IMHO-A Smiple and Effective means of implementing Religion

Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
7,819
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
OK, I should point out-from the get-go-that this model is based on three very important assumptions:

1) That religious culture-and Secular culture-will move from city to city, and nation to nation, in an organic and osmotic fashion.

2) That factions and seccessionism will be in the game.

3) That some form of Social Engineering will exist in the game.

So how would it work?

i) All religious buildings would produce 'Religious Culture' (Ankhs)-and some will produce secular culture as well.

ii) Religious Specialists and Theism levels would also effect the Ankhs produced by a city-and nation.

iii) There would be a few 'generic' religions-though new ones could be added, and existing ones renamed and edited, via the editor.

iv) Each religion would, very simply, have an 'Influence' (multiplier to ankh production) and 'Stability' (multiplier to schism and sectarianism chance)-as well as a Most/Least likely Sect.

v) Highly Influential religions will tend to have Low stability, and vice versa.

vi) Within a city, the ratio of your faith's ankh number vs another faith's ankh number will determine the % chance of a conversion occuring. Also, the higher the # of converts in a city, the more likely the city is to undergo a 'religious schism'.

vii) If a city has very low levels of Ankhs, compared to the national average, is very unhappy and/or has high levels of 'foreign' ankhs-amongst other factors-then a new 'sect' may arise in that city. Exactly what sect might appear will depend on the base religion of the nation, and its current civics/Social Engineering setting. So, for instance, a highly militaristic civ might have a higher chance of having cities developing a militant sect of its religion.

viii) You can choose to 'supress' a foreign religion or sect-or even choose to embrace it as the new state religion. How high your theism levels are effect how many 'foreign' ankhs enter your nation, the % chance of conversions, and how unhappy converts are within your society-the middle and last, even more so, if combined with very low levels of Libertarianism. These factors also, however, increase the chance of Sectarianism and Schisms.

ix) If you belong to the exact same religion as one-or a group-of other nations, then you recieve a % of their base ankhs added to your own-and vice versa-making it better, sometimes, to embrace a pre-existing faith than create one of your own.

x) Along with Culture Group and Government type, shared religion is also an important determinant in diplomatic and economic relations.

There are other, minor elements, I haven't mentioned here (like creating a 'mission', in a foreign city, in order to channel ankhs directly there)-but these are more about 'nuances', wheras I felt it was more important to stick to the very basic model. Anyway, I hope that all makes sense, and I look forward to any comments or suggestions (just no flaming, OK? ;))

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
BUMP!!! ;) :p
 
Hi Aussie,

Always good to see a thought through model ... of course, my gut feeling is that this is a pipe dream for Civ 4 ... but hey, who lknows.

My one add on would be that what sect arrises should be very obvious to the player, and the effects of happiness and unhappiness should also be very clear. I'd ahte it if you have this great system and you feel like you have no control at all, and no imput at all to what happens ... oh, and thanks for the uptake on Anhks :)
 
Comments about payoff not withstanding... :) and following along with the assumption about three other major features to precede religion...

... I think this is a solid model. It's realistic and flexible (as opposed to models that are either too rigid or too crazy).

Although I'd like you to expand on just what causes a schism, and just how it happens.

And the impact of that influence multiplier on your religion's ability to spread.
 
Hmmm, I hope it is not overwhelming.

It is a good system but it sounds it would capture players attention in a much grander way than CivIII`s culture did. That may even mean, religion is more importand aspect than any other.
I, for one, would not like to see that.

My opinion is, aussie`s system should have less effect than I think it has.
 
Kozez, how much effect religion has on your nation will depend largely on how theistic your society is.
By the same token, there are no 'culture flips' in my model a la civ3. Even schisms and sectarianism leave you with effective control of the city-its just that you will no longer be able to build religious improvements or gain religious culture from that city. Also, a schism CAN be a trigger for a civil war-but only under extreme circumstances. The point is that my model is an adjunct to the culture system, and could be another way for even a fairly small nation can win a victory-if they establish a religion first-and could lead to greater co-operation (and conflict) between groups of nations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Just to expand on what Aussie is saying. Religion can be a subset of culture.

In the Big Picture PDF write-up, qualitative difference in cultures is implied and assumed but not discussed.

Let's step back for a moment. How is Culture applied in Civ3? It's a quantity. French culture is better than Aztec culture because it is quantitatively bigger. Both are actually exactly the same, they are just a number.

What would be interesting is to give culture qualitative difference. Such that Aztec culture =! French culture and both may exist simultaneously in the city.

How does religion play into this? If we view the new cultural model as a set of variables (civic culture, religion, economic ideology etc.) then each civilization would have 3 to 5 variables for each subset of culture, which collectively is called CULTURE.

Religious, civic, economic (ideology) differences can thus emerge and you can fight wars and exert influence over this. This is a far more interesting 'cultural' model than the 'mine is bigger than yours' model in Civ3 where culture is treated as points.
 
Primarily, DH_Epic, a Schism can occur if another religions ankh number, within a city (or cities) is sufficiently greater than your own. This alone, though, won't neccessarily cause a schism (unless the difference is VERY GREAT) however, excessive unhappiness, a high % of actual converts to the other religion, great distance from the 'Religious Capital' and attempting to supress the religion or sect in these cities will all make it MORE likely that a schism will occur. If this occurs, then the player will no longer be able to build religious improvements in that city, and the ankhs produced by improvements already there will drop significantly. A schism can also be a precursor for a civil war, with the breakaway state which forms having this new religion.
Hope that makes sense. Anything else you wish to know more about?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
That does make sense. So now my next question is why should I care if I can't build any more religious culture up in those cities?

Also, are there any benefits to my rival if he causes my city to "schism"?
 
Oh, and I should make this additional comment.

The suggestions thus far have tended to make the entire mechanism of religion into an opaque and likely overly complex feature that a casual player may have difficulty understanding.

Probably a more intuitive system is still needed.
 
I like the idea of religion playing a part in CivIV (and from what I've seen it's all but assured to be in there), ubt one thing I haven't heard come up too much is the idea of religious centres. For instance, wouldn't it be cool to build the vatican/mecca/(I'm sure there's some more out there, but my ignorance is showing...), making your civilization the epicenter of that religion. That could get you extra cash in the form of tithes (sp?), and maybe an unnofical MA with all civ's of the same religion? Just a thought...
 
Well, DH_Epic, the only real reasons I can think of to 'care' about a schism is that (a) if a city no longer produces very many ankhs for you-and is now producing ankhs for a rival religion-then it can become the start of a more large scale conversion of your cities to a foreign religion. This can reduce the chance of winning a religious victory. (b) As I mentioned, some of the conditions which lead to a religious schism CAN be a precedent for civil war. So preventing a schism-or reversing it-may be a vital way of stopping your cities breaking away. Of course, if these cities identify with a foreign religion, then they may start to identify more with the nation behind that religion. (c) If you belong to another civs religion, then losing YOUR cities to a foreign religion might be seen as a 'breach of faith' by the other civ (and they might demand that you bring these cities 'back into the fold).
Of course, all of these reasons for stopping a schism are also the reasons why a rival might try and provoke one in cities.
Anyway, hope that all makes sense.
Lastly, Dexters, having thought long and hard about my model, I would say it is quite intuitive. The underlying systems make religion SIMPLER than governments are in Civ3. By the same token, though, there are elements of the model which I DON'T want to be too intuitive, as I want a little bit of mystery.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I think that if you reach a certain govt the religoun wouldn play less of a part. like, if you were in a democracy (should be called republic) the religoun should have much less influence, and the govt should lose control of building religous buildings

Or in a communist govt religion would be supressed and temples would be destroyed

One thing annoying about civ3 was that all nations were monotheistic, religions like hinduism and shintoism. Some people are still pagan. And buddhism is completely seperate from mono and polytheism. I don't think religions shouldbe researched- history shows us that religions form in times of war.
 
I agree about the lack of genuine DIVERSITY in religion, Graadia (hope you don't mind me shortening your name ;)!)
As for specific governments, I think its better to say that Nationalism and Theism are-to a great degree agonistic. That is, as you raise your nationalism, your theism will be forced to drop (though not at a 1-to-1 ratio). This way, even a communist Republic might decide not to over-promote its nationalism, but instead focus on religion. Of course, it is more likely that a modern, communist republic will have a low theism anyway.
The up-side of low theism is that you have a lower chance of religious schisms, your religions' influence abroad goes up, and your science rates go up. The down side is that the religious culture produced by your improvements, locally, goes down, the chance of religious conversion and sectarianism rise and the happiness produced by religious improvements is less. Obviously, this is vice versa if you raise your theism levels.
As always, if you guys disagree with any of my points, please feel free to let me know, and I will edit my original post accordingly.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Communism shouldn't receive a penalty to religion. People have obviously never heard of "Liberation Theology", which became quite popular in certain parts of Latin America.

Aussie -- I'm willing to take the increased chance of civil war due to a schism at face value.

But one problem with cultural victory is it was just a victory. There was no benefit to producing culture otherwise, so many people often ignore it. It's helpful to get some borders going, but ultimately, investing in culture is a waste compared to investing in your military. There's no benefit to getting halfway to cultural victory. There's LOADS of benefit of getting halfway to domination (in the form of a bigger economy and more productivity). I worry that a religious victory would fall into the same disease that plagues cultural victory. "If you build it, they will come."

Secondly, I see more reason to refuse to participate in someone else's religion than willingly going along after you've been converted. I think I can understand how all of your cities might be converted, thus ceasing the production of religious culture. And I can make the assumption that I won't be able to just switch religions and start all over again. But once I've been converted, I'm not sure "the other nation will be disappointed" is a good enough reason to break my back producing a victory for him that doesn't help me in the slightest. If anything, I'd be counting the days before I outlaw religion altogether, as a last ditch effort to mess things up for him.
 
OK, I confess that I am seeing this model in the context of other changes to the game (which I hope and pray will occur).
First, there is the fact that culture groups and Religion will have a very strong impact on your diplomatic relations, and such diplomatic relations will play a vital role in obtaining improved economic outcomes-as well as giving you better chances of alliances and other diplomatic agreements, especially in the face of a 'Heathen' religion.
Second, simply 'outlawing' religion isn't going to cut it. If you reduce theism or completely outlaw religion, then you lose ALL of the benefits of religion-as well as its headaches. By the same token, though, this may well piss off your people sufficiently to cause a civil war to erupt-something which might cost you the game. Point is, you cannot ever TRULY ignore religion, any more than real rulers throughout history could.
Third, Cleaving to another nations faith DOES have specific benefits. Firstly, as you receive a % of every other nation's ankhs, then it represents a 'strength in numbers' against foreign conversion. Secondly, nothing is static, and though an existing nation is the 'head' of a religion, circumstances may alter this situation. If you belong to that faith, then you can be in a position to take up the mantle of 'Defender of the Faith'. Even if this doesn't happen, I could envisage this victory type being an 'allied victory', or at least where the other nation's victory contributes to your own placing for determining outright victory (do you remember my idea for ALL victory types being determined at games end, with ULTIMATE victory going to the nation who was ahead in the most areas. A 2nd place in Religious victory may decide whether you win or lose the overall game!) Thirdly, failing to adopt a religion which is popular and influential in your society-even if it is someone elses-could lead to civil war, in much the same way as I described above.
Fourth and lastly, upsetting 'the other nation' would be VERY important if morality and behaviour played a more important role in international relations-as you know I hope it will!!! Obviously a time will come when religion MIGHT become less important for a nation, especially if they clearly see that they won't win an ultimate religious victory. However, it is always nice to have as a tool to manipulate the people when needs be-as we see occuring so often in real life.
Anyway, DH_Epic, I hope you can see from my explanations how sticking to another nation's religion can have greater benefits than penalties, and how making good use of religion CAN be a very effective way for even a very small nation to achieve a major victory type.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Turning religion into a subset of culture, in addition of economic ideology and having culture itself as a tool for world domination where the leading cultural civilizations try and spread their cultural power to other powers in addition to their military power would be quite interesting.

Ultimately, we can't and shouldn't take religion in a vacuum and discuss it in isolation. Religion has synergy with culture and culture, if we are to truly make and advancement in Civ4, needs to work with other components of the game. In this context, religion should be viewed as a means to an end (the acquisiton of power and control), and not an end in itself.
 
Dexters, as you can see from my Sig AND my previous posts here, you should be able to see that I agree with you 100%. Thats why I started with those assumptions at very beginning of the first post. If they are not adopted-in some form-then even I can admit that this model won't really work too well, and I fear for ANY religion model in the game that tries to exist without these other things being fixed. I would LOVE to see secular and religious cultural strength having a MAJOR impact on how much other nations are willing to pay for your goods (especially luxuries), even more so when the trading nation is of the same religion and/or culture group. Your standing in morality terms (an advanced form of reputation), in the eyes of other nations, should also be effected by similarities in the nations' religion and culture group. This will further reinforce the reason for you, the player, adhering to an existing religion which may already have lots of nations following it. Can you and DH_Epic see now how I envisage my religion model fitting into a broader schema of civilization?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Complexity

I can definitely see how it fits into a broader scheme... although my reservations about "bang for buck" still hold. Religion is complex to implement on its own. Imagine implementing that after you've overhauled the game with all the features you assume: Cultural Transmission, Will of the People, Regionalism and Seperatism, and Social Engineering... probably Minor Civilizations, too.

Plus the features for splitting culture into ankhs and regular culture is big enough to be a seperate enterprise from merely inventing a religion for your nation. Plus whatever features come out of the discussions for the next problems...

But let's not let complexity hinder these discussions. It verges on the "too un-civ-like" type arguments that you and I both hate, so let's not take those concerns too seriously (for now).

Making Religion Work

I'm still not sure you've addressed the concerns... religion does tend to raise a lot of big questions where even if there are answers, they can be complex enough to raise more questions of feasibility.

Second, simply 'outlawing' religion isn't going to cut it. If you reduce theism or completely outlaw religion, then you lose ALL of the benefits of religion-as well as its headaches.

I forgot the benefits, other than cultural victory. Or are you referring to the benefits of temples as they already exist, like happiness?

Causing civil war is a pretty good incentive to not outlaw religion. But then we have implemented a negative feature with no real positive.

Cleaving to another nations faith DOES have specific benefits. Firstly, as you receive a % of every other nation's ankhs, then it represents a 'strength in numbers' against foreign conversion.

But if you don't care what religion you are anymore, because you already lost the chance of religious victory, why should you care what all those crazy cat worshipping people want to do? If they convert you from your current religion, so be it. It doesn't hurt you. It might even help you, because it means that those two people will drag each other down religiously, while you can focus on more important things like conquest.

If you belong to that faith, then you can be in a position to take up the mantle of 'Defender of the Faith'. Even if this doesn't happen, I could envisage this victory type being an 'allied victory', or at least where the other nation's victory contributes to your own placing for determining outright victory

To me, these are the most promising ideas.

Spoiler :
But overhauling the victory system is really ambitious and probably a whole feature in of itself -- where it's no longer "who won and who lost" but "who won by how much". Imagine an online ladder system of not winners and losers, but of "points" based on how much you dominate the games you DO play. But this is a whole other discussion.


"Defender of the faith" is interesting and still part of this whole religion discussion. To pull this one off, we need to discuss:

1) How do you invent a religion?
2) At what point does it become impossible to invent a new religion?
3) How do you take over the spot as "defender of the faith" and gain a shot at religious victory?
4) What tools does the defender of the faith have at his disposal to maintain his grip on religion?
 
The one thing I think needs to be avoided is the idea of 'your' religion. The relationship between a religion and any particular civ should be based on the choice of the civ. ie 'your religion' is whatever religion you choose to promote/accept in your civ.

The religions would not be 'created' by players but would be spontaneously created when players reached certain stages of development (ie a civ discovering Monarchy, Monotheism, Printing Press, etc. would have a certain chance of producing a religion in that civ, either through schism or a new sect that would begin to grow)

The play value of religion would come in periods of change, when different civs are dominated by different or the same religions, or when one civ is dominated by multiple religions.

I would not give religions bonuses like militaristic, etc. The factors of the religion should simply be there to describe how the religion's culture spreads and grows. (Religious holy sites would be good but should not be something the player can build... At best they would be something the player could Capture and improve on... ie the player can build the Vatican, but only in Rome, the Temple can only be built in Jerusalem..or the Ganges as the case may be, etc.)
 
Back
Top Bottom