IMHO-A Smiple and Effective means of implementing Religion

[Aussie_Lurker]

I thought that my first post was the 'comprehensive' model, but I confess that I didn't go 'deep' enough.
As I have said elsewhere, a religion is determined by both its 'Form' (Monotheism, Polytheism etc) and by its 'culture group' (West European, East European, North African etc). This helps to limit the number of potential choices you might have-especially when you have the demands of your own people to consider in the mix. Consider Rome, for instance. Historically, their Empire encompassed a part of the world which had an ancient Monotheistic culture. By dint of both immigration and conversion, more of the Roman People became Monotheists-this weakened the 'cultural strength' of the State faith of Polytheism and, finally, after originally persecuting the Monotheists, Rome embraced them by adopting Monotheism as the state faith. Of course, to do this, the state needed to be 'Aware' (in civ terms, have discovered it) of the religion. Rome, of course, adopted its OWN version of Monotheism (a Mediterranean form) and, once the religious culture had grown large enough-via converts and religious buildings-it could begin building the truly great works of their Mediterannean Monotheistic Empire-a religion which they then spread to the rest of Europe by both force and persuasion. Now, its possible that Rome could have ignored Monotheism by stamping it out entirely, and putting all their energy into their Polytheistic faith, but given its age this religion had already begun to fragment and lose its potency, thus Rome-even from a gameplay perspective-did what it thought would be in its long-term best interests. The other civs joined this new faith because they were threatened-or cajoled-but ultimately even THEY saw the benefits of belonging to a strong pre-existing faith. In game terms, those nations who joined early would gain large numbers of points towards the religious victory component of the game. Now, consider this, what would have happened if Rome and its surrounded area had been invaded by the Mongols-historically-but stopped there? Well, suddenly Rome would lose its supremacy in the faith, as the Mongols began destroying the religious buildings and the people who belong to the faith. Suddenly, the French are in the lead-in terms of the religious culture they produce each turn. The city with the greatest # of ankhs/turn becomes the new religious capital of the religion, and suddenly France is in line to win the Religious victory component-as the new 'defender of the faith'. Of course, they couldn't have seen this outcome at the start but, by backing what seemed like the 'best horse' at the time, they might now actually win outright.
Sorry if this post is a little rambling, but I confess that I need more time to consider the questions that are being asked.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, the key issues, in point form, are these:

1) You don't 'invent' a religion, but you can FOUND or ADOPT a religion.

2) In order to do either, you must-at a societal level-be AWARE of the religion (i.e., in civ terms, you need to have discovered the tech).

3) In order to FOUND a religion, you must be the first-in your Culture Group-to pick the religion as your 'national religion'. Otherwise, you must adopt the form of religion from one already in existence-either from your own culture group or from another culture group.

4) If you adopt an existing religion, how well your choice will be accepted by your people will depend on cultural, moral and diplomatic factors-as well as the presence and number of converts already within your nations borders.

5) The original FOUNDER of the faith is considered to also be the 'Defender of the Faith'. However, this situation need not be static. The original founder may 'fall behind' due to outside factors, internal dissent or benign neglect. By the same token, an 'adoptive' nation may become the 'defender of the faith' by being very proactive in the promotion of the religion-both at home and abroad. These are also the same tools by which an existing defender may retain their title.

6) Even if things remain static, and the religion you 'belong to' wins the game, then all adoptive nations gain either a 2nd or 3rd placing-depending on their theism levels at games end. This can be important in determining an outright winner of a particular game-as I said above-and marks a form of 'allied' victory.

7) Stamping out religion within your borders does have its benefits-such as eliminating religious 'dissent' and 'influence' within your nation, as well as unfettering your science from religious/moral constraints. The downside, though, is that you lose an effective tool in keeping your people content/happy, you become more prone to religious conversions by outside nations and you may reduce your diplomatic/moral standing in the eyes of more theistic societies (especially if you also have low levels of Libertarianism). Of course, you also lock yourself out of a religious victory-as you will need to start your point accumulations from much further back (i.e. you lose ankhs as long as you repress religion in your society, and have to reacquire them once the repression is removed).

Well, DH_Epic, I hope these answer your chief questions and/or concerns. Please note that this IS a model 'in progress', so I am formulating much of the more detailed mechanics as we go (largely based on your questions and criticisms !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Aussie. The first post was actually a killer example, and finally spelled it out to me. I know you'd been trying to explain it before, but sometimes an example is just that much more illuminating. One is why you'd accept a rival religion (because it's an improvement to stability), and two is how you could accept a rival religion and still steal a religious victory from them. Both are actually relatively simple, too, without adding any new heavy concepts.

I also appreciate the difference between "inventing" a religion and "adopting" a religion. Because the risk that you end up with is someone inventing a new religion every time they're converted. This is a sensible constraint, and makes religion a bit more competitive.

And I understand the "make it up as you go" approach. It's something I do quite often. Which is why I enjoy healthy and positive criticism.

Still, now that you have a basically working model (in my eyes)... I think it needs to do more than work. My criticisms shift:

A: The negative penalties for being bad at religion are too heavy. We're basically just talking about unhappiness. But if the game has some kind of regionalism system with cultural transmission, we're also talking about civil war.

B: The positive benefits for religion are too small. Namely religious victory, and that's it.

In other words, I think religion relies too much on A to be important to the player, and not enough on B. Think you could rebalance that?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, DH_Epic. As I said in my last post, there ARE other positive benefits for religion beyond mere victory. A high level of theism-along with large numbers of religious buildings and specialists (clerics)-are a great way to keep your people very happy-often much more happy than a host of other 'secular' means ('The Opiate of the Masses'? ) Also, other theistic nations-particularly those of the same religion as yours-will tend to respect you more than if you had little to no Theism-which can help a great deal in securing diplomatic and trade agreements. Also, along with your cultural strength, your 'ankh strength' will have a strong hand in the value and demand for your luxuries-even amongst civs of a different religion (a system similar to one I remember YOU coming up with in the formation of the culture model !)
Of course, religion can also be another great tool for 'dominating' the world WITHOUT having to actually dominate it with weapons and occupation. For instance, your goods and people-when they move into foreign nations-take some of their secular AND religious culture with them. This is a great way to 'infect' other nations with the basics of your religion, and could lead to the start of the eventual conversion of that nation (meaning another nation which is 'ostensibly' on YOUR SIDE). If this is too slow, then you can also establish missions as a means of more rapidly funneling ankhs into foreign cities. Yes, you can do this with your secular culture-but religion is less likely to 'regionalise', when it mixes, than secular culture (it can happen though- just look at Vodoun, an intriguing blend of West African Animism and Roman Catholicism).

So, the positive aspects of focusing on religion are:

(i) Better trade and diplomacy outcomes with other nations of shared faith, and even those of other faiths-at least until the advent of nationalism.

(ii) Better economic outcomes, not only from trade, but also because your people are easier to keep content EVEN when their incomes are low or they have few luxuries. Also, like tourism, high Ankh cities can attract LOTS of pilgrims from those of the same-or similar-religion.

(iii) Another way to achieve ultimate victory in the game-a means to 'conquer' without conquering-if you get my meaning.

(iv) A way to do the things you ordinarily might not be able to get away with (razing that Arab city WAS a really bad thing to do, but they were-after all-just HEATHENS !) or (I want to get my hands on those silks in Spain, but I can't invade them alone. Oh wait, they are a different religion to me-I will just declare them Heretics and call for a Holy War!)

(v) With higher theism levels, when you are GOOD, you are really REALLY good-increasing your chance of a Moral/Diplomatic victory.

The Negatives of NOT focusing on Religion are:

(i) Lower chance of winning the Moral/Diplomatic victory.

(ii) Harder to keep your people happy-forcing you to divert more of your economy towards maintaining the mood of your populace.

(iii) Harder to achieve good diplomatic and trade agreements with more religious societies.

(iv) If you are a 'Religious' Civ (i.e. civ trait) you could lose that trait, and all its additional benefits.

(v) Higher chance of religious revolt and/or civil war IF you have cities with a high 'religious' influence (imagine how Rome would react if Italy outlawed the practice of religion!)

(vi) Fewer reliable tools, available to you, for bringing foreign nations over to your side.

Of course, by the same token, focusing TOO much on religion has its OWN negatives, which must be balanced against the positives. It can reduce your science output-as dogma becomes more important than progress, it can make your nation more susceptible to religious schisms-as you become less tolerant of religious difference, and it becomes harder for you to create lasting relationships with nations of quite different religions-as your people display a form of 'religious Xenophobia'.
I'd like to think that, when you consider ALL of these elements, it can be seen that focusing on religion DOES have its benefits, but is best done in moderation. However, sometimes there are benefits-at least in the short term-in being a little bit of an extremist (either for or against religion).
Does that adequately satisfy your qualms? If not, then I should be able to come up with more balancing elements.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Consider Rome, for instance. Historically, their Empire encompassed a part of the world which had an ancient Monotheistic culture. By dint of both immigration and conversion, more of the Roman People became Monotheists-this weakened the 'cultural strength' of the State faith of Polytheism and, finally, after originally persecuting the Monotheists, Rome embraced them by adopting Monotheism as the state faith.

Actually the majority of the land Rome conqured was polytheistic, which allowed for a succesful tax collecting seytem based on the Roman gods The fervor to convert people to christianity THEN converted a majority of the citizens to a monotheistic religion, but when they were first conqured they were polyhteistic

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahhh, but I didn't say a 'majority' of the land encompassed by the Roman Empire, I only said that their empire DID encompass a Monotheistic culture-namely of the Israelites in what would become Palestine. It was their Monotheistic faith, and a particular Sect of that faith, which ultimately spread throughout the Greek and Roman sections of the Roman Empire. It was this Monotheistic Sect which the Roman Empire-under Constantine-finally embraced as their state religion-with their own unique 'cultural stamp' on it, of course.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Actually the majority of the land Rome conqured was polytheistic, which allowed for a succesful tax collecting seytem based on the Roman gods The fervor to convert people to christianity THEN converted a majority of the citizens to a monotheistic religion, but when they were first conqured they were polyhteistic

Ahhh, but I didn't say a 'majority' of the land encompassed by the Roman Empire, I only said that their empire DID encompass a Monotheistic culture-namely of the Israelites in what would become Palestine. It was their Monotheistic faith, and a particular Sect of that faith, which ultimately spread throughout the Greek and Roman sections of the Roman Empire. It was this Monotheistic Sect which the Roman Empire-under Constantine-finally embraced as their state religion-with their own unique 'cultural stamp' on it, of course.

exactly what I said

 

[dh_epic]

I'll ignore happiness, because I still consider that more of a negative. It's not so much that religion makes your country happier than what's needed, but a lack of religion makes it less happy than what's needed. There's more to lose from being unhappy than there is to gain from "surplus happiness".

Economic benefits are interesting, and do have an ounce of truth. Conquering without blood, too.

But diplomatic benefits are tricky. Sure you get the sense of religious community with your likeminded neighbors. But don't you get the sense of hostility with those different from you? At a certain point, doesn't it make sense to marginalize the impact of any one religion, so as to level the diplomatic playing field with all nations?

I would also argue that most of these benefits could be achieved with culture, without nearly all the complexity. And you could still tie in many other religious concepts such as Priests, Monuments, and Holy Sites ... but because they're cultural and not religious, they would still make sense in a Modern secular, "enlightened" society.

Still -- barring criticisms about the payoff for adding religion, I think this is a pretty solid working model that makes sense and empowers the player.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, a couple of key issues first, DH_Epic.

1) In my model, positive happiness IS important, because a city with a happiness of greater than 50% has many benefits-such as increased production, greater wealth, boosted population growth etc. In addition, a high national happiness boosts migration to your nation. Thus having religion is a great way to achieve these benefits-especially if you are a small nation with precious few resources. Oh, and increased happiness can stave off War weariness longer.

2) The effect of religion on diplomacy is a MAJOR issue PRIOR to the Age of Nationalism. After this point, religion takes an increasing backseat to nationality and culture group in determining international relations-as it did in real life.

3) Don't underestimate the power of the 'you can get away with more if its in the name of your religion' effect !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.