How Should Religion Function in Civ7?

[mitsho]

If you implement the civic "State Church" you can chose one of the religions present in your empire and mold it to your needs and wishes. Whereas if you are more tolerant, you get bonuses from all religions, but they are smaller. The bonuses needn't be tied to the religions themselves and can be left in the choice of the player, but religions and splits in religions should turn up naturally and be something you react to. Well, sometimes you can split it yourself (Anglican Church) or even found one yourself. But in the majority of times they should occur by themselves and spread fast so there is a real historical ebb and flow of religions. By this way, one also takes away clicks and micromanagement (those damn missionaries!) and speed up the game. That's a good thing.

Other examples for such trans-national NPC "forces" include communism and other ideologies, corporations, mercenaries and yes, even vampires if they want to do that one again as a gimmick.

 

[Scrabbler]

I am firmly of the opinion that players should be able to found religions, but they should not "own" them as in CIv 5/6. In my opinion the implementation of religion in Civ 4 was so much more interesting in terms of historical immersion because players could choose to adopt religions founded by another player for diplomatic reasons and spread them for other benefits. That is not to say the unique bonuses given to religions in Civ 5/6 should not return - instead any player could choose to use a prophet to enhance a religion that has spread to their lands. I am really hoping that this will be implemented in Civ 7. The religious gameplay in Civ 6 lacks nuance because it is mainly about the player defending against other hostile religions.

 

[GeneralZift]

I am firmly of the opinion that players should be able to found religions, but they should not "own" them as in CIv 5/6. In my opinion the implementation of religion in Civ 4 was so much more interesting in terms of historical immersion because players could choose to adopt religions founded by another player for diplomatic reasons and spread them for other benefits. That is not to say the unique bonuses given to religions in Civ 5/6 should not return - instead any player could choose to use a prophet to enhance a religion that has spread to their lands. I am really hoping that this will be implemented in Civ 7. The religious gameplay in Civ 6 lacks nuance because it is mainly about the player defending against other hostile religions.

If adopting another's religion and changing it creates a schism, a new branch of the religion, then I'm all for it.
Otherwise, the last thing we need is to create a religion, design it, then have some other Civilisation 'enhance' it with some terrible belief that you're stuck with.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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?

Yeah, probably too aggressive.

Got your attention, though.

The problem as I see it is that the earliest Religious component Beliefs in the game (Civ VI) don't come early enough. Religion may be one of the oldest components of human culture. Some of the earliest examples of ceramics are fired Votive Objects, not Pots. Every early settlement that has been excavated, if enough survived, there is evidence of Religious Places: shrines, altars, sacrificial 'basins', etc. In fact, one of the signs of a non-heirarchial settlement is that there is no central Religious Place: no great temple, or temple square, or ziggurat in the city/town. If every residence in the place has its own little shrine/altar (as at Catal Huyok and other Anatolian neolithic sites) that's a pretty sure sign that 'Priest King" would be a meaningless noise to them.

All of which is a long way of saying I want your initial religious bonus (or malus) to be part of your Starting Position. To simplify a bit, start on the coast, your people should have Fishy Gods - or at least, Wet Ones.

Of course, you could/should also have the choice of a Centralized Religion/Belief of some kind (or several kinds) which will lead you to building the Holy Sites we all know and love, or a Private Religion that will take longer to build any centralized Shrine but gives all your population some extra Bonus.

It's still Gamer's Choice, but an earlier choice and not as complete a choice as we are used to: if I am nowhere near a Desert, why should Desert be any part of my Pantheon?

BUT as the game progresses - Your Religion should Change. Wind up in the late Classical with half your citues in or edging the Desert, and there will be a movement in your population to incorporate the vastness of that desert into the Pantheon. This may start out as just adding a Belief, but also may swap out an older Belief for a new one. That latter is a Hard Sell (look at the dietary restrictions that date back 1000s of years that are still part of 'modern' Religions: that "Ol' Time Religion" is not just a phrase!)

Point is, the Gamer/State/People can nudge, support, even proclaim a 'State' religion and Mandate Beliefs and Tenets, but some wandering prophet (Read: non-State-generated Great Prophet) can wander out of that aforementioned Desert and upend everything - or at least, upend a Lot.

Note that in the Roman Empire, they had a 'state religion' - the Imperial Cult, and it evaporated in the face of both the Mithra Cult (the favorite religion of the Roman Army) and Christianity, and both of those 'wandered out of the desert', so to speak - they weren't Native Roman. BUT Christianity, in turn, adopted the administrative structure of the Roman Empire and kept it going for another 1000 years after the Empire unraveled. In other words, not everything is Replaced completely in religion, and if you are playing the Roman People from 4000 BCE to 2050 CE that 'introduced' Religion could be what keeps you going for an Era or two in the game.

I don't have a complete Structure for Revised Religion in Civ VII (I suspect the design team already has their own in any case). But in the spirit of "1/3 New, 1/3 Revised, 1/3 Same" I think Religion is worth exploring for new ways of portraying it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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

More generally, and going back to at least Classical Athens that we have pretty good contemporary records of, Them That Has want to keep everything they got no matter how they got it, and Them That Has Not want their Share, whatever they consider that to be. There is a basic, built-in conflict no matter what else is in the culture/state/civilization.

Modeling Social Conflict/Class explicitly in the game, though, is a potential Nightmare. Even simplified, it would complicate virtually everything you did, from Production, Gold generation, Trade, Religion, forming a Military ('Warrior Class' and 'Aristocracy' are too often the same group with both military and political agendas that eventually, invariably, have to be overcome to proceed) to Type of Government.

Not saying it could not or should not be attempted, but I'll stand over here and watch, thank you, and not get involved . . .

I've got another reply around here that addresses the 'local beliefs'. I agree that there should be some local control over 'native' beliefs, but basically they should be a Start of Game item, since Religion far predates any potential Start of Game date. And your choices should reflect both Civilization Uniques (possibly) and Starting Civilization Situation - I do not think it is logical to be able to choose a Tundra bonus from your Religion when there is no Tundra anywhere nearby, BUT I think as the game progresses, those earliest Beliefs should be subject to potential Change or even Replacement - with Gamer/Civ Effort, not Effortless make a chocie, change da Religion.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I would like a system were religions are technically independent from players in the sense that can emerge and spread without being assigned to the player's city they arised from. BUT players still have some agency to trigger their emergence, could make different actions to stimulate their growing and even can achieve the title of "Defender of the Faith" that allows you to modify the religion. Some points:

- Tutelar Dieties as the early game "pre-formal religion" equivalent to pantheon, one chosen for every city's Temple.​

- Worship Buildings are different for each religion ("formal* ones) and like in CIV4 the player could build them (some, even from different religions in the same city) to attract and gain piety for those religions.​

- Piety is the measurement each religion have to determine which civ(player) could claim Primacy (or what about the tiltle "Defender of the Faith") having different sources to gain or lose Piety similar to GPP, some examples are the already mentioned construction of the proper worship buildings, missionaries converting population, religion's percentage of your population and your percentage of the global population of that religion, picking that religion as official, ally and defend other civs/cs with your religion againts heathens, own your religion's holy city, certain policies, being a theocracy and of course be the first and/or current head of the religion would provide bonuses also. Logically doing the contraty of those action make you lost Piety so at certain point other CIV with a higher piety could claim the Primacy since you are not worthy anymore.​

- Beliefs reformation can be done only by the "Primate* civ (sound better in spanish since it is Primado without getting counfused with also spanish Primate for , that is why "Defender of the Faith" could work better). And doing these reforms would also cause some piety loss for both ballance and flavor since of course change your tenets would produce some opposition.​

By the way I am also of the idea that Religion do not need their own victory, still it would be a very powerfull way to achieve others victories mostly Cultural and Diplomatic.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I like the idea that "beliefs" could spontaneously emerge in a city on their own, maybe triggered by a civic or special events or circumstances. Each "belief" would have a unique ability and/or a penalty. They could grow in strength and become a "religion" when they get strong enough. "Beliefs" or "religions" would spread on their own from city to city. Cities could have multiple beliefs and/or religions. Players would interacts with these "beliefs" and "religions" in a variety of ways. They could embrace them to make them grow faster. They could choose the "tolerate them" option to gain happiness from more than one religion in the same city. They could make them the official state religion to gain loyalty that would be applied to the entire civ. They could be neutral to have no effect. They could also try to outlaw them or persecute them to reduce their strength or push them out to other cities. It would be up to the player to decide if they want those abilities or are willing to tolerate the penalties, whether they embrace a religion or try to get rid of it. And religions could also impact diplomacy. Persecute a religion that is the official state religion of your neighbor and they would hate you and maybe even gain a religious war casus belli against you. Declare a religion your official state religion and gain a big diplomatic bonus with another civ that also has that same state religion.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd like less micromanagement of religion, but I'm not sure how fun only giving the player indirect control of it's spread would be in practice.

Some combination of passive spread strongest near religiously specialised cities, with some form of ability to create distant hubs for spreading the religion without having to perform conquest could work?

But what would be the counterplay if you don't have your own religion? And would that just lead to frustration? Maybe the key would be to just allow all players' civs to found a religion so everyone is always playing the religion game to some extent?

Somewhat of a ramble, but I'll stop there. Long posts are almost always a bad idea.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

What if pantheons remained small terrain-based bonuses but were now applied to cities based on where they were settled? I.e. flat tundra grants Dance of the Aurora, geothermal vent grants Fire Goddess, and neither of those cities share the other’s pantheon (or, perhaps more aptly, patron deity, which would be a great rename of the system!).

The game would tell you which you’d get, and they could either be specifically faith-based or could be a small form of the adaptation feature I know some folks are pining for- Desert Folklore could give Food and Culture on desert tiles, for example.

Just an idea.

 

[UWHabs]

What if pantheons remained small terrain-based bonuses but were now applied to cities based on where they were settled? I.e. flat tundra grants Dance of the Aurora, geothermal vent grants Fire Goddess, and neither of those cities share the other’s pantheon (or, perhaps more aptly, patron deity, which would be a great rename of the system!).

The game would tell you which you’d get, and they could either be specifically faith-based or could be a small form of the adaptation feature I know some folks are pining for- Desert Folklore could give Food and Culture on desert tiles, for example.

Just an idea.

If you were going to do that, it would probably have to be some sort of set regions in map creation. So each in-game continent maybe is split into like 3-4 regions, each with their own "belief". I think it would be a bit annoying to not be able to pick ("man, I wish this Tundra section was a Goddess of the Hunt tundra region, not a Dance of the Aurora"), although you could even set it up so that whoever settles the first city in a region picks the bonus for that region.

But for religion itself, it's always one of those pieces that I always go back and forth on. Religion has been such a powerful presence in history that I would hate to turn it into just some generic side quest mini-game. But at the same time, it's really annoying sometimes how it runs in-game, it would definitely add something if it ended up a little out of your control and happened a little more naturally.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Personally I would like a system were religions are technically independent from players in the sense that can emerge and spread without being assigned to the player's city they arised from. BUT players still have some agency to trigger their emergence, could make different actions to stimulate their growing and even can achieve the title of "Defender of the Faith" that allows you to modify the religion. Some points:

- Tutelar Dieties as the early game "pre-formal religion" equivalent to pantheon, one chosen for every city's Temple.​

- Worship Buildings are different for each religion ("formal* ones) and like in CIV4 the player could build them (some, even from different religions in the same city) to attract and gain piety for those religions.​

- Piety is the measurement each religion have to determine which civ(player) could claim Primacy (or what about the tiltle "Defender of the Faith") having different sources to gain or lose Piety similar to GPP, some examples are the already mentioned construction of the proper worship buildings, missionaries converting population, religion's percentage of your population and your percentage of the global population of that religion, picking that religion as official, ally and defend other civs/cs with your religion againts heathens, own your religion's holy city, certain policies, being a theocracy and of course be the first and/or current head of the religion would provide bonuses also. Logically doing the contraty of those action make you lost Piety so at certain point other CIV with a higher piety could claim the Primacy since you are not worthy anymore.​

- Beliefs reformation can be done only by the "Primate* civ (sound better in spanish since it is Primado without getting counfused with also spanish Primate for , that is why "Defender of the Faith" could work better). And doing these reforms would also cause some piety loss for both ballance and flavor since of course change your tenets would produce some opposition.​

By the way I am also of the idea that Religion do not need their own victory, still it would be a very powerfull way to achieve others victories mostly Cultural and Diplomatic.

I could see a religious victory still implemented, if it meant a religion had to be dominant in every city in the world, and the victory was awarded to whoever contributed the most to said religion's dominance. Likewise, I'd like to see similar conditions applied to the diplomatic victory ("Who contributed the most to the world being united peacefully?") and the scientific victory ("Who contributed the most to building a complete Dyson sphere around the sun?")

 

[OzzyKP]

In general I'd like to see more elements of the game taken out of player's control. Religion, merchants, democratic governments, immigration, etc. I very much like having player control be a factor we can make decisions about. Designating your religion as the state religion would give you more control, but you'd miss out on some benefits from other paths. Having a democratic form of government would give you lots of benefits, but you'd have less control over your nation than a fascist dictator.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Personally, I'd rather see religion omitted from the base game, then reintroduced with a fully renovated design in an expansion.

 

[Leyrann]

Personally, I'd rather see religion omitted from the base game, then reintroduced with a fully renovated design in an expansion.

Why can't it be in the base game with a fully renovated design?

 

[BackseatTyrant]

In general I'd like to see more elements of the game taken out of player's control. Religion, merchants, democratic governments, immigration, etc. I very much like having player control be a factor we can make decisions about. Designating your religion as the state religion would give you more control, but you'd miss out on some benefits from other paths. Having a democratic form of government would give you lots of benefits, but you'd have less control over your nation than a fascist dictator.

Not a fan of this idea tbh, as it'd just reinforce the idea that you're playing as The State, that the goal of the game is to become The One Empire To Rule Them All. I know this is how most people like to view the game series, given its roots in wargames, but it irks me how much it goes against its promise to depict all the great accomplishment of the human race. In fact, I feel a lot of the game's mechanics would make more sense if they were depicted from a bottom-up perspective

 

[OzzyKP]

Huh, I thought it is the opposite. The way the game is built now, you are the God-Emperor of your nation, controlling every aspect for your people from the top-down. If you allow mechanics to exist that are outside of your control, like parliament, or merchants, or religion, etc, then it would reinforce the idea that the "people" in your civilization can make decisions and do things outside of the control of their immortal God-Emperor.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Personally, I'd rather see religion omitted from the base game, then reintroduced with a fully renovated design in an expansion.

I like that from the perspective that it could make playing with religion optional (as long as you're willing to forego expansions and stick to the base game). I'm not a fan of any of Civ's approaches to religion so far, so would be happy to see it omitted.

Religion was excluded from Civ 5's base game and added in the first expansion, so there is precedence. On the other hand, I think the reception to a Civ 7 base game that was "incomplete" would be poor.

 

[GeoGeo]

Primarily passive spread. Proselytizers still exist too, but function like spies by targeting cities directly rather than having to be micromanaged across the map like units. Maybe single use, or maybe multi-use with a cap like spies/traders. Also, schisms, and therefore a higher total religion count (though maybe save that for an expansion once the initial kinks are worked out). Don't design the system around a Religious Victory.

 

[Teutonic_Tirade]

Before I go and just post another thread, I wonder now too that since we know there are pantheons but can only speculate what further developments of the religious mechanics will be. My hope is that it is tied to Civ/Culture how religion spreads. I can see a mechanic where there are tall and wide religions working. For example, not every real world religion goes out and evangelizes, but that was a key part of Civ 6 because of the religious victory. With Civ 7 having no such victory, I think having religions having more of a split between ones that give you bonuses for going out, while others for building tall in your own cities.

 

[fantsu]

How Should Religion Function in Civ7?​

I'd say little bit like in Civ IV.
Every single religion is equal, but they are real historic ones, choice is for the player to make. Buffs to happiness and culture. Extra bonuses for cities following state religion. Interactions with buidings, wonders and civics like usual.
And if you dont care about religion at all you can go for free religion from paganism.



I did enjoy Secret Societies quite a lot actually. It was pretty much always on for me in Civ VI. Just gave that little gentle prod in some direction when it was hard to choose what to go for. Sometimes it didnt do too much. I think a vampire now and then helped AI to defend a little bit better from my invasion too that made things more interesting. I would not mind something like that either.
Balance is what I am worried about, Firaxis has to nail it better I think if its so. Also I always like it be more realistic and historic. Secret Societies is actually odd ball in my taste I guess.