How do you see the new 'concept' of Religion changing the game?
- Thread starter AdHHH
- Start date
Do you think contemporary religious views "determine the effectiveness of their government" and what is government effective in doing exactly? Are you saying in cIV certain religions would make the governments 'better' (less corrupt, etc) and some would make it 'worse' (more likely to fall into disorder, etc)? The probem with Communism is that it would determine all Religion bourgeois, and would make the usefulness of a religion under Communism seriously undermined. If religion is changed by "bishops" then the religion will be more or less the same, with a few points of doctrine changed (as Anglicanism is to Protestantism), and then it is easy to simply see it as a means of coercive power of the state, which would probably be possible in civ3, and therefore a waste of time in game terms...
Fundamentalism was far too powerful a government in civ2, but shouldn't a Theocratic Gov be allowed in cIV, especially considering the rising importance of fundamental Islam?
A spy/missionary unit to 'convert' the AI should be added; I loved the Spy in Civ2
Fundamentalism was far too powerful a government in civ2, but shouldn't a Theocratic Gov be allowed in cIV, especially considering the rising importance of fundamental Islam?
A spy/missionary unit to 'convert' the AI should be added; I loved the Spy in Civ2
Shyrramar
Warlord
First of all, I wouldn't link religion with technology as much as many of you do. It has very little to do with it. Most of the major religions (or all of the Major) were developed a long time ago. Chinese have been technologically very advanced once as were Indians. Christian nations were technologically very backwards in middle-ages compared to Islamic nations, and this is now the other way around. I stress my point: religion should NOT be linked with technology. It has more to do with pure luck (we must remember that most religions have a single founder or Holy Man - it is luck where this Holy Man would be born) and with circumstances.
I do agree that monotheism has been "discovered" later than polytheism, but that is just a historical fact. One could argue that polytheism is somehow easier to grasp than monotheism, which is a valid point. However, in Civ's time-scale this is of very little consequence: both are early techs. I also dislike the idea of putting the religions into some order. The order would be arbitrary anyway and would probably just insult some people. Is there ANY non-religious argument that shows that some religions are better than others? I'd be happy to hear those
This wasn't the only reason why Socrates was executed. But your point is solid. This snobbishness has nothing to do with technology, mind you. Jews had only one deity whereas your example is taken from Greece - the technological difference is easy to see.
I would personally be careful with mixing philosophy with any religion. First of all philosophy is too wide a subject to be used in that way. Western philosophy is quite different from eastern and eastern philosophy is mainly focused on the Big Questions of Life and on religion. Philosophy is a product of a culture as much as culture is a product of philosophy - thus religion and philosophy intermingle. Philosophy is just a general topic for questions that concern the ultimate basis of our knowledge, ethics, religion etc. In Greece everything was philosophy because they hadn't fallen into different categories yet (apart from mathematics - which was on the other hand much used in philosophy and vice versa). Natural science was philosophy before it became a natural science.
I wouldn't say that any religion is more or less philosophic than other. There is a difference between the way the religion is conveyed. Buddhism concentrates on thinking whereas Christianity concentrates more on feeling. Christianity endeavours to make the basics clear to everyone, so the "philosophical" side of it is often forgotten, whereas Buddhism concentrates on the "philosophical" side. A philosopher may or may not be a religious person - and of any religion. This is not a topic that should be concentrated here, though. Should you like to discuss this further, you can send a personal message and I can give you my e-mail address. Back to business, then
It hurts my heart to see Nietzsche so brutalised with spelling
Anyway, AdHHH is correct: Nietzsche should not be connected with any totalitarian state. In fact he would have been disgusted by Hitler. It was her sister who was a nazi-symphatiser and used his text to her own ends. Philosophy has often been used as a tool for governments as well as religion.
I think the religious aspect should be kept in minimum. In addition to culture, civ-traits and all it would bring too much complexity. In any case religion should be either chosen from the beginning, or be a part of the traits of a civilization. One could perhaps implement something like religious capitals. You could build up your religion (whatever it is) and perhaps convert others to your religion for some benefits, but I would advice against it. Too much complexity and not much in addition to culture. A better idea is that each religion has special strengths and/or units. This would on the other hand differ very little from civ-traits as they are now. I must agree with the makers of civ that the religousness of a civ is more important than the exact religion. It could perhaps only affect the way civs felt toward each other - as in that religion does indeed play a huge role.
All in all, I have not yet seen any real good reason to implement religion. Many people would like to see it there, of course, as religions are very interesting and very personal to many. But it should have a proper place. It wouldn't make anybody happy to have religions making things complicated without bringing any new aspect to the game.
I do agree that monotheism has been "discovered" later than polytheism, but that is just a historical fact. One could argue that polytheism is somehow easier to grasp than monotheism, which is a valid point. However, in Civ's time-scale this is of very little consequence: both are early techs. I also dislike the idea of putting the religions into some order. The order would be arbitrary anyway and would probably just insult some people. Is there ANY non-religious argument that shows that some religions are better than others? I'd be happy to hear those
This wasn't the only reason why Socrates was executed. But your point is solid. This snobbishness has nothing to do with technology, mind you. Jews had only one deity whereas your example is taken from Greece - the technological difference is easy to see.
I would personally be careful with mixing philosophy with any religion. First of all philosophy is too wide a subject to be used in that way. Western philosophy is quite different from eastern and eastern philosophy is mainly focused on the Big Questions of Life and on religion. Philosophy is a product of a culture as much as culture is a product of philosophy - thus religion and philosophy intermingle. Philosophy is just a general topic for questions that concern the ultimate basis of our knowledge, ethics, religion etc. In Greece everything was philosophy because they hadn't fallen into different categories yet (apart from mathematics - which was on the other hand much used in philosophy and vice versa). Natural science was philosophy before it became a natural science.
I wouldn't say that any religion is more or less philosophic than other. There is a difference between the way the religion is conveyed. Buddhism concentrates on thinking whereas Christianity concentrates more on feeling. Christianity endeavours to make the basics clear to everyone, so the "philosophical" side of it is often forgotten, whereas Buddhism concentrates on the "philosophical" side. A philosopher may or may not be a religious person - and of any religion. This is not a topic that should be concentrated here, though. Should you like to discuss this further, you can send a personal message and I can give you my e-mail address. Back to business, then
It hurts my heart to see Nietzsche so brutalised with spelling
Anyway, AdHHH is correct: Nietzsche should not be connected with any totalitarian state. In fact he would have been disgusted by Hitler. It was her sister who was a nazi-symphatiser and used his text to her own ends. Philosophy has often been used as a tool for governments as well as religion. I think the religious aspect should be kept in minimum. In addition to culture, civ-traits and all it would bring too much complexity. In any case religion should be either chosen from the beginning, or be a part of the traits of a civilization. One could perhaps implement something like religious capitals. You could build up your religion (whatever it is) and perhaps convert others to your religion for some benefits, but I would advice against it. Too much complexity and not much in addition to culture. A better idea is that each religion has special strengths and/or units. This would on the other hand differ very little from civ-traits as they are now. I must agree with the makers of civ that the religousness of a civ is more important than the exact religion. It could perhaps only affect the way civs felt toward each other - as in that religion does indeed play a huge role.
All in all, I have not yet seen any real good reason to implement religion. Many people would like to see it there, of course, as religions are very interesting and very personal to many. But it should have a proper place. It wouldn't make anybody happy to have religions making things complicated without bringing any new aspect to the game.
Manverulin
I'm not crazy...
Instead of having to research the religion, why not just have the tech pop up during accurate times, using scripting?
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Yes, I would love for religion to be properly implimented in the game. Each having a unique power like some increase culture, some commerce, other boost the power of your military (sacraficing rituals), and freedom of religion makes like 1 person content in evey city.
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
I think that at the least a government type of fundamentalism or theocracy should be allowed, as a compromise.
Shyrramar
Warlord
One more thing. All governments that are based on religion have always been ineffective. Politics and religion SHOULD be kept apart, although they are often confused. Western society began to thrive only after it began to separate itself from the Church - this is not because the Church is bad, simply because as Jesus already warned: Church should not have earthly power. Middle-east was doing fine when their religion didn't mess things up. Now they are controlled by religious extremist which causes huge problems (do not forget Afghanistan, where tv's were banned in the name of religion - probably not FOR religion, but for power, though).
To have a fundamentalistic government should be comparable to despotism, not something to challenge democracy. I think fascism could do the trick just as well. Think of any fundamentalistic state. Would you want your civ to be like that?
Religion should not give boost to governments, nor should it be linked with technology. What should it do then? That's the problem. I am yet to hear any innovative idea of how the religion should be implemented. It shouldn't be just another culture, nor another government, nor another civ-trait (apart from religiousness, I mean). It should be a NEW concept, as stated in the thread-subject, not just some old concept in new clothes.
I am sorry to be such a bore on this. I would love to have religion in the game if it served some purpose. Therefore I would like people to think it separately from other concepts too, not as something that boosts other concepts, but something that would bring another dimension in the game. In Colonization it was connected with converts: being religious you could convert indians to work for you, and you would also get more immigrates from Europe. This wouldn't work in Civ, but perhaps something like that could be worked out...
To have a fundamentalistic government should be comparable to despotism, not something to challenge democracy. I think fascism could do the trick just as well. Think of any fundamentalistic state. Would you want your civ to be like that?
Religion should not give boost to governments, nor should it be linked with technology. What should it do then? That's the problem. I am yet to hear any innovative idea of how the religion should be implemented. It shouldn't be just another culture, nor another government, nor another civ-trait (apart from religiousness, I mean). It should be a NEW concept, as stated in the thread-subject, not just some old concept in new clothes.
I am sorry to be such a bore on this. I would love to have religion in the game if it served some purpose. Therefore I would like people to think it separately from other concepts too, not as something that boosts other concepts, but something that would bring another dimension in the game. In Colonization it was connected with converts: being religious you could convert indians to work for you, and you would also get more immigrates from Europe. This wouldn't work in Civ, but perhaps something like that could be worked out...
"That's the problem. I am yet to hear any innovative idea of how the religion should be implemented. It shouldn't be just another culture, nor another government, nor another civ-trait (apart from religiousness, I mean). It should be a NEW concept, as stated in the thread-subject, not just some old concept in new clothes. "
Yes sorry, I seem also to be guilty of becoming bogged down in a 'religious' debate, rather than a Civ-related one. If we just said that the Religions were called x, y and z, what kind of powers would they have, and how would they enhance the game?
Units - Missionaries could 'convert' enemy cities, like the Civ 2 Spy? Would something as contemporary as suicide bombers get in, it could be rather controversial? Buddhist fighting monks? Druids as 'healer' units, like AoE2? Would each culture group need individually drawn units, wouldn't this lead to confusion?
Rule changes - would this mean units like the Crusader, and indeed the Knights Templar GW, were restricted to certain Civs, and would it also restrict the Sistine Chapel? I know Civ is Euro-centric in a lot of ways, but would this new concept mean a flood of new Wonders, or even 'different' tech paths? (I know obviously the units etc. would eventually be the same, but there may have to be some differences).
What other advantages would there be? 1 turn Gov change and cheaper Religious buildings could be incorporated into 2 (or more) Civs, but what else? Would each Religion need to have weaknesses, i.e. religion x is less resistant to conversion for £$£. What do people think about the game effects?
Shyrramar: apologies for mispelling, I just copy-and-pasted from a previous message and hoped no-one would notice as I was unsure of the spelling myself
Yes sorry, I seem also to be guilty of becoming bogged down in a 'religious' debate, rather than a Civ-related one. If we just said that the Religions were called x, y and z, what kind of powers would they have, and how would they enhance the game?
Units - Missionaries could 'convert' enemy cities, like the Civ 2 Spy? Would something as contemporary as suicide bombers get in, it could be rather controversial? Buddhist fighting monks? Druids as 'healer' units, like AoE2? Would each culture group need individually drawn units, wouldn't this lead to confusion?
Rule changes - would this mean units like the Crusader, and indeed the Knights Templar GW, were restricted to certain Civs, and would it also restrict the Sistine Chapel? I know Civ is Euro-centric in a lot of ways, but would this new concept mean a flood of new Wonders, or even 'different' tech paths? (I know obviously the units etc. would eventually be the same, but there may have to be some differences).
What other advantages would there be? 1 turn Gov change and cheaper Religious buildings could be incorporated into 2 (or more) Civs, but what else? Would each Religion need to have weaknesses, i.e. religion x is less resistant to conversion for £$£. What do people think about the game effects?
Shyrramar: apologies for mispelling, I just copy-and-pasted from a previous message and hoped no-one would notice as I was unsure of the spelling myself
Shyrramar
Warlord
Don't worry about it. I have personally seen a person who studied philosophy in university make an essay about Nietzsche and mispelling it every time
I once made a comment, that a philosopher is really a philosopher if and only if he can write Nietzsche correctly five times in a row - not many of the aspiring philosophers in my university can achieve that feat 
English language brutalizes spelling all the time anyway: in English quite a few of the foreign names are changed, resulting in Platos and Aristotles (in stead of PlatoN and AristotEles), which is fine. It does get a bit hard to try to remember the English spelling for all those names - for all that I know, you just might indeed spell Nietzsche differently. What kind of a name has t,z,s,c, and h in a row anyway
Cheetah
Deity
I just thought up a way one could change religion:
In the start one chooses some kind of tribal religion or something. Then as one discovers polytheism and monotheism (and maybe some other religious techs should be added?) one get new religions to choose from.
But it is not easy to change a religion. Only the revolutionary ideas that is unleashed with the discovery of religious techs allows you to change religion. Then one would have a number of turns with something that resembles anarchy.
Religions:
Start of game: Nature Spirits?
Polytheism (Ancient): Pantheon, Hinduism, Norse?
Trancending (Ancient): Buddhism
Monotheism (moved to Ancient): Judaism, Islam, Christianity
New Age? (Modern): New Age
Maybe even Confucianism with Philosophy?
But one problem remains. I have no idea what usefull purpose religion should have in Civ4...
In the start one chooses some kind of tribal religion or something. Then as one discovers polytheism and monotheism (and maybe some other religious techs should be added?) one get new religions to choose from.
But it is not easy to change a religion. Only the revolutionary ideas that is unleashed with the discovery of religious techs allows you to change religion. Then one would have a number of turns with something that resembles anarchy.
Religions:
Start of game: Nature Spirits?
Polytheism (Ancient): Pantheon, Hinduism, Norse?
Trancending (Ancient): Buddhism
Monotheism (moved to Ancient): Judaism, Islam, Christianity
New Age? (Modern): New Age
Maybe even Confucianism with Philosophy?
But one problem remains. I have no idea what usefull purpose religion should have in Civ4...
Shyrramar
Warlord
New age is a bad idea. New age religions are basically re-invented old religions. And what modern country has an official religion called new-age?
As long as there is no useful purpose for religion, I see no point in thinking which tech should give what religion. They are all ancient techs (monotheism is NOT in reality a middle-age invention), so why even link them to technologies? You could just as well have them choosed in the first place. Or they could come via choosing your civ.
As long as there is no useful purpose for religion, I see no point in thinking which tech should give what religion. They are all ancient techs (monotheism is NOT in reality a middle-age invention), so why even link them to technologies? You could just as well have them choosed in the first place. Or they could come via choosing your civ.
Pirate
Emperor
I doubt that they would put in actual religions like Judaism, Hindu, Christianity, etc... They would probably categorize them into general groups to avoid controversey over the implied "traits" of each religion (like Islam, a peaceable religion, getting a military bonus just because some extremists are making violent headlines).
That being said, there should be some shifting of the religious technologies. The only reason Monotheism leads to the Printing Press is because of the Guetenberg Bible - very euro-centric.
<edit>
The progression of Ceremonial Burial => Mysticism => Polytheism => Monotheism always made sense to me. Not that one is better than the former, but it defninitely follows a philosophical progression. I don't think they should be age-specific, though, since they all were created in ancient times.
And I don't think that religion should be an option that one can 'turn off' in the game, just like you can't turn off having a government. Secular should be a religious option, though.
This is so complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if they just added Religious Great Leaders and left it at that.
That being said, there should be some shifting of the religious technologies. The only reason Monotheism leads to the Printing Press is because of the Guetenberg Bible - very euro-centric.
<edit>
The progression of Ceremonial Burial => Mysticism => Polytheism => Monotheism always made sense to me. Not that one is better than the former, but it defninitely follows a philosophical progression. I don't think they should be age-specific, though, since they all were created in ancient times.
And I don't think that religion should be an option that one can 'turn off' in the game, just like you can't turn off having a government. Secular should be a religious option, though.
This is so complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if they just added Religious Great Leaders and left it at that.
Shyrramar: I had to go through the basics of Nietzsche last year for my Politics degree, and I hate mispelling, so i should know better
Anywho, if the Religions were just linked to the 'culture groups', what kind of powers would there be? It would be difficult to attribute them without perpetuating stereotypes (real-life prob) or unbalancing the game (Civ problem). Would each Civ need an individual religion? What would Religious GLs do? Would there be Religious UUs?
New Age is too vague, Modern religions are probably Secularism, Atheism and Scepticism/Agnosticism, but would that end the concept of religion for the latter parts of the game?
Anywho, if the Religions were just linked to the 'culture groups', what kind of powers would there be? It would be difficult to attribute them without perpetuating stereotypes (real-life prob) or unbalancing the game (Civ problem). Would each Civ need an individual religion? What would Religious GLs do? Would there be Religious UUs?
New Age is too vague, Modern religions are probably Secularism, Atheism and Scepticism/Agnosticism, but would that end the concept of religion for the latter parts of the game?
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Not to me. The first two are independent of the last two.
In fact, Polytheism and Monotheism aren't advances at all and have no business being in a tech tree. Personally I cannot see a difference anyway between spirit or pantheon gods on the one hand, and angels on the other.
A good line of advances would IMHO be Mysticism -> Mythology -> Ethics -> Theology (and Fundamentalism) -> Humanism.
King Aldous XI
His Royal Eminence
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 41
Well, I think the people should be able to choose religion.
EX: You highlight your 3rd civilian in Calais and i says: French/Roman Catholic
But if you have your goverment setting, which should exist, that people don't have the freedom of religion, than they all are Anglican, or Muslim, or Jewish etc.
EX: You highlight your 3rd civilian in Calais and i says: French/Roman Catholic
But if you have your goverment setting, which should exist, that people don't have the freedom of religion, than they all are Anglican, or Muslim, or Jewish etc.
Pirate: that line makes sense to me in Civ3 but if Religion is becoming a game concept in cIV it needs to be changed...
So with that in mind...
Ceremonial Burial => Mysticism => Theism?
(it would also probably need Literature or something)
It could unlock the equivalent of a Temple for each religion. This would mean a player could 'pick' a religion for his Civ, or even localise it to each city, but there would be a penalty for too many religions in any given civ. Then, say, at Theology, the equivalent of each Religions 'Cathedral' is unlocked, and u can only build one of the same religion in the same city, and the same mix-penalty would exist. Secularism would be unlocked with Democracy, meaning u could build any number of these in any city without penalty. Maybe this would be too powerful, and would require a SW or even GW to combat it's effects. Perhaps a Monarchy bonus would be that it gives a bonus if u have 1 religion, and Rep/Dem gives no bonuses (Communism would have to play down Religious bonuses).
So with that in mind...
Ceremonial Burial => Mysticism => Theism?
(it would also probably need Literature or something)
It could unlock the equivalent of a Temple for each religion. This would mean a player could 'pick' a religion for his Civ, or even localise it to each city, but there would be a penalty for too many religions in any given civ. Then, say, at Theology, the equivalent of each Religions 'Cathedral' is unlocked, and u can only build one of the same religion in the same city, and the same mix-penalty would exist. Secularism would be unlocked with Democracy, meaning u could build any number of these in any city without penalty. Maybe this would be too powerful, and would require a SW or even GW to combat it's effects. Perhaps a Monarchy bonus would be that it gives a bonus if u have 1 religion, and Rep/Dem gives no bonuses (Communism would have to play down Religious bonuses).
To me, the most effective place in Civ III to demonstrate religion would be in the population heads. Different religions would cause conflict amongst the citizens of cities of mixed religion.
In politics, "official" religions could be adopted under certain governments, and pressure apllied to change the religious beliefs of the population heads who still were not of the preferred religion. This official religion could have some influences, perhaps make cultural buildings more effective, but also cause strife amongst non-believers, as well as diplomatic problems/solutions.... depending on religion.
In politics, "official" religions could be adopted under certain governments, and pressure apllied to change the religious beliefs of the population heads who still were not of the preferred religion. This official religion could have some influences, perhaps make cultural buildings more effective, but also cause strife amongst non-believers, as well as diplomatic problems/solutions.... depending on religion.
Shyrramar
Warlord
This just crossed my mind...
What about making religion a random thing? Religions are not something chosen, but something more based on chance. Perhaps your religion would affect foreign relations. You could either choose the religion you are supporting (the official religion) or allow total freedom of religion. This supporting would mean that temples and cathedrals would "convert" your citizens to that religion, but would also mean that different religioned people would become unhappy, which would cause problems. I don't know, just thinking how religion could bring another dimension into the game.
Let's say that you happen to get monotheistic people, say, Christians. Your neighbour would be Buddhists. Now you would build temples and they would also. These foreign temples "battle" your temples much like culture now. If they are stronger, your people begin to convert into the other religion, if they are weaker, it would be the opposite. Now the nation who gets converts would have some benefits from converting your people (perhaps they could flip more easily, send you money, whatever) so we would have a motivation for building up your religion.
You could choose your official religion, which would increase your changes of resisting conversions, but with a lot of converted "infidels", you would be in trouble. Perhaps having >80% of the "right" religion would give you bonuses, less than 50% would give you penalties. Without an official religion there would be no penalties or bonuses, but you would allow your people to freely choose their religions (which would of course give a upper hand to your neighbours). You could also choose the religion your neighbour is having if you are loosing the religion-struggle.
If you were "forced" to change your official religion, the civ that caused this would get some benefits (but you would loose nothing, save that having those benefits yourself).
The religions could be randomly given in the beginning, or chosen, or simply being a part of the chosen civ.
Now this would bring something new to the game without being overly complex. In the beginning you would be best off if you supported the dominant religion (the one given you in the start), but if your religion was way inferior to your neighbour, your percents would begin to steadily drop. You could fight this by keeping the support steady. If you lost anyhow, you would either face penalties by continuing support or you would be forced to change into another religion, giving the civ that caused this some bonuses. You could later (after building a lot of temples and stuff) return to support your religion and begin to battle against your neighbour.
There could also be some event that would cause religious leaders to appear and destabilize your religion. Something like Jesus did to Jews. This could severely damage you and would give you a good reason to build up your religion even without facing any other civ.
The reason why I like randomness is the fact that religion seems to be random. There is no real reason (except luck and circumstances) that would explain why Europeans became mostly Christians and Indians became Hindus.
It could either be that all playing civs would have a different religion, or that you could have "religion-pals", much like culture groups now, but more significant. Neighbouring civ with the same religion could harden your religious defences against other religions. One more reason to switch your supported religion when losing the "religion-struggle" against your neighbour.
This just came up, so it's still vague. What do you guys think about this? Any suggestions? Any fixes? Does this suck big time?
What about making religion a random thing? Religions are not something chosen, but something more based on chance. Perhaps your religion would affect foreign relations. You could either choose the religion you are supporting (the official religion) or allow total freedom of religion. This supporting would mean that temples and cathedrals would "convert" your citizens to that religion, but would also mean that different religioned people would become unhappy, which would cause problems. I don't know, just thinking how religion could bring another dimension into the game.
Let's say that you happen to get monotheistic people, say, Christians. Your neighbour would be Buddhists. Now you would build temples and they would also. These foreign temples "battle" your temples much like culture now. If they are stronger, your people begin to convert into the other religion, if they are weaker, it would be the opposite. Now the nation who gets converts would have some benefits from converting your people (perhaps they could flip more easily, send you money, whatever) so we would have a motivation for building up your religion.
You could choose your official religion, which would increase your changes of resisting conversions, but with a lot of converted "infidels", you would be in trouble. Perhaps having >80% of the "right" religion would give you bonuses, less than 50% would give you penalties. Without an official religion there would be no penalties or bonuses, but you would allow your people to freely choose their religions (which would of course give a upper hand to your neighbours). You could also choose the religion your neighbour is having if you are loosing the religion-struggle.
If you were "forced" to change your official religion, the civ that caused this would get some benefits (but you would loose nothing, save that having those benefits yourself).
The religions could be randomly given in the beginning, or chosen, or simply being a part of the chosen civ.
Now this would bring something new to the game without being overly complex. In the beginning you would be best off if you supported the dominant religion (the one given you in the start), but if your religion was way inferior to your neighbour, your percents would begin to steadily drop. You could fight this by keeping the support steady. If you lost anyhow, you would either face penalties by continuing support or you would be forced to change into another religion, giving the civ that caused this some bonuses. You could later (after building a lot of temples and stuff) return to support your religion and begin to battle against your neighbour.
There could also be some event that would cause religious leaders to appear and destabilize your religion. Something like Jesus did to Jews. This could severely damage you and would give you a good reason to build up your religion even without facing any other civ.
The reason why I like randomness is the fact that religion seems to be random. There is no real reason (except luck and circumstances) that would explain why Europeans became mostly Christians and Indians became Hindus.
It could either be that all playing civs would have a different religion, or that you could have "religion-pals", much like culture groups now, but more significant. Neighbouring civ with the same religion could harden your religious defences against other religions. One more reason to switch your supported religion when losing the "religion-struggle" against your neighbour.
This just came up, so it's still vague. What do you guys think about this? Any suggestions? Any fixes? Does this suck big time?
Shyrramar
Warlord
Let's say that I begin with my civ being Christian (by chance, by choice or by being a certain civ). I of course begin by supporting Christianity. At the beginning 50% would be Christian, 50% would be animists. By supporting Christianity my percents would rise approximately by 1% per turn. So after 30 turns I hit the 80% mark and get a bonus: perhaps my citizens become happier, my workers work faster, corruption is decreased, whatever. There would be some random events (like barbarian camps now) that would temporarily destabilize my religion. A religious leader pops up and starts to convert my people to, say, Buddhism. Soon I would have a situation that I had 82% Christians, 10% Buddhists and 8% animists. Christians and animists are being converted into Buddhists. So I build a temple, so I don't lose my bonuses. This effectively deals with the problem and I am soon steadily above 90%.
Then I meet a neighbouring civ, that happens to be an Islamic nation with way more religion than I. Soon my border cities begin rapidly convert into Muslims. For each Muslim citizen the other nation would get some small benefits (perhaps my citizens would immigrate, or they would get some gold or something). Soon Christians would drop under 80% and I was forced to act. But too late - I fall under 50% before my temples get built. Now I am supporting Christianity, so I get penalties - people get unhappy, refuse to work or something. I can either wait for those temples and endure - or give up before the awesome might of Islam.
If I give up. I will begin to support Islam. The other nation gets the same bonuses as it gets from having >80% muslims - effectively doubling the benefits, whereas I get no bonuses - nor penalties. By supporting Islam I make my Civ stronger against other civ's influences, but NOT get the benefits (as I have chosen Christianity). I could perhaps also get the benefits - this must be discussed. I could also grant a freedom of religion (so in effect support NO religion). This would make me untouched by either penalties or bonuses, but unable to try to convert other nations.
If I keep fighting. I continue to support Christianity. In ten turns I have completed temples in every city. I am now 30% Christian and 70% Islamic. People are unhappy, but I endure. Steadily I begin to gain ground and not long before I have over 50% already. I ditch the penalties. It will soon be stuck in 60C/40M situation, and will continue to change depending on the number of temples.
Let's then say that I discover another neighbouring civ which happens to be Buddhist. Soon the situation would be 55% Christians, 25% Muslims and 20% Buddhists. Now let's say that I begin to lose ground to both. This is the situation where I would be best off not supporting any religion. If it came to be something like 50-50 to Muslims and Buddhists, I would still lose nothing, and the other civ would benefit nothing. But by having 40C/30M/30B I would get penalties.
Now the other civs (and I too) would get small benefits from every citizen that it has supporting its religion in my country. It would get huge bonuses if I as a nation totally converted (started supporting Islam, for example). It could also be so that if I supported nothing and Islam became 80% dominant, I would start getting penalties for not heeding my citizens.
The details are very unclear yet, but I think something could be worked out...
Then I meet a neighbouring civ, that happens to be an Islamic nation with way more religion than I. Soon my border cities begin rapidly convert into Muslims. For each Muslim citizen the other nation would get some small benefits (perhaps my citizens would immigrate, or they would get some gold or something). Soon Christians would drop under 80% and I was forced to act. But too late - I fall under 50% before my temples get built. Now I am supporting Christianity, so I get penalties - people get unhappy, refuse to work or something. I can either wait for those temples and endure - or give up before the awesome might of Islam.
If I give up. I will begin to support Islam. The other nation gets the same bonuses as it gets from having >80% muslims - effectively doubling the benefits, whereas I get no bonuses - nor penalties. By supporting Islam I make my Civ stronger against other civ's influences, but NOT get the benefits (as I have chosen Christianity). I could perhaps also get the benefits - this must be discussed. I could also grant a freedom of religion (so in effect support NO religion). This would make me untouched by either penalties or bonuses, but unable to try to convert other nations.
If I keep fighting. I continue to support Christianity. In ten turns I have completed temples in every city. I am now 30% Christian and 70% Islamic. People are unhappy, but I endure. Steadily I begin to gain ground and not long before I have over 50% already. I ditch the penalties. It will soon be stuck in 60C/40M situation, and will continue to change depending on the number of temples.
Let's then say that I discover another neighbouring civ which happens to be Buddhist. Soon the situation would be 55% Christians, 25% Muslims and 20% Buddhists. Now let's say that I begin to lose ground to both. This is the situation where I would be best off not supporting any religion. If it came to be something like 50-50 to Muslims and Buddhists, I would still lose nothing, and the other civ would benefit nothing. But by having 40C/30M/30B I would get penalties.
Now the other civs (and I too) would get small benefits from every citizen that it has supporting its religion in my country. It would get huge bonuses if I as a nation totally converted (started supporting Islam, for example). It could also be so that if I supported nothing and Islam became 80% dominant, I would start getting penalties for not heeding my citizens.
The details are very unclear yet, but I think something could be worked out...
Similar threads
