How do you see the new 'concept' of Religion changing the game?

"1) First of all religions, like governments, can change throughout history-according to when you 'discover' them."

We discussed this earlier, and it may lead to a dialectic where Religions get 'better' (as to some extent the Govs do)

"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."

'Reformed' religion implies it has reformed from a central Church (i.e. the Vatican). How could this be implemented, I don't think there will be 'Holy Ground' in Civ4 (at least in epic games)

"6) Definitely should have 'Religious' or more appropriately 'Cultural' Great Leaders"

I think religious is more appropriate actually; not everyone who has contributed to 'culture' is religious

"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."

But surely a Secular state could not be converted, as politics and religion are seperate? Literacy could be used as a tool either way really, as well...
 
@Aussie_lurker: a good summation, there! I am not berating you for some small problems, as first of all AdHHH has addressed some above and secondly a summation can never achieve the details of the summated and of course will bring forth views that not many support.

By the way, I have no problems with reformed churches and them being something you can "research", but they should be implemented carefully. They should not be techs (I have argued this point repeatedly), nor should they be available to all. There could be some game-mechanics that allowed the birth of sects after some time has passed. This would allow greater specialization in religion in later times and would perhaps award those that have been to a religion long enough. By the way, the awards should NOT be concentrated on the newest arrival: it is quite preposterous to argue that Catholic church is somehow worse than Protestantic church.

It could go as such: you have been a Christian nation for a 1000 years (or perhaps counted in turns?), then your church breaks up. You could choose to either convert to Catholic or Protestantic Church, bot with their pros and cons (the overall effect being zero).

Anyway, this is just a suggestion on how to implement sects. I am actually against this so, because I think it is not needed, would bring very little new to the concept and would cause more complexity..
 
OK, first of all I believe that most of your primary religious 'Techs' should be available in the Ancient Era-though Theology, Orthodoxy and Reformation should still be in the Middle Ages. In addition, though one tech might 'flow-on from another', any change in religion should be purely for reasons of personal preference and 'Flavour'-not because one is better than the other (which, on balance, they wouldn't be) Lastly, all of the religions represent the 'State Religion' and, as such, when you change to one, you lose ALL of the benefits of the one you were just in (and vice versa)! Ultimately, though, I want to see the game 'mechanics' of Religion done in a way so that, by the Middle Ages, you can find yourself in a game with as many as a dozen different religious/cultural groups (i.e. Middle East Polytheist, European Blood Cult, Asian Monotheism, Asian Eastern Religion I etc. etc.) instead of the 'Race for Monotheism' situation we've had in every iteration of the Civ series! Not only is this GROSSLY unrealistic, it could also be slightly offensive for anyone who ISN'T monotheistic (I can name at least 2 BILLION people who aren't Christian/Muslim/Jewish ;)).
Anyway, to continue: my point about secularism was that, without a state religion, it would be easier to 'convert' people-as your people no longer feel beholden to adhere to ONE religion out of some kind of 'Patriotic Duty'! The flip side of this, though, is that secular states aren't able to convert the citizens of other Civs-for obvious reasons. The literacy factor was that, when people are more educated, they become less susceptible to the prosyletizing of the Church.
Lastly, as for Reform and Orthodoxy, I'm still a little vague about how this should work-though I definitely want to be able to have-not 'Holy Ground', per se-but some kind of 'Sacred Capital', like Jerusalem, or Mecca or the Vatican. I'm sort of leaning towards Shyrramar's suggestion, that Reform or Orthodoxy should be, to some extent, thrust upon you. Though I feel that any change in government or religion, in the game, should be thrust upon you-the player. Anyway, I digress. I think you should be able to discover the 'Concepts' of Reformation and Orthodoxy-as like any other tech. However, I do agree that the change to either of these two states should be forced by external change. For instance, perhaps over time, your religious faction become too influential, and/or corruption is beginning to increase. If other factions of your society are powerful enough, they might be able to demand that you introduce 'Religious Reform'-by doing so, you reduce the influence of the religious faction (making them unhappy in the process) but you also reduce the happiness effects of religious imrpovements and Wonders. By the same token, if the religious faction is on the cusp of losing its influence, then they might bemand that you strengthen their authority by introducing Religious Orthodoxy-this will improve their influence (and make them happy), and boost the happiness effects of religious buildings, but can make other factions less happy-and could slow down the pace of scientific progress. In either case, though, you should have to either shift or 're-build' any 'Sacred Capital' Wonder you have, in order to reflect the break from the central church. I should also note that, within my own idea for 'Social Influence', any change in your state religion will reduce the influence of your religious faction so, for obvious reasons, your religious faction will fight tooth and nail to stop you changing religions and, if powerful enough, could cause a religious revolt or even a religious Schism (like I mentioned previously). Orthodoxy is obviously the sole exception to this 'rule', as it does not reflect an actual change in religion. Lastly, it should be should noted that orthodoxy and reform can, for game purposes at least, effect any religion-type, whether monotheism, polytheism or even blood-cult :D!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker
 
@Aussie_Lurker: you have very good ideas here. I am not certain if I agree on all, though. The ideas seem good, but how would you propose they are actually implemented? That sounds like a lot of work to me! I wholeheartedly agree that the religions should not be any better concerning each other (for the reasons you have pointed out). They should not be "good" in themselves (as governments tend to be), but only "different". We have enough concepts that make your civ "better" or "worse" - we don't need them. Therefore I would vote for a system that did not make your civ better, but would bring more choices in the game. I think it will be hard time to decide those bonuses and restrictions that apply to each religion!

I appreciate your ideas and would like to hear some more, if you please! :)
 
In CTP they had religion represented in an abstract way where evangelists could operate as stealth units and get some of the commerce from rival cities to go to your treasury. I suspect that the cIV planners are thinking on that type of level. I do not think they are planning to deal with the entire sticky, and likely controversial, subject of religion. The reason is that no matter what they did, if they actually named any religion or philosophy, somebody would get offended! Stupid, but true.
 
For me, the key issue for religion, and governance more generally, is that I REALLY feel that cIV should try and promote the sense that you are governing REAL people. This is what I hope the idea of 'Civics' is all about.
So, instead of changing your religion or government as you see fit, your people might actually say-'HEY!! NO!! This is our religion and we don't want you trying to make us worship some foreign deity!'-and then change the religion back. If you force the issue, then you risk the possibility of revolt, outbreaks of 'Heresy' (i.e. people changing to 'Foreign Religions' that they prefer over the State Religion') or an outright split of your empire along religious lines (think a Civil War but with religion, not politics, at its heart!). By the same token, though, it's just as likely that sections of your society might DEMAND that you change to a new religion. The same goes with government choice. Yes you can change your government type-as you wish-but if its not the one THEY want, then expect all hell to break loose! Of course, if you have several societal groups with equal amounts of influence, then you have to balance off the competing interests-usually by coming to some kind of compromise.
For more info on Societal Groups, and Societal Influence-check out my 'Economic and Trade manifesto'.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85846

Now, I know that all of this might SOUND complex, but it needn't be. After all, it's all about the AI creating the 'Illusion' that these are real people. A lot of it would simply be equations and percentages. With one faction or another popping its head up depending on its current influence and happiness!

Anyway, back to religion quickly. One idea of seen around the place, that I like, is the idea of a 'slide bar' for Secularism. From 100% for no State Religion, to 0% for a total link between state and religion. Each government would have a minimum and maximum Secularisation level, and the maximum allowed would also be dependant on achieving certain techs.
For example, in earlier time periods, most of your governments would have a fairly high setting for both the minimum and maximum levels of Secularisation (maybe 0-20%), to indicate the strong link between state and religion in these times-as you discover new techs (like education and nationalism) the maximum secularisation level you could have, within each government, would increase slightly (maybe by +10-+20% each time).
Increasing secularisation makes you increasingly immune to 'Religious' attack by foreign civs, whilst increasing the chance of 'natural conversion' to other religions. It would decrease the influence of the religious societal group, but also reduces the effectiveness of religious buildings for creating happiness.
Anyway, forgive the rambling nature of my thoughts-I confess that I have yet to solidify many of my ideas.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
@Aussie_Lurker: I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way you think and express your thoughts, quite the contrary! Your ideas are good and I have nothing to comment at the moment. It may indeed sound complex, but I can see it could be implemented quite easily; we already have different nationalities and happiness-states, we only need to add religion. The Secularisation-slider is a good idea, too. It is exactly what I think should happen: secularisation detaches you from religion in good and in bad - so it would actually be a good choice for poorly religious civ, but also a way of saying "I quit, you can have the religions" to others! I also like the way governments simply determine the borders of max and min secularism - this way the governments are connected to religion, but quite harmlessly.

I think, though, that the people shouldn't be too eager to start an outright revolution when changing the government. Perhaps that should only be a real threat when changing into a less-allowing goverment: like from democracy to communism. But if you change straight from monarcy to communism, the impact wouldn't be too bad (or felt at all). This would also restrict you possibilities to be a democratic civ and always change to communism for warmongering, and then back to democracy.

Good work, Aussie_Lurker! :goodjob:
 
I agree with you Aussie_Lurker on the slider idea. As for the revolts during government shifts, I believe that is what the civ3 authors intended with the period of Anarchy. That is the period when a civil war is going on, thus the lack of productivity, etc.
 
OK, I confess that I didn't explain myself properly on the issue of Civil Wars and Religious Schisms.
I also don't feel that Civil Wars should be an 'All or Nothing' kind of thing-nor do I feel that government change is adequately represented in previous civ games. After all, very few government changes were instigated from on high (as happens in the civ games), but were in fact instigated by popular revolt (as would be reflected, in my system, by the people DEMANDING you to change governments) If you refuse them, or if you change to a government they DON'T like, then you would face the possibility of a revolt or, even worse, a civil war!
Certainly, though, Government or Religion Changes would simply be one of many potential triggers for a revolt or CW.
Lets see if I can explain it a bit better-at least as I see it working.

Revolt: When a particular faction becomes very unhappy there is a % chance that this group can go into revolt-based on their current level of influence. Other factors which would influence this would be levels of 'crime and corruption', current culture levels, war weariness and the like. The nature of the revolt depends on the social group behind it. A Workers revolt, for instance, could see your production of shields and food cut to almost NOTHING! A Religious revolt would see you lose the benefits of all your religious improvements, and middle-class revolt might see you lose the benefits of commercial improvements-and so on. A military revolt could be interesting, as it would prevent you from moving, or in any other way using, your military units-and/or cities that have lots of military units in them might suddenly start losing improvements and population as the military starts going on a rampage. Anyway, every turn that a revolt goes on unchecked, it has a potential to lead to Civil War (or in the instance of a religious revolt-a Schism). If this happens, then whole cities break away from your empire to form a new nation. Revolts could also still occur the same way as in Civ3, if an individual city's 'average' happiness fell below a certain level. If unchecked, then this kind of revolt could ALSO lead to CW.

Civil War: If the average happiness of your Civilization falls, and remains, below a certain level, or if corruption and/or war weariness remains too high, or culture remains too low-or if you change to a government/religion that your people actively dislikes (or you refuse to change to one they DO like), or if your people are in revolt, or if you just lost your capital, then there is a potential for civil war! If either of these trigger conditions is met, then each city is checked, against a formula, to determine if it breaks away. I can't remember the exact formula, but I think it was something like (% chance=avg. social influence+corruption %+1/(happiness %)+culture ratio+distance from the capital+max. distance to breakaway city X+no. of turns in revolt+'shun' factor of chosen government/religion). If this percentage is equal to or greater than the RND, then that city breaks away from your empire. This will be determined between turns but, if any of the 'trigger conditions' are met, then your domestic advisor will pop-up and warn you to do something to stave off the chance for a civil war. If the civil war is the result of a specific group revolting against you, then the 'avg. social influence' is replaced with the level of Social Influence of this group WITHIN that city. This way, it might be possible for a workers revolt to lead to a break away of your entire 'Industrial Heartland', as the workers cease control of these cities, and turn them to their OWN ENDS (and with their own government!)
Anyway, if you want I'd be happy to provide you with a 'working example' of what I mean, if that will help :)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Bump ;)!
 
Originally posted by Shyrramar
@Aussie_Lurker: I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way you think and express your thoughts

...like from democracy to communism. But if you change straight from monarcy to communism, the impact wouldn't be too bad (or felt at all).


This would also restrict you possibilities to be a democratic civ and always change to communism for warmongering, and then back to democracy.


Good work, Aussie_Lurker! :goodjob:
Click to expand...

To a Communist though the transition into Communism is inevitable, and therefore the change would not be difficult.

I agree this tactic needs to be curtailed, although it was simulated to some extent in WW2
 
Hi!

I don't think that randomizing the religion would be a good idea.

Even the starting location is a big hazard, thus religion shouldn't be random too.

Many religions in a citiy:

I think having a divided city(at least in modern age) shouldn't mean a penalty. They could bring trade(as trade reflects to changing ideas too, that is why it determines research), or having a some divided cities could mean, you could debate some questions. You might grasp a "better" understanding of "god", an unified monotheism? Don't know if that's not a big crap.

On the otherhand:
Fascism could be an answer to the problem you(Shyrrammar) wrote. Thus they would "erase" those who are not the followers of the specific religion or philisophy.

Aussie_Lurker: Well believe it or not here in Hungary happend the same thing you described:

Our "Country Founder" Stephen (Saint) the I. introduced catholicism to our ancestor who were believing in the spirit world(shamanic).
One part of the country accepted that new religion others were revolting, thus forcing the king to take military actions. After years of civil war the king triuphed and estabilished the beses of the new religion(with laws for example: every 10 village must construct a church, where every person is obligated to go on every Sunday, except those who are taking care of the fire[or I am confusing things here?).
That was around 1010-1020 A.D.
Stephen died at 1038 and was sainted in 1083.

That's all.
 
An earlier comment has suggested that "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."
I wholeheartedly disagree that this is not much in addition to culture. My problem with culture as it currently stands is that it does not acknowledge that cultural export is an active process. I think some of the earlier suggestions, about converting cities, or establishing religious 'embassies' might be a method for acknowledging the active part which cultures have to play in the fight for domination. Also, I feel that another oint that has been made, about the important role which specific individuals (Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha) have played might be easily reproduced through the creation of a new category of great leader, a religious leader, who might be able to establish a religion for your empire. I could also see how these might work as a method of rendering an external religion the nations own. For example, during the renaissance, we might see most of europe as having been converted to catholicism by Italy/Rome/Vatican empire. In order to claim the benefits of directing their own religions, such as the control of wealth generated by the tithe, Germany and Switzerland use their own religious leaders, Luther and Calvin respectively to reform the religion and remove the foreign cultural influence upon their development.
I concede that these points might not be well developed, but I do feel strongly that the passive aspect of culture is a flaw, because culture is not passive. Nations fight to establish their own culture, and cultural export has played a significant role throughout history. This was primarily religion in the anicent age, right through to the renaissance. In the modern age, the media play a similar role. Indeed,the sense of US cultural imperialism is one of the causes of resentment for America in the present day, rightly or wrongly. This relates to Tarantino's recent comment that there are only really four nations with a real film industry. I personally think that this was the best aspect of CtP and CtP2, though they were inferior games to Civ, largely because they were just too easy. The wider range of concepts meant that it was possible to conduct yourself in more different ways, but the AI was too stupid to deal with any of these adequately, so that the game was ridiculously easy to complete. It did however include gestures towards the power of the media,such as television to increase revenue through advertising, and the Hollywood wonder to take advantage of foreign TVs. This should perhaps be a minor wonder, given the existence of Bollywood, and the strong film industries of Hong Kong and Japan, but I do think something along these lines should exist,in order to make culture an active process in the modern age, as religion has the potential to do in older periods.
Sorry if this seems rambling. I lost rack of myself a little. :crazyeye:
 
Pirate said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yes, use of specific real world religions in the game would be a Very Bad Idea because everybody would have different ideas--very strongly held ideas--about the traits that should be ascribed to each religion. Religions are so diverse that it would be impossible to arrive at mutually-agreeable traits. Just as Islam can be stereotyped by the actions of a few terrorists, Christianity is often stereotyped by the bloodiness of the Crusades, the cruelty of the Inquisition, the insanity of the Salem witch trials, the scientific illiteracy of creationists, or the bigotry of a few fanatics. Each of these stereotypes would be highly offensive to members of the religion. However, ignoring the evils of specific religions is similarly offensive to adherents of opposing religions, as well as to non-religious persons.

Also, the issue of different sects being lumped in together would be a nightmare. I'm sure the designers don't want to receive thousands of emails from irate X-brand Christians explaining why Y-brand Christians aren't "real" Christians and should thus be separated into their own religion.
 
Hmmm...if they do have religion then I hope their are multiple choices.
If they just went for Christians, Islam, Jews, Buddha etc then it would be a bit annoying, but if they went for stuff like the Greek Gods, Aztecs Gods and the 'The Emperor is GOD! Now bow before me fools!' options as well, then that would be cool.
 
What about the trend towards secularism and atheism with time. Almost all (if not all) major religions are decreasing in numbers of followers at the moment (at least they are in England which is where my data is from) and this should be captured in the game.

Personaly I doubt that this will be that bug a concept in the game; I think it will run on the same lines of culture in CivIII.
 
Relgion should have serious negitive affects on tech reaserch.
 
Secularity should be a % measure in your 'Social Engineering' section of the domestic advisor screen. The higher you set your % Secularity, the higher your research output becomes, and the lower the chance of having religious schisms-or other negative religious events!
The flip side of this, though, is as Secularity increases, the effectiveness of religious improvements and wonders DECREASES!

Thats how I see it working, anyway!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
ybbor said:
1 thing for sure, make sure that if i'm a christian(or w/e religon you want to add here) i should have better diplomatic staus w/ that cointry
Click to expand...

Hah! I don't think so - in Medieval Europe the Christian countries HATED each other with a passion you can only dream! I think France allied with the Ottoman Empire in order to fight the Spanish! A bit of a case of 'who do we hate more than the Muslim Ottomans? THE SPANISH!'
 
"Theres only one people I hate more than the Romans, and that's the Judean People's Front!" (hope Ive got that quote right, Monty Python fans :) )

Yes but I agree that civs with the same religion should have a better relation generally, although it should be possible for there to be exceptions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

evonannoredars
De-Christianising Religion
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
civilizationfanatic2000
C
T
Free Patched In Improvements To Add Texture To Religion and Economy
Replies
0
Views
255
tman2000
T
GeneralZIft
Religious Overhaul [Concept]
Replies
8
Views
994
GeneralZIft
GeneralZIft
Krajzen
Mods which you'd like to see in the future
Replies
14
Views
690
infiniterocks
I
D
Future Civ Changing Mechanic Suggestion
Replies
0
Views
222
desk
D
Back
Top Bottom