Fall 2017 Update Info

[Wingednosering]

Is there currently any way to see the area of the religious pressure on the map? I mean to know what area my cities are currently influencing? Just thought I'd ask here since you're talking about that anyway.

The religious lens is supposed to do that, but it's pretty awful right now. This patch is supposedly making it more useful.

 

[Rosty K]

The religious lens is supposed to do that, but it's pretty awful right now. This patch is supposedly making it more useful.

It only seems to color the area within the city borders, I can't even suggest where it is trying to show the influence from this city on other cities...

 

[Siptah]

It only seems to color the area within the city borders, I can't even suggest where it is trying to show the influence from this city on other cities...

The animation in the circles that show how many citizens follow which religion shows the pressure from that city. It's effect is 10 tiles wide.

 

[Rosty K]

The animation in the circles that show how many citizens follow which religion shows the pressure from that city. It's effect is 10 tiles wide.

Right, so we are still supposed to manually count tiles, as for the IZ and Colosseum That's what I was asking.

 

[54teltakt]

there'S an arrow (or double arrow) that indicates how fast (relativly) your citizens are influenced by one religion. it has the colour of that religion

Spoiler pic from another forum :

but delhi must get pressure from the arab cities since its 8 hexes away from mecca

 

[ezzlar]

I think there should be a Pantheon religious unit. It should be weaker than the pure religious units and can only defend. I dont like how religious civs can roll over pantheon ones. With this setup you could offer a little resistance for a while.

 

[Victoria]

Is there currently any way to see the area of the religious pressure on the map?

I did this explanation a while ago Finding my Religion

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think there should be a Pantheon religious unit. It should be weaker than the pure religious units and can only defend. I dont like how religious civs can roll over pantheon ones. With this setup you could offer a little resistance for a while.

I believe the root problem is a bit different. Developers put too much emphasis on optional system of Religion.
I'd actually "swap" parts of religion and culture gameplay, with active combat working for culture/propaganda, since unlike religion, culture is mandatory.

 

[Cerilis]

I believe the root problem is a bit different. Developers put too much emphasis on optional system of Religion.
I'd actually "swap" parts of religion and culture gameplay, with active combat working for culture/propaganda, since unlike religion, culture is mandatory.

Maybe they feel religion shouldnt be fully optional?

 

[Scaramanga]

I believe the root problem is a bit different. Developers put too much emphasis on optional system of Religion.
I'd actually "swap" parts of religion and culture gameplay, with active combat working for culture/propaganda, since unlike religion, culture is mandatory.

Founding a religion is the first step in a victory condition so it not completely pointless. You have to found one to have a shot. Tourism does nothing except contribute to a victory; with religion you get the residual effects of belief spread, same as the culture that is usually present with tourism sources.

Theoretically though, I think religion could help with any victory if the right beliefs are combined at the right time, Crusade for Domination for example.

 

[Victoria]

I think religion could help with any victory

Papal Primacy being one of the most powerful examples of this.
If you build holy centres that slows you up, if you take them with early war, that is different. Yet another reason to war

 

[Scaramanga]

Papal Primacy being one of the most powerful examples of this.
If you build holy centres that slows you up, if you take them with early war, that is different. Yet another reason to war

Yes but if you build holy sites first you get Defender of the Faith first. Makes it really hard for yours to be taken.

 

[leandrombraz]

No, as stated in my comment, there should be actions the player takes in order to expand the radius of his/her religious influence. These actions should not need moving little religious units around to fight each other. They could consist of researching religious buildings and policies (which diverts efforts in other areas that could be researched, like science or politics) and then building those structures and enacting those policies. To add focus and weight, the player could consciously devote a portion of his income per turn to religious expansion ("tithng") and that would come at the expense of other potential expenditures like infrastructure or economic growth.

Something I miss is trade routes spreading religion, which afaik doesn't happen in Civ VI.

 

[Victoria]

trade routes spreading religion,

No, I tried it... I had a city with no pressure on it, sent a caravan to it... no pressure indications... so sad

Makes it really hard for yours to be taken.

If you do not activate your prophet until you have worthwhile envoys its even harder for them to take it.

 

[JaeChunDaeSung]

This is just a thought, but what if the status of a civ's borders could be used as leverage against others?

Say if there was a warning and a denouncement for reason of trespassing, much like with military units, only specifically towards religious units inside your borders without an OB agreement? If that could be programmed, it could serve as incentive for AI and players to keep borders closed to keep EVERYBODY out, or risk consequences. The old, "Get off my lawn!" approach.

 

[Victoria]

The old, "Get off my lawn!" approach.

Well, denouncement are pretty common, even the AI is not fussed about them.
If closed borders stops religious units, now do you win religious wars?
The V attrition was good and while I did espouse earlier to perhaps close borders I think it would dramatically alter the religious game.
Politics needs to be stronger to make city conversion a thing to be considered rather than just done

 

[Scaramanga]

Well, denouncement are pretty common, even the AI is not fussed about them.
If closed borders stops religious units, now do you win religious wars?
The V attrition was good and while I did espouse earlier to perhaps close borders I think it would dramatically alter the religious game.
Politics needs to be stronger to make city conversion a thing to be considered rather than just done

I see no reason why a missionary can't go directly to the center of a civilization (the capital) if the target civilization isn't actively doing anything to stop it. Attrition only made sense when the player could build roads seemingly at will; something had to hold missionaries back.

Edit: nevermind, I'm forgetting that in Civ5 roads don't benefit outsiders.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

I hope the warrior monk can also be used as an actual military unit as well as for attacking religious units.

Teutonic order civilization would have a cool UU then... and I'd change the Berserker into a UU warrior monk as well. And perhaps dervishes for a Morocco civ and wode warrior for Celts.

 

[x2Madda]

Religious combat is nothing more than a reflection of military combat termed differently. -snip-

When people envision a religious victory, do they really see it built on heaps of corpses and rivers of blood? At least provide a functionally powerful alternative where that isn't the case but alas no, the fastest way to spread religion is to kill and destroy. Disappointing.

Not only do I agree with you I would go further and say this is a deep rooted issue in ALL civ games! Without warfare they offer very little and despite things like world congress being well recieved they just throw that out the window for civ 6 and give us military units under the guise of "religious units" instead.

Civ games are wargames, always have been always will be. The fact you can win without war is more a freak accident than a well thought out design idea.
Changes have been made to enhance other victory types over the past games but make no mistake, you are always expected to be at war with someone.

 

[Cerilis]

Not only do I agree with you I would go further and say this is a deep rooted issue in ALL civ games! Without warfare they offer very little and despite things like world congress being well recieved they just throw that out the window for civ 6 and give us military units under the guise of "religious units" instead.

Civ games are wargames, always have been always will be. The fact you can win without war is more a freak accident than a well thought out design idea.
Changes have been made to enhance other victory types over the past games but make no mistake, you are always expected to be at war with someone.

What a load of nonsense. Civ is as much a wargame as Age of Empires is a builder's game. I get it that some people are worse warmongers than Civ5's Shaka, but that doesnt mean that it's everyone (or even the majority).