How Should Religion Function in Civ7?

[BackseatTyrant]

1. Secret societies / heroes:
   This is Civilization, not Age of Mythology. These have no place in a Civ game, even as an optional game mode;
2. Civ 6's World Congress:
   God, the World Congress sucks in this game. It starts way too early and it's just so boring. It gets even worse because the A.I. picks the same options every single time;

I strongly disagree on Secret Societies, as I genuinely think that system is the closest the series has ever come to simulating organized religion. Going forward, I really wish religions were depicted as semi-adversarial NPC factions that civs swear allegiance to, rather than something the civs themselves create out of wholecloth. As for if mythological aspects have a place in the series or not, it doesn't really bother me as long as it doesn't get too nationalistic and/or partial about it.

I honestly agree on WC being less than thought-out, though for different reasons. In particular in how it forms regardless of whether all civs have actually met each other or not (which is where I think it should form), but also in how both the the UI and underlying voting system makes it really unclear which propositions have passed or not. IMO, every hearing should've been two-staged, with the first deciding on which proposition to actually vote on, and the second on actually voting on the nominated proposition

 

[pokiehl]

I strongly disagree on Secret Societies, as I genuinely think that system is the closest the series has ever come to simulating organized religion.

That’s an interesting perspective. I also think Sectet Societies would be fun to have again. The person you quoted is mistaken—Civ has always had ahistorical bonus content.

Civ 2 had an entire expansion dedicated to stuff like this (Fantastic Worlds), and this even persisted up to the “serious and realistic” Civ 5 which had a fantasy steampunk scenario, the Fountain of Youth, etc.

There was nothing out-of-the-ordinary in having Secret Societies in Civ 6, and claiming it doesn’t fit the series is clearly false. Saying it shouldn’t even be available as optional content just seems mean spirited: no one is holding a gun to a players head and forcing them to use it, so why shouldn’t I get to enjoy it if I like it?

 

[UWHabs]

That’s an interesting perspective. I also think Sectet Societies would be fun to have again. The person you quoted is mistaken—Civ has always had ahistorical bonus content.

Civ 2 had an entire expansion dedicated to stuff like this (Fantastic Worlds), and this even persisted up to the “serious and realistic” Civ 5 which had a fantasy steampunk scenario, the Fountain of Youth, etc.

There was nothing out-of-the-ordinary in having Secret Societies in Civ 6, and claiming it doesn’t fit the series is clearly false. Saying it shouldn’t even be available as optional content just seems mean spirited: no one is holding a gun to a players head and forcing them to use it, so why shouldn’t I get to enjoy it if I like it?

As optional content, I view the secret societies (and apocalypse mode, zombie mode, etc...) basically as like bringing in scenario content to a more base game feel. It would be like complaining that there was a Lord of the Rings scenario included in the game. If you don't like it, don't play it. And I do hope the devs don't take more time creating those modes than they do in creating a better world congress or core game features. But as a fun little side way to maybe play the game in a different way? Sure, have fun.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That’s an interesting perspective. I also think Sectet Societies would be fun to have again. The person you quoted is mistaken—Civ has always had ahistorical bonus content.

Civ 2 had an entire expansion dedicated to stuff like this (Fantastic Worlds), and this even persisted up to the “serious and realistic” Civ 5 which had a fantasy steampunk scenario, the Fountain of Youth, etc.

There was nothing out-of-the-ordinary in having Secret Societies in Civ 6, and claiming it doesn’t fit the series is clearly false. Saying it shouldn’t even be available as optional content just seems mean spirited: no one is holding a gun to a players head and forcing them to use it, so why shouldn’t I get to enjoy it if I like it?

I think I played one part of one game with Secret Societies and haven't touched it since: it just doesn't add anything to the game for me, personally - like most of NPCs 'additions', frankly.​

​

But using it as a model for Religion and for NPC Non-State Agents in general - that's worth exploring. I've thought for some time that Civ could do more with such agenices as an alternative to the 'regular' Civs as Opponents. Very much as they have always done with Barbarians and, IMHO, Barbarian Clans has built on. Religion as something you have to engage with rather than Completely Control is a basic change that has to come, I think, or as I've posted before: Religion is something that happens to your Civ, not that you make happen virtually at will. - And modeling Religion with some of the characteristics of Secret Societies makes more sense than as a Natural Disaster, which was my first idea!​

​

And all the Fantasy or Fantastic elements are fine in Civ, as long as they are largely Optional. That fact that I don't play with Secret Societies and Ley Lines and such doesn't mean they aren't playable additions to the game - just not my version of it. Besides, even the most Fantastic added elements haven't come close to matching the Real Wierdness of the historical prototype: try putting a model of Alcibiades into the game: multi-tasking, multi-talented, multi-sexual and multi-loyal when loyal at all!​

 

[kaspergm]

There was nothing out-of-the-ordinary in having Secret Societies in Civ 6, and claiming it doesn’t fit the series is clearly false. Saying it shouldn’t even be available as optional content just seems mean spirited: no one is holding a gun to a players head and forcing them to use it, so why shouldn’t I get to enjoy it if I like it?

That is half true. A certain amount of optional content doesn't hurt anybody and is fine, but if we get another hole "expansion pack" of optional game modes that are so crap that I don't want to use a single of them - ok not true, I use the coorporations, although in a somewhat modded form - then I'm going to be really disappointed. Point is, time and resources spent on making the "optional content" can well end up being time and resources taken away from making someone that could improve the main game, be that new content or fixing existing content.

 

[pokiehl]

That is half true. A certain amount of optional content doesn't hurt anybody and is fine, but if we get another hole "expansion pack" of optional game modes that are so crap that I don't want to use a single of them - ok not true, I use the coorporations, although in a somewhat modded form - then I'm going to be really disappointed. Point is, time and resources spent on making the "optional content" can well end up being time and resources taken away from making someone that could improve the main game, be that new content or fixing existing content.

You’re making a big assumption in thinking the choice was “optional game modes vs more core game content.”

Budgets and resourcing allocation in games development doesn’t work that way. People seem to assume that every dollar spent in the complete project from art to coding can freely be reallocated and that there’s some zero-sum mechanism in effect. There’s some validity to that to varying degrees, but it’s never that simple.

In the context of Civ 6, the NFP and its content were being made by a smaller team simply find ways to add to the game without shaking the core up: the devs have said they considered Civ 6 content-complete after Gathering Storm. NFP was never framed as a real game expansion like GS. More core game systems weren’t in the cards, and the return on investment for a subjective rebalancing of the existing content probably wasn’t there.

The real choice was probably closer to “optional game modes vs nothing at all.”

In that case I’m really happy we got the modes and I’m sure their development and release gave important insights to the developers for Civ 7. And I really hope to see optional game modes of all kinds return: historical or not.

 

[Patine]

I don't want to see religion start, in the base game, like in Civ6, and, seemingly, from reading forum material, Civ5, too, following generic, cardboard cutout, "pantheons," that sound like entities D&D clerics would pray for spells from. Oh, and no more apostle, "lightning duels."

 

[mitsho]

Religion shouldn't be controlled by the player, but occur "naturally" and you can manipulate it. Sort of like a Non-Player-character or a faction. Some have a leader which you can interact with, others don't. I want less direct decisions to be made by the player, religion (and other groups inside and outside your empire) should influence you as the player.

 

[Patine]

Religion shouldn't be controlled by the player, but occur "naturally" and you can manipulate it. Sort of like a Non-Player-character or a faction. Some have a leader which you can interact with, others don't. I want less direct decisions to be made by the player, religion (and other groups inside and outside your empire) should influence you as the player.

There may be a definite good point there. But I still want rid of the cardboard, generic, bland, "pantheons." Having a basis in RL religious movements would be far better from releease.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

There may be a definite good point there. But I still want rid of the cardboard, generic, bland, "pantheons." Having a basis in RL religious movements would be far better from releease.

If the idea behind pantheons was to simulate the indigenous mythologies that would later come to be dominated by proselytizing world religions, it does get undermined by how:

1. The "real" religions are founded by the civs themselves
2. They're founded not long after the pantheons
3. There are not that much fewer religions than civs in each game

Put together, what should be an indicator of your civilization's primordial past, instead becomes a trivial stepping stone towards the religious arms race. And personally, it's the arms race component I primarily want to get rid of. If there is to be a Religious Victory, it needs to primarily be a test of allegiance & loyalty to The One True Faith, rather than a competition of "who can found the coolest church?" Heck, I'd be fine with keeping the wacky lightning battles between priests if it means they're no longer representing bespoke state inventions (unless we're talking about religious schisms, though that mechanic may be better served as expansion pack material)

Getting back to pantheons, both civ 5 & 6 depict them way too shallowly and uniformly. The word does after all imply some form of plurality, so it would've been nice to see them depicted in future games as a city-by-city thing, rather than being the same throughout the entire civilization. It would've also been nice to see the exclusivity get rid off; it's not like only one culture in the entire world called dibs IRL on having a fire goddess, for example

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I think I played one part of one game with Secret Societies and haven't touched it since: it just doesn't add anything to the game for me, personally - like most of NPCs 'additions', frankly.​

​

But using it as a model for Religion and for NPC Non-State Agents in general - that's worth exploring. I've thought for some time that Civ could do more with such agenices as an alternative to the 'regular' Civs as Opponents. Very much as they have always done with Barbarians and, IMHO, Barbarian Clans has built on. Religion as something you have to engage with rather than Completely Control is a basic change that has to come, I think, or as I've posted before: Religion is something that happens to your Civ, not that you make happen virtually at will. - And modeling Religion with some of the characteristics of Secret Societies makes more sense than as a Natural Disaster, which was my first idea!​

You're absolutely on the right track, except I'm not sure this lens could be applied to all non-state actors, only the ones that explicitly transcend nationality, like major religions. Local communities on the other hand, even when they diametrically oppose the national government, I still think comprise a part of the player's avatar. If anything, I tend to imagine it's those kinds of partisan groups you play as specifically, whenever you switch to a different type of government

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You're absolutely on the right track, except I'm not sure this lens could be applied to all non-state actors, only the ones that explicitly transcend nationality, like major religions. Local communities on the other hand, even when they diametrically oppose the national government, I still think comprise a part of the player's avatar. If anything, I tend to imagine it's those kinds of partisan groups you play as specifically, whenever you switch to a different type of government

It could be applied to a wider variety of non-state/non-playable entities than you think.

Just in the class of Religion, many religions generated Political Actors: the Popes for much of their history, Mahdis, Prophets, Religious Orders like the Jesuits, Assassins, Templars, etc. And these are International and trans-national actors as well.

I think this is a way to really model things like the Congress of Vienna, another Trans-National entity that seriously affected European diplomatic/political actions for half a century, including intervening in Internal Politics (as in, putting down Reformers and 'liberal' revolutionaries or would-be revolutionaries).

Likewise, the Holy Roman Empire, I think, could be modeled along the same lines - only nominally as Nation State, as it included German and non-German political states and while in conferred great prestige, didn't alwa s translate into great Power or any control over those states.

Starting in the Industrial Era, there are private entities that have trans and inter national effects: some of the Corporations so blithely included in Civ VI as un-named plots on the map have, in fact, more economic power than most countries in the world, and wield it. This might also fold over into Great People, because there are individuals in the modern world (and were a few earlier - look up J. P. Morgan) who personally have more economic clout than most countries in the United Nations - having to deal with them, keep them, perhaps, in your territory and their money circulating in your favor - another set of problems for the gamer, and ones that would fall largely in the late game which is, frankly, too Dull right now and needs shaking up.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't want to see religion start, in the base game, like in Civ6, and, seemingly, from reading forum material, Civ5, too, following generic, cardboard cutout, "pantheons," that sound like entities D&D clerics would pray for spells from. Oh, and no more apostle, "lightning duels."

I would agree, but I put it to you, how else do you suggest Religions to start? I'm aware of existing complaints but unaware of alternative systems that don't rely on some kind of random factors.

Religion shouldn't be controlled by the player, but occur "naturally" and you can manipulate it. Sort of like a Non-Player-character or a faction. Some have a leader which you can interact with, others don't. I want less direct decisions to be made by the player, religion (and other groups inside and outside your empire) should influence you as the player.

Disagree - this is removing player agency for not much upsides. I think customising your religion is part of the fun of the game, would be more stale without it.

I imagine you are suggesting some kind of system where there's a religious leader system like you can meet the Pope and then suggest some religious 'policy' if you have enough faith, and then multiple players share his religion for example.

Maybe that could work, but is it better than having full agency?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Disagree - this is removing player agency for not much upsides. I think customising your religion is part of the fun of the game, would be more stale without it.

I imagine you are suggesting some kind of system where there's a religious leader system like you can meet the Pope and then suggest some religious 'policy' if you have enough faith, and then multiple players share his religion for example.

Maybe that could work, but is it better than having full agency?

Great. And to make sure the gamer has 'complete agency', we'll also give him complete control over City States, Barbarian Camps and his opponent's units in any battle.

IT'S A COMPETITIVE GAME. That means you DO NOT have 'complete agency'.​

​

And just like you do not have control over other entities in the game, the game can/should remove your initial control over Religion. You might get an initial or very, very early Dogma/Belief/Pantheon, but how exactly that develops is largely - but not completely - outside your control. What is under your control is your Civ's (well, Civ's Leaders/Government's) reaction to the religion and its aspects as they rise or spread to your Civilization - and that, in turn, may move your new religion in various ways, but not necessarily precisely in the direction you wanted.​

​

​

 

[GeneralZift]

Great. And to make sure the gamer has 'complete agency', we'll also give him complete control over City States, Barbarian Camps and his opponent's units in any battle.

IT'S A COMPETITIVE GAME. That means you DO NOT have 'complete agency'.​

​

And just like you do not have control over other entities in the game, the game can/should remove your initial control over Religion. You might get an initial or very, very early Dogma/Belief/Pantheon, but how exactly that develops is largely - but not completely - outside your control. What is under your control is your Civ's (well, Civ's Leaders/Government's) reaction to the religion and its aspects as they rise or spread to your Civilization - and that, in turn, may move your new religion in various ways, but not necessarily precisely in the direction you wanted.​

​

​

I'm not sure why the unnecessarily aggressive response

If you have no suggested system that works better, then I see no reason why the existing system is 'not enough'.

Moreover: Strategic games rely on a sense of predictability. Not too much, but hear me out. If you have no idea what on earth your religion is going to develop into, then it's all completely luck based. If it develops based on complicated criteria, then you have no easy way to influence it.

You call it a competitive game but suggest that you do not control the religions that come from your own Civ?
That seems like contradiction in your own argument.

They develop by themselves? What does that mean?
How do you know what's coming?

Just because I suggest we don't remove Player Agency for no reason does not mean I recommend some full creative mode sandbox. I'm literally saying I like this aspect of the game how it is.

So why don't you take the burden of proof about the suggestion instead of strawmanning?

 

[pokiehl]

Religion has emerged as a huge central game mechanic for Civ with tons of potential bonuses to the player. I cannot imagine that ceding player agency would be a good idea. I’m definitely not in favor of that. It’d be like giving up control of Government in magnitude.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That’s an interesting perspective. I also think Sectet Societies would be fun to have again. The person you quoted is mistaken—Civ has always had ahistorical bonus content.

Civ 2 had an entire expansion dedicated to stuff like this (Fantastic Worlds), and this even persisted up to the “serious and realistic” Civ 5 which had a fantasy steampunk scenario, the Fountain of Youth, etc.

There was nothing out-of-the-ordinary in having Secret Societies in Civ 6, and claiming it doesn’t fit the series is clearly false. Saying it shouldn’t even be available as optional content just seems mean spirited: no one is holding a gun to a players head and forcing them to use it, so why shouldn’t I get to enjoy it if I like it?

I agree that the idea around Secret Societies is not ahistorical, but I understand where people are coming from. Then again, I only feel the only real mythological aspects of that is the Sanguine Pact one, but even then, it's not immersion breaking for me considering the idea of "vampiric" people are rooted in history.
I can live without another Zombie mode though, unless it is more like a plague/pandemic scenario and less mindless barbarians.

Moderator Action: Moved from Things you don't want to see in Civ7 thread. leif

Great. And to make sure the gamer has 'complete agency', we'll also give him complete control over City States, Barbarian Camps and his opponent's units in any battle.

IT'S A COMPETITIVE GAME. That means you DO NOT have 'complete agency'.​

​

And just like you do not have control over other entities in the game, the game can/should remove your initial control over Religion. You might get an initial or very, very early Dogma/Belief/Pantheon, but how exactly that develops is largely - but not completely - outside your control. What is under your control is your Civ's (well, Civ's Leaders/Government's) reaction to the religion and its aspects as they rise or spread to your Civilization - and that, in turn, may move your new religion in various ways, but not necessarily precisely in the direction you wanted.​

​

​

It's true that religion for a lot of history has evolved organically separate from sovereign states. At the same time there are states that shaped religions to fit their mold. In regard to civ games, I'm trying to understand how religion can play a part when it's not something under a player's control, considering everything else is. Maybe you have to adopt a Theocracy or state religion in order to actually implement specific religious beliefs?

The first step would have to be getting rid of Religious Victory because there's no way that it could exist without player agency.
Honestly, I don't mind getting rid of it as I would like to see religion, combined with the current tourism mechanic, to make a more overarching Cultural Victory.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's true that religion for a lot of history has evolved organically separate from sovereign states. At the same time there are states that shaped religions to fit their mold. In regard to civ games, I'm trying to understand how religion can play a part when it's not something under a player's control, considering everything else is. Maybe you have to adopt a Theocracy or state religion in order to actually implement specific religious beliefs?

The first step would have to be getting rid of Religious Victory because there's no way that it could exist without player agency.
Honestly, I don't mind getting rid of it as I would like to see religion, combined with the current tourism mechanic, to make a more overarching Cultural Victory.

Religion should not be Entirely under the Player's control, as it is now. States and Rulers could shape, guide, even use religion to further other ends, but they never entirely controlled it, even when it was a 'state religion, without having it also shape them in some way.

So, you might 'choose' Pantheons/Beliefs/Tenets (whatever titles Civ VII chooses to use) to acquire, but you might only be able to choose from those that follow from what you already have in your culture/Civ, and if a new religion is introduced from another Civ/City State the tenets of that religion will modify the choices you get to make about yours.

And Religious Victory always seemed very artificial, because Religion should be part and parcel of your Civ's Culture and so folded into the jCultural Victory: people do not only wear your jeans and listen to our music, but also wear the symbol of your Sacred Snake around their necks and have your Holy Fires burning in their marketplaces . . .

 

[kaspergm]

I would agree, but I put it to you, how else do you suggest Religions to start? I'm aware of existing complaints but unaware of alternative systems that don't rely on some kind of random factors.


Disagree - this is removing player agency for not much upsides. I think customising your religion is part of the fun of the game, would be more stale without it.

I imagine you are suggesting some kind of system where there's a religious leader system like you can meet the Pope and then suggest some religious 'policy' if you have enough faith, and then multiple players share his religion for example.

Maybe that could work, but is it better than having full agency?

I agree completely, religion is one of the aspects of Civ5 and Civ6 that works best. Not the religious battle thing of Civ6 (obviously), but the build-and-customize your religion thing. It has three very big advantages:

• I gives the player something to plan and control
• It allows you to make custom adjustments to the starting location that you get and/or the specifics of your civ
• It adds variability between the games (at least on paper)

All three things are imo. some of the most important aspects of making Civ6 fun to play. Yes, the system was not perfect, and some of it obviously should have been balanced (the general OP-nes of Work Ethics combined with the AI never picking this belief is the most obvious problem, and (too) poor balance between beliefs is a general issue), but the core mechanics is one I definitely hope remains in Civ7.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Religion should not be Entirely under the Player's control, as it is now. States and Rulers could shape, guide, even use religion to further other ends, but they never entirely controlled it, even when it was a 'state religion, without having it also shape them in some way.

So, you might 'choose' Pantheons/Beliefs/Tenets (whatever titles Civ VII chooses to use) to acquire, but you might only be able to choose from those that follow from what you already have in your culture/Civ, and if a new religion is introduced from another Civ/City State the tenets of that religion will modify the choices you get to make about yours.

And Religious Victory always seemed very artificial, because Religion should be part and parcel of your Civ's Culture and so folded into the jCultural Victory: people do not only wear your jeans and listen to our music, but also wear the symbol of your Sacred Snake around their necks and have your Holy Fires burning in their marketplaces . . .

It could be applied to a wider variety of non-state/non-playable entities than you think.

Just in the class of Religion, many religions generated Political Actors: the Popes for much of their history, Mahdis, Prophets, Religious Orders like the Jesuits, Assassins, Templars, etc. And these are International and trans-national actors as well.

I think this is a way to really model things like the Congress of Vienna, another Trans-National entity that seriously affected European diplomatic/political actions for half a century, including intervening in Internal Politics (as in, putting down Reformers and 'liberal' revolutionaries or would-be revolutionaries).

Likewise, the Holy Roman Empire, I think, could be modeled along the same lines - only nominally as Nation State, as it included German and non-German political states and while in conferred great prestige, didn't alwa s translate into great Power or any control over those states.

Starting in the Industrial Era, there are private entities that have trans and inter national effects: some of the Corporations so blithely included in Civ VI as un-named plots on the map have, in fact, more economic power than most countries in the world, and wield it. This might also fold over into Great People, because there are individuals in the modern world (and were a few earlier - look up J. P. Morgan) who personally have more economic clout than most countries in the United Nations - having to deal with them, keep them, perhaps, in your territory and their money circulating in your favor - another set of problems for the gamer, and ones that would fall largely in the late game which is, frankly, too Dull right now and needs shaking up.

Okay, this is where I need to disagree. World religions shouldn't be beyond the player's control because they're not part of The State, but because they transcend national borders. Cultural borders. Now, local pantheons and local mythologies? That's something I definitely think the player should have control over. Again, if you're playing as the people of a nation, rather than its state or head of state, what should you have control over?

Though I would agree it'd be nice to see the HRE be modelled as a supra-national NPC faction rather than its own separate civ, but that's the keyword here: supra-national. Likewise, I think corporations should only be beyond the player's control once they transcend nationality; below that scale, there shouldn't be much if any mechanical differences between private companies and state-owned companies.

The only exception I can think of to this distinction I've made, would be if the socio-economic classes were introduced to the game. In that case, the ultra-wealthy would have to be their own CPU-controlled faction, due to how diametrically opposed their interests are to the rest of the nation's interests; just look at how often in Victoria 3, the landowner faction ends up being a roadblock to whatever the player wants to achieve