Differences between Religions

[Bast]

I know we've been down this path a lot but can I just say this? Introducing advantages/disadvantages to religions is actually nothing new to Civ. Remember the "Age of Discovery" scenario in Conquests? We had Catholicism and Protestantism. Whilst it formed branches under Christianity, they are still significantly different. And remember that if you were Catholic you had certain advantages and were able to build specific buildings and missionaries like Jesuits that Protestants couldn't? And vice versa. If I remember correctly Protestantism meant more efficient workers I think. Did this offend any Catholics?

If it's been done before, why can't it be done now?

Looking at the 7 religions in the game, most adherents of them won't be offended if their religion is attached with some gameplay quality.

Differentiating between the religions would make this game far, far greater experience. Right now, religion is a nice aesthetic feature but nothing too important.

I hope in the expansion packs they make the necessary changes.

Thoughts?

 

[Asterothe]

They stated clearly (even in the manual) that they didn't do that
in purpose. I don't thnk they will put any religion advantages or
disadvantages in expansion packs either.

 

[Bast]

They stated clearly (even in the manual) that they didn't do that
in purpose. I don't thnk they will put any religion advantages or
disadvantages in expansion packs either.

Yes but why not?

 

[Asterothe]

Yes but why not?

Because of the statement they put on the manual.
They don't want to mes with any religion. People
might be very narrowminded when it comes to religions
so they want to keep themselves away from that.

 

[balearicrazy]

There is the potential to cause a lot of offence to people by placing certain merits or disadvantages with certain religions in the game.

I very much doubt that any real differences will be placed in the game in regards to the different religions.

 

[Bast]

Yes, then they don't have to be "too close" to the truth if you know what I mean?

Because right now, religion is strategically useless. It can be made useful.

 

[Belease]

I'd like to see differences between religions, but I don't think it's vital. Maybe the developers could include bonuses for each religion, rather than penalties. That's surely less controversial?

 

[Bast]

I'd like to see differences between religions, but I don't think it's vital. Maybe the developers could include bonuses for each religion, rather than penalties. That's surely less controversial?

That could work. I don't won't to see penalties either. Just differences.

 

[DeadZoneMDx]

Ive personally found it too overpowering, in all my games, it always turns out to be one religion vs another in wars (ok, so at least its realistic then)
If you have 3 of one and 3 of the other, it usually pans out to be a 3v3 battle

For example, in my game, London is the holy city for Buddism, Ive converted over half the civs to buddism, but the germens discovered Christianity and switched to that
When the French decided to attack Germany, Spain, Rome & Russia (all bud civs) joined in as well (I eventually decided to help out)

So religion isnt as useless as you think, as its become a way of getting the AI involved in wars en mass basically
(And for those interested, me & Russia have taken a city each, before the AI chickened out and declared peace)

But, yea it would be nice to see differences, but Im not too fussed really

 

[tegilbor]

Because right now, religion is strategically useless. It can be made useful.

It's far from being strategically useless. In fact, my whole Civ 4 strategy is centered around religion.

I think it would be fairly complex to introduce differences between religions, as you'd probably have to introduce the concept of "religious majorities" as well, because you shouldn't just get the bonus for each religion that happens to exist in one of your cities. I think there's the potential for a lot of tedious micromanagement.

But in any case, I do think that people would end up getting offended. Heck, I think the system is already potentially offensive as it is, because in my opinion, the spreading of religion should cause scientific progress to slow down (instead of speeding it up as is done by monasteries). I think Galileo Galilei would concur. Also, there should be random religious penalties like inquisitions for highly religious societies. I don't dispute the importance of religion throughout our history, but I disagree with how the impact of religion in the game is purely positive. In any case, I'm not trying to start a major religious discussion here, I'm just trying to show where it could lead. If we had differences between religions, everyone would argue how a specific religion should be more positive than another.

But if there were different bonuses for different religions, I'd want the developers to introduce an "atheism" option where your scientific output is increased by 50% and e.g. researching "biology" should immediately yield "genetics" as well.

 

[m_m_x]

a simple idea:
a religion bonus for units, example:
jew- units get extra movmant in desert.
islam-units heal faster
budhisim-chanse retreting from battle 30%
hindu-units get 20 strength
etc...

 

[TerraHero]

Then you get the age old

Jewish person: "Omfg, my unit should heal faster then those islam-dog units"
Islamic person: "Oh no u didnt!"

*flame war!*

kthxbye, lets juz leave the religions the hell alone. We got enough flame wars with juz the civs that are and are not ingame.

 

[DaddyBird]

I can imagine why they don't put differences in, but they could put in bonusses for different things with a certain religion....so if you compare a few nations, they have different advantages with different religions without having disadvantages and so keep everyone happy.

 

[Psyringe]

I agree that the game would be even better if the different religions incorporated different strategical choices instead of just seven options to get the same thing. However, I understand the reason Firaxis has given.

Thankfully, Firaxis has given several variables which can be tweajed very easily to be different for each religion. (Basically, there is one data set for each religion, and currently each data set contains the same numbers. But because each religion has its own data block, it's very easy to assign different values to different religions.) I expect several religious mods coming out in the near future.

I'm not sure whether Firaxis will *never* leave the path of officially keeping all religions the same. Depending on the wishes of the fans, they may change their stance in the next years, who knows. But in any case, the religious mods will be there way before an expansion pack.

 

[Halberd]

Then you get the age old

Jewish person: "Omfg, my unit should heal faster then those islam-dog units"
Islamic person: "Oh no u didnt!"

*flame war!*

kthxbye, lets juz leave the religions the hell alone. We got enough flame wars with juz the civs that are and are not ingame.

True, but religion seems like such a half-measure. Why did they not make the Civs the same in Civ1? Because they balanced it up with game design - therefore it's arguable whether one civ is better than another (apart from when it gets broken, e.g. Indians in Civ3 vanilla).

It's cowardice and a real betrayal of history imho not to represent the pro's and con's of each religion, even extremely minor things that could be TRUE ... e.g. certain religions not being able to consume certain resources (pig etc.).

As long as there was balance, then what's the problem? Gee, think of the free history lesson Civ4 could have provided in LEARNING about other religions. Instead, it's just a rush to get as many as possible to make as many gpt ... sigh

If they've done it not to offend anyone, then the religious bigots who demand that we think certain things, and don't say other things, have really won the day. It's just a game, ffs.

Sad.

I'm just really glad Medieval: Total War didn't chicken out like this...

 

[Halberd]

I agree that the game would be even better if the different religions incorporated different strategical choices instead of just seven options to get the same thing. However, I understand the reason Firaxis has given.

Thankfully, Firaxis has given several variables which can be tweajed very easily to be different for each religion. (Basically, there is one data set for each religion, and currently each data set contains the same numbers. But because each religion has its own data block, it's very easy to assign different values to different religions.) I expect several religious mods coming out in the near future.

I'm not sure whether Firaxis will *never* leave the path of officially keeping all religions the same. Depending on the wishes of the fans, they may change their stance in the next years, who knows. But in any case, the religious mods will be there way before an expansion pack.

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

 

[Psyringe]

I don't have the game here (I'm not at home at the moment) and don't recall the file name. There should be a thread somewhere at CFC where this is discussed though, as that's where I got the information from ... I'll try to look it up.

 

[tegilbor]

It's cowardice and a real betrayal of history imho not to represent the pro's and con's of each religion, even extremely minor things that could be TRUE ... e.g. certain religions not being able to consume certain resources (pig etc.).

But if you want to make it realistic, then it's quite likely that you end up having one or two religions that are clearly better than the others in terms of gameplay, and ultimately every civ will adopt that religion as soon as it is available.

As long as there was balance, then what's the problem?

The problem is that there wouldn't be balance. If there were, I could also make the point that it would be "cowardice and a betrayal of history". Religions simply aren't "balanced" in real life after all. There are some religions that are objectively "better" than others - people stick to the "worse" religions simply due to an emotional attachment of some kind, not because they enjoy the restrictions of their religion (such as not being able to eat pork). I think it would be hard to model that emotional attachment in the game.

If they've done it not to offend anyone, then the religious bigots who demand that we think certain things, and don't say other things, have really won the day.

I guess I agree. Like I mentioned before, I at least would have liked to see a possibility to eliminate religion in a civilization (like stalinist societies have attempted to do), perhaps with a bonus for science but a penalty on happiness, but I guess that already would have been too offensive for many people. I for one find the current model of "Religion equals happiness" offensive.

 

[Dun Malg]

True, but religion seems like such a half-measure. ...
It's cowardice and a real betrayal of history imho not to represent the pro's and con's of each religion, even extremely minor things that could be TRUE ... e.g. certain religions not being able to consume certain resources (pig etc.).

I totally agree that Civ4 religion would be much less flat and affect-less that way. Really, the religions as they are don't even need historical NAMES, you could just call them "Religion 1", "Religion 2", etc. Basically, you end up just going with whichever one you can build the holy city for because that's what kind of missionaries you're sending out. I think it'd be much more interesting to have to choose between (say) pleasing your neighbor by being HIS religion, or getting some critical bonus by choosing another one. Additionally, if the bonus were cumulative, i.e. it built up the longer you stayed that religion, there'd be some serious strategic thinking there! (Should I stay buddhist for that huge built-up happiness bonus, or switch to christianity for that %10 attack bonus when crusading against other religions? hmmm...)

As long as there was balance, then what's the problem? Gee, think of the free history lesson Civ4 could have provided in LEARNING about other religions. Instead, it's just a rush to get as many as possible to make as many gpt ... sigh

If they've done it not to offend anyone, then the religious bigots who demand that we think certain things, and don't say other things, have really won the day. It's just a game, ffs.

Sad.

I'm just really glad Medieval: Total War didn't chicken out like this...

Hard to say where the "chickening" came from, really. Obviously differences between religions were part of the initial design, but they were "equalized" later. It's entirely possible that the publisher told them "we don't want to sell a game that starts a holy war". It wouldn't be the first time a publisher vetoed controversial content.

 

[Halberd]

But if you want to make it realistic, then it's quite likely that you end up having one or two religions that are clearly better than the others in terms of gameplay, and ultimately every civ will adopt that religion as soon as it is available.

But, you could say that certain Civs were/are better than others for different reasons but they balance out well in the game due to the skill of the designers. I was arguing that surely they could have picked balancing pros and cons for all the religions - I can think of a few off the top of my head. They could have also given players the option to switch off pros/cons if they caused offence.

I at least would have liked to see a possibility to eliminate religion in a civilization (like stalinist societies have attempted to do), perhaps with a bonus for science but a penalty on happiness, but I guess that already would have been too offensive for many people. I for one find the current model of "Religion equals happiness" offensive.

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.

Hard to say where the "chickening" came from, really. Obviously differences between religions were part of the initial design, but they were "equalized" later. It's entirely possible that the publisher told them "we don't want to sell a game that starts a holy war". It wouldn't be the first time a publisher vetoed controversial content.

Yes, apologies to Firaxis. I would expect it to have been a publisher decision if there was any watering down done.