Fantastic except for hypocrisy

[Polycrates]

That's interesting... I didn't know the design team had thought about it - Like the OP, I find that one of the early religions gets adopted en masse in many of my v0.22 games. The epic good vs evil battles I want to see fizzle out before they get started as most civs become the same alignment. It doesn't happen all the time but it happens often enough that it's very annoying.

I'd love to see all leaders be much, much less eager to take up a religion that will change their alignment (except maybe Perpentach, because he's crazy anyway ). I think they should only do it when the vast majority of their cities have the religion in them, and even then the chance should be low. As it stands, the importance of an AI leader's starting alignment is minimal because it's too likely to change during the game.

I totally agree with this. Actually, I'd go further and make a couple of the civs unable to change to the opposing alignment - Bannor and Calabim in particular - and VERY unwilling to even go neutral. I also agree with the idea of a restriction on good and evil civs researching/trading for the opposing religious tech (and maybe way of the wicked/wise) - including human players - so that you have to get it by spread and adopt it first. As it is, I find myself often running good civs and beelining straight for Veil just because it's more useful, which really loses a lot of the civ's flavour for me. I'd like my own civ's starting alignment to be more than just an early-game diplomatic modifier.

The other thing I would suggest is making the holy city buildings (tablets of bambur, necronomicon, stigmata on the unborn etc) require the second tech of the appropriate religion (or some other tech on the religion line). As it is, it's fairly easy to build the holy city building as soon as you've founded the religion, and make that religion dominate before any others have even had a chance.

 

[Blakmane]

Yay for that, loki.

Tech trading off has many advantages... Not only the religions aren't that much spread, but you get to specialize (is that correct?) and get the benefits, instead of trading and getting all techs...

so true.... but the only issue is that it becomes very difficult to convince AI's to go to war/give you their worldmap if you don't have techs to barter.

 

[much2much]

I like the fact that beelining for a religion is useful even if you don't get it first.

Pact of Nillhorn is something that getting pipped at should give you that sinking feeling but not having that with religions is awesome. It is such a big investment that not founding your religion can give you the feeling of semi-defeat, especially if you are playing at your difficulty vs AI level or against good multiplayer opponents. Still getting the religion and only having the disadvantage of no holy building and only getting the religion in one of your cities to start is a lot less of a disruptor than no religion at all.

I believe in this game it really is about "discovering" the religions, as they actually do exist and have real patrons. The vanilla civ model of "inventing" religions is by comparison a joke. I am sure the Firaxis staff have voodoo dolls of the FFH team.

Plus it keeps religious spread from being tactically manipulated by players, ie. if I want to summon Hyborem I can even if the Veil founder has closed borders to prevent me from doing so.

The Gods want you to follow their paths, even if their first children don't want you to.

 

[QES]

I was thinking on religion and spread, and on alignment.

It is a fantastic function to make alignment fluid and dynamic, and to have religion tied to it. But I'm wondering if its not backwards. Instaed of "adopting a relegion" changes ones alignment, what if religion instead requires an alignment to be adopted?

Alignment then - would be controled by civics alone. Some - sum total of all the civics an indvidual has - each rated for how "good" or "evil" they are. If your'e above x points - you're good, if your below Y points - you're evil.

Then - each religion would/could require alignments before one was allowed to take them. This would prevent the "super fast" spread of some (perhaps many) religions, and would generally ****** (but not prevent) alignment switching.

Since religions themselves offer new options for civics - clearly those are the most "heavily influential" civics as in regards to alignments. "Sacrifice the weak" for example should be the most evil of civics.

Also - each civilization could have natural modifiers that are just present (just as they have starting alignments) that would be taken into account with the civics. Thus a total number could be arrived at to determine final alingment.

This has two consequences. A) One's alignemnt is based on predisposition and actual "action" (in the form of civics) upon your society - not merely the insinuation of actions. Also - it would push those already predisposed to certain religions moer in their direction - as they're the only initial options.


THe sheiam for example. Evil. The ashen vale - Evil. If the runes are founded in some distant land, and it spreads to the ashen vale - they'd not be able to make it a state religion because it had not fit in philosophically with their established patterns. That is, their natural dispotition towards their people, and any civic options they'd chosen.

They COULD move in that direction - if the civics they'd chosen gave them enough good ponits, perhaps to make them "neutral". And choosing the runes, would open up possibilities to push them further into the good - but it would require some amount of luck or effort. Also - the "specific techs" assigned to each religion, (that allow temples) could easily themselves "push" alignment numbers one way or the other.

I see the religions as requireing the following:

Fellowship of the leaves - Neutral only. (One must have balance to follow this path)
Runes of Kilmorph - Good and Neutral only (Wealth comes to those who seek prosperity for the many)
Octopus Overlords - Evil and Neutral only (Control and domination require the undestanding of pragmatism and inequalities in life)
Order - Good only (Only the righteous can begin to understand this path)
Ashen Vale - Evil Only (None would consider joining with the demons unless already seduced by power and darkness.)

Similarly, each civilization would have natural modifiers for alignment. The Calabim would be evil - but perhaps not "as" evil as the Sheiam.

Each civic would have modifiers placed on them moving an alignement up or down (or neither) the scale. Pick enough "good" civics, and your alignement will change. Pick enough bad - the same. Many civics are neither - and contribute to neither direction - combining good and evil civics lends itself to neutrality.

If one is of an extreme alignement religion - and ones civics change outside of that religion - the natural consequence should be (after anarchy had finished) automatic anarchy and the loss of the state religion in question. Thus forcing you to pick a "new one" when the anarchy finishes - excluding any that have requirements unmet.

This allows for the dymanism - but less spontaneity of religious choices. Of course, diplomacy would also have to be adjusted for this new understanding of religious requirements and alignment - but that's for someone else to contemplate.
-Qes

 

[onedreamer]

part of the problem is that two early religions change to neutral but not to evil or good so most players are neutral. i think a solution would be to move the alignment one step in its direction instead of making them good.

so if a neutral civ adopted OO it would turn evil and a neutral civ on runes becomes good in addition to the effects now

Hmm, the problem is overspreading of certain religions. The change of alignement is a side effect.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

@Qes idea: I must say I LOVE IT!

Now we have the arm counter on a scale from 0 to 100 with shows the impact of evil on the world.

Now there could be an alignment counter for each civilisation.
-50 to +50 were 0 is being neutral. I.E. a good civ would start with the counter +40, but then if declaring war on another civ with 'good' alignment it would 'gain' -5. For every razed city the arm counter would increase and that civs alignment counter would decrease (-1) If a good civ declared war on a evil civ it would get +2 and for every AV city razed +1, etc. Some actions would bring you toward evil, some toward good. Then the 'you are evil' diplo modifier could become more flexible and so on. Building some wonders/buildings/units could have an alignment requirement, some would change the counter them self.

The hard part would be to train the AI to have preferences so it wont switch its aligment to often cause I can already hear whines about how the game is unpredictable. [IMO good civ changing their alignment is a nice feature thou]

 

[onedreamer]

I think the roleplaying part of FFH is a great addition to the game, but it's still a strategy game and there must be freedom of choice to a certain extent. For example I should be able to switch to AV if I play Tasunke, IMO.
Btw... this stuff is off topic.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

You still would be. You would have to only do some bad deeds and as Tatsunke is neutral it wouldn't have to be many bad deeds Then when you are AV it would be easy to drop down to ensure you wont get a revolution on your hands. BUT if you are the Elohim should you be able to turn to the bad side? I think yes but it should be much harder to accomplish.

I think AV could be: -50 to -10
Order of course: +10 to +50
OO: -40 to +20 or +0
FoL: -30 to +30
RoK: -20 to +40

 

[Sarisin]

I think we are still playing on an uneven playing field when it comes to founding religions like FOL and ROK.

Think about how many times in your games when you were not playing as the elves, and the elves were an AI civ and you founded FOL. Same with the dwarves and ROK.

It is great that when you research the tech you get a disciple, thane, etc. and can spread the religion to your civ, but there are significant benefits to founding the religion, especially using a GP to get the Autumn of Leaves (?), Code of Junil, etc.

In my last game, the elves got FOL on turn 99 for chrissakes! In an Epic game this is just a bit too much. The dwarves got ROK around turn 150, again pretty early. I never used to cheat in FFH, but as I let the computer select random civs for my game I always open the World Builder to see if there are elves or dwarves in the world. If there are, I start thinking Order, OO, or AV.

There was a thread on this before, but I still really cannot see how the elves and dwarves can get to these religions so fast. Even with the beelining, a good starting tech and two Scouts (one must not being staying home to defend, and the dwarves don't get two Scouts), how can they possibly get these religions every time and so fast? Although denied, I really think there is some chicanery going on with the goodie huts they pop. Yeah, give 'em Mysticism, Hunting/Mining, and they are well on their way.

As I have suggested before, why not just give the elves and dwarves the techs for the religions at the start?

 

[Grey Fox]

Btw, the religions got different SpreadFactor, currently FoL and RoK got a value of 100. OO got 75, The Order got 175, Veil 150 and the Cult 200.

 

[much2much]

I think the roleplaying part of FFH is a great addition to the game, but it's still a strategy game and there must be freedom of choice to a certain extent. For example I should be able to switch to AV if I play Tasunke, IMO.
Btw... this stuff is off topic.

Being able to switch religions IS good roleplaying though. The leaders are trying to do whats in the best interest of their civ and they may do that by breaking with tradition.

FFH is all about that otherwise Good leaders wouldn't be able to get Veil for instance.

 

[BeefontheBone]

@Qes idea: I must say I LOVE IT!

Now we have the arm counter on a scale from 0 to 100 with shows the impact of evil on the world.

Now there could be an alignment counter for each civilisation.
-50 to +50 were 0 is being neutral. I.E. a good civ would start with the counter +40, but then if declaring war on another civ with 'good' alignment it would 'gain' -5. For every razed city the arm counter would increase and that civs alignment counter would decrease (-1) If a good civ declared war on a evil civ it would get +2 and for every AV city razed +1, etc. Some actions would bring you toward evil, some toward good. Then the 'you are evil' diplo modifier could become more flexible and so on. Building some wonders/buildings/units could have an alignment requirement, some would change the counter them self.

The hard part would be to train the AI to have preferences so it wont switch its aligment to often cause I can already hear whines about how the game is unpredictable. [IMO good civ changing their alignment is a nice feature thou]

That, in various forms, was suggested a few times way back when FfH2 started - Kael had various isues with it, not least the confusion of new players and the AI (unexpectedly losing your religious heroes and units = not fun) and the extra list of things to remember. QES' idea might make an interesting compromise. I doubt there's any code in place for religions depending on civics rather than the other way round, though.

 

[Ellestar]

You are playing pangea stile of crowded map. In this kind of map contacts and trade routes tend to establish resonably fast, speeding up spreading a first religion, making it dominant.

If you like more divercity, try to play continents, for example.

Since AI can't invade across continents with any noticeable effect, it still doesn't solve an original problem.

 

[QES]

I should state that I wasnt thinking of a "huge" scale. The scale should be easily moved up and down.

Good civs should still easily become evil, and vice versa. The only difference is that one is not simply good "because they say so" or evil "because others say so". Choice in religion by default automatically adjusts religions, meaning its a "conscious" decision, instead of a consequence to action.

I had in my mind a scale of like 9.
-1 to +1 would be neutral. 2-4 would be good, -2 to -4 would be evil.

Civics could provide +- 0 or 2 points and civs could start with +- 0 to 3 points.

In this, the sheiam wouldnt have to invest "too" much to become good. Nor would the Elohim be prevented from becoming evil - it would merely take some effort.

I am not sure the use of buildings and wonders should contribute to alignment - I understand the appeal, but as I understand it, civics are how one "actually behaves" in one's civilization towards ones people and government.

Also - I am not sure many civics would actually have alignment modifications. But were it still to be tied to civics, then most civs would follow consistent patterns of religious choices.

The original reason for me stipulating this, is that with this simple adjustment - despite a religion being founded earlier than others and spreading throughout the world (for a lack of competition) it would not, by nature of the AI value structure, automatically create a world-religion. Instead people would still be inclined to follow religions that meet their natural (or adjusted) alignments.

So - even if FoL spread to every city on the globe, maybe only half of the civs who've got it actively have state religions OF it. The founder still reaps the rewards for the spread of religion, but not the automatic diplomatic consequences of it. Also - it would give opportunity and impetus for other religions to spread, as those with certain alignments would be forced to seek some religious compensation for a lack of other options.

-Qes

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I think I prefer QES's proposal to the current implementation, but only if a changing alignment cannot force you to change religion. That would solve the problem of heroes abandoning you (then again, it might be nice if a few unit were tied to the actual alignment, not just religion. I believe I've read that Valin Phanuel and all the true followers of Junil were persecuted by a corrupt, hypocritical church that was still acting in Sabathiel's name. It might also be interesting to have some "hypocritical" heroes added that require religions and alignments that don't naturally go together)

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I've always been fond of the idea of a certain hero... a repentant demon that you can only recruit if you're Good, but not of the Order.

 

[onedreamer]

Being able to switch religions IS good roleplaying though. The leaders are trying to do whats in the best interest of their civ and they may do that by breaking with tradition.

FFH is all about that otherwise Good leaders wouldn't be able to get Veil for instance.

This is what I said, heh...

 

[QES]

Also - expanding on the "fun-ness" of my idea.

Wouldn't it be grand if the civilization alignment modifier was tied to leaders? Wouldn't it be fun if Perpentach's changed with each "insanity" change of traits?

I'm not proposing he becomes "good" inclined, but perhaps a random mod between 0 and -3 (from my earlier idea).
-Qes

 

[onedreamer]

QES while I like your idea of making religion adoption based on alignement and not vice-versa, I don't think that tying alignement on civics would work, either. This because civics are not balanced toward each other, so the choice of them is not simple flavor/preference but a matter of strategy. This means that if you like a certain set of civics you will always (or almost always) play a leader of a certain alignement, indipendently fom the civ etc. The AI would probably follow an even more predictable path than now. The weakness of AI is exactly its predictability.

 

[QES]

QES while I like your idea of making religion adoption based on alignement and not vice-versa, I don't think that tying alignement on civics would work, either. This because civics are not balanced toward each other, so the choice of them is not simple flavor/preference but a matter of strategy. This means that if you like a certain set of civics you will always (or almost always) play a leader of a certain alignement, indipendently fom the civ etc. The AI would probably follow an even more predictable path than now. The weakness of AI is exactly its predictability.

While I agree with the AI and predictability i am a bit puzzled by your other assertion.

Specifically - when people understand that civics limit or influence what religions one can take in a game - would then that still not be a part of strategy?

If religions had no differences between one another - like in vanilla civ - then you'd be quite right. However, since each religion has its pros and cons, and players will oft "seek" a religion from the start (or at least consider some more strongly than others) having civics impact alignment, and therefore the ability to choose certain religions would GIVE the civics each more importance and aspects IN strategy.

If I pick a leader who is realatively evil, (say -3), and I pick a few civics that are "good" and my total comes out to 0 - but I want to get the "ashen vale" I am now going to have to make some hard choices. Given that these choices are equal across the board for everyone (alignement to religion) they become part of the strategy. Also - if you want to play the Elohim and ashen vale, there'd be some necessary choices to make to becoming "evil" enough to be heard by the demons.

There is another side to this that we could consider.

When civics lead to alignement, and alignment leads to religion - then each step along the way can be more independantly adjusted.

What I mean is, that when alignment becomes a buffer between the two catagories - then the realative balance changes. Kael has often remarked that he likes the wholistic approach to balance instead of individual schemes.

When civics and alignment and religion are tied at least loosely together, then the flexibility with any given mechanic is given wider berth.

I am overcomplicating my case - my appologies.

Simiply put - I believe that having these things be interconneted would in fact increase strategy and importance of each civic.

For example - if a civic is sucky (or at least you never ever like to play it) but it would allow for you to pick a religion you like because of a alignment modification - suddenly its value is increased.

If, on the contrary, you love a civic - but choseing it would suddenly negate your ability to enforce a certain state religion - its relative value would decrease.

This alone makes for easy methods of increasing "under used" civics, and mitigating "overly used" ones. Granted, this might require an overhaul of the entire civics system - but from some of the things I hear, that may be a necessity anyway.

-Qes

Edit: In my head i see each catagory of civics as having a diverse representation of alignements.

Perhaps if there are 6 options in a catagory (all technolgoies given) then perhaps one of them may be an extreme choice (+-2) 3 of them a minor choice (+-1) and the last 2 have 0 impact.

This would do two things - A) civic choices and not leaders would have the ultimate impact on final alignement. B) As technologies progress, alignments may shift and flow throughout the game (creating an automatic ebb and flow of good and evil as time passes - which sounds very cool to me) finally - the technologies and therefore specific civics for each religion would strengthen anyone's alignement who sought that religion beyond normal - thus allowing more choice among the other civics.
I dont know how FoL's tech would "make one more neutral" but I'm sure there's a way. Perhaps it would make one's leader mod value 0 (as long as it was selected).
-Qes