How do you stop a religious victory?

I agree. The representation of faith as wholly beneficial in these games is so far removed from reality in my view that they might as well have Jesus as a great prophet who can generate unlimited food from one fish resource. :lol:
If it were up to me, every :c5faith: you generate would be subtracted 1:1 from your :c5science:.

Yes. There really should be some downsides to religion, like lower science, as you suggest, or lower culture.
 
Yes. There really should be some downsides to religion, like lower science, as you suggest, or lower culture.

Science, religion, and culture have been inextricably intertwined for thousands of years. It's only in the last few hundred that people have tried to separate them.
 
Uh oh, religious thread derailment incoming :rolleyes:

On topic, it's like asking how to stop a science victory. There is no direct option to counteract a science victory.
 
Yes. There really should be some downsides to religion, like lower science, as you suggest, or lower culture.
There is - you need to construct Holy Sites over other districts.
 
Countries and empires have forcibly secured their borders against illegal crossings and missionaries throughout history how is that not immersive? Hell you used to be able to kill your own citizens just for following a religion you didn't like, let alone foreign nationals

Again: The OP means the case where you and the religious frontrunner have the same religion (which they have founded). You'd have to secure some other civ's borders against missionaries from your own majority religion. How is that immersive?
It would be like Catholic Spain stopping Italian Catholic missionaries in the New World for fear of Catholicism becoming dominant throughout the world (since it was founded in Italy).
 
Uh oh, religious thread derailment incoming :rolleyes:

Er, yes. That actually wasn't my intent, but I can see how my post would be interpreted that way. My intent was to say that it wouldn't make sense within the game to have a scientific or cultural malus for having religion because they were inseparable.

I suppose one could theoretically be considered in the late game, but by that point it would be silly to have a sudden malus for a game mechanic you've been pursuing the whole game.
 
Religions dominated history, having a secular alternative during anything that isn't late-game wouldn't make sense.

But I agree with the topic in general, what I've seen so far looks a lot like Religious Victory is basically a Victory that just isn't that well thought-out. Seems like going onto Bizarro-World Crusades to un-spread religion is the only real way to prevent dominance if you don't have a religion yourself.

I think it has interesting implications at forcing other players to be proactive, especially Civs that hope to science up in a corner using the defenders advantage.

More specifically, you can besiege someone with superior tech with superior faith production and they need to start doing something to slow them down.

I felt like in 5, you often never needed to do anything proactive, since a runaway Civ often made enemies on the way and you just needed to bribe angry neighbors.

At least they put in the ability to go to Holy War so you don't take a huge Diplo hit for fighting back.
 
It's true not all religious activity has had a positive effect on society, but not all cultural activity has, either. Yet nobody calls for cultural malus.

Also, one of the biggest arguments for the negative effects of religion is that they started wars, and Civ already represents this very well. I've been in games where religion has caused me to go to war...:queen:

I think really when you have a civ of a given religion, and that civ is behind on the science race, you are free to RP that their religion is the cause of it if you want. If you have a religious civ that is winning the science race, feel free to RP that, too. All these possibilities really are represented in the game well.
 
I think it has interesting implications at forcing other players to be proactive, especially Civs that hope to science up in a corner using the defenders advantage.

More specifically, you can besiege someone with superior tech with superior faith production and they need to start doing something to slow them down.

I felt like in 5, you often never needed to do anything proactive, since a runaway Civ often made enemies on the way and you just needed to bribe angry neighbors.

At least they put in the ability to go to Holy War so you don't take a huge Diplo hit for fighting back.
Well, I'd prefer being able to spend resources to get a specific religion out of my city over having to actually invade the origin of the Religion. It's just weird, your people have adopted a religion and as a response to the religion becoming too dominant you invade a different country instead of... 'fixing' your own people. ...and what for? To make the religion that your people have adopted worse.

I don't know, it just feels like a silly implementation to me. I'm all for forcing players to react and become active, but the pieces just don't really fit together in terms of immersion.
 
The only way to stop a whatever AI victory is to try to crush that civ asap. Flat strategy but the most efficient.
 
Science, religion, and culture have been inextricably intertwined for thousands of years. It's only in the last few hundred that people have tried to separate them.
If that were true (debatable) then :c5faith:, :c5culture: and :c5science: should be fused into one resource.
The big difference is though that two different cultures aren't mutually exclusive, even if there are initial tensions they can be fused over time (e.g. Saxons and Normans). The term "two different sciences" doesn't even make sense. Two different religions however are by their nature unreconcilable - at best they can peacefully coexist, which -looking at history- seems to be difficult. Also: No religion ever encouraged critical thinking. Accepting truths on authority however is incompatible with the scientific method. Without that there might be knowledge (of sorts) but no science. Also: Having a strong religion in your state raises the question of loyalty. Who do your citizens follow when there is a conflict of interest between the people's religion and the will of the state?

If the game were brave enough to represent the unique nature of religion, then yes, there should be downsides to having one.

Then knock them out of the game. I don't see the problem.
The problem is that the religious victory is the only one that you have to counter with violence - because you might be locked out from the race a priori. It's not a deal breaker but less than ideal.
 
Well, the history with religions does include loads of bloodshed, so in a way, thats accurate to some degree
 
Again: The OP means the case where you and the religious frontrunner have the same religion (which they have founded). You'd have to secure some other civ's borders against missionaries from your own majority religion. How is that immersive?
It would be like Catholic Spain stopping Italian Catholic missionaries in the New World for fear of Catholicism becoming dominant throughout the world (since it was founded in Italy).

More like Catholic France setting up an antipope, or Henry the VIII deciding he can divorce his wife.
 
If that were true (debatable) then :c5faith:, :c5culture: and :c5science: should be fused into one resource.
The big difference is though that two different cultures aren't mutually exclusive, even if there are initial tensions they can be fused over time (e.g. Saxons and Normans). The term "two different sciences" doesn't even make sense. Two different religions however are by their nature unreconcilable - at best they can peacefully coexist, which -looking at history- seems to be difficult.

None of that changes the fact that religion, culture, and science have been intertwined for thousands of years. If you don't think European culture was wrapped up in Catholicism and that religious schools were for centuries the centers of learning and progress within Islam and Christianity than you just don't know history.

As I've said before, it's only in the last few hundred years that people have started to view them as separate, distinct entities.

Also: No religion ever encouraged critical thinking. Accepting truths on authority however is incompatible with the scientific method. Without that there might be knowledge (of sorts) but no science. Also: Having a strong religion in your state raises the question of loyalty. Who do your citizens follow when there is a conflict of interest between the people's religion and the will of the state?

Er...what? Go on over to OT and we can discuss religion and critical thinking.

The problem is that the religious victory is the only one that you have to counter with violence - because you might be locked out from the race a priori. It's not a deal breaker but less than ideal.

No, you can also counter it by spreading a different religion, even if you didn't found it. If you're not pursuing a religious victory, you're goal should be simply to balance the different world religions. That will pretty much nullify any religious victory right there.
 
FIrst, let's not get derailed with religion vs scienc talk. Not the point of this thread. I like the idea of having lategame secular counters to religion, but I don't want to get into an outside debate except as it relates to religious victory in Civ 6. Let's stay on topic, please.

"Win before they do or knock them out of the game" isn't really sufficient here. Religious victory is the only VC available in the midgame (except for conquest on smaller maps -- aka knock em out of the game). So if you don't found a religion and end up with the dominant one, you don't have any other option but to invade.

Compare that to Diplo victory in C5. Arguably the easiest victory against the AI, even though there were a ton of options to counter it. You could bribe CSes. You could use spies to coup them. Or you could bribe other civs to vote in your interests. You have other tools, like ideology and religion, that can be very handy. And yes, you can beat them or kill them. The point is, you have a ton of options.

Three of the VCs (conquest, diplo, culture) were mid-late game VCs with tough win conditions and plenty of ways to counter. The other two (science and score) were endgame conditions. If someone beats you to spaceship, they've beat you to the finish line, basically, before you could accomplish one of several win conditions.

A religious game can be won in the midgame, much earlier than any of these. More importantly, they might convert you way back in the classical era, taking away the most important weapons with which you would counter them. You even get to use those weapons on their behalf, and are encouraged to. There's a whole civ (Kongo) designed around helping your rival civ win a religious victory.

There are plenty of ways to resolve this. Spreading a religion that isn't my own civs seems very gamey, and tricky as well -- if you spawn next to the dom religion, there might not be decent access to another religion within reach. And that's a condition that might set into place before the Medieval era. I don't want the potential to have most of my counter options removed that early in the game, only to find out 2-3 eras later that -- hey! Spain's gonna win the game off the religion he gave you on t100.

There are ways to resolve this.. I don't think 'just war the guy' is as compelling as mechanics that encourage religious infighting. As a civ nears religious victory, will neighboring AIs go after him as well? That makes things more interesting, but not quite as interesting as fuller mechanics behind religious politics, schisms, heresies, and religious wars.

Again, though, don't get sidetracked by religion vs science. And yes, 'kill him or beat him' is insufficient when you should -- like the mid-lategame VCs in Civ 5 -- have plenty of valid tools to counter them.
 
Regarding OP: if I am behind in religion and the dominant religion in my civ is the leading one it should mean I have not invested in religion so I should be enough ahead in science and military power to conquer the holy city; if instead I was going all in in culture / economy just ask/pay leaders of other religions to spread theirs in your land and create inquisitors to help them eradicate the leading religion (in the meantime cut/pillage all trading routes with the leading religion civ).

... Or it means I am just playing badly and I deserve to lose this game and start a new one.

If you don't like to have the option of religious victory just turn it off in the options...

Regarding the off topic on atheism: I am amazed at how many people in this forum sell their "atheism" propaganda thinking to be an absolute truth. Most of the scientists of the past and even this last century were religious (and so many philosophers which probably know better than ordinary people if it makes sense to believe in God). Take for example Einstein. You just dislike organized religions and the old metaphors the Great Prophets used to explain the creation of the universe. Regarding the negative effect of religion on culture and science just look what the Jesuits have done in the centuries (and are still doing now) to spread literacy and science to all the world.
But the most important thing I wonder is: supposing that you, as all contemporary humans (if not as all humanity), have structured your reasoning on the basis of cause and effect, what is the difference between "God" and "The Root Cause of every Causes and Effects"?
 
Moreover - since you know which are the Civs better suited for a religion victory - supposing you can't or don't want to found your own religion, even at the classical era you should be wary in accepting the dominant religion of Spain or Arabia. Close the borders to them and open it to civs weaker in religion (or just keep your pantheon belief). Or accept them with open arms but know that in 100 or 150 turns you might have to destroy them.
 
Back
Top Bottom