Civ 5 Religion Mod

[KingYosef]

You might want to check Wikipedia on that


Thomas Aquinas was an immensely influential Catholic (especially in Scholastics)
Shakespeare was a "somewhat" influential Catholic (literature/culture)

Iv'e read extensively into the scientific and theological writings of Isaac Newton. He was a devoted Christian and wrote many works on his faith including a document that was translated called 'Twelve articles on Religion.' This was Isaac Newtons personal testimony. Read it here... http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/THEM00008

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

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.

Let's say Caesar and Harun are neighbors; Caesar has founded Christianity and Harun Islam. Both have their respective homegrown religions as state religion. Caesar's doctrine choices give Christianity +20% to production, and Harun's choices give Islam +20% to culture.

Now consider Ravenna, a Roman city with a population of 10 that's close to the border with Arabia. Harun has done considerable missionary work, and the result is that five of Ravenna's population is Muslim and five Christian. What does this mean for the city's output? Does it get +20% production, because Christianity, Caesar's state religion, is present in the city? Does it get +10% production and +10% culture, because its population is split between Christianity and Islam? Does it get +10% production but no culture, because its population is split and Islam is not Caesar's state religion?

Now imagine that Bismarck is also in the neighborhood. He founded Judaism, but chose to share Christianity with Caesar rather than face his wrath. So nobody is "responsible" for Judaism; nobody is selecting doctrines for it. What are the effects of Jewish citizens in a city? Are they simple liabilities, since the religion bestows no benefits?

Now add Elizabeth. She decides to convert to Judaism, even though she didn't found it. Does she get to select doctrines for the religion? What happens when Bismarck decides to convert to Judaism after all? Does control revert to him, or stay with Elizabeth?

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.

To be honest, my first thought when reading your proposal was that leading reformations sounded like the perfect job for Great Prophets.

But I think I have a better idea: gradualism. Civics let you jump from any option to any option with little difference except the duration of the anarchy. But doctrinal change is more often evolutionary than revolutionary; if you're Very Intolerant, for instance, you can only move to the "adjacent" doctrine in the Tolerance column, Sort-Of Intolerant. (Placeholder names, obviously.) The doctrines themselves would form more of a continuum than civics; while Mercantilism and Free Market have completely different effects, Very Intolerant and Sort-Of Intolerant would be similar, but different in strength.

And if you really want to make religion play different than civics, you could give every leader who belongs to a certain religion the power to evolve that religion's doctrines. So Bismarck and Elizabeth could engage in a struggle of ideas over the direction they want Judaism to take, Bismarck moving it "up" some column and Elizabeth moving it "down". Maybe allow leaders with larger populations of the appropriate religion to make changes more frequently.

 

[lemmy101]

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)?

Thanks! It's kinda a mix of those, if you check the link in my sig you can see more info on it and DL the alpha.

Cosmic Kid: Interesting thoughts on the religion mod, will post in more detail tomorrow going to bed now. but you certainly raise some things that need thinking about. Not sure if this is a crazy step in the wrong direction, but your stuff about other civs changing doctrine made me think of offshoot branches/denominations of a main religion and another civ changing the doctrine having a chance of breaking the religion into two distinct denominations that may get on or take great umbrage with each other. This may be getting into the 'too complex' area though, I don't know...

 

[civ_king]

Correction: There are theories that Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic. Nothing definitive.

IIRC his parents were hard core Catholics (though secretive), even when Catholics were being oppressed, several Catholic school teachers, Catholic priest for wedding, in his formative years lived in Catholic hotbed areas, friends with several people tortured (to death!) for being Catholic! but I concede that it is only very likely that he was a Catholic

 

[iBrain]

I definitely second Eklaabian and Aussie Lurker's ideas. Allowing something as historically contingent as religion to fluctuate with game-play would be a major boon.

On a less ambitious scale, it would be interesting if combat units could carry individual religious affiliations (religion is, after all, in the eye of the beholder). Affiliation could be determined probabilistically as a function of the relative religious influences in the city in which the unit was spawned (at least at first, see below). If a city has, say, a strong Hindu presence (Hinduism has been there for awhile, lots of Hindu buildings and other Hindu units garrisoned there), but only a week Islamic presence, then the majority of units spawned there would be ‘born’ Hindu (with a rare minority born Muslim).

The consequences of this could be myriad.
-A unit in religiously sympathetic borders might heal at +10% (regardless of diplomatic status, and this could apply to one’s own borders as well).
-A unit garrisoned in a city of the same faith might gain +15% defense bonus.
-If a unit attacks a unit of another faith, it might receive a +10% combat bonus (fervor); but if it attacked a unit of the same faith, it might take a -10% hit (guilt, or some such).
-Units that shared the faith of a neutral nation with which you don’t have an open borders agreement could still travel through that nation’s territory.
-Even in war-time, if a unit shared the faith of the enemy, it might gain certain bonuses in enemy territory, such as use of enemy roads, +25% defense on tiles containing a cottage improvement, etc. This possibility could become somewhat strategic. Say one is running Buddhism but planning to fight a war against a Confucian nation. You might spread Confucianism to a key city and have that city build a few units for recon or pillaging purposes.
-Certain religious bonuses might be scaled by the number of sympathetic units (e.g., Organized Religion usually gives +25% build bonus, but this could instead be +5% for each unit of national faith garrisoned in that city).
-Certain events or wonders could modulate the above bonuses as well, for example, by granting units of national faith an extra +25% combat fervor, or giving all of one’s units immunity to fervor from all enemy religions, etc.

Finally, a unit’s affiliation might be subject to change. For example, a unit originally ‘born’ Christian, if garrisoned in a city with a strong Jewish presence, the odds of a ‘conversion event’ might steadily increase depending on how long the unit remains garrisoned in said city. An interesting spin-off here could be that, if a unit spends a considerable amount of time fighting in enemy lands (think crusades), this could increase the chances that the unit will convert to the enemy’s religion. In the short term, this might be good, as certain bonuses (see above) might be gained; but in the longer term, this might be less beneficial (e.g., garrison and healing bonuses would no longer apply once the unit returned ‘home’).

 

[Dryhad]

Something to keep in mind for Christianity's attributes as a religion is that Isaac Newton, the father of modern science, was a very strong Christian.

The only relevant thing I can really take away from this is that trying to make traits for the various religions in this manner is doomed to wind up with ludicrous and offensive generalisations based on random historical people who happened to follow one religion or another.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Which is why, Dryhad, we are trying to avoid that approach altogether. When I look at the history of religions, I see that almost *all* the major religions went through a militant phase, a puritanical phase, a fundamentalist phase etc etc-which is why its pointless assigning traits to *specific* religions. Much better instead to allow in-game play to determine what the traits of your religion are-either directly (by setting your doctrines) or indirectly (say, if you pursue a low science rate, then your Religion might become Fundamentalist or Orthodox. If you go to war a lot, it might become Militant).

Aussie.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Cosmic Kid: Interesting thoughts on the religion mod, will post in more detail tomorrow going to bed now. but you certainly raise some things that need thinking about. Not sure if this is a crazy step in the wrong direction, but your stuff about other civs changing doctrine made me think of offshoot branches/denominations of a main religion and another civ changing the doctrine having a chance of breaking the religion into two distinct denominations that may get on or take great umbrage with each other. This may be getting into the 'too complex' area though, I don't know...

If you go this route, I'd make schism voluntary rather than something that happens by chance: maybe you pop a Great Prophet, allowing you to select doctrine for the new sect freely (rather than being bound by the gradualism rule) and converting some large percentage of the population in the city and its neighbors.

Come to think of it, I don't believe you need to make schism a special mechanic. Just have this be the way you found any religion.

Another option for players with a Great Prophet would be a "revival" or "reformation", which allows free change of the doctrines for, and mass conversion to, an existing religion.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Which is why, Dryhad, we are trying to avoid that approach altogether. When I look at the history of religions, I see that almost *all* the major religions went through a militant phase, a puritanical phase, a fundamentalist phase etc etc-which is why its pointless assigning traits to *specific* religions. Much better instead to allow in-game play to determine what the traits of your religion are-either directly (by setting your doctrines) or indirectly (say, if you pursue a low science rate, then your Religion might become Fundamentalist or Orthodox. If you go to war a lot, it might become Militant).

Aussie.

From a gameplay standpoint, I think it'd be far less frustrating just to let the player choose directly.

 

[Eklabiaan]

Let's say Caesar and Harun are neighbors; Caesar has founded Christianity and Harun Islam. Both have their respective homegrown religions as state religion. Caesar's doctrine choices give Christianity +20% to production, and Harun's choices give Islam +20% to culture.

Now consider Ravenna, a Roman city with a population of 10 that's close to the border with Arabia. Harun has done considerable missionary work, and the result is that five of Ravenna's population is Muslim and five Christian. What does this mean for the city's output? Does it get +20% production, because Christianity, Caesar's state religion, is present in the city? Does it get +10% production and +10% culture, because its population is split between Christianity and Islam? Does it get +10% production but no culture, because its population is split and Islam is not Caesar's state religion?

Now imagine that Bismarck is also in the neighborhood. He founded Judaism, but chose to share Christianity with Caesar rather than face his wrath. So nobody is "responsible" for Judaism; nobody is selecting doctrines for it. What are the effects of Jewish citizens in a city? Are they simple liabilities, since the religion bestows no benefits?

Now add Elizabeth. She decides to convert to Judaism, even though she didn't found it. Does she get to select doctrines for the religion? What happens when Bismarck decides to convert to Judaism after all? Does control revert to him, or stay with Elizabeth?

I would say that the civ which has control over the Holy City of a religion is the one that decides on the dogma's of that religion. Most often this wil be the civ which founded the religion.
So Bismark still has control over Judaism even though he is a converted Christian. And he cannot control Christianity, Ceasar can. The Holy City will thus be a 'fine' prize of war.... even among civ's of the same religion.
A Holy City can be moved to another city (under a severe penalty to avoid simple relocation under threat), similar to the relocation of the empire capital/palace.

Impaler voiced similar ideas in post #125

Historically this mimics a few facts:
1- Holy cities remained holy, even if conquered by other empires:
Jerusalem under seleucid/ptolemaic/roman rule.
Constantinopel after occupation by the western christian crusaders (1204)
2- The papal excile from Rome to Avignon, almost creating a definitive schisma in the Catholic church.
3- Rome was a prize to be conquered during the middle ages and renaissance (Charlemagne came to her aid, Holy Roman Emperors occupied her, France and Spain wanted her....)

But I think I have a better idea: gradualism. Civics let you jump from any option to any option with little difference except the duration of the anarchy. But doctrinal change is more often evolutionary than revolutionary; if you're Very Intolerant, for instance, you can only move to the "adjacent" doctrine in the Tolerance column, Sort-Of Intolerant. (Placeholder names, obviously.) The doctrines themselves would form more of a continuum than civics; while Mercantilism and Free Market have completely different effects, Very Intolerant and Sort-Of Intolerant would be similar, but different in strength.

Good idea. Will also enhance the slow change of the religions character.

And if you really want to make religion play different than civics, you could give every leader who belongs to a certain religion the power to evolve that religion's doctrines. So Bismarck and Elizabeth could engage in a struggle of ideas over the direction they want Judaism to take, Bismarck moving it "up" some column and Elizabeth moving it "down". Maybe allow leaders with larger populations of the appropriate religion to make changes more frequently.

I would not go so far as to make religions completely a national affair. This can result in a "click and change the dogma" struggle. Not much gameplay fun if another player is constantly changing your dogma selection.

 

[fdgsgds]

I was disappointed when I learned that religions would not be in Civ5.

First off, I wanted to say that it's a horribly stupid idea that Atheism is included as a religion and especially it giving a research boost. I also disapprove as having Animism/Paganism and Confucianism and Taoism in the game because Paganism refers to any tribal belief blah blah blah... they can refer to any number of beliefs and pagan nations (i.e. one pagan nation and another pagan nation) are not in any way bound to eachother in means of a common faith. If it was included, it would provide minimal benefits and would be specific to each nation (e.g. German Paganism, Celtic Paganism). Confucianisn and Taoism are philosophies, not religions; end of story. So adding Zoroastrianism (a religion that heavily influenced the Abrahamic religions) and perhaps Jainism or Sikhism and (probably not major enough Shinto) would help the balance.

Okay, so I would love if religions had more flavor to them. Say, the Christians could be united under a Pope or perhaps divided by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. They mey also have crusades. Islam could provide a bonus to research as scientific achievement flourished under Muslim rule of Arabia. They could also have special wonders which are religion-specific. For example, only a Muslim city could build the Spiral Minaret and only a Christian city could build Notre Dame.

Lastly, it's so unbelievably stupid that people hate eachother due to religion automatically in the game. I know, of course, that Christians and Muslims have had their differences in the past (i.e. the crusades), but in the beginning they respected eachother and Muslims considered Christians and Jews brothers. Differences in religion would occur over internal disputes (e.g. a split in religion, like the Reformation or split between Shia and Sunni) or physical ones such as crusades.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Confucianisn and Taoism are philosophies, not religions; end of story.

I must agree/disagree here, while it is true western civilization usually categorizes Taoism and Confucianism as "philosophies" while Hinduism and Buddhism are considers "religions" this is western classification ware a sharp distinction is actually made between the concepts of religion and Philosophy. But one of the hall-marks of eastern civilization is the absence of that sharp distinction between religion and philosophy, both are though of as being 'belief systems' and both can fill the role in peoples lives that religion traditionally fills in the west. I think religion mods should adopting this eastern perspective because it allows for the most broadly representative and flexible system.

 

[civ_king]

I was disappointed when I learned that religions would not be in Civ5.

First off, I wanted to say that it's a horribly stupid idea that Atheism is included as a religion and especially it giving a research boost. I also disapprove as having Animism/Paganism and Confucianism and Taoism in the game because Paganism refers to any tribal belief blah blah blah... they can refer to any number of beliefs and pagan nations (i.e. one pagan nation and another pagan nation) are not in any way bound to eachother in means of a common faith. If it was included, it would provide minimal benefits and would be specific to each nation (e.g. German Paganism, Celtic Paganism). Confucianisn and Taoism are philosophies, not religions; end of story. So adding Zoroastrianism (a religion that heavily influenced the Abrahamic religions) and perhaps Jainism or Sikhism and (probably not major enough Shinto) would help the balance.

Okay, so I would love if religions had more flavor to them. Say, the Christians could be united under a Pope or perhaps divided by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. They mey also have crusades. Islam could provide a bonus to research as scientific achievement flourished under Muslim rule of Arabia. They could also have special wonders which are religion-specific. For example, only a Muslim city could build the Spiral Minaret and only a Christian city could build Notre Dame.

Lastly, it's so unbelievably stupid that people hate eachother due to religion automatically in the game. I know, of course, that Christians and Muslims have had their differences in the past (i.e. the crusades), but in the beginning they respected eachother and Muslims considered Christians and Jews brothers. Differences in religion would occur over internal disputes (e.g. a split in religion, like the Reformation or split between Shia and Sunni) or physical ones such as crusades.

The Muslims in Al Andulus also started the Renaissance and invented new technologies

I must agree/disagree here, while it is true western civilization usually categorizes Taoism and Confucianism as "philosophies" while Hinduism and Buddhism are considers "religions" this is western classification ware a sharp distinction is actually made between the concepts of religion and Philosophy. But one of the hall-marks of eastern civilization is the absence of that sharp distinction between religion and philosophy, both are though of as being 'belief systems' and both can fill the role in peoples lives that religion traditionally fills in the west. I think religion mods should adopting this eastern perspective because it allows for the most broadly representative and flexible system.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

I would say that the civ which has control over the Holy City of a religion is the one that decides on the dogma's of that religion. Most often this wil be the civ which founded the religion.
So Bismark still has control over Judaism even though he is a converted Christian. And he cannot control Christianity, Ceasar can. The Holy City will thus be a 'fine' prize of war.... even among civ's of the same religion.
A Holy City can be moved to another city (under a severe penalty to avoid simple relocation under threat), similar to the relocation of the empire capital/palace.

Impaler voiced similar ideas in post #125

Historically this mimics a few facts:
1- Holy cities remained holy, even if conquered by other empires:
Jerusalem under seleucid/ptolemaic/roman rule.
Constantinopel after occupation by the western christian crusaders (1204)
2- The papal excile from Rome to Avignon, almost creating a definitive schisma in the Catholic church.
3- Rome was a prize to be conquered during the middle ages and renaissance (Charlemagne came to her aid, Holy Roman Emperors occupied her, France and Spain wanted her....)

Good idea. I hadn't been thinking in terms of a civilization being able to control a non-state religion, or multiple religions at the same time, but this would not be difficult to do. Just put some tabs along the top of the religion screen to control which religion you're looking at.

Maybe a Great Prophet "revival" can relocate the holy city? Only if you already control the holy city, though; I don't want religions to be that easy to "steal".

I would not go so far as to make religions completely a national affair. This can result in a "click and change the dogma" struggle. Not much gameplay fun if another player is constantly changing your dogma selection.

I don't think it would be too hard to automate the system somewhat: just have players select the doctrines they want, and the game automatically shifts towards them whenever it can. Your holy city idea is much simpler, though.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

I must agree/disagree here, while it is true western civilization usually categorizes Taoism and Confucianism as "philosophies" while Hinduism and Buddhism are considers "religions" this is western classification ware a sharp distinction is actually made between the concepts of religion and Philosophy. But one of the hall-marks of eastern civilization is the absence of that sharp distinction between religion and philosophy, both are though of as being 'belief systems' and both can fill the role in peoples lives that religion traditionally fills in the west. I think religion mods should adopting this eastern perspective because it allows for the most broadly representative and flexible system.

Notwithstanding that I think the Western tradition is correct to make this distinction, I agree with you here. Historically, Taoism and Confucianism acted much like what Westerners would think of as a "religion".

If I had to drop one of the seven religions, though, Confucianism would be the first to go.

 

[_random_]

I really do like your basic premise, Eklabiann, but one thing I should point out is that it would be hard to come up with a PC way to determine which branch would be the "original." I'm an Eastern Orthodox inquirer, and as such I would consider Catholics to be the schismatic group. Granted, we're a smaller market to piss off, but it's something that should be considered.

 

[civ_king]

I really do like your basic premise, Eklabiann, but one thing I should point out is that it would be hard to come up with a PC way to determine which branch would be the "original." I'm an Eastern Orthodox inquirer, and as such I would consider Catholics to be the schismatic group. Granted, we're a smaller market to piss off, but it's something that should be considered.

The Church was administrated from Rome before Constantinople came to be,

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

 

[Eklabiaan]

I really do like your basic premise, Eklabiann, but one thing I should point out is that it would be hard to come up with a PC way to determine which branch would be the "original." I'm an Eastern Orthodox inquirer, and as such I would consider Catholics to be the schismatic group. Granted, we're a smaller market to piss off, but it's something that should be considered.

Well, in my design the name of both groups can be changed. The splitoff will have a proposed default name and the main branch name will be changable as the original name no longer covers every believer.
Thus for example:

Christianity => Catholic Christianity and Eastern Orthodox Christianity (or Eastern Orthodoxy)

The branchings do not need to be exactly historical. Protestantism could branch off from Chistianity before Eastern Orthodoxy.
Split offs from branches could also be designed but I think this is over the top for a mod. Especially if the occurrence of splitoff is a rare thing in a game. I would not want to have a game with 9 Civilisations and 15 religions...

 

[Hangly Man]

edit: Atheism gives boost

You mean science penalty.

 

[civ_king]

You mean science penalty.