Differences between Religions

[Melkus]

Agree. Can't see why one of the religious civics isn't a full secular option. Again, would be nice to turn off religion completely.

I translate free religion as "seperation of church and state", which means secular. The way religion is modelled you can't really influence your people's religious beliefs once the believers are out there, which is how it should be.

No government has ever successfully eradicated a religious belief, so why should it be possible? Maybe there should be an option to oppress a certain religion, which would imply you lose the religious benefits, get hated by leaders with that state religion and gain .... errrrr.....
I guess in history religious oppression has almost always had the habit to bite you in the ass eventually, so no idea.

 

[Skedastic]

It's understandable why Firaxis didn't differentiate the religions, and even fitting given one of the fun aspects of Civ has always been the juxtaposition of game outcomes with historical outcomes -- "The mongols just nuked the Romans!" Having, say, war-mongering Buddhist fascist empires is in the same spirit.

What is odd about the way religion has been implemented is that more religion, and more religions, is always better in the game. That is not only historically laughable but also not a good addition to gameplay, as there should be tradeoffs the player must make if he wants the benefits of religion. Historically, multiple religious beliefs in one geographic location lead to outcomes like warfare, genocide, pogroms, and the like, so getting all those happy faces from multiple religions in the same city is glaringly silly.

More than one religion in your empire should cause unhappiness, which would dramatically increase the strategic advantage of "attacking" your neighbours with missionaries. As suggested above, a trade-off between happiness and science related to religious choices would also be appropriate both historically and for gameplay.

 

[dh_epic]

Religion is hugely useful as is. They don't need any more value. One day, you'll understand how powerful it is, and how to use it. (And also, how to live without it -- there's more than one way to play Civ.)

And in reality, every religion has such a wide variety of figures, philosophies, and sects, that it's impossible to give them a simple label like "warlike" or "commercial". In reality, much more important is how a religion is wielded: do you emphasize the dogmatic "ours is the true god" or do you emphasize the "show good will to one another". And that's in the civics -- theocracy versus pacifism.

 

[Melkus]

Easy-to-mod-idea: Maybe every new religion in the city could give you a sad face, until you give them their unique temple (Thereby recognizing their religion as valid.) OR make it your state religion. Free religion giving everyone a happy face is okay though, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Psyringe]

Excellent. Where do I find these in the files Psyringe?

The file is: Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4ReligionInfo.xml

It defines the gains from each religion (negative numbers should also work, if you want penalties), along with required tech, spread factor, and free units.

 

[Palantir30]

But there are differences to religion in game at the moment.

Currently, the primary effects of each religion- the happy faces from buildings, the additional effects of civics, are identical between religions.

However the secondary effects from religions are VERY different. Sharing a religion with someone else has a benefit to not sharing. Diplomatic interaction is improved if you share religions, not to mention the benefits to founders of religions to have others share their religion.

So choosing religions becomes a coordination game with the other players- you both benefit if you're the same (although 1 person benefits more), you both suffer if you're different.

So if we're trying to coordinate, what religions are people more likely to be? Without question, the earlier religions. There has been more time for the earlier religions to spread than the later religions. Even if you found a later religion, you only have that religion in two of your cities, while an earlier religion that you didnt found has probably automatically spread to more of your cities than that.

So....the earlier religions are more powerful than the later religions. Religions are thusly not balanced because some are more powerful than others.

There must be a reason for people to switch religions midway through the game, otherwise they wont, therefore later religions have to be given better benefits in order to make them equal to earlier religions.

Happy modding.

 

[spankey]

So....the earlier religions are more powerful than the later religions. Religions are thusly not balanced because some are more powerful than others.

There must be a reason for people to switch religions midway through the game, otherwise they wont, therefore later religions have to be given better benefits in order to make them equal to earlier religions

Well, the later religions are given a free missionary to help balance. Also, my very limited experience to date doesn't have me doing a whole lot with the religion(s) that I found until the other religions start to pop up. It doesn't feel so terribly unbalanced to me.....

 

[Tad]

i think it would be very easy to create differences between religions without favoring one faith over the other. lets face reality though, life is not always pc, and neither are computer games.

what i am going to say here is nothing new, as i have read simmilar ideas on how to create less homogonistic religions posted elsewhere.

hinduism:

negative modifer: hindu cultures would receive no food value for cows

positive modifer: cities connected to the cow resource would see an increase in happy citizens.

christianity:

positive modifier: this one is a bit tougher. considering monistaries were industrial as well as research and development centers, i think cities containing christian monistaries should recieve increased science production. alternatively, additional trade routes for wine could be added because monks produced the majority of wine consumed during medieval europe.

negative modifier: also tough. maybe lack of wine could produce unhappy citizens.

islam:

positive modifier: this may be lame, but islamic nations were masters at irrigation. maybe a +1 food modifer for farmland. to give another idea, islamic scribes are responsible for the preservation of many historical texts. maybe that could increase the power of libraries in islamic cities.

negative modifier: no food or trade value for wine

judaism:

positive modifier: increased sheep production

negative modifier: pigs have no trading value

i'm having a hard time coming up with specifics for the eastern faiths, but i think positive modifiers could be tied into gems, ivory, silk, etc. do you see where i'm going with this? i don't think the above attributes are offensive. rather, they add additional strategy to the game.

 

[Lord Chambers]

I feel like they've broached the topic of religion in Civ4, and Civ5 will probably have historically backed delineations between religions.

In the meantime those of us with the ability to separate our personal beliefs from a game will have to play mods where religion wasn't so meekly whitewashed.

Have some balls next time Firaxis.

 

[Palantir30]

positive modifier: this may be lame, but islamic nations were masters at irrigation. maybe a +1 food modifer for farmland.

Some good ideas (especially the cow bit), but this one isnt right. The masterful irrigation in the mideast predates Islam. In fact Islamist caliphates were not up to the task of repairing portions of the network that the Mongols destroyed in the late 1200's, thus there is less arable land in the mideast today than there was in the Dark Ages.

Edit: trimmed the quote for concision.