How do you stop a religious victory?

[MACKA0ili]

In the Kongo livestream, there was a modifier for tourism with England that was something like -50% religious tourism because of "Enlightenment."
If there's something like that applying to the religious victory, then it could be a lot harder to spread once a civ once they've reached this point (either scientifically or cultrurally) and represent the secularism that has arisen from things like the historical enlightenment period.

It has also been said that religious victories are usually the earliest, so a late game religious victory would naturally be a lot more difficult.

 

[Galbias]

It is a little concerning. Science victory is already the "non-interactive" victory, you can resist if you have your own religion or if you're in a spot to conquer the founder who's about to win, but that won't always be the case, and religion looks like it'll be possible to win with in earlier eras than Science.

It would be neat if there was an option to split off from the parent religion and form your own sect a la King Henry and/or Protestantism in general at some point. Probably with a large faith cost and diplomatic penalty to anyone following the original religion, but also with the ability to, say, choose a new Founder belief that you can take advantage of.

These ideas are very good. As an atheist in real life, it's kind of annoying to have to found and spread a religion to gain all the benefits from it in Civ 5. And now, if anything, Civ 6 looks like it makes having a religion even more important. I want a secular alternative!

Just found your own religion and name it Atheism

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You don't need to found a religion to resist, you just need 1 city in your empire of a different religion from the "almost winner".

Then you build Holy Sites for faith...make sure one of them is in the "other" religion city.
Build an Apostle and use him to start an....














Inquisition (didn't expect that did you)

Then use Inquisitors and Apostles of "religion2" to wipe the 'winner' from your civ.
This is easier if you Found a religion (since you have a Holy City). It is much harder as Kongo since you can't build Holy Sites for faith.

 

[qadams]

As an atheist in real life, it's kind of annoying to have to found and spread a religion to gain all the benefits from it in Civ 5. And now, if anything, Civ 6 looks like it makes having a religion even more important. I want a secular alternative!

Just found your own religion and name it Atheism

When I'm playing Civ 5 and found a religion, I often will call it Rationality.

 

[Wolle68]

With today's reveal, we get a new answer: Play as Arabia

 

[Josephias]

When I'm playing Civ 5 and found a religion, I often will call it Rationality.

I often I have argued that - in Civ 5's (and Civ6's) terms, any "set of beliefs" can be seen as a "religion". It does not necessary imply a god. (as in the case of Tao).

I've founded myself "religions" as Humanism (Netherlands), Masonry (France), Ecologism (Soshone)... and so on

Fanatic sects apart, most religions only imply a set of values to direct your live, because that is what you believe it is good (in religion this tends to be because either because a supranatural entity, or the same cycle of life will reward you).
But this has no difference on having a diferent set of values because other trends that give you the feeling of being physically or morally superior (i.e., culturism, veganism), without requiring the involvement of a god. And in these cases, you can find as well its dose of fanatics that want to convince anyone of the "benefits" of its way of life, and even regect any evidence they can be doing wrong to themselves or others.

Back to topic, investing in faith in Civ5 and Civ6 is for me promoting this strong set of beliefs with wich you can convince people to join you (buying GP) or to collaborate for community improvements (faith-rushing). Does not need to be directly negative to faith and culture: as commented by others, it is enough it works as a competing yield (if you build/work holy sites for faith, you are not working universities for science). You could turn a fanatic theocracy by devoting all your resources to faith, but you can be as well a balanced state that works values (faith), knowledge (science), and lore/expression/identity (culture) in synergic ways.

Answering to the main question (how to compete vs a religious victory), it would be interesting that if you outproduce in faith the religion owner, you could challenge them for control of the religion: either creating a schism and eventually, a new religion of your own, or taking complete ownership of the religion -- and then being you the one in route for a religious victory)

 

[gunnergoz]

I admit I'm going to be curious to see how the AI plays religious civs and to see if they can threaten a religious victory early enough if I"m not playing for a religion myself. My sense is that killing off a strongly religious civ like Spain or Arabia may be the only solution but not always available on every map.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Don't see a problem here--just keep track of how Civs are doing in this regard, and if someone is getting too strong, you'll have to kill them and their religious units, or generate a lot of faith for your own religion. Not too different from preventing a culture victory (although I'm guessing religious victory will be more achievable for the AI).

In this regard, it's much better gameplay than science victory--at least you can prevent religious victory by founding your own religion and churning out enough religious units, just like you can prevent a culture victory by having a strong culture output. If an AI is nearing science victory, the only option is to crush them militarily. I've always hated that.

 

[kimira]

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).

Immersion-wise, why not just view it as, your people have all been converted to this religion, and being so gung-ho for their new faith they call on you to go on a crusade to conquer that religion's original holy land.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

This is probably a stupid question, but I am really not sure: Do you have to be in real war to fight religious war?

 

[MACKA0ili]

In this regard, it's much better gameplay than science victory--at least you can prevent religious victory by founding your own religion and churning out enough religious units, just like you can prevent a culture victory by having a strong culture output. If an AI is nearing science victory, the only option is to crush them militarily. I've always hated that.

Immersion-wise, why not just view it as, your people have all been converted to this religion, and being so gung-ho for their new faith they call on you to go on a crusade to conquer that religion's original holy land.

When in doubt, go to war
I wonder if you can have a joint war between more than one civ, like all the civs being dominated by a religion declaring a humongous joint holy war that wipes out that civ completely and everyone is fine with each other afterwards because of the casus belli.

 

[boghog]

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.

Sorry. Wasn't going to be baited but ...
Selling absolute truths is not atheism's schtick but rather religion's. Plus: The only "propaganda" that was ever "sold" in this forum was to express the wish for a game like civ to take a more differentiated view of religion as something which is not in all instances exclusively beneficial for a society. I'm sure if you consider all those many religions which are different from the one you happen to subscribe to, you'll agree that they sometimes have detrimental effects, too.

The claim that most scientists today are religious is just that: a baseless claim. Einstein certainly wasn't. Read his letter from January 1954 to Eric Gutkind. See what I did there? It's called providing evidence.

You just dislike organized religions and the old metaphors the Great Prophets used to explain the creation of the universe.

Do I? Thanks for clearing that up for me. Basing your convictions on your likes and dislikes again is religion's game, not atheism's.

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.

Really. What do you think one example like that can prove? OK, here's one: Giordano Bruno. Btw what the Jesuits did mainly was to propagate their predetermined version of the truth about nature - that has little to do with science (science = setting up of objective hypotheses about the world and testing them through falsifiable predictions and unbiased experiments).

what is the difference between "God" and "The Root Cause of every Causes and Effects"?

So you see no problem with your two claims: 1) Everything that exits needs a cause. 2) God needs no cause?

 

[Ornen]

another long winded off topic post on science vs religion

Please, give it up. Everyone. This is not the thread.

Moderator Action: Both of you, please report problematic posts instead of posting in the thread that they are off topic.
All, the topic of this thread is how to stop religious victories in Civ VI; not science vs religion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lucius_]

You know, all this talk of immersion and gamey mechanics doesn't make much sense. If your civilization is dominated by another civ, the question is, why would you want to stop their religious victory? If you are happy with the religion you've taken on and have none of your own, then if we are going to be realistic here, then you shouldn't try to stop them from winning. You should even be happy they won a religious victory because now you don't have to deal with other religions getting in the way of your adopted religion.

But this isn't reality, this is a game with an ending. If you want to play that way, then accept the realistic thing to do. If you want to play a game, expect gamey mechanics.

 

[Ornen]

You know, all this talk of immersion and gamey mechanics doesn't make much sense. If your civilization is dominated by another civ, the question is, why would you want to stop their religious victory? If you are happy with the religion you've taken on and have none of your own, then if we are going to be realistic here, then you shouldn't try to stop them from winning. You should even be happy they won a religious victory because now you don't have to deal with other religions getting in the way of your adopted religion.

But this isn't reality, this is a game with an ending. If you want to play that way, then accept the realistic thing to do. If you want to play a game, expect gamey mechanics.

Civ is both a simulation and a game, and you should be able to simulate a realistic, sensible take on history while playing to win.

I don't think the 'gamey' mechanics in this scenario look all that appealing. I mentioned above the excellent mechanics surrounding the diplomacy VC in Civ 5, and the number of tools (all of which made sense in historical context) you could levy against a civ that was going for a diplomatic victory. The same applies to the other victory conditions.

From what we've seen in Civ 6, your options are very limited to stop a religious civ if they've given you their religion, even if that was in the early phases of the game. It seems like the least well-developed VC, for a couple big reasons – not all civs will be players in the religious game, and any civ following the dominant religion will be limited to a couple awkward 'gamey' options to fight the dominant religion, when we should have sensible game mechanics in place.

I'm not sure what we'll see in the base game, but I do think this VC will be revised in expansions. And I also think we'll see new mechanics that allow players to branch off of a religion, or to claim the mantle of an older religion. The Ottoman Turks would be fun to see here, representing a massive Islamic empire with totally different cultural roots from the Arabs. Henry VII would be a great leader to add as well. It doesn't hurt that he's a profoundly influential English monarch who we've yet to see in a Civ game.

 

[Lucius_]

It's not. It's a game. Period. It's a game. Maybe a simulation game, but it's still a game. It is not a simulation for research purposes. It's not a simulation designed primarily for education purposes. It's not a simulation for training purposes, predictions, or anything else you can think of that simulations are used for. In this case, this simulation is a game.

 

[Ornen]

It's not. It's a game. Period. It's a game. Maybe a simulation game, but it's still a game. It is not a simulation for research purposes. It's not a simulation designed primarily for education purposes. It's not a simulation for training purposes, predictions, or anything else you can think of that simulations are used for. In this case, this simulation is a game.

Given your tone, I don't know if there's much point carrying this one on, but Civilization is definitely a sim. You can read up on it here, but in short, simulationist play is more about creating and playing in a consistent world than they are about playing to win. There's a huge cadre of civ players (the majority, from what I've seen) who play to have fun with the ant farm, to build what they feel like building and seeing what Gandhi or Genghis Khan do with their empires. There's also a long-standing contingent of players who want to wreck the game on Deity, but we're the minority among civ players. There might be more of us around civfanatics, but elsewhere, not so much.

And you missed like, 3/4 of my points. I'm telling you the gameplay mechanics around this aren't that compelling, aren't that interesting, and I could use more engaging options to resist the dominant religion when you've already become a part of it before the classical era is through. From what I've seen so far, there aren't nearly as many options here as there were to fight a diplo or cultural VC in Civ 5.

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: The topic of this thread is how to stop religious victories in Civ VI.
Please take discussions about if Civ VI is a sim or not elsewhere.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Resisting religious victory is very gamey if you don't have your own religion.
1-finding a minority religion and suddenly adopting that, even the other religion is "better"
OR
2-eliminating the founder of your religion

Hopefully, there will be a better way to resist, and religious victory will be revised in an expansion (religious-diplomatic victory... where each religion can build a "world congress" controlling their religion and votes matter..big bonus for founder, but also lots of other factors...and once all civs are converted you can start voting for World leader)

 

[Nixalo]

This is why I hoped their would be a way to "reform" or "form sects" to make copies of an existing religion. So you'd have to take out splinter groups as well and spread religion.

Saing that, at least you get a CB to attack aggressive religious civs.