Founding religions doing more harm than good on Emperor

[Jorunkun]

Would like your thoughts on an observation I made playing on Emperor: I believe that founding religions predominantly does you more harm than good, especially with regards to the game at large. Here's why:

1. Researching the necessary advance delays more relevant tech
Efficient use of tech is crucial in playing Emperor successfully. This means prioritising key technologies with regards to their immediate and strategic relevance. While I don't believe in an ideal generic tech-path, I believe that all religion-founding techs except one are always trumped by other available ones in terms of relevancy,so researching them carries a hidden "opportunity cost".

In particular, pursuing the three early religions delays much more immediately useful advances such as bronze working, worker techs and the pottery/writing/alphabet path. The one exception may be code of laws/confucianism, which is useful to have asap in all games where you have the opportunity to found/conquer a large number of cities early.

2. Spread of your own religion among your cities slows the spread of other ones
I believe having as many religions as possible in your empire is preferable to having just one predominantly as it gives you more choices in terms of state religion and the related diplomatic boni, allows you to build more temples and improves the benefit of the free religion civic. Early religions in particular tend to spread quickly through your empire, and religiously affiliated cities are less likely to acquire additional religions.

3. Making the religion you founded your state religion will spoil relations with other Civs
In most games, switching to a state religion works to your disadvantage in that it spoils relations with other civs, hampering trade and inviting aggression. The exception are island starts or games where your neighbors all share one religion. But a situation in which you manage to found and benefit from spreading your religion to other (unaffiliated) civs is much less likely. Thus, even if you manage to found a religion, it is usually unwise to leverage the larger part of its benefits (+1 happiness from state religion and access to religious civics).

4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

5. Letting AI found religions is more likely to keep them hostile to each other
This is possibly the strongest argument against founding religions: Religions foster dissent among the AI, and dissent amongst the AI works to your advantage in slowing trade and inciting war. Any religion you found is a religion not founded by the AI, increasing the chance of religiously homogenous alliances which work against your interest.

As a bottom line, I would argue that on Emperor games, the dominant (more useful in the majority of settings) strategy is to abstain from founding religions entirely.

The most frequent exception may be island starts, where an early religion can be helpful. The best religion to found my be confucianism, as it arrives with a key tech and in the mid game, giving you time to adapt to the prevailing religious climate.

Opinions, objections?

J.

EDITS: Formatting.

 

[cabert]

all this is also true on lower levels

i fully agree with the exception of going cultural

 

[Taurendil]

I couldn't agree more.

The diplomatic consequences are the reason I haven't founded a single religion or adopted any state religion in ages.

 

[Hey Joni]

I agree too! However on lower levels it can be fun to found and spread your own religion. Also, let's see how aelf's thread develops - it may prove us wrong!

 

[Paeanblack]

Would like your thoughts on an observation I made playing on Emperor: I believe that founding religions predominantly does you more harm than good, especially with regards to the game at large. Here's why:

1. Researching the necessary advance delays more relevant tech
Efficient use of tech is crucial in playing Emperor successfully. This means prioritising key technologies with regards to their immediate and strategic relevance. While I don't believe in an ideal generic tech-path, I believe that all religion-founding techs except one are always trumped by other available ones in terms of relevancy,so researching them carries a hidden "opportunity cost".

In particular, pursuing the three early religions delays much more immediately useful advances such as bronze working, worker techs and the pottery/writing/alphabet path. The one exception may be code of laws/confucianism, which is useful to have asap in all games where you have the opportunity to found/conquer a large number of cities early.

2. Spread of your own religion among your cities slows the spread of other ones
I believe having as many religions as possible in your empire is preferable to having just one predominantly as it gives you more choices in terms of state religion and the related diplomatic boni, allows you to build more temples and improves the benefit of the free religion civic. Early religions in particular tend to spread quickly through your empire, and religiously affiliated cities are less likely to acquire additional religions.

3. Making the religion you founded your state religion will spoil relations with other Civs
In most games, switching to a state religion works to your disadvantage in that it spoils relations with other civs, hampering trade and inviting aggression. The exception are island starts or games where your neighbors all share one religion. But a situation in which you manage to found and benefit from spreading your religion to other (unaffiliated) civs is much less likely. Thus, even if you manage to found a religion, it is usually unwise to leverage the larger part of its benefits (+1 happiness from state religion and access to religious civics).

4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

5. Letting AI found religions is more likely to keep them hostile to each other
This is possibly the strongest argument against founding religions: Religions foster dissent among the AI, and dissent amongst the AI works to your advantage in slowing trade and inciting war. Any religion you found is a religion not founded by the AI, increasing the chance of religiously homogenous alliances which work against your interest.

As a bottom line, I would argue that on Emperor games, the dominant (more useful in the majority of settings) strategy is to abstain from founding religions entirely.

The most frequent exception may be island starts, where an early religion can be helpful. The best religion to found my be confucianism, as it arrives with a key tech and in the mid game, giving you time to adapt to the prevailing religious climate.

Opinions, objections?

1) Even on Diety, you usually have enough grace period early on to grab one outside tech of your choice and still be fine.

2) Unless you are playing a spiritual civ, temples are too expensive for the happiness, and switching religions is too expensive for the diplomatic bonus. Drama and Paganism are your friends.

3) Nothing is forcing you to switch to a religion that you found. You get the shrine money either way.

4) *Everything* is cheaper conquered than built; shrines are no exception, but sometimes the holy cities end up an Astronomical distance away. Spreading a religion is not too difficult. Send a few missionaries to the religious nuts, and they will switch over and spread your religion for you, often sending missionaries back to your cities.

5) Letting AIs found religion make it much harder to control the state religion of the AIs and damn near impossible to redefine the diplomatic blocs at whim.


The most important benefit of grabbing an early religion on high levels is to slow down certain opponents, since they will keep trying to found one. It's nice to have a neighboring religious nut wasting their beakers on Theology and wasting their hammers on missionaries for your religion instead of building troops and military techs right on your doorstep.


I'm guessing that you have a tendency to only play particular maps/sizes/speeds/etc, because I can't see how else you could believe such a blanket claim about founding religions being futile at Emperor+.

 

[uberfish]

Have you tried founding one of the early religions then building stonehenge or a temple for an ultra early shrine?

You get a lot of religion spread that way without having to build missionaries.

 

[Jorunkun]

I'm guessing that you have a tendency to only play particular maps/sizes/speeds/etc, because I can't see how else you could believe such a blanket claim about founding religions being futile at Emperor+.

You are right, I should have specified that my observations are based on playing epic games on small to large maps, with the standard number of opponents for the respective setting. Also, I didn't say founding a religion was futile, but a dominated strategy in the majority of games (played under the settings above) - meaning there are benefits, and exceptional settings where it actually does make sense.

That said, I much appreciate your comments and would like to elaborate on my views of some of them.

1) Even on Diety, you usually have enough grace period early on to grab one outside tech of your choice and still be fine.

While a grab of Buddhism or Hinduism admittedly will not set you back hugely, you do see some incremental benefits from earlier access to specials, mines and farms if you time your growth and (worker-) turns really tightly. Also, I doubt you stand much of a chance at grabbing an early religion on Deity if you are playing four or more opponents. I think if you are going after a religion, Confucianism is probably the best one, as it opens up a tech that is very useful to have asap, comes at a time where religion can still be a major, cost-efficient means to influence diplomacy and because it can be lightbulbed or slingshotted (sp?) to.

Agree with points 2, 3 and 4 but would still argue that founding and spreading a religion as a major pillar in ones strategy is not the most effective choice under most circumstances.

Also, I think this ...

Letting AIs found religion make it much harder to control the state religion of the AIs and damn near impossible to redefine the diplomatic blocs at whim.

... is debatable. I understand that a successful grab of one of the three early religions gives you the option of converting your neighbours and thus helps define a diplomatic bloc. But in standard-size, standard-number of civ games, there is a >50% chance that at least one of your neighbours also founds an early religion, and what do you gain in this case? An enemy, if you committ.

Sure, you can stay neutral, spread it to him or his neighbor and hope to stir up some trouble - but if you abstain from founding, it is more likely that this will happen naturally, at no cost to you. 1/3 of the way into the game, you have pretty much the same options - if not more, because of the higher chance of different religions spreading to unaffiliated cities - simply by spreading on the religions that have spread to you, if that seems prudent.

That's why I say that in the majority of scenarios, an early religion is more of a hindrance than a benefit: In my experience, you fare better staying neutral in the early game, or adopting the religion of your near neighbours. I find that in most cases, founding a religion is not worth the additional effort.

Lastly, reading this ...

The most important benefit of grabbing an early religion on high levels is to slow down certain opponents, since they will keep trying to found one. It's nice to have a neighboring religious nut wasting their beakers on Theology and wasting their hammers on missionaries for your religion instead of building troops and military techs right on your doorstep.

... made me wonder whether the "religious nut" isn't in most cases the player who pursues religions as part of his/her strategy, burning beakers on (often chancy and unsucessful) religion grabs, throwing good shields after bad in actively shaping a religious landscape that, in the majority of cases, could be exploited to the same effect by just playing along with the game as it takes shape by itself.

Here's a question: Would you recommend that a player who is learning to play successfully on Emperor (standard size map and # of opponents) actively pursue religions to improve his chances at winning?

Reason I ask (and posted this) is that part of my learning process for Emperor has been to ditch founding religions, and I've never looked back.

Regards,

J.

 

[Kelvenor]

Originally Posted by Paeanblack
4. Shrines are better conquered than buillt
Shrine benefits are a major reason for founding religions, but in most cases you are better off spending ressources at conquering them than building them. To benefit from a shrine you need to found the religion, spread it and farm a great prophet. The AI is much more efficient at this, but experienced players are more efficient in their use of military might, so letting the AI found the religion and build the shrine is preferable to doing it yourself.

I usually target a civ with a holly city for my second war usally with catapults/axes or catapults/ mace man (first war eliminate closest neighbour) for land grab and distance cost.

 

[Jorunkun]

Have you tried founding one of the early religions then building stonehenge or a temple for an ultra early shrine?

You get a lot of religion spread that way without having to build missionaries.

I have, but rarely. I play random civs, so in most cases I don't even stand a chance at grabbing an early religion.

Even with Mysticism as your starting tech, I find gunning for Buddhism or Hinduism is a risk, unless you have a tile that generates 3 coins off the bat. You cannot be certain of not missing the religion and wasting turns, while teching and building to make use of the terrain you start with will give you reliable results.

Similarly, I find that pursuing Stonehenge is a big, risky investment at a time when you don't know much about the world/game taking shape around you. If you pull off both the early religion and Stonehenge, I'm sure the rewards are great. But in most games, chances are you will fail at either, and forfeit the certain benefit of turns played more conservatively.

I suppose that for a veteran player, that risk is manageable (and the opportunity for a non-standard opening welcome) - but it seems that less experienced players tend to pursue flowery, religion and wonder heavy openings in the lower levels and wonder why they never get a leg up on Emperor ... much like I did, truth be known.

J.

 

[AfterShafter]

More harm than good? Founding a religion is a bloody hoot on emperor level. If you spread it around, get a religious "team" on your side, and watch a holy war rage around the world. If you play your diplomatic cards right, you won't be the one going to war - your religious buddies will be.

Easiest way to found a religion emperor level is with Wang Kon, I'd say. Simply start researching Hinduism right off - you'll get it a vast majority of the time. Since it's an early one, if you're aggressive with it, you can spread it and form a good team-Hindu to work with - simply have to make your goal missionary rushes rather than axemen rushes. Ramses is fun too, and Christianity spreads like a weed if you use your first two great prophets (stonehenge in capital, two priests, you'll get them very fast) to lightbulb theocracy and make the sistine chapel. You'll need a bit of luck to not have the world religiously saturated by that point.

Is this harder than winning regularly? Yeah... But hell, if I wanted to win by a series of military rushes every time, I'd have stuck with Starcraft and Zergling rushed. The diplomatic rat's nest that religion brings to a game makes it fun. Why win the easiest way you can every time when there are other interesting courses to take?

 

[Vynd]

I think that founding a religion early is a reasonably worthwhile thing to attempt, neither an awesome move nor a bad one. It has pros and cons like pretty much everything else.

Having said that, I feel like pursuing religion techs has more in its favor than its critics are giving it credit for. For one thing, while delaying researching worker techs can hurt your productivity in the short term, spreading your borders faster can help it in the long term. Religion and buildings associated with the religion branch of the tech tree are the only way to get culture spreading from new cities early in the game except for Libraries and Wonders (and the Creative trait). Libraries can take an awfully long time for a new city to build, let alone Wonders. So at the very least it is often advisable to research Mysticism and build obelisks or Stonehenge.

Another point in favor of researching the religion branch is that the technologies involved have plenty of uses besides just the hit-or-miss establishment of a religion. Mysticism lets you build obelisks and Stonehenge. Polytheism unlocks a couple of wonders. Meditation isn't so good without a religion, but with it enables Monasteries. If you research some of these techs then you're in a position to go after Priesthood, allowing you to build the Oracle and Temples. Priesthood is also one of the fastest routes to Writing and the single fastest route to both Code of Laws and Monarchy, all of which are highly beneficial techs. Or if that doesn't interest you, the Organized Religion tech and the establishment of Judaism is well within reach.

So even if you try for, say, Hinduism, and fail, you're still in a good position to build some wonders, try to establish Confucianism or Judaism, and/or attempt a CS Slingshot or get some other free tech. It's hardly the case that if you didn't nab Hiduism you've wasted your time.

 

[AfterShafter]

More harm than good? Founding a religion is a bloody hoot on emperor level. If you spread it around, get a religious "team" on your side, and watch a holy war rage around the world. If you play your diplomatic cards right, you won't be the one going to war - your religious buddies will be.

Easiest way to found a religion emperor level is with Wang Kon, I'd say. Simply start researching Hinduism right off - you'll get it a vast majority of the time. Since it's an early one, if you're aggressive with it, you can spread it and form a good team-Hindu to work with. Ramses is fun too, and Christianity spreads like a weed if you use your first two great prophets (stonehenge in capital, two priests, you'll get them very fast) to lightbulb theocracy and make the sistine chapel. You'll need a bit of luck to not have the world religiously saturated by that point.

Is this harder than winning regularly? Yeah... But hell, if I wanted to win by a series of military rushes every time, I'd have stuck with Starcraft and Zergling rushed. The diplomatic rat's nest that religion brings to a game makes it fun. Why win the easiest way you can every time when there are other interesting courses to take?

 

[voek]

Spreading the religious Word also is very depending on the maptype.

 

[Tennyson]

Also, founding an early religion can give you +4 diplomacy with your neighbors, and -4 with civs that are farther away - not a bad trade.

 

[AfterShafter]

Actually, you can get more than + or - 4, depending on who is the same religion with you. Religiously oriented civs like/hate you more for same/different religions... I know it goes as high as +7. If you get on the same page with someone like Gandhi or Isabella they'll love you for it, but the opposite is true as well.

 

[Phrederick]

Also, founding an early religion can give you +4 diplomacy with your neighbors, and -4 with civs that are farther away - not a bad trade.

I'd usually prefer it the other way around, because I tend to conquer my immediate neighbors.

I've always attempted to found 1-2 religions on Emperor, but I never thought that it might lead to less AI fragmentation, since there are fewer other religions to go around. When I start playing again, I'll probably have less of a focus on religion, unless my strategy demands it.

 

[Eqqman]

4) Send a few missionaries to the religious nuts, and they will switch over and spread your religion for you, often sending missionaries back to your cities.

How often does this actually happen? I've tried numerous times to get an AI to spread a religion for me. I'll send them enough Missionaires so that they convert to my religion and then I sit back and wait. And wait... and wait... and nothing. So there must be some other factors in play that influence if an AI uses a Missionary or not. From what I could tell it looks like an AI never uses them at all unless it has built the Shrine and is expanding to get its income up. But maybe some of the religious minded AIs are supposed to use them in cases beyond this. I'd like to know what the trick is since I see 'get the AI to spread your religion for you' pop up all the time in the forums but I haven't seen it work yet.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Getting an early religion makes it much more likely that the AI will adopt your religion than another. I think it's generally worth the gamble if you start with Mysticism as a tech. Without Mysticism as a tech, you generally will miss it. After you get your religion you can alawys go back and work on Bronze working or The Wheel.

 

[Tennyson]

I'd usually prefer it the other way around, because I tend to conquer my immediate neighbors.

Then warmongers need not apply. My last game, I had Bismarck and Isabella on my continent with a lousy starting position (lousy empire too - few luxuries or health benefits, and just one of most strategic resources). I spread Buddhism to Bismarck and Isabella founded Hinduism. I kept Bismarck at friendly and he made a GREAT buffer against Issy while I struggled to get the score and power lead. Heck, I was even pushing Bismarck's borders back aggressively with culture and he hardly gave me any demerits for it.

That game ended with my first "real" diplomatic victory as I had the 3rd, 4th, and 5th scoring civs running Buddhism and up to Friendly level through trades and religion and mutual wars. The entire game I captured two cities and razed one (should have razed two, though).

The early +4 with Bismarck tipped him into mutual warfare with me against Issy, increasing our bond even more. Without it, I would have been bogged down in twice the warfare with little benefit.

 

[T-hawk]

From what I could tell it looks like an AI never uses them at all unless it has built the Shrine and is expanding to get its income up.

That's true for foreign missionaries sent outside the AI's borders. Besides powering up a shrine, the only other purpose of a foreign missionary is to manipulate the diplomatic map by influencing a rival's state religion. The AI doesn't think to that level, so it doesn't do that.

The AI will spread your religion for you only internally, and only if it's their state religion (for its own benefit in its own cities.) Also they need to be in Organized Religion, since they don't prioritize monasteries, and if they're in Theocracy, they're building military, not missionaries.