Feature suggestion: Expell Great Prophet

[erebos]

Spoiler :

See this? It's an Austrian Great Prophet, and he will convert my city the next turn, after that he will turn to my other cities. My only option is to declare war now.

We need an option to expell these prophets. I am on good terms with Austria and I hate it to go to war. I cannot tolerate a conversion either. Or I need to tell Austria: Convert and there will be war.

 

[dac050]

Got enough faith to buy an inquisitor? park him in a city and it can't be converted.

 

[bcaiko]

Got enough faith to buy an inquisitor? park him in a city and it can't be converted.

That and DOW are the answer currently.

I do think there should be a way to tell an AI to stop preaching in your lands.

 

[Harv72b]

The shortcoming with the Inquisitor solution is that it requires you to then follow that GP around as it conducts the inevitable tour of your empire.

This ability really needs to be added to the game, along with being able to expel missionaries. Either that or have pantheon beliefs permanently tied to their founding empire; I can deal with losing the follower beliefs & there are instances where it could be beneficial to change to new ones (i.e., constructing more faith-based buildings in your cities), but often-times my pantheon is directly tied to my game strategy, and is usually still crucial to its success up through the Renaissance (longer than that when I'm building a wide civ).

EDIT: You also need to be given an alert whenever a foreign GP/missionary is seen in your territory.

 

[erebos]

Got enough faith to buy an inquisitor? park him in a city and it can't be converted.

Because I can convert it back or does it actually prevent conversion? The second would be cool. I might reload an autosave.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That and DOW are the answer currently.

I do think there should be a way to tell an AI to stop preaching in your lands.

+1 fo sho

 

[compwiz1202]

Because I can convert it back or does it actually prevent conversion? The second would be cool. I might reload an autosave.

Prevents

 

[thadian]

How would you like the AI expelling your inquisitors?

I suppose this aspect of the mechanic encourages conflict - you have a choice to kill the prophet, and you had the same last turn when it ended on the hills?

However i agree with you - actions like expelling inquisitors would enhance diplomacy by giving you an option to take a diplo penalty - i would assume each nation would view you as "close minded" and penalize you.

This would be fair, to discourage you from expelling every GP that comes into your land, which is what you, me and every AI would do, destroying it's functionality. However a global diplo hit would be a fair tradeoff to "openly subjugate foreign religions".

 

[Harv72b]

Because I can convert it back or does it actually prevent conversion? The second would be cool. I might reload an autosave.

It actually does prevent conversion. But as stated, the Inquisitor has to be present in or next to the city, so you're forced to either buy one for each vulnerable city or follow the GP around for the entire game.

 

[MisterSaturnine]

Because I can convert it back or does it actually prevent conversion? The second would be cool. I might reload an autosave.

I think it actually prevents conversion, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

In civ2 if you 'attacked' a diplomat while at peace they were warped back to their capital, saying they were 'deported'. They should bring that back.

 

[Harv72b]

This would be fair, to discourage you from expelling every GP that comes into your land, which is what you, me and every AI would do, destroying it's functionality. However a global diplo hit would be a fair tradeoff to "openly subjugate foreign religions".

There are other ways to get a religion into another empire besides sending in the great prophets--converting cities & city states around that empire to produce pressure and/or selecting Religious Texts or Itinerant Preachers as your enhancer belief, for example.

As it currently stands, GPs basically break every game I play in which I'm trying not to warmonger all of my neighbors.

 

[booyachris]

if you have noticed, 'faith' units cannot cross any opposing unit. I will regularly 'dance' 3 or 4 troops around opposing GP. Main goal is to keep them away from tiles adjacent to a city, but if I see them coming, I will try to block them from entering my borders.

Furthermore, if you don't want your cities converted, DON'T ALLOW OPEN BORDERS! Attrition will kill the faith unit in 4 turns (should). Open borders negates attrition.

 

[Harv72b]

Furthermore, if you don't want your cities converted, DON'T ALLOW OPEN BORDERS! Attrition will kill the faith unit in 4 turns (should). Open borders negates attrition.

Great Prophets do not suffer attrition.

 

[dac050]

I know missionaries attrit, but I don't think GPs do.

I've done the "following the GP around" trick, the one time I had to do it, the AI gave up and sailed away after a while.

 

[Scarpa]

It's pretty much the same as how you handle an unwanted settler coming your way, DOW and capture.

If there is a mechanic added to expel religious units, I would hope it triggers an immediate denunciation. It's an aggressive act and should have consequences.

 

[steveg700]

If there is a mechanic added to expel religious units, I would hope it triggers an immediate denunciation. It's an aggressive act and should have consequences.

This is correct. Spreading religion is not intended be purely a friendly act. It is another form of competition.

The big problem we have is, as is mentioned in so many threads, there is no concept of casus belli in Civ. Other civ's have no way to tell that you are exercising military action as a response to provocative behavior.

 

[thadian]

I wish when you dencounced or DOW'd, it would offer you a popup box of "reasons" you could click. Then each other AI could "react" to the reason with a diplomacy bonus or penalty depending on the reasons.

This would allow the AI to treat each other the same way, and have games based on consequences and reasons. "We also despise heathen religions in our lands" - "You have acted against our faith". or "We like that you declared war (because) of City State Bullying." - "We despise people who interfere with our behavior toward City States." - "We like people who declare war to protect (Polynesia) our weak friend." - "We don't like people who declare war because of espionage actions."

This would add a whole new dimension to diplomacy where reasons matter to some extent.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wish when you dencounced or DOW'd, it would offer you a popup box of "reasons" you could click. Then each other AI could "react" to the reason with a diplomacy bonus or penalty depending on the reasons.

This would allow the AI to treat each other the same way, and have games based on consequences and reasons. "We also despise heathen religions in our lands" - "You have acted against our faith". or "We like that you declared war (because) of City State Bullying." - "We despise people who interfere with our behavior toward City States." - "We like people who declare war to protect (Polynesia) our weak friend." - "We don't like people who declare war because of espionage actions."

This would add a whole new dimension to diplomacy where reasons matter to some extent.

You would have to make sure that the game could keep track of AI actions that would justify (and enable) you to select different reasons for an 'justified' DOW or denouncement. If you didn't, it would be too easy to game the system and 'justify' every war you start.

For instance, catching an AI spy could allow you to declare war and list that as a cause. But if you didn't catch an AI spy, you would not be allowed or even given the option to list that as a justifying cause when you DOW.

 

[thadian]

If you didn't, it would be too easy to game the system and 'justify' every war you start.

EVERY war would have the option of a justify reason - while it might help with diplo hits, the reason itself chosen might be provocative to another AI. For instance, Elizabeth wont like anyone who declares war justifying Espionage Actions.

Mongol won't like anyone who starts wars over city state aggression while Alexander and Siam like people who DO declare wars over city state aggression. Each "justifiable reason" option would be responsive to something that JUST happened - click the button when it scrolls down the side of the screen and get an option to DOW or Denounce over it and have the AI's decide if they think the reason was appropriate. Egypt will be concerned if someone declares a war over building a wonder.

In regards to Espionage, if Civ A were spying on Civ B and got caught, Civ C would be less upset if it were also spying on Civ B. So in this case, should Civ B denounce or war, Civ C would become nervous and react to that (i could be next!)