Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[Somebody613]

@Somebody613 There is still the difference between Secularism (we don't make anyone join a certain religion) and Atheism (we force everyone to be without religion) - the latter one is certainly not the end game best choice.

In practical terms, both are the same - you must drop the religion you previously adopted, lest you get penalized for it.
I admit that I haven't EVER chosen a non-religious civic, so I don't exactly recall the differences in penalties, but it shouldn't be enforcing "drop religion" as a "more modern" option to begin with, because it kinda sounds like saying "you are stupidly ancient, if you are still religious".
And I've met enough REAL people (on the Trollnet, but still), who quite literally think in such patterns of "modern = atheism, ancient = religion" (or in reverse cause-effect direction).

 

[dummy1929]

Hello. I have always been impressed with the amount of features in Caveman2Cosmos. I originally came up with some ideas for the Civ IV Realism mod (I played through all the eras) and realized that these ideas could work in Caveman2Cosmos mod too. Please keep mind that I’ve only made to the Ancient era for C2C in my playthroughs as I’m usually pretty dominant at that point. Anyways, I was thinking about some (4) additions to this already great mod. I’ll share each feature over time. Without further ado-here are the first two ideas:

1) This concerns randomly generated maps where you play with an Old World and New World. I always found it funny that I’m the only one colonizing the New World for centuries. Historically, when Spain discovered the New World, they were only able to keep it a secret for a decade or two at max (I forgot the exact number of years). To make it more realistic, when any player (AI or human) discovers the New World, it should set off a global event. Whoever discovers the New World is given an option to either share the news right away or keep it a secret (for x amount of turns). The first option will dramatically improve relations with other nations of the world, useful if you are on the backfoot. The second option will give you a head start in colonizing and could perhaps reward you with an upgraded explorer either on your ship if there’s room or at the nearest coastal city.

Human players will be notified about the New World through a pop that will take them to the general area of where the New World is. AI players will also generally know about it too. An AI will try to send a caravel with an explorer to the New World and if there’s good land there, also send settlers and found colonial settlements. Of course, it would only do so if helps it’s in position to do so(such as, it doesn’t cause overextension, etc). I hope that this suggestion makes colonization more realistic.

2) When the Industrial Era arrives, I was thinking that the diplomatic bonus and penalty due to religion should become null and void or a minor issue. Instead of religious differences antagonizing or benefiting diplomatic relations, it would be civics. Nations that use dictatorship, forced labor, and planned economy would like each other and will hate nations that are using democracy and social justice as civics. Whereas, democracies will like each other and hate dictatorships, etc. Basically, replace religion as the driver of diplomacy and replace it with ideology when the industrial era begins. This may mean your super Buddhist alliance that stood the test of time may come crumbling down and you all are engaged in an ideological bloodbath. Though, I think the diplomacy is hard coded, so this may not even be feasible…

I usually find that the key variable in discovering the new world and founding colonies is having the required tech. Once you got it, location doesn't really matter. If we wanted something that reflects the risks of exploration, perhaps early ocean-going units could have a failure percentage that diminishes as better tech comes along. In the old CIV game, the penalty for galleys travelling through ocean was 50%, or something like that. That could be fine-tuned, including latitude (already coded into the game) and number of turns away from land. That would also having island bases as stepping stones more meaningful, as it would make ocean navigation safer.
E.g. Caravels per turn 20% chance of failure, cumulative (20/40/60 etc on 1st/2nd/3rd turn away from land). Less for upgraded ships. Once the age of sream ships come along, failure rates should be very low, but not zero, e.g. 1%/2%/3% per turn, and so on.

 

[tmv]

In practical terms, both are the same - you must drop the religion you previously adopted, lest you get penalized for it.

Not quite - you don't have a state religion (and lose anything that would require it, although even before you could only have one, obviously), but you still can have religions (in fact, you get happiness for every religion). Whereas with Atheism, you get unhapiness with every religion, and you are strongly encouraged to remove them.

I admit that I haven't EVER chosen a non-religious civic, so I don't exactly recall the differences in penalties, but it shouldn't be enforcing "drop religion" as a "more modern" option to begin with, because it kinda sounds like saying "you are stupidly ancient, if you are still religious".
And I've met enough REAL people (on the Trollnet, but still), who quite literally think in such patterns of "modern = atheism, ancient = religion" (or in reverse cause-effect direction).

No argument from me there.

 

[Somebody613]

Not quite - you don't have a state religion (and lose anything that would require it, although even before you could only have one, obviously), but you still can have religions (in fact, you get happiness for every religion). Whereas with Atheism, you get unhapiness with every religion, and you are strongly encouraged to remove them.

I was referring to the state religion specifically, and also to the relationship penalties specifically, in conjunction to each other.
It doesn't matter what internal results it gives me, if in both cases I'm forced to "look" like an atheist for "political" purposes.
I mean, there's a very obvious bonus/malus for having a same or a different official religion, which then gets ignored entirely under non-religious civics.
And it can be either good (no malus) or bad (no bonus), but it's a forced qualifier, and I don't like it.

 

[LeanArcticWolf]

I find it does slowly matter less as free religion civics open up non-declared state religion statuses and this can often be more favorable than having a state religion, so it does fade in importance as free religion gets introduced. In today's world, it does still matter... In a 'was this inspired by Civ' modern event perspective, Osama Bin Laden did actually tell the US government that one of his demands was that we 'switch to Islam' as our state declared religion. But just as defensive pacts start to reduce the frequency of invasive actions in much the same way as it has in the real world, the power of the free religion civic begins to tend to eliminate most religious diplomatic issues.

Furthermore, with the 'Ideas' project - if and when it can be more prolifically included in the game, we can start to break down civilization elements into various value systems and start seeing those that compete with one another begin to express that competition in the game - such as the value of Individualism vs the value of Collectivism etc...

Glad to hear that's already being considered. I see your point about the free religion civic. Perhaps a Treaty of Westphalia could be included in the game, to allow the shift to happen sooner if desired? To mark the shift when a nation moves away from religion dictating politics to religion is a more of a private affair? The treaty also established that another nation's internal affairs are not justification for war. I can see it being implemented via the Apostolic Palace. Once a majority have the necessary technologies researched) and the majority are embroiled in religious war, the option to implement the Treaty of Westphalia will be available. If the majority vote yes, all religious wars cease and the diplomatic malus and bonuses for different and same relgions are much more closer to free relgion, though not the same. It will make ideologies matter more, in lieu of the value system you mention. Also, forcing another country to accept your religion will no longer be possible. Members can choose to defy the resolution. If the vote is no, then the religious wars continue. This would be a useful option if the religious wars are getting out hand, think the Thirty Year War. No country today will force another country to adopt a state religion and if refused, it is war. I think Bin Laden could be better represented in the game as a terrorist, after all, he was not the leader of a nation. Some function where if a county has low law and order, it will spawn terrorists (modern era)? Just to be clear, I believe religion is still important, but not the driving force of geopolitics today-Think Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWI, the Cold War, and the new Cold War. There can be other ways to represent religion's importance in the modern era (just not having state religion drive geopolitics, rather ideologies).

I usually find that the key variable in discovering the new world and founding colonies is having the required tech. Once you got it, location doesn't really matter. If we wanted something that reflects the risks of exploration, perhaps early ocean-going units could have a failure percentage that diminishes as better tech comes along. In the old CIV game, the penalty for galleys travelling through ocean was 50%, or something like that. That could be fine-tuned, including latitude (already coded into the game) and number of turns away from land. That would also having island bases as stepping stones more meaningful, as it would make ocean navigation safer.
E.g. Caravels per turn 20% chance of failure, cumulative (20/40/60 etc on 1st/2nd/3rd turn away from land). Less for upgraded ships. Once the age of sream ships come along, failure rates should be very low, but not zero, e.g. 1%/2%/3% per turn, and so on.

I like the idea of some early ocean-going ships, but limited in function and colonies would be cost prohibitive. Perhaps, they can be used to establish a trading post on a resouce with a merchant unit. The trading post would be one tile and can only be build on coast or river. It only gives you access to the resource and generate trade income. Units can be garrisoned in it. As the techs advance, the trading post can be upgraded which can provide defense bonuses, increase trade income, etc. Then there would be techs, that make having colonies viable. At least in my games, I have found that even if other countries have the necessary technology, they just don't colonize, just me, which allows me to become a giant snowball of a superpower. I would like to have colonial wars I think events could help the AI realize that there is a New World to exploit. Now, I never made it that far in the C2C mod, but in other mods and the base game, the AI just doesn't do it. It could be that they haven't discovered it, so that's why I suggested the event that alerts everyone that there is a New World. Spain could only keep the New World a secret for a couple decades, there's no way my nation would be able to keep it a secret for hundreds of years.

 

[Thunderbrd]

"It doesn't matter what internal results it gives me, if in both cases I'm forced to "look" like an atheist for "political" purposes."
Not siding with one religion or another does not make one appear 'Atheist' - it makes one advanced enough to understand we don't have to all agree just so we can all get along.

Freedom of Religion does not mean freedom of one religion to be dominant, but it does mean freedom FROM religion if you don't want to have to deal with it in your life.

It also means freedom of all religions to be considered and evaluated without bias against any, for one or against all. It's a bias to allow all as much as we can. A freedom we all have if we're truly fortunate.

Nothing is worse than this idea that keeping Religion OUT of politics is a bad idea - because as soon as you 'side' with one publicly, you're no longer unbiased. Only unbiased leadership can maintain peace without the enforcement of things we cannot have any logical proof if they are true or not. We also don't need to chastise people for having their beliefs, hunches, suspicions, superstitions... there's absolutely no cause for religion to dictate that the beliefs of just one religion should be codified while others should be denigrated, and if it does, that's where we become in the wrong to embrace that element of the belief system.

If we do, we're supporting disharmony in our policy and nation. You may not like that you can't enforce laws as if they are the laws your God gives people to live by, BUT you REALLY wouldn't like it when you have to live under the enforcement of laws that are based on beliefs you don't share and ones you feel are nothing more than what some may say are just some legends some folks believe.

If you were told you had to hop around on one foot all your life because of a religion called 'Hoppyness', you'd probably quickly revolt.

Of course if you were a Hoppist, you would feel it was very important to make it a law that people hop their whole lives. So the best answer for all is the one that says, hey, if that's how you wanna live, go for it. If not, go for it. Either way, I should not be required to hop just cuz you think I should be. THAT is freedom of religion.

The foundational idea that this is 'better' for a society as a policy stems from the concept that we should, above all, value peace and the strength we receive in openly welcoming diversity.


I say all that but do also consider that one could have a 'tolerant' government, while not being unbiased. I believe we reflect that in our spectrum when you consider the advanced traits but maybe not in our core civics alone. I also think there's benefits enough in it that are reflected in how you obtain such a society. We MIGHT need a 'tolerant' civic to represent this as somewhere between State Church and Free Religion. I've often thought we were missing some step there in the religious civics. So if that's the ultimate point, I get it. Not that I think it would be a superior choice, but I can see how we kinda skip that as a step right now. RL history didn't hit that tone very often.

 

[Somebody613]

I merely said that IN-GAME it pretty much doesn't matter whether you have 10 religions in 5 cities, or 1 religion in 100 cities - the most visible EFFECT is always only the STATE religion.
Which, actually, could be that one tiny 1-city-wide "heresy" that has nothing to with your OTHER 99 cities, but you simply chose to use it as your Public Image for IN-GAME purposes.
Meaning that city religion and state religion have UNRELATED effects and end up making quite little total sense overall.
And as of civics, there ARE two levels of effects: city-wide and civ-wide - but I was talking only about the civ-wide state religion effect, since I can see it much easier and transparently.
All that said, "freedom to have ANY religion" is a city-wide effect, but "freedom to NOT have ANY religion" is a civ-wide effect - and thus they simply hardly correlate to begin with.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I merely said that IN-GAME it pretty much doesn't matter whether you have 10 religions in 5 cities, or 1 religion in 100 cities - the most visible EFFECT is always only the STATE religion.
Which, actually, could be that one tiny 1-city-wide "heresy" that has nothing to with your OTHER 99 cities, but you simply chose to use it as your Public Image for IN-GAME purposes.
Meaning that city religion and state religion have UNRELATED effects and end up making quite little total sense overall.
And as of civics, there ARE two levels of effects: city-wide and civ-wide - but I was talking only about the civ-wide state religion effect, since I can see it much easier and transparently.
All that said, "freedom to have ANY religion" is a city-wide effect, but "freedom to NOT have ANY religion" is a civ-wide effect - and thus they simply hardly correlate to begin with.

There are some stronger benefits (light I admit) given to every collected religion when on Free Religion or no particular religion selected. I didn't even know you get these small base yield/commerce benefits to cities when you have a non-religious specific civic until I found out by looking at the code.

To clarify things gamewise, I've always felt atheism and agnosticism, as is expressed in US english (NO religion and 'who knows?' religion) ARE, or rather should be, religions of their own, declarable and so on. I see it this way because I see Religion only as a collection of values and beliefs and assumptions about the world that we operate with. I don't believe anyone doesn't have one or they wouldn't be able to make the fundamental assumptions one must have to even interact with the world. However, many I've spoken with define religion more specifically as including rituals and myths and so on.

 

[Maltazard]

a collection of values and beliefs and assumptions about the world that we operate with

That's a textbook definition of culture (one of many, to be fair). Religion and culture are often impossible to separate in how they influence a person, but they're still not quite the same thing. Religion for instance has an explicit rule set and a reference text book, involves specific, mandatordy rituals and carries a weight beyond the mundane things of life - the mystic side of things. Secularization and atheism aren't really considered religions but they do fit as answers in the "what do you believe in" question, so there's that.

On a side note, the theories about modernity do indeed make the assumption that religion = tradition and therefore is old and obsolete, and secularism = modernity. From August Comte, Èmile Durkheim and Max Weber onwards, not to mention the great efforts against religion made by Marx-ism, it's been like that. Possibily in my opinion one of the main reasons the west is in a "culture war" with other societies that never took that step and see religion as a valid part of life to this day. Then again, despite this, individually we're still mostly religious - but it's a "private matter".

 

[tmv]

Secularization and atheism aren't really considered religions but they do fit as answers in the "what do you believe in" question, so there's that.

Theism is not a religion but rather a set of religions. I think something similar can be said about Atheism - you cannot pinpoint a single worldview that would contain the belief sets of both Voltaire and Stalin. But there are atheistic worldviews that could be considered as much more resembling religions, like socialism, (trans-)humanism, gaia hypothesis, etc.

 

[Thunderbrd]

the "what do you believe in" question, so there's that

And that's all a religion is.

Culture, is, as I see it, is more of the agreed upon fabric of artistic style, language, and habitual practices of a group of people. Yes, values play a role in that and certainly religions influence a culture heavily. But I wouldn't call Mormons a culture, because it's not as blanket a term for a region of people's unifying features.

 

[Toffer90]

Any organized belief system is a religion.

• I think LaVeyan Satanism is a form of religious atheism, as they don't actually believe in deities, they consider their own ego to be the only deity or some such, and that doesn't really fit the typical theistic definition of deity(ies).

•The Church of the flying spaghetti monster is technically not atheistic, but it is a satire/parody on theistic religions, it is safe to say that most of its followers are atheists. It being a bizarre joke means the religion is not about actually believing in any deities, so one could argue that it's not wrong to call it an atheistic religion.

•Taoism, Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism are atheistic religions.

•There is also religious humanism.

•Scientology is borderline an Atheistic religion, it acknowledges a creator god, but there is no focus on it and members of the church are free to believe and worship whatever they want (because it is a scam/cult (most religions are, but this one is shameless about being one ^^)).

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sure but even if the belief system is disorganized and personal, it's still a religion, so all belief structures are religions, even those that object to all others.

 

[Toffer90]

Sure but even if the belief system is disorganized and personal, it's still a religion, so all belief structures are religions, even those that object to all others.

If it is not organized then it is not a religion, then it is just spirituality/philosophy.
Religions are organized social constructs centered around existential teaching and they must have members (more than 1) and structure (hierarchies, finances and bureaucracy).

 

[ranagrande]

If it is not organized then it is not a religion, then it is just spirituality/philosophy.
Religions are organized social constructs centered around existential teaching and they must have members (more than 1) and structure (hierarchies, finances and bureaucracy).

There is a difference between religion and organized religion.

 

[Somebody613]

It's nice to see that I'm not alone on this site thinking that "religion = your honest world view", regardless of how "organized" it is, or even "how many adherents it has".
Meaning, "Spaghetti Monsterism" is NOT a religion for one and only reason: nobody HONESTLY BELIEVES IT - it's a trollish insult to "more common religion", not a REAL world view.
Atheism, on the other hand, is very much a (set of) religion(s) - it's honest, it's a world view, and it's a very distinct opinion (each brand on its own, of course).
So, anyone who spouts the nonsense about "atheism is to religion, what bald is to hair color" - is simply LYING about his own belief, or is using it as a means for his "religious crusade".
I mean, it's not like any OTHER religion pretty much always claims "to know what TRUTH is", coupled with "calling everyone ELSE idiots and heretics", ya know.
And that IS what you see from your typical "religious crusader atheist" out there - a raging "absolutely sure HIS BELIEF is THE TRUTH" fanatic, calling any other belief idiotic and false, lol.
Excuses are, well, just excuses.
It's time to grow up, though.

 

[Toffer90]

There is a difference between religion and organized religion.

Ok, then give me an example of a religion that is not organized, that has no community belonging to it.

 

[Somebody613]

Ok, then give me an example of a religion that is not organized, that has no community belonging to it.

The belief that your elevator won't break the next time you use it.
You have absolutely no scientific PROOF that it won't, only that it MAY or MAY NOT, which is a STATISTICAL BELIEF based on observation, yet still unable to give you a 100% prediction.
It lacks absolutely every "official" part of what is typically considered to be "religion", yet it is still a BELIEF in something happening the way you predict it to do, but you have no way to know.
And your "belief in elevators" most probably differs from that of your neighbor (like, if ask both of you for "the chance of it happening", you probably won't give me the SAME number).
So it's not "organized" or even "recognized", nor is it even "supernatural" - but it's still a BELIEF in something you have no way to PREDICT at a 100% rate.
Thus, FOR ME - that's also a "religion" (well, a "belief", but this is like "hair" and "haircut", more or less, the one is simply the shape of the other).
Of course, staunch ANTI-theists will never admit it being a "religion" (or even a "belief" in most cases) - but that's an excuse and a word play, not a real truth.

Why are we even discussing it HERE, though?

 

[Toffer90]

The belief that your elevator won't break the next time you use it.

That's a very broad definition of "religion", that any belief equals a religion, means everyone belongs to many different religions, even people who are approximate non-believers (true non-believers don't really exist) can't help themselves but rely on beliefs sometimes, which according to your definition means non-believers also are religious and belong to religions. I generally don't like definitions that are so broad that the word loses its meaning, i.e. if everyone are religious then what's the point of the word religious....

Why are we even discussing it HERE, though?

When it comes to how religions (and e.g. civics related to them) in C2C function it is important that we have a concise and structured definition of what religion is that is useful for its feature design in C2C.
If all beliefs are religions then it becomes very hard to give religion a clear role and functioning in C2C.

So it is relevant to this thread, especially as it was brought up in the context of debating how religious civics should be designed and function.

 

[Somebody613]

@Toffer90
1. Organized religions are what most people think of when saying "religion". It's a subset of a bigger roster, though, even if people usually deliberately ignore that context.
2. A lot of "religion-related" definitions were/are coined by BIASED people who deliberately include a "same as me / heretic" connotation more often than not. Best seen with "atheists".
3. If atheism is "bald hair color", then IN-GAME it means "no official religion". If atheism is "bald haircut", it should be one more option on the "religions" list all along. I vote for the latter.