A simplification only is as good as the base thesis when you don't get out of the area where the diferences are meaningless. This is not the case here, if haven't noticed...
Nobody asked you to "get out of the area where the differences are meaningless". This is a silly philosophical exercise for solipsists and disciples of Descartes.
Not needing X to get a result is not even close of proving that X does not exist. Not needing a screwdriver to get a screw out because you used a knife for that means that screwdrivers do not exist ?
"May i present you to the Occam razor?" seems a lot like using the said tool as part of a argument Again, as it seems you meant something else, I apologize.
Oh it was part of my argument, but as you state you aren't a theist, so it can't properly be described as an argument against you. Do you wish to argue against it or don't you?
Exactly. If you don't have proof, you don't have knowledge, you have a gut feeling, a plausible scenario, a operational certainty. Call it reductionist, but there is no other logically defendable position . Using a operational certainty as a mock-up sustitute for knowledge is normally ok, but that does not make the two things equal.
This is ridiculous. Knowledge doesn't exist beyond mathematics. Good to know, but completely useless for anything beyond pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
Dryhad, were you not listening before? We're *TRYING* to move this away from religious debate & back to the design of a mod-if you're not going to contribute to that goal, then can I ask you to go elsewhere?
Two years ago I worked out a new model for religion as I find the current Civ IV implementation is too superficial/bland. I never published it, but this may be a good moment. All together these ideas will be to much for a balanced and playable Mod. I set this up as a broad design from which the best parts can be taken.
Be warned it is a bit rough on the edges in some sections.
The attachments contain a Word doc with this text and an Excel sheet with a study into the vitality + zeal concepts. See the graphs especially, but no explanations provided. (My intention is not to hijack this thread. If a new thread is a better place for this amount of ideas, please let me know and I will remove/scale down this post)
Outline
Religions are founded through a revelation, not through developing a tech
The strength of each religion and its game objects are characterised by 2 factors: Vitality and Zeal.
All religions start with the same vitality and zeal values
Religion has global, national and city wide effects. Vitality and Zeal are influenced by effects on all these levels.
A religion is not stable. The process of ossification will decrese Vitality and Zeal, and the process of a revival will increase these values.
Every civilization starts with an initial religion, named animism.
There are more religious units and they have more religious actions
The character of a religion is changable through a theological civic
Introduction
The current implementation embodies only the external functions of religion: spreading and conversion, building beautiful buildings and generating wealth and culture from them, influence on the diplomatic relation between states.
Spoiler:
What is not implemented is the internal characteristics of a religion. What people believe, how they believe it, how religions evolve/revolve. Say for yourself, you can send a missionary on a mission, but he cannot even pray! Also, in order not to offend anyone, Firaxis has made every religion (almost) identical. Only symbols, shrines and the names of the great prophets are in line with the uniqueness of each world religion. Hmm, wouldn’t such a bland representation also thread on long toes?
The goal of this design is to make the religions more distinguishable, more unique. And more interactive. To make them a stronger force in your strategic decisions and to create more opportunities for gameplay fun!
My method is to let the brainstorm blow and generate a lot of ideas, knowing that all of them together are to much/to complex to be taken over for Civ V or a Mod development. So selecting, discarding and pruning also have their place in working this out. But that is mostly left to the interested reader.
I also do not pay mutch attention to the fact if these idea’s can be put into the Artificial Intelligence DLL. Several of the following sections & ideas will be quite an AI challenge (eg multiple unit interaction over multiple players). As could be diplomacy consequences.
Internal characteristic and external characteristic
Two parameters are introduced to capture this internal/external character of religons: the internal is Religious Vitality (V), the external one is Missionary Zeal (Z). In short, zeal is the capacity to spread and convert people, vitality is the capacity to bind people together. In other words, zeal is the factor which enables a religion to spread out in a game, vitality is the factor with which a religion can withstand the zeal of another religion.
Spoiler:
These capacities can also control aspects like diplomacy, leader traits, civics, unit/unit actions and maybe buildings.
These capacities have a base value carried by the religion VR & ZR (actually the Religious Leader, see below), by two civics VC & ZC, by the set of religious units VU & ZU and by their actions Va & Za.
As the player can change civics and choose what units he will train and how they will be used, this ensures that the character of a religion is not static but will change during the game. Fun thing is that a spatial variation also comes up by itself: a religious leader controls the whole religion on a global level, a civic works its effect on a national level and a unit (and a building) infuences the city level. More on this scaling will be explained later.
To avoid a strategy that inflates vitality and zeal indefinitly, and would put later religions in an unfavourable starting position, another aspect is introduced: ossification (decay) of a religion: the fact that the initial zeal/strength/fervour is lost and that a religion becomes prone to internal conflicts and imprisoned in old tradition. This decay sets in after some time and reduces the zeal (and maybe also the vitality) through some function. Think of an exponential decay like in radioactive material or of a lineair stepfunction. This continues until some minimum. The decay onset, decay rate and the minimum should be kept the same for all religions. Methods to counterbalance this decay need to be designed as well (see the section on revival) ]
Selection of religions
To the religions of Civ IV BTS a few more can be extended. I have not thought aboud world views like rationalism but these should/could also be included somehow.
Spoiler:
Animism : the primary religion with which al civilisations start. This religion has no special effects. It is very empty, no symbols/no spreading and conversions. Pantheonism : (from the greek word ‘Pantheon’. A combination of all ancient and classical era polytheistic religions. This can be used to model religions from the mesopothamian gods- to the german myths/ beliefs to the Meso-American religions., etc, etc. (a big generalistion of course). Judaism : roughly as it is in Civ IV BTS Christianity: ” Islam : ” Hinduism: ” Buddism : ” Taoism : ” Confucianism: ” Rationalism: The secular worldview originating from greek philosophical schools and expanding over the world since the Enlightenment took place.
Pro/Contra
+ the initial religious state of prehistoric man is made explicit.
+ polytheism has an extended representation in Pantheonism.
- Rationalism is not a religion but a worldview. It’s treatment must differ from the other actual religions.
- the civilopedia states that 7 religions is enough in the game. And I suspect that the game designers are right in this.
Religious Processes
A proces is a set of gameplay tactics which takes more than one turn/are more involved than one action. The following are defined
Founding a religion
Conversion
Holding a council of various types
Schisma
Revival
Founding a religion
The founding proces should be more interactive and less deterministic. A religion is not developed by an early Tech, nor build by a shrine, but revealed through a special terrain resource, a revelation resource. This resource remains hidden until some triggered moment. It is only visible to a religious sensitive unit, a Visionary (see him as a sjaman).
Spoiler:
So you have to go out and seek the revelation, using the Visionary. Before this revelation is found the Visionary has no affiliation to a particular religion. When the resource is found, the Visionary gets a special object/symbol (see below) This religious object has to be safely brought to (one of) your city which becomes the Holy City. [other option: a nearby city of yours becomes the Holy City] The Visionary is consumed in the proces.
From there on it goes like in CIV BtS / Gods-of-Old mod. Visionaries which loose the race to the revelation resource/to a Holy City-to-be will remain in the game, but are empty handed, and the founding of a religion in a distant land is announced, a sound is heared..
As God (a god) can reveal himself on multiple places, the revelation resource will be generated on a few locations so all players can have a look for it and have a (more or less) equal chance. The revelation has to be found within a certain number of turns, then it disappears. But as God (a god) can reveal himself more than once the whole proces can be repeated.
Revelation resource/object: Judaism : stone tables Christian : cross. Islam : a kaaba. Must not be brought to a city, a city must be settled on top of it. Hinduism : ... Buddism : Bodh Gaya tree underwhich Buddha received enlightenment Taoism : ... Confucianism: ...
There are a few options to trigger the moment when a revelation is given:
When a technology is researched, just like in current Civ. BtS
A random factor determines when a revelation happens under some guiding conditions like [a chance of 1 in 6 per century; a minimal number of cities has to be settled; etc, etc]. Certain religions must be founded in certain era’s.
Revelations occur in waves, just like in real history many religions were founded in the 7th – 5th century BC. Certain religions must be founded in certain era’s.
Which religion will be the actual result of the revelation is subject to roughly the same ordering as in the current game. Obviously there are three historical lines:
Polytheism is first, Hinduism before Buddism, Judaism before Christianity before Islam, Confucianism before Taoism. But per revelation a suitable subset could be placed in the randomizer and one could be selected as the revealed religion. Eg. For the first revelation Hinduism and Judaism have a 50-50 chance and Judaism could be the one actually founded. In the second revelation Hinduism is running against, say, Confucianism and Christianity. And the selection falls on Christianity. This proces is not visible to the gamer.
All religions are founded with the same amount of vitality and zeal. Say {VR=7, ZR=7} see the excel sheet.
Pro/Contra
+ Founding a religion becomes and adventure!
+ It ensures a wider variation in the early religions. Buddism and Hinduism will not be so dominant.
- This randomisation of what religion actually is revealed is counter the design principles of the Civ series where conscious choice of deterministic options is the prime directive. Random factors play a minor role.
- The gamer cannot beeline anymore for a specific religion. You have to accept what you get. Higher Powers have made the decision or you!
- More micromanagement.
Conversion
Much alike to the current Civ BtS concept. Religions spread automatically along rivers/traderoutes, and conversions can also be worked by an action of a missionary.
Spoiler:
The missionary can increase the effect of the conversion (the number of converts, %) by staying in the city and preaching a few turns before he does the conversion action.
(similar to how a spy can increase his succesrate by staying hidden in the city of the enemy for a few turns)
The success of spreading a conversion also depends on the vitality of the other religions in the city. As said before this is determined on a global and national level, but also on a city level. One can train a “bishop for religion X” in a city to increase the vitality of that religion [option: or have priest specialist take this effect].
The algorithm determining which part of the city population is converted and from what religion they came is an important one. It had better be rather simple and well tested on side effects. Eg one cannot drain more followers from a religion than there are citizens; no negative numbers here as a religion cannot have -2 followers.
[optional: The automatic spreading could/should be turned off for Judaism as this religion never had much of a missionary zeal. A Missionary unit should remain for Judaism as it should not become impossible for that religion to spread. As a balancing factor a strong positive domestic effect should be added to Judaism, e.g. in the domain of culture.]
Pro/Contra
+ Not much difference with current implementation
- ???
Gatherings
The idea behind a gathering is to use the combined unit principle; More than one unit is needed to get the effect.
Spoiler:
Synod : a few missionaries from the same religion (but might be from different civilisations) can come together in a city where their religion is present and have some good effect for that city (eg. a temporary boost in culture points, trigger an event, …
Concilium : a few Great Prophets from same religion can come together in a city (of their religion) and have some good effect for that religion (eg …
Eucumenical Council : Takes over the role of the current Apostolic Palace, except that it is a gathering of religious leaders, not of national leaders. And the voting is not on worldly matters but on the religious differences and similarities. Some other Wonder should take over the current role of the Apostolic Palace, eg. The Round Table from King Arthur.
The city (actually the governor or a Religious Leader or Unit) can call out for a Synod, Concilium or a Council. Others players can react on it, and send their missionaries/ Prophets/ Religious Leaders.
Pro/Contra
+ Stimulates team play
- Still rather vague…
- More micromanagement.
Schisma & Branches
Under certain conditions people are unhappy with their religion, and a schisma develops. In this schisma the new relgion formed is a branch of the old religion. Eg, like protestantism separated from Catholic christianity but also remains a christian religion.
Spoiler:
It takes some anarchy when a schisma occurs.
A schisma is a city scale process. It starts in a city. The new branch can spread from there.
Initially it will spread much easier under adherents of the old religion but later it becomes more balanced, if the old religion takes counter measures. (a tricky proces to capture in an algorithm)
The new branch may also spread/convert into other religions.
It may happen outside your direct control as the schisma can take place outside your empire, even if you have the Holy City of that religion.
A revelation does not occur for the branching religion but revivals to it can happen of course(see below).
A branch has its own Holy City, where the schism started. But this can never be the Holy City of the old religion.
Some of the possessions of the old religion will be confiscated by the new branch.
Triggers for a schisma could be:
The vitality and/or the zeal of a religion drops below a certain value.
The outcome of a synode or concilium might be negative.
The religion stays to long in the dogmatic, zelotic or worldly variants of the Theological Civic (see below) [hmmm, a timing factor… I am not to wild about this]
Lack of pressure from other religions, from other empires.
Succesfull spionage mission….
[Anyone with better idea’s]
Possible branches are Animism : none Judaism : Orthodox <> Conservative <> Reform Christianity : Catholicism <> EasternOrthodoxy <> Protestantism <>Evangelicalism? Islam : Sunni <> Shia <> Soefi? Hinduism : ?? Buddism : Mahayana <> Terayana Taoism : Shintoism Confucianism : ?? Pantheonism : ?? Rationalism : ?? various modern schools of thought / do we need any branches here?
After a schisma the name of the old religion should be changed/adapted for clarity. E.g. when Eastern Orthodoxy splits of from Christianity the term Catholicism or Catholic Christianity is better used for the leftover of the old religion.
Note that the branching does not need to follow historical lines. Protestantism could very well branch of from Eastern Orthodoxy….
This concept has quite some international and diplomatic consequences. As a religion is a transnational aspect in the game a branching in a religion can and will affect all empires where this religion has spread. Even against your wishes and influence one of the pillars and commercial boons in your empire could be split and divided.
Schisma’s should be rare. A game starting with 9 religions and ending with 20 is probably very overdone and hard to manage. The balance should be a handfull in 6000 years, I guess.
[open issue: Should every religion be prone to schisma’s? ]
Pro/Contra
+ New strategic options are opened.
+ New historical realism introduced.
- hmm, where in the user interface Main Map is room for even more religion symbols.
Revival
A Great Prophet can trigger a Revival. During a revival a religion is strengthened.
Spoiler:
This means that the zeal and vitality factors are boosted, by a rather large amount
Eg. +5 each. So a religion will be founded with Z=+7 , V=+7 in the year 1800 BC.. Because of decay this will be reduced to Z=+3 , V=+4 . A great prophet triggers a revival and the factors are boosted to Z=+8 , V=+9 . This level remains for a number of turns (same number as for a golden age) until decay sets in again. During the revival the religion’s missionaries can be used to spread the religion further and further.
Pro/Contra
+ Ensures that religion is a dynamical game concept. A concept which can change itself and which can be used to bring about change.
- Revivals can be a very unbalancing factor. As conversion depends on the difference between zeal and vitality of 2 different religions, a big plus for zeal of religion A can give an overwhelming wave of conversions and leave the other religion(s) empty.
Religious Leader
Those religions which have a strong organisational/hierarchical structure have leaders [option: or all religions]. These leaders have the same presence as National Leaders and are almost as complex in character; having influence on production, research, war, diplomacy, and of course on happiness and healthiness.
They also have an animated leaderhead as graphical presentation.
But they also steer/control the character of the religion itself.
Spoiler:
A few dimensions of the character of a religious leader are (Religious Traits)
Strictness : from fundamentalism - orthodoxy - ... - liberal - ...
Example Leaders Christianity : Pope Leo I ; Martin Luther ; Billy Graham Judaism : High priest Aaron ; ... ; Rabbi Akiva Islam : ... ; ... ; Ayatolla Hinduism : no leaders Buddism : ? Confucianism: ? Taoism : ? Pantheonism: ? (Hera ; Athene ; Dionysios) Animism : no leaders
The Religious leader can be chosen when you found a religion, or when a religions spreads to your empire for the first time. As there are/should be more than one leader per religion one can select a flavour of this religion which suits your game and your empire leader best.
The gamer is still playing the national Leader (aka _is_ the national leader) but can discuss with the religious leader, and ask him(/her) to apply his/her influence in certain matters...
[Bold Idea] When you switch to the Theocracy civic (see below), the control over your empire switches to your religious leader. I.e if you are playing the Byzantines with Emperor Justinian I and Pope Leo I, your national leader after the switch to Theocracy will be Leo I. Thus you will control the Byzantian empire but also the Eastern Orthodox religion. This gives you the power to influence other empires where this religion is established. When you switch back to state religion or an other Religious Civic, you will become Justinian I again.
CIVICS
Just as part of the character of your Empire is determined by the Civic system so the character of a religion is determined by a small Civic system. The Religion Civic in Civ IV is maintained but is more geared to tot relation of your empire towards religion. A new Civic is introduced to describe the nature of each religion: the Theology civic.
Spoiler:
The religion civic is shown on the civic screen of your empire. The theology civic is shown on a religion screen, those religions you have founded can be controlled by you, for the others the current theological civic is shown.
Some possible civic choices are outlined below. How they relate to game play concepts like science, production, happiness, etc, is not worked out (yet).
Religion : relation State <-> Religions (Empire bound)
a. Anti-theistic : the state persecutes all religions (aka the Soviet Union)
b. A-theistic : the state discourages the spread of religion but uses no persecution.
c. Tolerant : the state allows all religions to settle and spread, freedom of religion
d. Dominant : the state favors one religion but is tolerant towards others.
e. State : the state has one religion and can persecute others. The gamer plays as (is) the civilisation leader
f. Theocracy : the state has only one religion, all the others are persecuted. The gamer plays as (is) the religious leader. See the section on the religious leader.
Theology : character of a religion (Religion bound)
a. Ecstatic :
b. Worldly : very active in secular activities, not so much in religious matters
c. Pietistic : inward bound.
d. Scholastic : oriented to knowledge
e. Pacifistic : averse of war
f. Zelotic : fanatic, militaristic
g. Dogmatic : keeping to strict rules,
The organisational structure can somehow be determined by
a. Free form : no important leaders or grouping structure, individualistic.
b. Organised : social structure and leadership is organised. Priests, abbot,
c. Centralised : one central leader, high priest, pope, dalai lama…
The theology civic of a religion and the religious civic of an empire have influence on each other. E.g a pacifistic religion in a theocratic state does not make much sence.
Pro/Contra
+ makes religion stand out more, have more character than in the current Civ IV implementation
+ gives gamer more options to control the religion.
- Added complexity: what if you have founded 3 religions. How to balance that in one empire.
RELIOUS UNITS
Several new units to embody the aspects of a religion:
Spoiler:
Sjaman or Visionary: An animistic guy, see above. Can do a ritual, incantation,
but needs to stay put for one turn, increases religious sight. {S,M}=(0,1)
Missionary : as existing unit
Inquisitor : as the unit existing in several Civ IV BTS mods.
Great prophet : ....
Priest : ....
Religion UNIQUE UNIT: (also reachable through Unit upgrades)
Judaism : Rabbi or a Levite
Christianity : Bishop
Catholicism : Bishop
E.Orthodoxy : Metropolitan
Protestantism : Reformator
Islam : Mufti
Sunni Islam : Mufti
Shia Islam : Ayatolla? Imam?
Confucianism : Mandarin?
Taoism : ?
Hinduism : Yoga
Buddism : Sangharaja; Monk
Pro/Contra
+ more action, more uniqueness for each religion
- effect on Great Profet and priest city specialist is not clear
Religious ACTIONS by Religious Unit
Have you ever heared of a missionary who cannot even preach?
Spoiler:
Incantation : increases religious sight.
Hold a ritual : ??
Vision : Reveal something the AI of another civ is doing
Prophesy : same as Vision but then stronger.
Preaching : Increase effect of conversion
Prayer : Ask for a specific action of god. (se religious events)
Worship : Increase temple effects. Musical effects
Sacrifice : one of the available animal resources, or oneself. Increase temple effects
Write : An letter (epistle), a Holy Book. Strengthens the religious bond of a city to this religion
Healing : similar to the Medical promotions
Miracle : one of the Religious events is triggered
Convert : Both Units and Cities. More effect after preaching/teaching/Holy Book.
Inspire : Strengthening bravery of military units ??
This is very good, but I think the theology civics should be put in more layman's terms, I like the religious civics seems like alot of work like you're creating your own game
Aussie: Your idea of a certain number of 'slots' in each city sounds interesting. It could make the spread of religion to a city a bit more important as you no longer have effectively unlimited room for the addition of new religions so players genuinely have to race for dominance. What do you think of simply square-root of Population rounded down for number of slots so < 4 population gives one slot, 5-8 would be 2 slots, 9-15 pop is 3 slots etc etc. Can we really think of many instances in which more then 4 different religions are all mixed in one city? Something like New York is kind of the exception that proves the rule, every religion on earth is their at some level but only a few are above single digit percentages and we would expect it to be at least 4 probably 5 slots under this model. Smaller communities tend to be much more homogeneous and fewer slots would help enforce this.
If necessary some Civilizations could have a 'Spiritual' trait and/or some kind of 'tolerance' policy would be available late game which gives +1 slots in all cities. To reflect places/times of greater religious diversity or 'intensity' as presumably a player that fills up these extra slots with the state religion has some advantage in resisting conversion from / causing conversion too their religion. Or link the number of slots a religion occupies to the building of religious buildings, say 2 slots for a temple, 3 for Cathedral and 4 for establishing Holy City.
One thing I would NOT try to do is have and kind of floating point data 'below' the slots some how determining them, if the players is shown these slots then that should be the level of granularity and ware the simulation takes place. Presumably their is a background 'roll' happening every turn (or more) just like Civ4 in which religion can spread but that would need to be some potential for a out and out conversion as well, a lot of factors would probably come into play here like number of slots filled, modifiers based on Doctrines, state Religion policy etc etc. I'd like to see it all a bit more 'exposed' to the player less of a black box. I want to see "Hinduism rolled a 4 which was doubled from State-Religion status to give an 8 which beat the 6 Taoism rolled".
Lastly my thoughts on Missionaries. I never really liked the constant build-move-pop cycle with missionaries, for one it make hammer output the driving factor in religion spread with seems totally unintuitive and second its just a lot of clicking. I'd like missionaries that are permanent units and they can simply be moved to a city to 'preach' and will add some bonus to the spread/conversion roll described above, their effectiveness could be determined by Doctrines (Evangelical: +3 Missionary power) or other modifiers (promotions?). Their bonus would help in both offensive/defensive rolls. Of course if missionaries are permanent their needs to be a limit on how many you can have just as their was in Civ IV but the hard cap they used should changed. Bring in another square-root and allow the player to have religious missionaries equal to the slots of that religion under their control. This would give most players 3-4 missionaries easily enough, still reward you for having greater size while not making it a crushing advantage or bogging the player down with huge numbers of units especially if missionaries obsolete at some point before the late game.
Yeah, I'm tempted to make Missionaries work a bit like Spies in BtS-namely that a spread religion mission doesn't necessarily work on the 1st turn, but requires a time investment on your part. Extending that further, maybe its possible to put money into religion the same way you currently can with Culture, Science & Espionage?
I don't have a problem with building missionaries in the game, but maybe a stricter limit of 4 *total* missionaries (of any faith), & have existing missionaries last until they're captured or disbanded-this could make for more interesting strategic choices.
Anyway, just some random thoughts !
Yeah, I'm tempted to make Missionaries work a bit like Spies in BtS-namely that a spread religion mission doesn't necessarily work on the 1st turn, but requires a time investment on your part. Extending that further, maybe its possible to put money into religion the same way you currently can with Culture, Science & Espionage?
One thing I didn't like about BtS was that it added a whole new slider to the budget for espionage. It seemed like a little much for one specific subsystem of the game. The same concern applies here. If you want players to be able to invest in religion this way, I think you should tie it to the culture slider rather than adding a new one.
@Impaler: It seems desirable to have a consistent level of customizability throughout all the aspects of the game. So I think the text-box-with-default-entry is very appropriate. But picking your own symbol might be a little much; you can't do that with your civilization, after all, at least not in Civ4.
But then again, you can pick your civilization. So maybe picking the symbol is equivalent to that.
Judaism + because of the study ethic. Instead of getting - from clams, etc., how about those resources just giving no benefit whatsoever? Fishing boats on clam give no extra health, yield, but still allow you to trade them with other civs. I agree that it should be - for not working on the sabbath, -7th production (not willing to work out the % equivalent right now).
The discussion has long moved past such simplistic and hard-coded effects tied to specific religions. First off their boring, second their controversial because people have differing opinions of religions even within each religious tradition. This threads erupted a few times already when it went down the line of discussion your on.
The only viable solution is to have abstracted sets of bonus effects which get paired with religions in-game at the players discretion, were calling them 'doctrines' and their would be one called 'scholastic' which gives research bonus which you can assign to which ever religion/s you like in your own game.
In case any of you are interested, here's my take on it I plan to implement for Civ 4 and ultimately Civ 5 some of the ideas may have already been put forward by others, I know religion's a hot topic for Civ 5, but customizable religions are something I've wanted to see in there for a long while.
In case any of you are interested, here's my take on it I plan to implement for Civ 4 and ultimately Civ 5 some of the ideas may have already been put forward by others, I know religion's a hot topic for Civ 5, but customizable religions are something I've wanted to see in there for a long while.
I'm impressed by the careful thought you've put into this; it sounds like it could be an excellent system that I'd have a lot of fun playing with. There are some especially nice touches in there, such as making religion more resistant to change than civics, and tying it to other mechanics like whipping. (Indeed, the only problem there might be that it allows the player to reenact the Holocaust with uncomfortable accuracy.) Nevertheless, I have a few gameplay concerns.
I may be misinterpreting you, but from my reading it sounds like every civilization is entitled to its own religion, and no more. I'm skeptical that this is the best course of action: it seems like it would lead to less interesting games where every civilization is simply trying to maximize its own homegrown sect. If you set up the religious system so that some civs can found multiple religions and others none, this leads to a whole lot more possible gameplay situations. More clarification on how religions are founded and spread, and what benefits there might be to adopting a foreign state religion, might be in order here.
I'm also concerned by your idea that doctrines can be balanced by early adoption and lategame liability vs. late adoption and lategame payoff. First, if the balance problems of Dungeons & Dragons have taught us anything, it is that when different players follow different power curves over the course of game, there is only balance for the small period when the curves cross. Second, this system encourages the player to think on a metagame level, and frustratingly causes him to lose choices when it looks like he should be gaining them.
In addition, I'm in the camp that says atheism should not be treated like other world religions, since its historical patterns and effects are wholly different. Nor should it provide a boost to science output; that's little more than a comfortable myth for atheists to convince themselves they're in the "smart kids' club". (Before anyone objects, I say this as an atheist.) If atheism must be modeled - and I do not think it must - I much prefer some simple variant of Eklabiaan's idea that religions weaken and disappear unless they are somehow maintained. As modernity provides new social options, it may no longer be worth the effort of maintaining a strong religious presence in all your cities, and thus they gradually return to irreligiosity.
I'm impressed by the careful thought you've put into this; it sounds like it could be an excellent system that I'd have a lot of fun playing with. There are some especially nice touches in there, such as making religion more resistant to change than civics, and tying it to other mechanics like whipping. (Indeed, the only problem there might be that it allows the player to reenact the Holocaust with uncomfortable accuracy.) Nevertheless, I have a few gameplay concerns.
Thanks! Yes this last bit occurred to me but then as unpleasant as it is, such a thing is a common part of history that has happened many many times before the holocaust. After all slavery and razing cities is really really bad too but are in there nonetheless. I guess it's up to the morals of the player and the other civs would certainly find out about it and react accordingly. But yeah it's something I'll give more thought to. Sadly this kind of mechanism would be needed, either this or inquisitions anyway, but the whip seems more sensible since it's already in there.
I may be misinterpreting you, but from my reading it sounds like every civilization is entitled to its own religion, and no more. I'm skeptical that this is the best course of action: it seems like it would lead to less interesting games where every civilization is simply trying to maximize its own homegrown sect.
Yeah I've not really nailed this in the design yet, but I don't see it as each player only having one religion. It's just your state religion that you'd be setting doctrine on, so it'd work either way. Some doctrine would be so unforgiving of non-state religions though it wouldn't be pretty. A lot of the details still need fleshing out yet anyway.
I'm also concerned by your idea that doctrines can be balanced by early adoption and lategame liability vs. late adoption and lategame payoff. First, if the balance problems of Dungeons & Dragons have taught us anything, it is that when different players follow different power curves over the course of game, there is only balance for the small period when the curves cross.
Well I think this would apply to existing game mechanics no? Early UU vs. late UU? Early golden age vs Late golden age? Or a biggie: Cottage economy vs. Specialist economy? They all give early game trade offs vs. late game trade offs. Interesting thought though I'll need to think on this. Certainly balance will be a lot trickier in this part of the mod.
Second, this system encourages the player to think on a metagame level, and frustratingly causes him to lose choices when it looks like he should be gaining them.
I'm interested in what you mean by this not sure I follow? I suspect you might be thinking of a much huuuuger lead at the start traded off for a huge penalty at the end. I imagine such a situation would only be made when one player picked ALL the doctrine that aided early game, and everyone else picked ALL the ones that aided late game, and even then I'm not talking a crazy lead or anything. I always tend to think on a metagame level to some, in the sense that 'opponent A always uses lots of espionage on me, so I should make sure I stock up points on him' not sure what extra metagame thinking it would force.
In addition, I'm in the camp that says atheism should not be treated like other world religions, since its historical patterns and effects are wholly different. Nor should it provide a boost to science output; that's little more than a comfortable myth for atheists to convince themselves they're in the "smart kids' club". (Before anyone objects, I say this as an atheist.) If atheism must be modeled - and I do not think it must - I much prefer some simple variant of Eklabiaan's idea that religions weaken and disappear unless they are somehow maintained. As modernity provides new social options, it may no longer be worth the effort of maintaining a strong religious presence in all your cities, and thus they gradually return to irreligiosity.
The science boost, for one, is perfectly legitimate IMO, not to say 'atheists are smarter' or anything, but rather for the scientific research that would be impossible or less likely to be conducted if following the doctrines of certain religions, certainly more fundamental ones. Not that I want to be drawn into a debate but in the real world stem cell research is a big example of where religion is largely the reason for blocking some scientific progress (tho I'm not commenting on whether I agree or disagree with this) also creationism vs. palaeontology/geology for example. It would be unrealistic not to represent this with science somehow (and lets face it what other possible civ advantages to atheism could you come up with). Also some of the religious doctrines promote science, so it's not a one sided street.
And the specific way it spreads and is represented is not final yet, so will still have more thought going into it. I would say though that atheism is very much an absence of faith, so having that abandonment of faith spread like a bonus/a virus depending on how you choose to see it seems apt in game terms if nothing more. As much as atheists don't want to admit it it does have certain things in common. Richard Dawkings and Christopher Hitchens, for example, are pretty much like atheist missionaries, trying to spread non-belief in much the same way Christian missionaries try to spread Christianity.
That all said I'm sure when it's in there, there will be major differences in how atheism works but will think on it. What's written in that post is largely my gut reaction religion system once I've started developing it I'm sure it will transform as it goes.
Finally I want to make sure that atheism is neither 'a curse' or 'a blessing' in itself, and just another game mechanic that can be exploited or be a hindrance depending on the situation. Despite being an atheist myself I don't want my way to be the right way necessarily. ;D I still intend to be careful in this mod not to cause offence, but at the end of the day this is the opportunity we have over Firaxis to be a little less scared to represent the more contentious things about human history. As long as it's handled carefully I see no reason to avoid it for avoidance's sake.
Cheers for the feedback! Will think on all you've said and think about alternate ways to approach it, see what happenes! ;D
Thanks! Yes this last bit occurred to me but then as unpleasant as it is, such a thing is a common part of history that has happened many many times before the holocaust. After all slavery and razing cities is really really bad too but are in there nonetheless. I guess it's up to the morals of the player and the other civs would certainly find out about it and react accordingly. But yeah it's something I'll give more thought to. Sadly this kind of mechanism would be needed, either this or inquisitions anyway, but the whip seems more sensible since it's already in there.
Yeah I've not really nailed this in the design yet, but I don't see it as each player only having one religion. It's just your state religion that you'd be setting doctrine on, so it'd work either way. Some doctrine would be so unforgiving of non-state religions though it wouldn't be pretty. A lot of the details still need fleshing out yet anyway.
If you have a foreign state religion, are you bound by the founding player's doctrinal choices? What about if the founding player has a different state religion?
It does, but to a lesser extent. Making a choice in the early game doesn't seal off options in the later game, and wanting to make a choice in the late game doesn't seal off options in the early game. I guess what bothers me about this mechanic is that it says "If you want to do something later, do nothing now." Players want to do things at all times.
I always tend to think on a metagame level to some, in the sense that 'opponent A always uses lots of espionage on me, so I should make sure I stock up points on him' not sure what extra metagame thinking it would force.
It asks you to refrain from adopting a certain doctrine because there's another, better doctrine coming up that you can't use yet. Yes, of course we all play with one eye on our future capabilities, and to some extent this is a good thing. But the mechanic seems to force it to an unpleasant degree. Even though the doctrines are spread through the tech tree like civics, effectively you have to make your final choice as soon as you get access to your first one.
Thomas Aquinas was an immensely influential Catholic (especially in Scholastics)
Shakespeare was a "somewhat" influential Catholic (literature/culture)
If you have a foreign state religion, are you bound by the founding player's doctrinal choices? What about if the founding player has a different state religion?
the doctrine choices would have a combination of 'state religion effects' and 'non-state religion' effects I guess, so depending on the choices they would have different effect in opponent cities, or in your own if you don't use that one as state religion. The effects are tied to the religion, not the civ, so the effects of that religion are both freely visible to all civs, and is global, so there will be situations where players will be more or less concerned about different religions spreading in their lands or even welcoming of them. They may even decide that piggybacking and adopting another player's religion over one they founded has good benefits and strategic value in the short term. Some effects may only apply to the founding civ, but in most cases any civ where it spreads could take advantage of it if they wished.
It'll just be a balancing consideration in how complicated the choices are and how many combinations. Providing a good level of customization and flavour without having so many caveats and things to bear in mind it's too complicated.
In the same way the advisor system, while having a pretty large roster of advisors compared to civic choices, you can only ever select 2, so being able to quickly surmise 'oh they've appointed Beethoven and John Lennon. They must be planning a big culture push.' even without looking at their specific effects.
Like you know if you see someone switch to Theocracy that a) no religion spreading and b) they may be prepping for war. Whatever the choices should have easily connectible assumptions when you see a rival's religion spreading close to your borders.
It does, but to a lesser extent. Making a choice in the early game doesn't seal off options in the later game, and wanting to make a choice in the late game doesn't seal off options in the early game. I guess what bothers me about this mechanic is that it says "If you want to do something later, do nothing now." Players want to do things at all times.
It asks you to refrain from adopting a certain doctrine because there's another, better doctrine coming up that you can't use yet. Yes, of course we all play with one eye on our future capabilities, and to some extent this is a good thing. But the mechanic seems to force it to an unpleasant degree. Even though the doctrines are spread through the tech tree like civics, effectively you have to make your final choice as soon as you get access to your first one.
Yeah, this is a good point and I agree and want to try and avoid that. I guess the balance would be to provide opportunities to change them, but make these a lot more confined than changing civics. Either by wonder / advisor effects or even a 'per-age change' or something? while still maintaining a more persistent model would provide a few moments for a player to adjust their strategy.
In the same way the advisor system, while having a pretty large roster of advisors compared to civic choices, you can only ever select 2, so being able to quickly surmise 'oh they've appointed Beethoven and John Lennon. They must be planning a big culture push.' even without looking at their specific effects.
On a somewhat off topic note, I find this idea very interesting, it reminds me of the founding-fathers in Colonization. Do you plan to make the advisors exclusive to the first Civ that picks them (like CivIV:Colonization) or sharable (like original Colonization)?
It also makes me think of a neat way to spice up great people, each named great person in addition to their other abilities has a unique bonus they can bestow permanently on your Civ, it would be less powerful then a wonder but relatively narrow in scope so it would provide a tempting and interesting decision if your play strategy is oriented in that direction. Because this usage of the GP will be in addition to all the other options the fact your exact GP is random will not be a serious detriment to the player, a bonus the player finds useful will just be a surprise treat which could present an interesting choice.
The effect is of course going to reflect a historical fact/accomplishment of said person and one appropriate to the GP type, so that Horatio Nelson Great General is going to give a nice navel combat bonus. This also gives GP a lot more personality and brings a more historical tone to them. Lastly their might need to be a division of GP by era so that their effects can be better balanced and appropriate for the period. Getting Nicola Tesla and his 'Provides Electricity in 3 largest cities' effect isn't going to be appropriate in 2000 BC.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Again, as it seems you meant something else, I apologize.
![Impaler[WrG]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/73/73222.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
because of the study ethic. Instead of getting -
from clams, etc., how about those resources just giving no benefit whatsoever? Fishing boats on clam give no extra health, yield, but still allow you to trade them with other civs. I agree that it should be -
for not working on the sabbath, -7th production (not willing to work out the % equivalent right now).
