India

[ashendashin]

This idea has merit, as right now the only pantheon that is both faith light and impactful early is God of All Creation, maybe Springtime or Festivals can be included. Stuff like God-King is faith light and has potentially big yields, but if you don't get a religion your window to enjoy the benefits is small.

Goddess of Wisdom never seems to get any recognition...
Anyways, this would call for a lot of changes. Changes that could easily be overpowered in the hands of many civs if they get easy access to early yields whenever they like. I wasn't thinking about the fact that Gazebo is making India's UA start off on pantheons when I made the post above, so maybe pantheons should...I dunno, unlock the ability to easily get their benefits? Can they unlock improvements like mines and such so early workers are actually useful? Or just speed up the actual process? Like faster construction of quarries, roads, barracks, etc.? There's plenty of things to use that just aren't worth it because they require a change of priorities or they would only end up being useful when everyone's founding. I have no idea if they can be tied to things besides yields.

 

[8bitBob]

I think someone proposed something like having pantheons unlock a building that lets you keep the bonuses on select cities. Can that happen in some way that you can choose where to build it? I know G has been stoic about how it's impossible to keep a pantheon in any way, but if a workaround can be achieved, then losing out on a religion can be a legitimate option. Otherwise it will always be viewed as a failure due to how long it can take to get a religion off someone else. Perhaps a way to encourage the AI to spread their faith towards you?

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that your Pantheon should be kept post conversion. Rather, I am saying there should be Pantheon options that provide useful yields like production, gold science and the like so that you can benefit from your Pantheon in the early game without requiring that you found a Religion.

 

[CrazyG]

I can definitely found as India if I got for God of the Expanse, I can found as any civ if I go for God of the Expanse. I'm saying that's a poor excuse for a religious civ. And I'm also saying that since the Indian AI doesn't pick God of the Expanse as India, they never found a religion.

Just to recap
-You know how to found a religion with any civ
-You are missing religion with India
-Therefore India's UA needs to change

Something isn't adding up. I think having pantheons provide growth will be an excellent addition that might make India a viable civ to just totally ignore religion with, getting a pantheon without building a shrine is great.

 

[Txurce]

I'm also saying that since the Indian AI doesn't pick God of the Expanse as India, they never found a religion.

Since every civ founds a religion at least on occasion, you may want to modify that statement.

 

[8bitBob]

Since every civ founds a religion at least on occasion, you may want to modify that statement.

That would be a pretty pedantic way of looking at it.

 

[Txurce]

That would be a pretty pedantic way of looking at it.

Feel free to suggest a better way to disagree with "since the Indian AI doesn't pick God of the Expanse as India, they never found a religion."

 

[8bitBob]

Feel free to suggest a better way to disagree with "since the Indian AI doesn't pick God of the Expanse as India, they never found a religion."

Pedant
ped·ant
ˈpednt/
noun

1. a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

A better way to disagree is not needed, because his meaning is clear in this instance: India very rarely Founds because they do not pick God of the Expanse." Quibbling over whether absolutes are figurative or literal is a perfect example of being pedantic.

 

[Txurce]

Pedant
ped·ant
ˈpednt/
noun

1. a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

A better way to disagree is not needed, because his meaning is clear in this instance: India very rarely Founds because they do not pick God of the Expanse." Quibbling over whether absolutes are figurative or literal is a perfect example of being pedantic.

If you think saying "never" clearly means "rarely ever," and to take "never" literally is pedantic because it's a "minor detail," then you are correct in everything you wrote.

 

[8bitBob]

Never is rarely used as literal absolute in conversation, but that's not even the important part: what would it add to the discussion? Someone says, "Well I saw India found with X, so you're wrong." in an attempt to discredit their real points. They then respond, "Obviously I didn't mean literally never, so I'm not."

It changes nothing substantial in the discourse, so yes, it is a "minor detail" and quibbling over it is pedantic.

 

[Txurce]

Never is rarely used as literal absolute in conversation, but that's not even the important part: what would it add to the discussion? Someone says, "Well I saw India found with X, so you're wrong." in an attempt to discredit their real points. They then respond, "Obviously I didn't mean literally never, so I'm not."

It changes nothing substantial in the discourse, so yes, it is a "minor detail" and quibbling over it is pedantic.

Well, you've certainly made this discourse more substantial with your pedantic sidebar, so we got that out of it, at least.

 

[8bitBob]

Well, you've certainly made this discourse more substantial with your pedantic sidebar, so we got that out of it, at least.

Hah! Derail the discussion with a meaningless disagreement, respond with another meaningless comment when someone calls you out on it, and then claim they're being pedantic for responding. Brilliant.

 

[tu_79]

Be proud of you being pedantic! There's always time to get educated.

By the way, I like the proposal of India UA working on her pantheon too. This would solve the pain of not founding a religion, while still being a religious civ.

 

[8bitBob]

By the way, I like the proposal of India UA working on her pantheon too. This would solve the pain of not founding a religion, while still being a religious civ.

Yeah, I like this idea and it would go a ways towards helping non-founding India. I still think Pantheons are a bit out whack at the moment, but that would probably be better discussion for the Pantheon thread.

 

[Funak]

Since every civ founds a religion at least on occasion, you may want to modify that statement.

I have yet to see the Indian AI found a religion since the great prophet cost was increased, and even before that it very rarely happened.
Does that mean that they can't possibly ever found a religion? Probably not, but it does mean they are less likely to found a religion than England.

 

[Txurce]

I have yet to see the Indian AI found a religion since the great prophet cost was increased, and even before that it very rarely happened.
Does that mean that they can't possibly ever found a religion? Probably not, but it does mean they are less likely to found a religion than England.

Now why is that? I ask because I almost used England as a founding example myself, and also thought of how often Portugal (with no early advantages) seens to found in my games. What is it about the increased GP cost that hurts India disproportionately?

 

[Funak]

Now why is that? I ask because I almost used England as a founding example myself, and also thought of how often Portugal (with no early advantages) seens to found in my games. What is it about the increased GP cost that hurts India disproportionately?

England, Portugal, Germany (and probably others that I've forgotten) all seems to found unproportionally often considering they have no faith-advantage. Maybe it's their CS focus? I mean a player playing England could definitely place a spy in a religious city-state and get a bunch of faith from that, but considering the English AI always places their spy in my capital, it seems unlikely that they are exploiting that advantage.

 

[Txurce]

England, Portugal, Germany (and probably others that I've forgotten) all seems to found unproportionally often considering they have no faith-advantage. Maybe it's their CS focus? I mean a player playing England could definitely place a spy in a religious city-state and get a bunch of faith from that, but considering the English AI always places their spy in my capital, it seems unlikely that they are exploiting that advantage.

Yeah, precisely those civs. I don't get it... and India would seemingly come out ahead of all of them.

Gazebo?

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

One option would be to change the UA so that it would show India with the diversity of religions coexisting for millenia, so perhaps the UA could include (perhaps among other things) to always be able to build Pagodas once all religions have been founded, and have India not suffer unhappiness from religious divisions? Just an idea, haven't thought it through.

 

[tu_79]

I would be fine with India not founding if somehow she could benefit from having several believings, but the afore mentioned solution is good too, letting India increase her growth when having just a pantheon (though having an increased religious pressure might be counter productive).

 

[Funak]

One option would be to change the UA so that it would show India with the diversity of religions coexisting for millenia, so perhaps the UA could include (perhaps among other things) to always be able to build Pagodas once all religions have been founded, and have India not suffer unhappiness from religious divisions? Just an idea, haven't thought it through.

That's complete anti-synergy however, the Indian UA benefits from and strides towards 100% followers in all cities.