CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
How about with the research of Scientific Method or the creation of ToE, you can set it so your civ follows a more scientific route gaining research bonuses, but loses bonuses or partially loses bonuses of temples.
How do you see the new 'concept' of Religion changing the game?
- Thread starter AdHHH
- Start date
How about with the research of Scientific Method or the creation of ToE, you can set it so your civ follows a more scientific route gaining research bonuses, but loses bonuses or partially loses bonuses of temples.
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
Shy, I think you are on to something. This aspect of culture is something that one sees played out in history repeatedly, and it would add a genuinely new dimension to the game. Instead of it being only "Roman" culture, it would be Roman culture as it changes, from polytheistic to monotheistic to pluralistic, with all the cool interchanges between cultures that mold history.
But this is only a slight adjustment to the 'culture' concept isn't it? It's just making it more precise, more accurate (hang on it may be a good idea!). It would help you 'guess' which of your cities are going to flip, but should it do anything else besides this? Should there be Religious 'locations' (i.e. the Holyland) like VPs that need to be held, or should this be optional. What about overall Civ bonuses, religious GLs or UUs; this is a good idea but Religion needs to be kept seperate from Culture
Shyrramar
Warlord
No, it is not an adjustement to culture. Let me explain. Religion would not cause any flips. It could cause immigration if you continued supporting an inferior religion, or it could simply cause benefits to the other nation, perharps some penalties to your (more unhappiness, whatever). It shouldn't affect flipping chance.
Religious GLs and UUs is an idea that could be implemented, yes. I wholeheartedly agree that religion and culture should be kept apart (that's why I have been ranting here complaining about everybody's ideas
). The exact bonuses and penalties can be discussed, of course. I am just providing a bit more innovative idea for people to try to make better. The main point is that religion is something that you can direct to some extent, but something that is separate from culture, government, military, economy, technology. And a change in religion should not necessarily mean anything bad happening to you, but having the dominant religion of a given region should indeed give bonuses. The religion could also make it less likely for civs with the same religion to go to war, and more likely for different religions. I don't know - Christians have always battled Christians..I am not providing any concrete numbers or ideas here, I am providing a schema for others to grab and develop.
Good points and ideas, AdHHH!
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Maybe they could introduce the concept of "Holy Wars," where your citizens become happier but you need to be at war with a certain religion. Of course, obvious downsides include riots by your citizens in which foreign nationals and people of the target religion are killed, going to war with anyone who has a certain percentage of the target religion, etc.
Shyrramar
Warlord
Perhaps the religious UUs would be something that were automatically created during Holy Wars. By starting The Crusades one should be constantly at war with some religious sect, but your people would cheer you on and your capital would occasionally pop out Crusaders (as Knights Templar now). Jihad would have its own units. Don't know about other holy wars, but there could be some idea that allowed implementation of monks for buddhists and so on. Should the Holy War be something triggered by simply being in a war for long enough with a different religion (like a religious, militaristic golden age), in which case it could perhaps be wholly positive event. Or should it be something you choose, in which case it would have its pros and cons?
baseballfan45
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
- Messages
- 44
if religion becomes part of the game i think Catholic should be separate from Protestant as 2 different religions
this has played a major role in history
-English break away from Roman Catholic Church and become Protestant
this has played a major role in history
-English break away from Roman Catholic Church and become Protestant
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
To Shy and all,
Perhaps we can do no more than agree to disagree, but perhaps we can find common ground in the following concept (or not):
While the religion you as Leader choose for your empire is not automatically part of your culture, the religion(s) your empire's people(s), both native and conquered/flipped, is part of your empire's culture. Religion chosen and practiced by a people is part of culture just as is language, food, music, art, etc. It is part of daily life, part of their thinking.
Again, what religion the government officially chooses to sanction and support is not automatically part of culture. Given enough support (building of temples, cathedrals, religious wonders, etc.), you may eventually win the majority of your empire's people to your chosen faith. Still, it is their hearts you must win by persuasion.
All this I say to suggest the following:
Perhaps the religion you choose is not automatically what your people practice. Perhaps surrounding cultures can influence your own population towards or away from your chosen faith. This means that if you choose a specific faith, the temples and cathedrals you build will inflence your own population towards that faith and make happy that portion of your population that has already chosen that faith. In other words, to bolster your chosen faith, you would almost *need* to build religious and cultural buildings to counter the effects of competing cultures. This is partially already covered by the concept of culture and culture flipping.
The new concept of religion for cIV would be a more specific facet of culture in that it allows the interplay of government sanctioned culture, an official religion (or the abscence of official religion, the deliberate choice of pluralism, a natural result of modern democracy.)
Perhaps we can do no more than agree to disagree, but perhaps we can find common ground in the following concept (or not):
While the religion you as Leader choose for your empire is not automatically part of your culture, the religion(s) your empire's people(s), both native and conquered/flipped, is part of your empire's culture. Religion chosen and practiced by a people is part of culture just as is language, food, music, art, etc. It is part of daily life, part of their thinking.
Again, what religion the government officially chooses to sanction and support is not automatically part of culture. Given enough support (building of temples, cathedrals, religious wonders, etc.), you may eventually win the majority of your empire's people to your chosen faith. Still, it is their hearts you must win by persuasion.
All this I say to suggest the following:
Perhaps the religion you choose is not automatically what your people practice. Perhaps surrounding cultures can influence your own population towards or away from your chosen faith. This means that if you choose a specific faith, the temples and cathedrals you build will inflence your own population towards that faith and make happy that portion of your population that has already chosen that faith. In other words, to bolster your chosen faith, you would almost *need* to build religious and cultural buildings to counter the effects of competing cultures. This is partially already covered by the concept of culture and culture flipping.
The new concept of religion for cIV would be a more specific facet of culture in that it allows the interplay of government sanctioned culture, an official religion (or the abscence of official religion, the deliberate choice of pluralism, a natural result of modern democracy.)
dojoboy
Tsalagi
I feel the most important way religion should affect the game is in the area of conquest and domination. Differing religions between 2 civs at war should add significantly to WW. Once a city is captured, then military police could be used, requring sufficient numbers per size of city.
Now, this may lead the player down one of two roads:
(1) razing more cities than normal
(2) warring less
In the case of #1, razing cities should carry a much steeper penalty. Razing a size 10 city, IMHO, is no diffrent than nuking a size 10 city. Rival civs ought to react towards the razing of cities in a simalr way as to the use of nukes. Now, w/ razing, the consequences could be scaled to the sizes of cities razed.
In the case of #2, hey, its called "Civilization."
Now, this may lead the player down one of two roads:
(1) razing more cities than normal
(2) warring less
In the case of #1, razing cities should carry a much steeper penalty. Razing a size 10 city, IMHO, is no diffrent than nuking a size 10 city. Rival civs ought to react towards the razing of cities in a simalr way as to the use of nukes. Now, w/ razing, the consequences could be scaled to the sizes of cities razed.
In the case of #2, hey, its called "Civilization."
But rival Religions don't always raze each others cities do they? However if religion y has a city razed by religion x, and you are religion y, it should say 'our brothers/whatever in city z have been murdered by the heathen x' this would mean that if u declared war on them under Dem/Rep there would not be the WW penalty normally associated with those Govs
deo
Emperor
For the religion idea i think including relations like in Europa Universalis 2 from -200 to 200
Shyrramar
Warlord
Isn't this just what I suggested?
Or am I missing something here? 
Well, anyway: I think it should be a viable option to NOT support any religion. There should be benefits from that if facing a religiously superior civ. Supporting a religion should only be useful when you can achieve a majority or even influence other civs.
When the big ones fight, the small ones would be wise to stand back... Or is this a loser-philosophy? Should I post a poll on this one
Shyrramar
Warlord
Originally posted by AdHHH
Well, we all seem to be agreed on how we implement ReligionShould it be a bargaining chip? i.e we will become religion x(which is yours) for y GPT ???
Oh, what a great idea! It would be a better deal than we here in Finland got some five hundred years ago: "Do you renounce your false gods and pledge yourself to the One and Only True God?"
(represents one of the thugs of the missionary)"Uhh, yeah, sure. Why not?"
Yeah. Some money or even a piece of bread would have been nice..
Shyrramar
Warlord
Oh! I took no offence I was simply joking (although my sense of humour may be a bit to the odd side). It's not like I am being bitter about the way Christianity treated others during that time period. Heck, we got through quite unscatched and very, very God-Fearing . I thought that atleast that quite-out-of-place-ninja there would be enough to make people think it as a joke (or me with no sense of appropriety).
And hey, just WHO has a great deal of knowledge on Finnish history? Heck, we are just glad if someone remembers that we are Europeans, not South-East-Asians!
I was simply joking (although my sense of humour may be a bit to the odd side). It's not like I am being bitter about the way Christianity treated others during that time period. Heck, we got through quite unscatched and very, very God-Fearing . I thought that atleast that quite-out-of-place-ninja there would be enough to make people think it as a joke (or me with no sense of appropriety). And hey, just WHO has a great deal of knowledge on Finnish history? Heck, we are just glad if someone remembers that we are Europeans, not South-East-Asians!
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
Well, in that case,
Shyrramar, you should be pleased to know I made Finland one of the cultures in my mod of the Teturkhan scenario. It has been fun watching your nation holding off Russian expansion, and often make a valuable ally. ( I like playing King Alfred of the early Anglo Saxons.)
Shyrramar, you should be pleased to know I made Finland one of the cultures in my mod of the Teturkhan scenario. It has been fun watching your nation holding off Russian expansion, and often make a valuable ally. ( I like playing King Alfred of the early Anglo Saxons.)
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, at the risk of repeating what others have said on this thread-this is what I HOPE religion will do for the game:
1) First of all religions, like governments, can change throughout history-according to when you 'discover' them.
2) Also like governments, each civ will have a range of most preferred to most detested religions. This will effect what religion your people demand you change to, and how readily they accept a religion you convert to.
3) Each type of religion will have its own range of pro's and con's-and it's own set of units and buildings. These buildings only have their full effect when you're in THAT religion! Culture and tourist effects remain, however.
4) Aside from the main religion types, you would also have the opportunity to introduce 'Orthodoxy' or 'Reformation' to your religion-again, each choice will have benefits and penalties.
5) Culture groups would effect how different nations, of the same 'Broad' religion-type, view each other. For instance, though A European Monotheistic' civ might 'despise' a European 'Polytheistic' civ, but would also look askance at a Middle Eastern 'Monotheistic' civ.
6) Definitely should have 'Religious' or more appropriately 'Cultural' Great Leaders, should definitely be part of the game. They could rush build cultural wonders, be sacrificed for a 20-turn culture boost or used to convert foreign cities to your 'cause'!
7) Heresy and religious conversion: If you neighbour a nation which has a different religion to yours, there should be a chance of one of your citizens 'converting' to their religion-and vice versa. The base chance is modified according to your cities population, if your city is connected to the other civ by a trade route, the relative culture values of your civs, the presence of other converts in that same city and how your people 'view' that religion (most preferred vs most hated!). These converts can, if there are enough of them, cause a 'religious' schism, whereby they break away to form their own civ-based on the new religion. They can also be a source of discontent and potential revolt-or they might break away from the city-either as immigrants or as 'refugees'! What happens would depend, on some part, to how you treat 'religious dissidents'.
8) As with espionage, later in the game, you should be able to conduct forms of 'religious espionage' within the game. Obviously many of the missions would be very similar to espionage, but with a religious bent to them! Not sure exactly how this should work, though!
9) Some possible religions would be 'Totemism', 'Ancestor worship', 'Paganism', 'Spiritualism', 'Polytheism', 'Eastern Religion I and II', 'Early Monotheism', 'Late Monotheism', 'Baptist', 'Blood Cult' and 'Ecumenicist'. Obviously you'd be able to add as many, or as few, religions as you wanted-through the editor.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, hope you haven't heard it all before!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
1) First of all religions, like governments, can change throughout history-according to when you 'discover' them.
2) Also like governments, each civ will have a range of most preferred to most detested religions. This will effect what religion your people demand you change to, and how readily they accept a religion you convert to.
3) Each type of religion will have its own range of pro's and con's-and it's own set of units and buildings. These buildings only have their full effect when you're in THAT religion! Culture and tourist effects remain, however.
4) Aside from the main religion types, you would also have the opportunity to introduce 'Orthodoxy' or 'Reformation' to your religion-again, each choice will have benefits and penalties.
5) Culture groups would effect how different nations, of the same 'Broad' religion-type, view each other. For instance, though A European Monotheistic' civ might 'despise' a European 'Polytheistic' civ, but would also look askance at a Middle Eastern 'Monotheistic' civ.
6) Definitely should have 'Religious' or more appropriately 'Cultural' Great Leaders, should definitely be part of the game. They could rush build cultural wonders, be sacrificed for a 20-turn culture boost or used to convert foreign cities to your 'cause'!
7) Heresy and religious conversion: If you neighbour a nation which has a different religion to yours, there should be a chance of one of your citizens 'converting' to their religion-and vice versa. The base chance is modified according to your cities population, if your city is connected to the other civ by a trade route, the relative culture values of your civs, the presence of other converts in that same city and how your people 'view' that religion (most preferred vs most hated!). These converts can, if there are enough of them, cause a 'religious' schism, whereby they break away to form their own civ-based on the new religion. They can also be a source of discontent and potential revolt-or they might break away from the city-either as immigrants or as 'refugees'! What happens would depend, on some part, to how you treat 'religious dissidents'.
8) As with espionage, later in the game, you should be able to conduct forms of 'religious espionage' within the game. Obviously many of the missions would be very similar to espionage, but with a religious bent to them! Not sure exactly how this should work, though!
9) Some possible religions would be 'Totemism', 'Ancestor worship', 'Paganism', 'Spiritualism', 'Polytheism', 'Eastern Religion I and II', 'Early Monotheism', 'Late Monotheism', 'Baptist', 'Blood Cult' and 'Ecumenicist'. Obviously you'd be able to add as many, or as few, religions as you wanted-through the editor.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, hope you haven't heard it all before
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, a few other things, after reading some of the posts in more detail.
1) Religion, along with government type, culture group, culture ratio and civ characteristics-along with past misdeeds etc. should all effect how your civs people react towards the people of another civ, perhaps on a scale of -100 to +100, and starting at 0.
For instance, commercial and agricultural civs would get a + to their relations, wheras militaristic and expansionist would get a - (i.e. the people of the later types of civs want to conquer-not make friends). Different culture groups would get always get a - of some sort, same culture would get a +. Religion and government types would give a + or - based on the preferred/shunned government/religion scale (possibly from +20 to -20 for each). When taken together, this would determine the base chance of your people accepting/demanding war/peace-or any other diplomatic deals with other nations.
2) Religions should be chosen for your civ, like governments. Both, however, should change from previous civ incarnations. Though you can still change government/religion-as you wish-it should be possible for your people to DEMAND that you change to a certain government/religion, or refuse to let you change to a new government/religion. You can ignore your peoples wishes, but you run the risk of Civil War, Religious Schisms, or conversion to foreign faiths.
3) The chance of conversion should also be affected by such factors as Inquisitions, the 'Secularity' of your State and the level of nationalism and literacy.
4) Some possible 'religious espionage' missions might be 'prosyletize', where you try to 'convert' a foreign citizen. 'Provoke Religious Schism', where you try to force a foreign city to break away from the main empire. 'Provoke Unhappiness', where you doomsay to the population of a foreign city, to make them unhappy! 'Establish' religious embassy, nuff said!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
1) Religion, along with government type, culture group, culture ratio and civ characteristics-along with past misdeeds etc. should all effect how your civs people react towards the people of another civ, perhaps on a scale of -100 to +100, and starting at 0.
For instance, commercial and agricultural civs would get a + to their relations, wheras militaristic and expansionist would get a - (i.e. the people of the later types of civs want to conquer-not make friends
). Different culture groups would get always get a - of some sort, same culture would get a +. Religion and government types would give a + or - based on the preferred/shunned government/religion scale (possibly from +20 to -20 for each). When taken together, this would determine the base chance of your people accepting/demanding war/peace-or any other diplomatic deals with other nations.2) Religions should be chosen for your civ, like governments. Both, however, should change from previous civ incarnations. Though you can still change government/religion-as you wish-it should be possible for your people to DEMAND that you change to a certain government/religion, or refuse to let you change to a new government/religion. You can ignore your peoples wishes, but you run the risk of Civil War, Religious Schisms, or conversion to foreign faiths.
3) The chance of conversion should also be affected by such factors as Inquisitions, the 'Secularity' of your State and the level of nationalism and literacy.
4) Some possible 'religious espionage' missions might be 'prosyletize', where you try to 'convert' a foreign citizen. 'Provoke Religious Schism', where you try to force a foreign city to break away from the main empire. 'Provoke Unhappiness', where you doomsay to the population of a foreign city, to make them unhappy! 'Establish' religious embassy, nuff said!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
