Beloyar
Demigod
I agree we need religions in civ. Similar to governments, or there can be multi-religious society in a civ.
How do you see the new 'concept' of Religion changing the game?
- Thread starter AdHHH
- Start date
Beloyar
Demigod
Here are my thoughts (may be repeating):
I am against religions giving bonuses and pluses to a civ. Religions always deal with the spiritual and things not of this world. Since there won't be any theological discussions for this game, I suggest we also leave economic and other bonuses out of this. Furthermore, today most religions don't have any effect on any nations.
The advantages could be as follows:
A bonus if you are trading with another civ of the same religion, or have a military alliance with a brother in faith. Both civs could receive economic or military discounts and/or bonuses, etc. when in such a union. In general, civs of the same faith treat each other better and get first preference in trade and sharing of resources, maps, etc. and more inclined to help you against an enemy.
In the late Rennaissance and Industrial Age, religion becomes less of a factor in foreign and domestic policy, and even less if the government is a republic or democracy. Under communism, religion also loses effect.
After researching a certain tech (polytheism, monotheism, etc.), you will have contact with religious missionaries (from distant lands). You can buy or sell those just like contacts with other civs. You can call one of these contacts and ask him to spread his faith among your people.
We should limit religions to just the most popular 10 or so in the world.
Maybe a few variations of the same religion, just to have more political tension. Judaism, Confusianism, Buddhism (Theravada and Lama), Christianity (later divided into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism (could be subdivided further)), Islam (subdivided into Sunni and Shiite), Atheism, and Hinduism. A default religion could be tribal, and you can keep it without choosing anything new (Japan is predominantly tribal (Shintoism) to this day).
Under republic, democracy, and tribal council you can allow any religion missionary work in your civ. In other words, you don't have much control over your citizens' choice of religion.
Under monarchy, despotism, feudalism, and imperialism, you can choose a single religion that you like for your whole civ and force ppl to comly.*
Under communism you cannot have religious influence. *
Under fascism, you favor one religion, the most popular that your civ had before gov't change, OR religion doesn't play a big role.
* Under the above gov'ts you can have some sort of religious inquisition to protect your civ from foreign missionaries. But if you push it too far, it may result in a reformation or revolution. Also, if within this group of gov'ts one civ defeats another, a religious conversion could become a condition for peace.
Certain events could spark your civ's reconsideration of the national religion. Scientific backwardness, or economic poverty, or pressure from other civs, or bad treatment from civs of the same religion, etc. could get your citizens to revolt and demand to reform your religion. In this case, you would let them transition into an appropriate subdivision (from Catholicism to Protestantism, for example).
I agree with the concept of "religiousness" of different nations as opposed to their actual religion. In general, northern Europeans were always less religious than people on the Mediterranean; Eastern Europe and the Middle East were always more religious than West Europe; Asia and the Far East had their own concept of religion, with which I am not very familiar. Maybe these things could play a role: Like the aggressiveness scale, there could be a religiosness scale for each civ from 1 to 5.
Likewise, since all civs were already assigned particular bonuses and favorite gov't types and least liked gov't types, we can also assign them a favorite and least liked religion. All these things should be based on history, not on brief periods of turmoil (Russia's and China's favorite religion is not atheism, etc. (as their fav gov't should also not be communism)).
One new concept could be religious dominance victory condition. You initially choose your favorite religion for your civ and then try to spread it to other civs. But you have to do it before the industrial age, because from that point religious influence declines in the civs that have reached that age.
I am against religions giving bonuses and pluses to a civ. Religions always deal with the spiritual and things not of this world. Since there won't be any theological discussions for this game, I suggest we also leave economic and other bonuses out of this. Furthermore, today most religions don't have any effect on any nations.
The advantages could be as follows:
A bonus if you are trading with another civ of the same religion, or have a military alliance with a brother in faith. Both civs could receive economic or military discounts and/or bonuses, etc. when in such a union. In general, civs of the same faith treat each other better and get first preference in trade and sharing of resources, maps, etc. and more inclined to help you against an enemy.
In the late Rennaissance and Industrial Age, religion becomes less of a factor in foreign and domestic policy, and even less if the government is a republic or democracy. Under communism, religion also loses effect.
After researching a certain tech (polytheism, monotheism, etc.), you will have contact with religious missionaries (from distant lands). You can buy or sell those just like contacts with other civs. You can call one of these contacts and ask him to spread his faith among your people.
We should limit religions to just the most popular 10 or so in the world.
Maybe a few variations of the same religion, just to have more political tension. Judaism, Confusianism, Buddhism (Theravada and Lama), Christianity (later divided into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism (could be subdivided further)), Islam (subdivided into Sunni and Shiite), Atheism, and Hinduism. A default religion could be tribal, and you can keep it without choosing anything new (Japan is predominantly tribal (Shintoism) to this day).
Under republic, democracy, and tribal council you can allow any religion missionary work in your civ. In other words, you don't have much control over your citizens' choice of religion.
Under monarchy, despotism, feudalism, and imperialism, you can choose a single religion that you like for your whole civ and force ppl to comly.*
Under communism you cannot have religious influence. *
Under fascism, you favor one religion, the most popular that your civ had before gov't change, OR religion doesn't play a big role.
* Under the above gov'ts you can have some sort of religious inquisition to protect your civ from foreign missionaries. But if you push it too far, it may result in a reformation or revolution. Also, if within this group of gov'ts one civ defeats another, a religious conversion could become a condition for peace.
Certain events could spark your civ's reconsideration of the national religion. Scientific backwardness, or economic poverty, or pressure from other civs, or bad treatment from civs of the same religion, etc. could get your citizens to revolt and demand to reform your religion. In this case, you would let them transition into an appropriate subdivision (from Catholicism to Protestantism, for example).
I agree with the concept of "religiousness" of different nations as opposed to their actual religion. In general, northern Europeans were always less religious than people on the Mediterranean; Eastern Europe and the Middle East were always more religious than West Europe; Asia and the Far East had their own concept of religion, with which I am not very familiar. Maybe these things could play a role: Like the aggressiveness scale, there could be a religiosness scale for each civ from 1 to 5.
Likewise, since all civs were already assigned particular bonuses and favorite gov't types and least liked gov't types, we can also assign them a favorite and least liked religion. All these things should be based on history, not on brief periods of turmoil (Russia's and China's favorite religion is not atheism, etc. (as their fav gov't should also not be communism)).
One new concept could be religious dominance victory condition. You initially choose your favorite religion for your civ and then try to spread it to other civs. But you have to do it before the industrial age, because from that point religious influence declines in the civs that have reached that age.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I like most of your ideas, Beloyar, except that I feel that we should leave religions unnamed-as I've stated above.
The types of religions you could have might be totemic, animist, Ancestor Worship, Eastern Polytheism, Eastern Philosophy, Early Monotheism, Polytheism, Blood Cult, Late Monotheism and New Age Cultist.
Each Religion could also be split into Orthodox and Reformist-if you have the relevent tech.
Each civ will have a scale of preferred and shunned religion from +5 to -5, to determine how likely your people are to embrace a faith you adopt. This, of course, would be effected by in-game factors like the ones you mentioned. Equally, how powerful your religion is will depend on how secular your society is-as defined by your Social Engineering and government type. Religious conversions and Schisms are a much greater risk if you are at low secularity but, on the plus side, your religious improvements/wonders are MUCH more effective at keeping the people happy ('the opiate of the masses'
!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
The types of religions you could have might be totemic, animist, Ancestor Worship, Eastern Polytheism, Eastern Philosophy, Early Monotheism, Polytheism, Blood Cult, Late Monotheism and New Age Cultist.
Each Religion could also be split into Orthodox and Reformist-if you have the relevent tech.
Each civ will have a scale of preferred and shunned religion from +5 to -5, to determine how likely your people are to embrace a faith you adopt. This, of course, would be effected by in-game factors like the ones you mentioned. Equally, how powerful your religion is will depend on how secular your society is-as defined by your Social Engineering and government type. Religious conversions and Schisms are a much greater risk if you are at low secularity but, on the plus side, your religious improvements/wonders are MUCH more effective at keeping the people happy ('the opiate of the masses'
!)Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
Beloyar, this is the most concise expression of this idea I've heard yet (that I can recall). When designing or adapting a scenario for my own use, I've often vacillated over assigning a civ the religious trait, and wished for a way to assign it a value on a sliding scale.
Your second idea would add even more depth to the game in that it allows the AI to simulate religion-motivated aggression or affiliation. The AI could then align like-hearted (as opposed to like-minded) civs together, and pursue holy wars. The degree of their religiousness, as you mentioned, would determine how zealously ( or not) they would pursue their religious feelings. It would more accurately represent how religion affects their affiliations, animosities, and decisions. As the government became more secular, their religion would affect their leaders decisions less.
Still, even a secular government of a very religious civ (high number on the religion scale) might experience greater discontent if it offends the majority religion. Likewise, a government of a civ low on the religion scale might cause unrest if it allies with a very religious civ.
I think this answers the original complaint of Shyrramar (spelling?) and others, which if I recall correctly, was that religion,if implemented, needs to add a new dimension to the game. A numerical scale for religiousness and adjustable settings for least/most liked religions would do just that. It also expands on Sid's original goal of creating the most customizable game ever. This takes that goal to the next level, worthy of cIV. (Are you listening, Firaxis? I sure hope so.)
Maccabee
Rebuilder of Walls
[/QUOTE]Also, if within this group of gov'ts one civ defeats another, a religious conversion could become a condition for peace.
Why should atheism give a bonus to military police, as somebody suggested earlier? While there have been atheist states with military police, it's not like that is something inherent to atheism. After all there have been plenty of pious police states.
Rather, atheism and military police are both products of the political system. It seems more logical to me that an authoritarian government gives a bonus for military police.
I think it should be noted that there is a huge difference between an atheist state and a state which endorses no religion. An atheist state would be just as oppressive as a Christian state, in that dissenting views aren't tolerated, but the populace would be easier to control. On the other hand, a state that endorses no religion would be harder to control, but would promote trade and science.
There should definitely also be a way for a civilization to both endorse a religion and tolerate minorities. This provides a state with a way to have some middle ground between a) oppressive state with an imposed religion that is easy to control and b) a state where people have more religious freedoms and are harder to control.
I think that would fit in well with the idea somebody suggested before of sliders, to adjust the relationship between church and state.
I think the most important factor for religion is the fact that populations don't always agree with governments. I think that when a new citizen is born in a city, that citizen's religion should be randomly determined. Say for example that the civilization officially endorses Christianity, and the city is predominantly Christian but this particular city does a lot of trading with cities that are predominantly Muslim. Then perhaps the new citizen being born has a 85% chance of being Christian, a 10% chance of being Muslim, and a 5% chance of something else (either nonreligious or one of the other world religions).
If a civilization endorses no religion, and a new citizen is born into a prosperous city that does a lot of trading with many diverse civilizations, has a library, university, etc.... well, then the odds that they are nonreligious are quite high. On the other hand, if someone is born in a civilization that is officially Hindu, and they are born in an isolated town that does no trading and has poor education, but has a Hindu temple, then they are almost guaranteed to be Hindu.
Factors like geography, trade, education, state endorsement of religion, presence of religious facilities, and the religion of the current population are some variables that might have an effect.
If a state endorses one religion, then followers of a different religion, or nonreligious people should be less like to be happy citizens, and more likely to be unhappy citizens.
This reminds me of something else I'd like to see in Civ- migration of people between cities and civilizations. Religion minorities would often be the first to emigrate.
For the sliders, here are some thoughts:
100% Absolute theocracy*. Religious minorities are killed. This means that say a new citizen is born who happens to disagree with the official religion (through the system I proposed before where religion is determined through probability). He is instantly killed so you don't get to enjoy the population growth you worked for! On the other hand religious improvements and wonders may be cheaper to build. You can tithe your citizens so that you effectively tax them twice (once in church, once in their income tax). So you make a lot more money. There should be big penalties for trade and diplomacy though, because you can't allow any outside interference from civilizations with different beliefs!
*In the case of a 100% atheist state, the term theocracy obviously doesn't apply.
90% Similar to 100% but instead of killing religious minorities, perhaps they are all deported. Or enslaved.
60% You have an official religion but you tolerate, and perhaps even encourage minorities, recognizing that their presence helps trade, culture, etc. Less income from tithing, and less penalties for trade and diplomacy when compared with the 100% level.
Also, there could be some variations on the 60% level. For example, 70% could be the same as 60%, except that you only tolerate religious minorities from religions similar to your own.
30% Religion used to be a huge deal in your country, but in modernizing it has been left behind, while still recognizing that it's a major part of your culture. People have total freedom of religion but there are still state-sponsored religious festivals from that old religion, as kind of a cultural heritage thing.
0% Absolutely zero endorsement of any religious belief/nonbelief. Religious minorities in your civilization aren't oppressed, but perhaps there could still be some religious violence between your citizens? (probably not too much though, as a state at 0% is likely to be a very modern state) Your civilization attracts lots of immigrants. You are not allowed to build any religious improvements or wonders, but they occasionally spring up randomly through private efforts (I'm entirely unsure of how this would work for gameplay)
Different slider levels must be dependent on gov't, technologies, etc. and perhaps most importantly- the consent of your citizens. If you are at 100% for centuries and then decide to all of a sudden go to 0%, you should be punished with rejection by your allies, mass emigration, or a civil war, etc.
Rather, atheism and military police are both products of the political system. It seems more logical to me that an authoritarian government gives a bonus for military police.
I think it should be noted that there is a huge difference between an atheist state and a state which endorses no religion. An atheist state would be just as oppressive as a Christian state, in that dissenting views aren't tolerated, but the populace would be easier to control. On the other hand, a state that endorses no religion would be harder to control, but would promote trade and science.
There should definitely also be a way for a civilization to both endorse a religion and tolerate minorities. This provides a state with a way to have some middle ground between a) oppressive state with an imposed religion that is easy to control and b) a state where people have more religious freedoms and are harder to control.
I think that would fit in well with the idea somebody suggested before of sliders, to adjust the relationship between church and state.
I think the most important factor for religion is the fact that populations don't always agree with governments. I think that when a new citizen is born in a city, that citizen's religion should be randomly determined. Say for example that the civilization officially endorses Christianity, and the city is predominantly Christian but this particular city does a lot of trading with cities that are predominantly Muslim. Then perhaps the new citizen being born has a 85% chance of being Christian, a 10% chance of being Muslim, and a 5% chance of something else (either nonreligious or one of the other world religions).
If a civilization endorses no religion, and a new citizen is born into a prosperous city that does a lot of trading with many diverse civilizations, has a library, university, etc.... well, then the odds that they are nonreligious are quite high. On the other hand, if someone is born in a civilization that is officially Hindu, and they are born in an isolated town that does no trading and has poor education, but has a Hindu temple, then they are almost guaranteed to be Hindu.
Factors like geography, trade, education, state endorsement of religion, presence of religious facilities, and the religion of the current population are some variables that might have an effect.
If a state endorses one religion, then followers of a different religion, or nonreligious people should be less like to be happy citizens, and more likely to be unhappy citizens.
This reminds me of something else I'd like to see in Civ- migration of people between cities and civilizations. Religion minorities would often be the first to emigrate.
For the sliders, here are some thoughts:
100% Absolute theocracy*. Religious minorities are killed. This means that say a new citizen is born who happens to disagree with the official religion (through the system I proposed before where religion is determined through probability). He is instantly killed so you don't get to enjoy the population growth you worked for! On the other hand religious improvements and wonders may be cheaper to build. You can tithe your citizens so that you effectively tax them twice (once in church, once in their income tax).
So you make a lot more money. There should be big penalties for trade and diplomacy though, because you can't allow any outside interference from civilizations with different beliefs!*In the case of a 100% atheist state, the term theocracy obviously doesn't apply.
90% Similar to 100% but instead of killing religious minorities, perhaps they are all deported. Or enslaved.
60% You have an official religion but you tolerate, and perhaps even encourage minorities, recognizing that their presence helps trade, culture, etc. Less income from tithing, and less penalties for trade and diplomacy when compared with the 100% level.
Also, there could be some variations on the 60% level. For example, 70% could be the same as 60%, except that you only tolerate religious minorities from religions similar to your own.
30% Religion used to be a huge deal in your country, but in modernizing it has been left behind, while still recognizing that it's a major part of your culture. People have total freedom of religion but there are still state-sponsored religious festivals from that old religion, as kind of a cultural heritage thing.
0% Absolutely zero endorsement of any religious belief/nonbelief. Religious minorities in your civilization aren't oppressed, but perhaps there could still be some religious violence between your citizens? (probably not too much though, as a state at 0% is likely to be a very modern state) Your civilization attracts lots of immigrants. You are not allowed to build any religious improvements or wonders, but they occasionally spring up randomly through private efforts (I'm entirely unsure of how this would work for gameplay)
Different slider levels must be dependent on gov't, technologies, etc. and perhaps most importantly- the consent of your citizens. If you are at 100% for centuries and then decide to all of a sudden go to 0%, you should be punished with rejection by your allies, mass emigration, or a civil war, etc.
Putting religion in the game can be a bit touchy. Things in the game to encourage (even unitentionally) war between different religions is a big nono. True this may not be true to history, but I do not want religious warfare in the game. I think Atari/Infogrames have erred on the side of caution to keep things out of the game that could be viewed as controversial, i.e. removing some spy functions before Civ 3 was released.
ByzantineGreek
Chieftain
The Byzantines and the Greeks would be introducing Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek Orthodox).
I think that you'd be able to choose the religion for your civ. Maybe it would allow for more or less successful culture flipping. Perhaps you can build certain buildings/units with certain religions. In a scenario, it can be used to unite several provinces under a common ideal (several middle age civilizations did that -- Russia, Vikings).
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I think the majority of ideas presented here are too complicated. Remember, Soren is thinking simple. Adding a ton of details just won't happen.
With that in mind, here's some baseline stuff as I see it:
Everything else from the pope to religious wars to tithing and religious states could be thrown into the mix, but my best guess is that the baseline and probably not much else will be in, maybe one more special feature.
With that in mind, here's some baseline stuff as I see it:
- Each civ has a religion (or lack thereof
).
- This religion should affect relations between different civs.
- This religion will probably be selectable by the player.
- Each citizen has a religion (or not).
- Each citizen's religion CANNOT be selected by the player.
- If the civ's religion is one thing and the citizen's religion is another, he should be unhappy (or perhaps if they're the SAME he IS happy), in some intensity (e.g. 4 Christians under an Islamic civ will result in 2 unhappy people or 1 unhappy person, etc.).
- Religions can be spread from city to city like plague is in Conquests. The rate at which will depend on exposure between cities (movement of units, number of roads or harbors) and an intrinsic factor which can be set in the editor.
- Each civ can try to evangelize.
- For cash money you can attempt to convert citizens of another religion to your state religion. They can be within your own cities or in another civ's (kind of espionage).
- Religions pop up randomly or as a result of certain triggers.
- This would be worked into Civ 4's scripting system. You could have the establishment of a new religion linked to the researching of a tech, the capture of a city, the passage of a certain date, etc.
- In addition to triggers, the location of the religion springing up would have to be specified (the location of a certain battle, the location of a city founded in a certain order, etc.).
- Finally, the intensity of the creation/spread of the religion would be specified. For example, the spread of Christianity was slow and steady, whereas the spread of Islam was fast and violent in nature (which was partially due to conquest, but that's beside the point for this example).
Everything else from the pope to religious wars to tithing and religious states could be thrown into the mix, but my best guess is that the baseline and probably not much else will be in, maybe one more special feature.
Beloyar
Demigod
Aussie Lurker
I am against unnamed religions. The game is based on our world, therefore, it should relate to actual religions.
Maccabee
One civ could end a war by converting to it's enemy's religion, after it was offered in the diplomacy screen. On the other hand this might start a new war with adherents of the old religion (other civs).
Such conversion would be easiest if the present relig. is primitive and the new is a popular one. But the most religious civs would be the hardest to convert if their present economy and culture are very good.
In general, the player's choice of religion shoule be his own free choice, unlimited by any bonuses in the game. Just like in our world, the player can choose the religion he believes in.
The player's advisors could also be vulnarable to conversion. If that happens, he can dismiss the converts if he chooses, and replace them with whoever else is available.
I am against unnamed religions. The game is based on our world, therefore, it should relate to actual religions.
Maccabee
One civ could end a war by converting to it's enemy's religion, after it was offered in the diplomacy screen. On the other hand this might start a new war with adherents of the old religion (other civs).
Such conversion would be easiest if the present relig. is primitive and the new is a popular one. But the most religious civs would be the hardest to convert if their present economy and culture are very good.
In general, the player's choice of religion shoule be his own free choice, unlimited by any bonuses in the game. Just like in our world, the player can choose the religion he believes in.
The player's advisors could also be vulnarable to conversion. If that happens, he can dismiss the converts if he chooses, and replace them with whoever else is available.
Beloyar
Demigod
Echoes
In civs without much control over the choices of the people, their choice of religions could be determined by the achievements of other civs and their dominant religions.
A new person born in a city trading w/ a muslim civ is not going to become muslim. Parents always bring up children in their own religious tradition. Furthermore, trade does not influence religion. Otherwise, religious rulers would prohibit most trade with other civs. This theory would only work with civs that have no particular religion, or a default tribal primitive belief. Cities closer to the border of the religious civ would get the most influence.
More on war: If a civ does not accept to convert to make peace, but instead continues to fight and wins, it's people's religious beliefs are thus strengthened in their existing faith.
I think further ideas on religion in Civ4 should be based on our historic experience, not on theories of random events and guaranteed bonuses.
In civs without much control over the choices of the people, their choice of religions could be determined by the achievements of other civs and their dominant religions.
A new person born in a city trading w/ a muslim civ is not going to become muslim. Parents always bring up children in their own religious tradition. Furthermore, trade does not influence religion. Otherwise, religious rulers would prohibit most trade with other civs. This theory would only work with civs that have no particular religion, or a default tribal primitive belief. Cities closer to the border of the religious civ would get the most influence.
More on war: If a civ does not accept to convert to make peace, but instead continues to fight and wins, it's people's religious beliefs are thus strengthened in their existing faith.
I think further ideas on religion in Civ4 should be based on our historic experience, not on theories of random events and guaranteed bonuses.
Beloyar
Demigod
I don't think this is touchy at all. I know some people think they are more politically correct than others, but in reality, the game already passed this barrier with no complaints. We freely kill and destroy Japanese, Chinese, Arabs, Russians, French, Iroquois, and Americans as we like. None of those nationalities has ever complained about the game. So I wouldn't worry if a Muslim Germany would be duking it out with Protestant Chinese, while Catholic America and Catholic Japan would be at each other's throats, etc.
CiverDan said:
Beloyar
Demigod
Chieftess said:
Good ideas!
I like when ppl base it on historical events.
Would the buildings be churches/temples?
Beloyar
Demigod
Trip,
Sure you can send missionaries in the middle ages, but more often conquest was a lot more effective in converting vast territories.
When you reach the modern age, your people would still retain mostly your traditional religion, the one that was dominant in the middle ages and the romantic age, etc. From this point, religion is a personal choice of each individual or a private religious organization. So, it does not have any effect on game play, or maybe very little.
In modern times, there could be religious fanatics, who sometimes would resort to terrorist tactics, but I think we should leave religion out of this aspect. Just have terrorists if they would be a fun addition to the game.
Sure you can send missionaries in the middle ages, but more often conquest was a lot more effective in converting vast territories.
When you reach the modern age, your people would still retain mostly your traditional religion, the one that was dominant in the middle ages and the romantic age, etc. From this point, religion is a personal choice of each individual or a private religious organization. So, it does not have any effect on game play, or maybe very little.
In modern times, there could be religious fanatics, who sometimes would resort to terrorist tactics, but I think we should leave religion out of this aspect. Just have terrorists if they would be a fun addition to the game.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Well, that depends on who is currently occupying the territories. The Arabs had little trouble in converting the peoples of the Middle East to Islam, mainly because of the Polytheistic nature of the area and where Monotheism did exist, it did so only loosely and in a disorganized manner. Trying to, say, convert the rest of Europe that way wouldn't have been possible.Beloyar said:
Yes, as time wears on religion should have less of an impact on game matters.
King Alexander
Universe explorer
Worst idea I've ever heard of. We're already have enough of religion to the game. Maybe I'll play only scenarios without religion in civ4(though, I'll wait first to read reviews about how much the game is affected by religion, before I buy it).
Do we really need another round of "good" Christians and the "bad/despotic" Muslims and their Jihad? Christianity was much worse when it had more power than today.
The only thing religion does, is to maintain the hate between nations: maybe that's the reason it still exists, who knows?
Do we really need another round of "good" Christians and the "bad/despotic" Muslims and their Jihad? Christianity was much worse when it had more power than today.
The only thing religion does, is to maintain the hate between nations: maybe that's the reason it still exists, who knows?
Repeat Offender
Chieftain
I think it would be interesting if Religion was like government is now. You would have to decide what the best combination of State Religion and Govt. to use (the # of each would produce a great number of combos and each with a variety of effects). Implementing a religion should effect culture, maybe anarchy? open up new units/buildings etc. I think that religion should also promote diplomatic ties between nations with similar beliefs as well. There are a variety of possibilities here.
mitsho
Deity
@Repeat Offender, this is a quite simplistic idea. Although it's wrong in historical sense, it perhaps adds a gameplay feature and is simple enough.
However, two problems:
-No state religions should also be a 'religion', because for example Rome had never 'the state religion' that the conquered people had to convert to (like the arabians and the europeans had). And then, what should it's benefits be.
-When would the religions come, and how? etc etc. ...
mfG mitsho
However, two problems:
-No state religions should also be a 'religion', because for example Rome had never 'the state religion' that the conquered people had to convert to (like the arabians and the europeans had). And then, what should it's benefits be.
-When would the religions come, and how? etc etc. ...
mfG mitsho
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What makes you think the game will address religion as specific historical types, rather than generic ones that simply differentiate religions and function appropriately in a historical context?King Alexander said:
