"Chance" at Great Prophet

[lokithepunishr]

I find this to be really annoying. All other great people have a specific number attached to them in order to generate them.

In my last 2 games (as Egypt and Celts) I missed my prophet by a few turns because of this "chance" and it resulted in me suffering. I have no idea if the AI has this same "chance" but it just really irks me. With Egypt I missed the 3rd religion by 4 turns, by which time I had over 250 faith with only +5 per turn. I wasn't too annoyed in that game because the first 2 religions had taken the beliefs I wanted anyways, but to miss the 3rd 1 and lose Monasteries was still slightly annoying.

The game as the Celts was much worse, after a good start with 1st pantheon on turn 5 I thought I stood a decent chance at getting first religion, but after 3 turns of being over 200 faith I ended up 1 turn short and settling for 2nd best. Mosques were gone... I know most people rate Pagodas as better but it was just so frustrating to be denied what I wanted because of the "chance" to generate a prophet.

Is there a reason behind this that I am unaware of? Or is it just something that the developers decided upon randomly?

 

[Arachnofiend]

It actually works the same way as Generals and Admirals, it's just that getting a General as soon as possible isn't so crucial to warfare as getting a Prophet is to religion. It was a really, really bad design choice.

 

[Helmling]

I agree, except I completely disagree.

I think all great people should be like this. For that matter, I think everything should have a fuzzy margin. If you've overplayed MOO2, the science had a little random leeway in either direction.

In my book, anything that discourages by-the-numbers play is a good thing.

 

[Worlds_Crossing]

I agree, except I completely disagree.

I think all great people should be like this. For that matter, I think everything should have a fuzzy margin. If you've overplayed MOO2, the science had a little random leeway in either direction.

In my book, anything that discourages by-the-numbers play is a good thing.

The problem is that the aforementioned random leeway is exclusively in the negative direction. I've heard ridiculous stories about people losing out on Religions entirely due to 20-turn delays before the Prophet popped, turning first religion to no religion at all. It is hard to deny that that is idiotic. You should not lose your should-have-been-assured religion because of the dice rolls punching you in the face. Maybe the likelihood should increase as more Faith is accumulated (not sure if that is not already the case) to try to counterbalance that, or create a second threshold where the chance becomes close to 100%. Either way, chance shouldn't really play into such a vital and game-changing aspect that requires a significant opportunity cost to work.

 

[Browd]

Chance does increase as you accumulate more faith, approaching certainty as you approach the next faith threshold (i.e., 300 faith for the 200-faith GP).

So, for example, let's say you have a couple of shrines (and a non-faith pantheon), and are working a religious mountain (say, +8 faith) to motor your way to 200 faith. You decide to switch off the religious mountain once you cross 200 faith (perhaps to work a food tile instead). Your faith balance will continue growing 2 faith per turn, but won't move the needle much on your GP chances. Continuing to work the faith mountain will materially increase your chances. But it is still a dice roll.

 

[tide15]

In my last 2 games (as Egypt and Celts)

That's interesting because playing against the Celts I've always found they get religion way faster then me. Then start spawning missionaries like mad.

 

[phillipwyllie]

If chance isn't your thing then the Religion - Fixed Prophets mod might be.

 

[tide15]

If chance isn't your thing then the Religion - Fixed Prophets mod might be.

I didn't think I would like the religious aspect of the game but I really get a kick out of using it kind of like asymmetric warfare

 

[Helmling]

I didn't think I would like the religious aspect of the game but I really get a kick out of using it kind of like asymmetric warfare

Yeah, it adds some spice to the game, but as with so much with Civ V, I wish they'd considered more opportunity costs.

Every policy in Civ V is always completely positive. I miss the civics in Civ IV when you had to make some trade offs--this for that. I think that's why I like the ideologies. While they don't restore the entire feel of earlier civ games where choosing democracy meant you couldn't start wars (which was a bit too restrictive) or anything like that, at least choosing your policy sets you opposed to other civs.

The religions should work like that, too. Again, not as monolithically as in Civ IV where different religions always alienated one another, but maybe certain belief choices would inevitably clash with belief choices of other players.

 

[Loucypher]

Opportunity cost should not be tied to dicerolls. I've missed out on too many religions because lolchance, and I don't play Civ to play a game of dicerolls. If you want opportunity costs, then doing so by tradeoffs in policy trees, tensions between religions and such is the true way to go.

 

[AW Arcaeca]

This is among probably the top 10 most annoying things in the game for me. I've accumulated some 300 faith, still no great prophet, 1 religion left to be founded. Like seriously, I should've gotten a GP several turns before, then I get a notification saying a religion has been founded...

I wish I could change this with a mod, but it's probably hard-coded in the DLL.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Yeah, it adds some spice to the game, but as with so much with Civ V, I wish they'd considered more opportunity costs.

Every policy in Civ V is always completely positive. I miss the civics in Civ IV when you had to make some trade offs--this for that. I think that's why I like the ideologies. While they don't restore the entire feel of earlier civ games where choosing democracy meant you couldn't start wars (which was a bit too restrictive) or anything like that, at least choosing your policy sets you opposed to other civs.

The religions should work like that, too. Again, not as monolithically as in Civ IV where different religions always alienated one another, but maybe certain belief choices would inevitably clash with belief choices of other players.

Civ V does have opportunity cost, though. Unlike in Civ IV civics, you can never go back on your decisions; picking one nice thing means that you may not access another nice thing later in the game when it might be nicer than the first nice thing.

I do think that having a separate religion should carry some sort of a diplomatic penalty, though. Probably not as severe as the ideology one but anything that makes the AI hate you more would make Brave New World more interesting.

 

[Autoclave]

Agree it makes the game *less* fun.

 

[AmericanDestiny]

In my last game as Denmark I was generating 5 fpt. I of course needed 600 to get my first profit and found a religion. I was at 656 before I finally got that profit. A waste of 11 turns of accumulated faith, especially since none of it carries over.

 

[lokithepunishr]

It actually works the same way as Generals and Admirals, it's just that getting a General as soon as possible isn't so crucial to warfare as getting a Prophet is to religion. It was a really, really bad design choice.

Honestly I've never noticed the Generals and Admirals being "chance". I guess that not tracking them like you track the others makes them less likely to be identified, not to mention your point about how they are less important earlier in the game.

I agree, except I completely disagree.

I think all great people should be like this. For that matter, I think everything should have a fuzzy margin. If you've overplayed MOO2, the science had a little random leeway in either direction.

In my book, anything that discourages by-the-numbers play is a good thing.

If it was one way or the other I wouldn't mind, I just don't like the fact that they are on different systems. On top of that I'm not happy about GWAM are on serperate counters compared to GSME who are on the same counter. I just want some kind of consistency so I can plan my strat around it.

The problem is that the aforementioned random leeway is exclusively in the negative direction. I've heard ridiculous stories about people losing out on Religions entirely due to 20-turn delays before the Prophet popped, turning first religion to no religion at all. It is hard to deny that that is idiotic. You should not lose your should-have-been-assured religion because of the dice rolls punching you in the face. Maybe the likelihood should increase as more Faith is accumulated (not sure if that is not already the case) to try to counterbalance that, or create a second threshold where the chance becomes close to 100%. Either way, chance shouldn't really play into such a vital and game-changing aspect that requires a significant opportunity cost to work.

20+ turns? Wow, I take back my complaints, 20+ turns is gamechanging, that relates to over 1K gold (depending on beliefs) at a minimum, way more if you utilise religion to your advantage.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it adds some spice to the game, but as with so much with Civ V, I wish they'd considered more opportunity costs.

Every policy in Civ V is always completely positive. I miss the civics in Civ IV when you had to make some trade offs--this for that. I think that's why I like the ideologies. While they don't restore the entire feel of earlier civ games where choosing democracy meant you couldn't start wars (which was a bit too restrictive) or anything like that, at least choosing your policy sets you opposed to other civs.

The religions should work like that, too. Again, not as monolithically as in Civ IV where different religions always alienated one another, but maybe certain belief choices would inevitably clash with belief choices of other players.

Actually, what civ5 has are opportunity costs. The only cost is a different benefit you forego. What you're thinking of is more of a direct cost.

 

[jogi]

I personally think that the chance element adds to the game and makes it more exciting to race for a religion. There are so many other random factors to founding a good religion (finding faith CS, natural wonders, ruins, which beliefs the AI chooses, etc) that this one particular aspect doesn't bother me. It also balances out since the AI has to roll the dice for their great prophets as well; there may be times you found a religion before another civilization because they were waiting for their first GP to spawn while you lucked out. Sometimes the mechanic will work for you, sometimes against you.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It's funny, the random prophets is the only random thing in the game, and yet the devs said that they left out Random Events because people didn't want to leave stuff up to chance xD..

 

[reddishrecue]

Getting an early prophet is automatically chosen. If one was able to manually purchase the beginning prophet then there wouldn't be a waste of extra faith points which are paid with the first prophet purchase.

 

[Helmling]

Civ V does have opportunity cost, though. Unlike in Civ IV civics, you can never go back on your decisions; picking one nice thing means that you may not access another nice thing later in the game when it might be nicer than the first nice thing.

I do think that having a separate religion should carry some sort of a diplomatic penalty, though. Probably not as severe as the ideology one but anything that makes the AI hate you more would make Brave New World more interesting.

For most things, though, it's only an opportunity cost FOR A TIME. Most of the options you give up, you're only giving up for the time.

I see what you mean, but remember: nobody likes an economics nerd.