How come settlers dont

Already have the religion (should be all, but I'd settle for State) of the city they were created from???

Maybe the reason they left was due to religious differences like the Pilgrims in America.
 
I often thought about this.

Perhaps one of the civics (theocracy or OR) should have the effect that new cities automatically have the religion... or somethin...
 
very deep man, yeah, i totally agree with you, the settlers building a new city should definatly give the new city their religion... (also could be done randomly, like half the times it adopts the state religion while the other half are athiests..)
 
I know of several mods that add it so units can have religions. Units build in a city will gain the city's religion(including settlers) but settlers with a religion do not spread ti to the city...
 
The chance a settler has to be the state religion should be based on how "adopted" it is within your civ.
 
How about cities with monasteries of the state religion produce settlers that settle with the state religion. Gives you even more of an instentive to build monasteries.

Also, settlers made in those cities should have a missionary in their group with them, just for flavor ;)
 
not a bad idea, BUT:

Spreading religion is a tough job that pays off well. This way it would be an easy job that pays of well. You guys like easy jobs that pay off well huh? :)
 
I think the simple answer as to why they don't initially have the state religion is one of game balance. It would only encourage city spamming and REXing over sustainable development, which isn't what religion is aiming to do at all. Better to remove the externality than to live with it, I guess.
 
I agree with Camakaze.
 
Back
Top Bottom