Sun temple= sacrifice 10 warriors and get one Immortal warrior of the Light...
Kali temple= Sacrifice 10 snakes, 10 warrior, and 10 goats, and get a super Archer with poison arrows.
Delphi Oracle= get a bunch of sacrifice, or pay in gold or other options, in order to get advise (like paid espionage actions), and eveyone can use the Delphi Oracle, not just the nation that built it.

Religion also in the past, up untill very recently, has been a bloody mess. But in Antiquity, it was MUCH worse....
Religious figures would appoint commanders and generals tasks to conquer here, and destroy all this cities, etc....

So again, some structures like the Temple of Salomon, in my mind, should also spawn special commanders units, or Great Generals.
Altars should allow for basic sacrifices (food, childrens, animals... normal bloody stuff) and give some nice bonuses as a result, not just
some passive happyness (Happyness... sure...) Rating wise, it's not my job to change childrens with... Joshua tree fruit or something extravagant....

We want back bloody Crusaders
We want back a more basic, religion concept, not one that should boost all of your empire yield, or gold output.
On the contrary. Religion should perform actions. At a cost. And, just like reality, be indipendent of states.
I do not understand why countries like China should accept any religion for example.
Why missionaries should spread religion to me regardless of my Animism status. Or highly advanced Philosophy.
Religion should become obsolete for civs that research Philosophy Lao Tzu scriptures in my mind.
Thus civs that instead have Religious beliefs active, should not have massive yield boosts to anything
but a little bit of Science ( Science, lol) and culture (Architecture, OK, Tourism, OK) but not crops---

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I do agree that religions should act more as independent entities rather than collectables, and it's crazy to think how Secret Societies has so far been the closest the series has ever come to emulating religion the way it does in more "historically accurate" grand strategy games like Europa Universalis IV. In fact, there's something to be said about making religions in and of themselves playable factions, though in that case, I would prefer if none of them were actual world religions millions (if not billions) of people around the world still practice; that would open up a rather unpleasant Pandora's box

 

[Evie]

Your proposed idea of how temple should work is fantasy nonsense, and your description of antique religion while it may have applied to edge cases (ie, the Biblical Hebrews and other minor group) is far from accurate history ; it particularly fails to describe the situation of most major empires in the Antique and Classical eras where religion and the state were intertwined to be sure, but not in the way you suggest where priests directed the army and appointed commanders left and right (they may have had ceremonies for the appoitment of commanders, but that's a wholly separate thing). The idea that researching philosophy should make one immune to spread of religion is risible ; the Greek certainly discovered that and still got converted to Christianity.

There's lots of room for improving religion in many directions, but none of this is the right direction.

 

[Siptah]

Religion will come into the game in the 2nd age. Loosely, I hope for the following: you choose one of x historic religions. Throughout the 2nd age (and maybe in the crisis) you get some events that are inspired by the history of your chosen religion. Your choices might unlock a crusade option, buildings, bonuses (and restrictions/maluses), effects on diplomacy and other civs, etc. and a ton of flavor. But you always have a choice! Religious spread should be abstracted (no units, but we already know there will be units), but direct able to certain cities or other cultures.

But of course, if they would do this, everybody would complain again that FXS steals al their ideas from Humankind... and again it would be an idea in Humankind that is great, but it wasn't fleshed out at all and pretty insignificant.

 

[Zaarin]

I didn't vote because I don't agree with any of the options, but I do want to see a different take. Civ5/Civ6 religion was fun, but it wasn't a good representation of religion. I would like to see more passive/independent take on religion. At any rate, religion can only get better for not having a religious victory.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I just want religions to feel sufficiently distinct enough in the overworld. Like if picking a Crusades tenet unlocked Crusader units, or unlocking Sin Eaters units to burn on cities to gain happiness for X turns, or unlocking Magi units perform sorceries in for science and culture, Itinerant Priests that provide a passive religious influence boost in their surrounding hexes, etc. Civ VI was on the right track but I’d like to see it get fully blown out. Percentage increases aren’t as exciting.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Religious spread should be abstracted (no units, but we already know there will be units), but direct able to certain cities or other cultures.

I want religious units, precisely because they're goofy and apocryphal; the less religious nationalists IRL can be thrown a bone, the better. Just, no Crusader units, please; maybe include Crusade and/or Jihad as social policies or religious beliefs, but that's about as far as I would go with representing the more mainstream faiths

 

[Patine]

or unlocking Sin Eaters units to burn on cities to gain happiness for X turns

Sin-Eaters did not, "burn," and were usually a relative of the deceased who only participated in that loved one's (and MAYBE a few other dearly departed's) personal funery rites. Though it's not done in that demonination anymore, I was raised Anglican, the denomination whose high church rite used to practice the tradition.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Part of the Crisis change from Age One to Age Two will/should be the Axial transition to aggressive, multi-cultural/political Religions.
BUT a religious model less attached to individual Civ/Gamer actions as it was in Civ VI would also allow for the massive presence of Religion in Antiquity: the Greeks, Chinese, Indians and Romans may not have aggressively spread their religions, but the near-ubiquitous classical temples scattered all over archeological sites and surviving cities - and the number of them considered potential Wonders - indicate that that 'early religion' should not be left out completely.

I would rather hope that the game's characterization would be:

Age One: Build religious structures like Temples, Altars, etc to help your population with (minor?) Bonuses, but you cannot really 'spread' your religion: religions tend to be exclusive to specific cultures/states.
Age Two: Religions are introduced that Spread whether you want them to or not, and they may have major influence on your population, government, and diplomacy. Deal With It.
Age Three: Religion begins to lose importance, or more precisely Religious Fervor is increasingly replaced by Ideology and various forms of International Politics. Governments in Ages two and three may try to bind Religion to their Government exclusively, but they will have less effect in the third age, and always the potential for the religion to Go Its Own Way.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Sin-Eaters did not, "burn," and were usually a relative of the deceased who only participated in that loved one's (and MAYBE a few other dearly departed's) personal funery rites. Though it's not done in that demonination anymore, I was raised Anglican, the denomination whose high church rite used to practice the tradition.

Lol, I don’t mean literally burning. I mean like, “spending” the unit on a city for the bonus.

I’m speaking in the vernacular, I employ slang to appeal to the youth.

 

[AriochIV]

Religion is in the Civ7, and I'm curious to see how it functions, but I'm hoping that its effects are more grounded and realistic. Both Civ5 and 6 introduced religion mechanics and bonuses that were downright fantastical and felt more like magic powers than real religions. (The religious units fighting by conjuring lightning bolts didn't help this image.) I personally like fantastical elements in fantasy games, but not so much in historical games.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Religion is in the Civ7, and I'm curious to see how it functions, but I'm hoping that its effects are more grounded and realistic. Both Civ5 and 6 introduced religion mechanics and bonuses that were downright fantastical and felt more like magic powers than real religions. (The religious units fighting by conjuring lightning bolts didn't help this image.) I personally like fantastical elements in fantasy games, but not so much in historical games.

I honestly wouldn't mind if the depiction of religion was kept light-hearted if not outright silly. There is in fact, such a thing as taking religion too seriously, and I personally have a pretty high sensitivity against that

 

[Zaarin]

Religion is in the Civ7, and I'm curious to see how it functions, but I'm hoping that its effects are more grounded and realistic. Both Civ5 and 6 introduced religion mechanics and bonuses that were downright fantastical and felt more like magic powers than real religions. (The religious units fighting by conjuring lightning bolts didn't help this image.) I personally like fantastical elements in fantasy games, but not so much in historical games.

I understand what they were going for. I think Faith as a currency was a reasonably good mechanical representation of religious fervor directed into public works or recruitment or whatever. But in many ways they missed the mark, and it felt gamey.

Age Three: Religion begins to lose importance, or more precisely Religious Fervor is increasingly replaced by Ideology and various forms of International Politics. Governments in Ages two and three may try to bind Religion to their Government exclusively, but they will have less effect in the third age, and always the potential for the religion to Go Its Own Way.

As a religious person, I've always seen Ideology as a secular religion with an Idea as its god.

 

[AriochIV]

I understand what they were going for. I think Faith as a currency was a reasonably good mechanical representation of religious fervor directed into public works or recruitment or whatever. But in many ways they missed the mark, and it felt gamey.

I don't think it was a terrible implementation, but I'd like to see a better one.

Although it does seem that Civ7 has a Missionary unit, I'd be surprised if they replicated the Civ5/6 missionary spam mechanic, given their focus on reducing unnecessary micromanagement. The Missionary may operate similar to the Merchant, and made more of a unit and less of a walking expendable charge.

 

[Futumch]

I was never a huge fan of the Religion mini-game in Civ 6. I can appreciate that it does give you civ-wide bonuses, some of which are really useful for particular civs or playstyles. What irked me was that disabling the Religious victory still resulted in waves of religious gits being spammed by the computer-controlled players. I would have liked to see that the switch to toggle Religious Victory off also toggled off all the associated mini-game aspects. Yes, you'd lose some buildings and wonders, but ultimately that's the players choice. But alas, the way the game was designed, religion was built into it in the same manner as a glob of chewing gum stuck in hair. Very tricky to remove without spoiling the whole thing.

 

[Zaarin]

I was never a huge fan of the Religion mini-game in Civ 6. I can appreciate that it does give you civ-wide bonuses, some of which are really useful for particular civs or playstyles. What irked me was that disabling the Religious victory still resulted in waves of religious gits being spammed by the computer-controlled players. I would have liked to see that the switch to toggle Religious Victory off also toggled off all the associated mini-game aspects. Yes, you'd lose some buildings and wonders, but ultimately that's the players choice. But alas, the way the game was designed, religion was built into it in the same manner as a glob of chewing gum stuck in hair. Very tricky to remove without spoiling the whole thing.

I'm not sure if it's a mod I use, but I always set it so there are only 2 or 3 religions in the game. It makes it a lot more enjoyable.

 

[Evie]

As a religious person, I've always seen Ideology as a secular religion with an Idea as its god.

THANK YOU..

Last time I tried to say that the reception I received amounted to informing me that I should turn to corporal speleology to locate a good resting place for that particular notion.

 

[Deer]

I would like to see the religious victory condition removed. I think religion is far too tied to their founding civs. It is fair for the founder to shape the religion but I don't think they should necessarily receive unique bonuses for it. Rather, I think religion should affect a civ depending on how much or little that civ decides to lean into it. A highly religious civ could do well, even if it did not found the religion, while a civ which has decided to disengage completely from religion completely might see other benefits/maluses. This idea is a bit closer to reality but hard to simulate within the frames of the Civ franchise as we know it thus far. I suspect that policy cards from Civ5 could have done a good job at this, as well as choice of governments etc.

 

[Zaarin]

I would like to see the religious victory condition removed.

Good news! It's gone. May it never return.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I would like to see the religious victory condition removed. I think religion is far too tied to their founding civs. It is fair for the founder to shape the religion but I don't think they should necessarily receive unique bonuses for it. Rather, I think religion should affect a civ depending on how much or little that civ decides to lean into it. A highly religious civ could do well, even if it did not found the religion, while a civ which has decided to disengage completely from religion completely might see other benefits/maluses. This idea is a bit closer to reality but hard to simulate within the frames of the Civ franchise as we know it thus far. I suspect that policy cards from Civ5 could have done a good job at this, as well as 8choice of governments etc.

For gameplay purposes I think founder civs should receive some bonuses. Pilgrimage/Tourism bonuses to their cities with Holy Sites, etc.

But what I want to see more of is bonuses and mechanics related to civs that follow someone else's religion. Civ5 and Civ6 do this terribly, you don't have a state religion, you don't follow a religion, your cities do. And cities too are prone to have their majority religion changing suddenly. This means you usually can't plan a strategy based around the religion in your cities. It also means religious bonuses are very localised and limited to just the city, there's no sense of an empire-wide religion.