Do you ever found a religion?

Okay, so it does seem like I'm in strong company.

Is the root cause of Religion being a questionable tactic the same as a lot of Civ6's faults: that the game progresses too quickly? Is it just too easy for the AI to snag all the Great Prophets too fast?

Or, are the benefits of a Religion too weak overall that - even if you were able to actively compete for a Religion without massive opportunity loss - that it still wouldn't be worthwhile?
 
I always found a religion. I play on King, so doing so isn't as difficult as it is on higher difficulties. I do so knowing the return on investment is marginal, but I do enjoy tailoring my founded religions to the various victory conditions. If I just founded a faith in hopes of winning a Religious Victories there are many pantheons and beliefs I'd never touch. Establishing a religion when pursuing other victory conditions gives me an excuse to play with toys that would otherwise never remove from the toy box, so to speak.
 
I am trying a new map -- Inland Sea on Immortal -- it's been a lot of fun so far, but please, please, PLEASE uncheck the roid raging barbarians box. Thanks.

Even with 13 civs and 22 CS on Large map there is so much open space that they come from everywhere. Which leads me back on topic. Why is the number of religions solely dependent on map size and not number of civs? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. So, with 13 civs vying for only 6 religions on Immortal, well, you can probably see where this is going....
 
i pretty much always try to, even though i almost certainly never need to
 
I usually play on King or Emperor and I am founding a religion in ~75% of my games. I personally like that aspect of the game and I like to have a nice faith income in most of my games, doesn't matter what I do. I often go for religious victory or a cultural victory though, where a religion is necessary or helps. The faith can be very nice in domination games as well, if you war a lot in medieval/renaissance/industrial era and make full use of the theocracy bonus.
 
Okay, so it does seem like I'm in strong company.

Is the root cause of Religion being a questionable tactic the same as a lot of Civ6's faults: that the game progresses too quickly? Is it just too easy for the AI to snag all the Great Prophets too fast?

Or, are the benefits of a Religion too weak overall that - even if you were able to actively compete for a Religion without massive opportunity loss - that it still wouldn't be worthwhile?

I think the opportunity cost is just too big. Even with the weak bonuses it would be worthwhile to get them if it didn't cost you much, but it requires way too much early investment. Not only the hammers going in to the district and buildings, but also the fact that it's one less district slot. It delays getting commercial hubs which are key.
 
It is too much of an effort for most games. AI seems to always rush buy the prophets. I like Jesuit Education and with domination games I capture enough Holy Sites to make quite a bit of faith but usually if I do go for religion and get it that option is gone. I sometimes build Holy Sites even if I do not found religion if there are really good spots for it. I like to use faith for units or take advantage of Valletta if it is in the game.
 
Okay, so it does seem like I'm in strong company.

Is the root cause of Religion being a questionable tactic the same as a lot of Civ6's faults: that the game progresses too quickly? Is it just too easy for the AI to snag all the Great Prophets too fast?

Or, are the benefits of a Religion too weak overall that - even if you were able to actively compete for a Religion without massive opportunity loss - that it still wouldn't be worthwhile?

For me it’s threefold.

First is opportunity cost. I prioritize Commercial Hub, Campus, Industrial Zone & sometimes Encampment. Going for a religion with a Holy Site district would delay those. So unless I am explicitly attempting a Religious Victory, Holy Sites are inherently in the way of my progress.

Second is risk vs. reward. Like with Civ6 Wonders, there is no payoff if you miss the religion. Yes, faith can be a valuable currency, but if I hard-charge for a Great Prophet and miss out, there is no compensation of any kind for any resources spent towards the GP.

Third is weakness of Religion overall. Aside from the obvious Religious Victory condition (or the Relic Culture Victory which I’ve never actually tried) none of the Religious benefits are strong enough to “win the game” for me. There are some OK benefits, but none that are remotely close to game changing that I can’t do without.
 
... Why is the number of religions solely dependent on map size and not number of civs? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. So, with 13 civs vying for only 6 religions on Immortal, well, you can probably see where this is going....

I agree. Basing number of religions on map size is silly. It should be based on the number of major civs in the game.

I haven't played enough to figure out when I want to go for a religion. I might have something insightful to say in another year.
 
Last game spawned as Russia, and since I went for a religious victory recently, I decided this was an opportune time to go for a lavra based culture victory. My land space was almost all taiga which would normally be terrible, but was able to get Dance of the Aurora (+1 faith adjacency bonus for taiga holy sites), in combination with Russia's normal faith and production taiga bonus and the lavra bonus. Then got the card to double adjacency bonuses and had some absolutely absurd faith per turn, with the idea to just flat out buy whatever great people I needed. I also got the abilities to faith-buy theater buildings, +1 culture for 5 followers in other civs, +10 unit strength in friendly religious cities, and gudwaras which were needed since my food was lacking being near mostly taiga.

It was fun for a while to play a game completely different from what I'm used to (I almost never go religion in non-religious games), but after a while I realized it still wasn't really worth it. Despite sick adjacency faith bonuses, for Russia international trade routes are still a lot nicer. Buying musicians and artists almost at will is pretty nice, but having the science to get to radio and computers faster is still better. It would be nicer if great people didn't run out so quickly on deity. There was a long period where there wasn't a single great person to buy, so all I was using my +220 faith per turn (even without cards anymore) for was building apostles just to scout and hopefully be able to martyred. Overall finished turn 366 which is pretty meh, and I even would have lost if hadn't ran pretty well with spies.

So yeah, religion is just not worth it. I've said this is some other threads but I think there are two relatively easy fixes (at least for deity):
1. Make it harder for AIs to get great people (especially prophets). Possibly even give the AIs a more expensive price to buy great people to counter the fact that they get the buildings that generate gpps so fast.
2. Make more great people available.
 
I usually go for religion when I am playing against my friends. It lets me put them in a double bind: Am I going for a religion victory, or a domination victory? It is especially useful to do this with Spain.
 
Okay, so it does seem like I'm in strong company.

Is the root cause of Religion being a questionable tactic the same as a lot of Civ6's faults: that the game progresses too quickly? Is it just too easy for the AI to snag all the Great Prophets too fast?

Or, are the benefits of a Religion too weak overall that - even if you were able to actively compete for a Religion without massive opportunity loss - that it still wouldn't be worthwhile?

It's the opportunity cost. I think religion is mediocre in this game because most of the bonuses are thoughtlessly ported from civ5's religious system. +1 culture from pastures what a pretty good pantheon in civ5 because it was a fairy significant marginal gain in culture output per city for a large part of the game even if the average city only had 1 or 2 pasture tiles to work. In this game we get 0.7 culture per citizen, it's nothing special. We're forced to take a worship building belief in this game, and the buildings aren't that good and you need to dedicate a precious district slot to even build one. I could build a holy site and a shrine and a temple and a whatever it's called for a bunch of faith and 2 science and some GP points that go into the trash because I only get one, or a campus and a library and a university and get way more science and a housing and GS points that will actually contribute to generating a great person.
 
I find religion to be the least important thing about faith. The bonuses can be nice, but to me they aren't game changing enough to justify either the risk or the opportunity cost at higher levels. However, I think the ability to faith-buy units in Theocracy and GPs anytime makes a Holy Site strategy viable even without the religion. That isn't optimal, but it does illustrate that the primary benefits of faith aren't really dependent on having a religion. You can even buy apostles to get a medic if that's your thing.
 
I don't simply because Its weaker to do so, early game is important and I could be building a useful Campus/Commercial Hub instead. Holy site will always lead to a slower victory, unless I go All in onto a religious victory.
 
I usually go for religion when I am playing against my friends. It lets me put them in a double bind: Am I going for a religion victory, or a domination victory? It is especially useful to do this with Spain.
Especially if you adopt Crusade.

Religion is flexible enough to pursue most victories.
 
It's the opportunity cost. I think religion is mediocre in this game because most of the bonuses are thoughtlessly ported from civ5's religious system. +1 culture from pastures what a pretty good pantheon in civ5 because it was a fairy significant marginal gain in culture output per city for a large part of the game even if the average city only had 1 or 2 pasture tiles to work. In this game we get 0.7 culture per citizen, it's nothing special. We're forced to take a worship building belief in this game, and the buildings aren't that good and you need to dedicate a precious district slot to even build one. I could build a holy site and a shrine and a temple and a whatever it's called for a bunch of faith and 2 science and some GP points that go into the trash because I only get one, or a campus and a library and a university and get way more science and a housing and GS points that will actually contribute to generating a great person.

Don't look at it as GPP points going to waste, you generate faith, which are universal GPP points.

I definitely agree founding a religion is not worth it unless you really intend to aggressively spread it and go for a religious victory though. It's set up like that, all the founder beliefs scale with how many cities the religion is present in. This ultimately means you have to compete with those who are going for a religious victory, which defaults to you needing to go for one or waste your investment at higher difficulties.
The follower and worship beliefs are what people pursuing other victories will be interested in. You don't have to found a religion to pick these, just wait for the religion you want to get spread to one of your cities then spread it yourself from there -being careful not to give someone else a victory. You'll occasionally have games where the one you want doesn't find its way to you, but this is the case with founding religions as well unless you play china and rush Stonehenge.

Overall, I really like Holy sites, I think people over-value campus and culture districts. They're nice, but focusing on either too hard I find yields diminishing returns. Faith is very versatile. I think a balance of faith and science districts, or faith and culture districts, is better then twice as much science districts or twice as much culture districts.

Also I don't see the problem with the pantheons being weak, they're really only meant as an early game boost to take advantage of whatever area your capital starts in (with a few exceptions). 1 culture for haunting moos quadruples the culture for new cities and thus the border expansion rate, which is the difference between borders growing and borders never growing until much food is acquired. Do you buy monuments? Okay then, don't and this is basically 200 gold per city. It also helps for hitting that early political philosophy which is a pretty big early game threshold to hit for many reasons, the obvious policy slots and government bonuses to the less obvious diplomatic bonuses and therefore trade opportunities.
 
Last edited:
I wish they had put in some kind of Atheist option for beating back the tides of enemy faith in the later ages, but I can see how it would have been tricky to add.
 
Don't look at it as GPP points going to waste, you generate faith, which are universal GPP points.
Why wouldn't I look at it like that when that is exactly what happens? The buildings give great prophet points, then you earn one or fail to get one, then they give nothing. If you could get more than one and they did neat stuff like other great people holy sites would be a viable district for non-Russians to build. If they made easier to build a national park that would also make faith generation more desirable. Why must all the tiles be owned by the same city? Owned by the same player seems more reasonable to me.
 
The fewer the number of opposing AI civs you have in your game, the more likely the waves of AI religious units are not going to balance out. On small maps if you're removing your neighbors to grow, you might also be removing the very thing that will stop you suffering a surprise religious defeat.
I'm guessing you're on to something here. I find that I try for a religion in about a third of my games, not including games where I try for a religious victory (which I tend to not do anymore; the religious unit traffic jam is just too obnoxious to deal with.) A minor reason is that having a decent or better faith output is handy, quite handy indeed, but probably not worth the opportunity cost of a district slot. Another minor reason is the bonuses from beliefs which, similarly, are handy but not worth the investment.

The major reason is that it is very hard, situationally impossible, to defend against a religious victory if you don't have one yourself. I guess you could try to keep at least two AI religions in your cities so that you can spread the losing religion to prevent someone else's, but that is tedious, and depending on where on the map religions are founded, you may never get a second religion in any of your cities. It just causes a little twitch in the back of my brain when there's an Achille's heel to my strategy.

Quite frequently, as I'm finishing a game, I notice that one religion seems to be pretty close to meeting the victory condition. And it often goes under the radar because it's not that one religion is in almost every city (which would be easy to detect) but rather one religion is is dominant in a third or more of the cities of most civs, meaning that the civ could be just a few turns away from defeating me.

Not coincidentally, I always play on small maps (better CPU performance), so if @stormerne is correct, which I think he is, the problem may be more severe for me than people who play on standard or larger maps.
 
If they made easier to build a national park that would also make faith generation more desirable. Why must all the tiles be owned by the same city? Owned by the same player seems more reasonable to me.
Likely because if one city that shares a national park is captured it would no longer be exclusively the same player.
 
Top Bottom