I like that religion is way simpler in Seven, although it is tedious

[kaspergm]

I still feel like getting rid of missionary units completely, and somehow putting religion as something you spend influence on to spread just makes more sense. Don't give me more units to walk around the map, especially immortal units that can't be defeated. Just give me one big menu page to decide which cities I am exerting religious pressure to, and find an algorithm for passive and active spread in converting cities.

Something like the spy system where they are off-map units that can be send to own or other cities and perform missions might be a good way to solve it.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I'm not seeing Civ7's religious system as an improvement at all.

Yes, religion if Civ5 and 6 was a MM heavy minigame - and I can understand all the criticism and those who flat-out don't like it. But for me it has at least some depth, decisions and fun moments for me, when deciding to dive into it.

Civ7 kept the micro of having to move units around, but killed any aditional depth or strategy (like different units, religious combat, faith economy) and for me it provides zero fun to engage with the system. Not getting why it was implemented that way, when the overall design philosophy behind Civ7 was to replace tedious mini-decisions by large, meaningful ones. What is the actual gain of the current system? What would be lost if one could fully automate it or if it would be transformed into a fully passive system without any units? Sorry, but to me it just feels half-baked: The Civ6 religious mechanics were considered as unfitting for the Civ7 vision (and I understand that), but for whatever reason either the wrong conclusion was drawn from this insight or something prevented the development of a better replacement (and what we got was implemented to avoid not having religion at all, which might have been a problem for the conception/story telling around the exploration age)

 

[kaspergm]

I'm not seeing Civ7's religious system as an improvement at all.

Yes, religion if Civ5 and 6 was a MM heavy minigame - and I can understand all the criticism and those who flat-out don't like it. But for me it has at least some depth, decisions and fun moments for me, when deciding to dive into it.

I agree, Civ7 seems to do nothing to fix the MM of Civ6 religion but seems to remove most if not all of the benefits. On the other hand, one can criticize Civ6 faith economy of being way overpowered. I mean, Monumentality GA was just plain broken, and there was a whole meta centered around the faith-pantheon + Work Ethics + Scripture combo.

 

[gamemaster3000]

Aight I tried websters, google, AI, three different searches and failing all else, thinking about it.

What is MM?

https://slang.net/terms/online_gaming Even that doesn't have it and that has a bunch of weird stuff on it.

 

[gamemaster3000]

Something like the spy system where they are off-map units that can be send to own or other cities and perform missions might be a good way to solve it.

Yah I don't think manually moving the missionaries around is all that great.

On the plus side you can use them to get complete vision of the entire map if you so desire.

 

[Gori the Grey]

micromanagement

(or missionary machinations)
(or mystical militarism)
(or monastic mastery)
(or monotheistic magnification)

but micromanagement, I should think

 

[kaspergm]

I also interpreted it as micromanagement ... although manual movement is equally suitable in this case.

 

[pokiehl]

The religion mechanic is meh in Civ 5, bad in Civ 6, and even worse in Civ 7. With all the streamlining done elsewhere with the game mechanics, I was surprised to see it stripped down in Civ 7 to the worst, most tedious aspect: missionary management.

I do think getting rid of a separate faith yield was an interesting idea with the potential to make religion even more intertwined with the rest of the game. But unfortunately it falls flat in execution. I agree with the post above that mentioned tying Influence to religion would have been interesting.

I really hope it gets a huge overhaul in Civ 7 and gets the depth and immersion that religion deserves.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I meant micromanagment. Sorry for the confusion and thank you @Gori the Grey and @kaspergm for stepping in with the explanation

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

micromanagement

(or missionary machinations)
(or mystical militarism)
(or monastic mastery)
(or monotheistic magnification)

but micromanagement, I should think

You forgot Mighty Manfred the Wonder Dog of the cartoons of my mis-spent youth, and I suspect the prime designer of the religion 'system' in Civ VII which certainly looks and plays like something out of a Cosmic Joke.

See here:

Post in thread 'Gimme dat (Only) Exploration Age Religion'

May 16, 2025

I was very consciously trying to maintain the game's 'system' of Religion being specific only to the Exploration Age.

That means not having named Religions or Pantheons in Antiquity, but rather representing religion by building Altars and Religious Wonders in that Age.

This despite the Axial Age when the majority of the world's religions started being roughly 600 BCE to 600 CE and so largely in the Antiquity Age. I suspect the designers' reasoning was that religion in Antiquity was largely bound up with cultural affinities - if you were Greek, you followed the Greek pantheon, if German...

• Boris Gudenuf

• 

For my suggestions on a possibly better implementation of 'religion'.

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

I built a Temple and a Missionary or two in my first game and haven't built either since. I just don't care.

 

[Patine]

The Catholic Church has the aim of evangelizing the entire globe.

I think it's the model for religion in the Civ games.

Yes, and so do all other Christian denominations (save for the Penetite-derived primitive colony dwellers), Sunni and Shia Islam, all sects of Buddhism, as well as Scientology, and so did Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Capitoline Roman Polytheism, and Zoroastrianism before the fall of the Sassanian Empire. But Jews, Shintoists, and Sikhs, for example, do not procelytize, and, in fact, put those who come to them to be converted through stringent, difficult hoops, and even when they are finally welcomed in, they always lack a few privileges of those born into the religion. Most Ancient and Pre-Colonial Polytheist and Animist religions were similar. Taoists have no records or rosters of members - one follows the Tao if they so choose. More variety in TYPE of religion in terms of Universalist Procelytizing and Ethnic Insular, and perhaps middle grounds, would be nice.

 

[King of Prussia]

There are a lot of neat things i think they could do with religion, but as it stands right now, its just tedious micromanaging. The movement rules make it even more annoying. For time spent, the rewards and gameplay itself are not worth the time.

 

[RaidandTrade]

Anyone ever bother with the “Convert” espionage action?

 

[Smegger213]

Well, I hate religion in Civ 7. I find that once I get to a certain point in the game, it becomes a constant battle to stop the other civ's converting my towns and cities to their religion. Even if I convert my city back, I find that a few turns later, its been converted to another civ's religion again. Sometimes, I just give up on religion altogether. That is a step back from what it was like in Civ 5 & 6.

 

[Giskler]

Just played a few 1.2 games and I find the religious whack-a-mole mini-game a lot less tedious now. It seems they toned down the missionary spam a lot.

 

[gamemaster3000]

I wouldn't mind a way to defend but...the less complicated the better.

Even something like a town couldn't be re-converted until 10 turns or you can't convert a city with a missionary in it or something, just ...the game is super complicated, leave one of the 15 inter-locking systems simple.

 

[MutilationWave]

Well, I hate religion in Civ 7. I find that once I get to a certain point in the game, it becomes a constant battle to stop the other civ's converting my towns and cities to their religion. Even if I convert my city back, I find that a few turns later, its been converted to another civ's religion again. Sometimes, I just give up on religion altogether. That is a step back from what it was like in Civ 5 & 6.

I don't even bother converting my own cities. I just get the incredibly easy legacy path complete. I don't start with missionaries until halfway through the age.

If you haven't converted your own cities, it makes the happiness crisis much less debilitating. I've had this crisis every time but once in exploration. So not having to do the whack a mole or mess with missionaries beyond getting the legacy is a double bonus for me.

 

[MutilationWave]

I built a Temple and a Missionary or two in my first game and haven't built either since. I just don't care.

How do you get away with not building temples in the happiness crisis?

I wish I could just ignore it like you but I want those easy legacy points.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My Religious Game has become the same in each game, regardless of what Leader or Civ I am playing:

Build enough Temples to store enough Relics to complete the 'Cultural' Legacy path.
Start a Religion, get the Belief that gives 2 Relics upon first converting a foreign Capital.
Build and deploy enough Missionaries to convert 4 - 5 Capitals: that gives you 8 - 10 Relics. Civics will give you the rest with ease.

Ignore Religion for the rest of the Age.

- Unless you need the extra points from Settlements in Distant Lands with your religion for the Military Legacy - having a settlement with your religion virtually doubles the points from such settlements, which makes getting the Military Legacy a breeze without ever conquering anybody or even firing a shot throughout the Age.