Keep Religion in Civ V?

[Phil Ken Sebben]

I'd like it to return, but to branch off into denominations.

Also, they should really remove Judaism. It's the only religion that's really bound to race, and since the Jews aren't even in the game (not going to be, apparently) just get rid of it. It's just silly to have half the world follow the Jewish faith without having actual Jews.

 

[duckstab]

Religion has played such an important role in human affairs and it adds a lot of color to the game, so I'd hate to see it go. But I'd be totally OK if they fictionalized the religions just as they did with corporations.

Some changes I'd like to see:

1) Religious schisms modeled in some way. This could have interesting diplomatic implications. If you look at history many of the worst religious conflicts arose over finer points of doctrine. If civ A and civ B shared religion X and suddenly B switched to X', then two leaders could go from friendly to unfriendly very quickly. This could break up some of the static diplomatic blocs you typically see forming.

2) Bring in the inquisitor idea to remove unwanted religions.

3) Historically, most religions were founded or at least first widely spread by charismatic individuals: Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Lao-Tzu, etc. I'd therefore like to see religions founded by Great Prophets rather than by reaching certain techs first. Maybe if you get certain techs first you get a free Great Prophet and you can then use him/her to found a religion or not. That also has the advantage or letting you choose the holy city.

 

[strollen]

I am going to be sorry to see Religion go, I hope they bring it back in "Civ 5: The gods return"expansion pack.

I think it is tribute to how well it was implemented in Civ IV, that after 3 pages of suggestions. I find none of the suggestions better than how it was done in Civ IV. Although the AP wonder could be improved.

I will say from a game play perspective if I could found the dominant religion on a continent and keep the Shrine from being captured, I'd almost always win the game.

 

[Mad Man]

The main problem with religion in civ4 was that it seemed tacked on and not very well thought out. In civ5 they should have favorite religions and give more verity to cover the civs they included (Taoist Mayans anyone).

When you read 'city states,' who else thought VATICAN? I mean seriously, think of the potential there...

Where did you hear about city states?

 

[BrainEater5000]

I'd like for religion to make a difference in online play. Perhaps implement significant happiness penalties in cities that have the same religion of the civilization with which you are at war.

 

[Ninjazn]

I really want religion to be in CIV V, I really liked the dynamic it ended in terms of diplomacy and it was a useful way to garner power/commerce. I also think there needs to be a way to remove religions from your city, if you have Christianity as your state religion for example, there should be a way to remove say, Buddhism from the city. This happened in real life and would be interesting in the game, you could have crusades and such. I also like the idea proposed that a religion first has to be in your capital before you could convert.

 

[mrt144]

I'd like it to return, but to branch off into denominations.

Sects would have been a great addition to the game. At some point in Civ IV all those happy Christians, Muslism, etc etc should of had a schism due to war between countries sharing the same state religion.

 

[Rexflex]

I voted bananas. I'd like to see what they have in mind for the replacement to religion before making a judgement. I only hope that we find the nuances in gameplay enhanced overall rather than stripped down.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

They could leave it out and possibly introduce it in an expansion if needed. It's an interesting feature but meaningless if done wrong. I didn't think it was that good in Civ4, so it's better to focus on the core game first.

 

[Wodan]

The easiest way to "fix" religion is to simply prompt the founder of a religion for the name they want to give it (with a prompt of currently unused names of common religions, or you can do a custom name), plus allow selection of the benefit it provides.

 

[Cowardly Maggot]

The easiest way to "fix" religion is to simply prompt the founder of a religion for the name they want to give it (with a prompt of currently unused names of common religions, or you can do a custom name), plus allow selection of the benefit it provides.

How about benefits and demands of each religion. Be careful with those human sacrifice religions, you'll need to find victims or your people will riot.

Also I want to see benefits to founding and sticking to a religion, rather than being a pushover and taking someone else's religion for diplomacy. You might be the only Jewish nation, but your people are dedicated, etc.

 

[NA00]

I don't like the idea of a religion having to be present in the capital for the civ to be able to adopt it. A leader, especially a very autocratic one, could force a religion (or almost any other idea) upon his or her subjects without that idea or religion needing to be present in the capital.

Many ideas have become national policy, without that issue physically being located in a civs capital. For example, US policy regarding Native American relations during the 1800s was dictated in part from Washington DC, on a federal level. However, the indian wars were not actually going on IN Washington DC itself. Yet the "civ" was still able to adopt a policy towards it.

Another example could also be the abolitionist movement, it did not necessarily need to necessarily be in Washington DC for it to still become a central issue of debate and politics in this country.

It would seem reasonable that with religion a leader could look beyond the borders of the capital to formulate ideas and policy with this as well.

 

[Thorburne]

I don't like the idea of a religion having to be present in the capital for the civ to be able to adopt it. A leader, especially a very autocratic one, could force a religion (or almost any other idea) upon his or her subjects without that idea or religion needing to be present in the capital.

Many ideas have become national policy, without that issue physically being located in a civs capital. For example, US policy regarding Native American relations during the 1800s was dictated in part from Washington DC, on a federal level. However, the indian wars were not actually going on IN Washington DC itself. Yet the "civ" was still able to adopt a policy towards it.

Another example could also be the abolitionist movement, it did not necessarily need to necessarily be in Washington DC for it to still become a central issue of debate and politics in this country.

It would seem reasonable that with religion a leader could look beyond the borders of the capital to formulate ideas and policy with this as well.

The issue with Native Americans was very different from religion. Religion is a belief system of the people. It makes no sense whatsoever for a nation to adopt a religion as its state religion when none of the heads of state even know what the religion is! Constantine would not have converted to christianity if it did not exist anywhere in Rome or Greece.

One of the main reasons that I suggest it is because it prevents the AI (or a player) from being able to change to a new religion the second it enters the borders.

 

[NA00]

The issue with Native Americans was very different from religion. Religion is a belief system of the people. It makes no sense whatsoever for a nation to adopt a religion as its state religion when none of the heads of state even know what the religion is! Constantine would not have converted to christianity if it did not exist anywhere in Rome or Greece.

One of the main reasons that I suggest it is because it prevents the AI (or a player) from being able to change to a new religion the second it enters the borders.

I agree, Native American policy is quite different than religion. However, the point is that heads of state can still determine policy without having to have the issue take place in the capital. The Sioux never needed to be present in Washington DC, or torch the city, for the Federal government to still take the views that it did in crafting a national policy. Even in Washington DC, they were aware of the existance of the Natives - similar to leaders potential awareness of religions within their civ.

So I guess in a sense I think some consideration should be taken for the fact that heads of state receive information from more distant parts of the empire. Also, heads of state can and do leave the capital cities and visit other parts of the world/ their empire, which should be accounted for in some way.

Now granted, the likely-hood of a leader adopting a religion that is not even within its borders is slim. I would not like to see a Constantine in CivV adopt Christianity under the circumstances you pointed out. But on the other hand, what if religion has spread all throughout the country-side, to places like New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc... but it has not spread to Washington DC. Should the leader still be prohibited from adopting the religion because it has not spread to the capital yet? I have played games in civ where my capital has always remained a religious anomaly in that it never aqcuired the religions of the other cities.

I understand what you are saying about the restrictions on spread of religions, and I agree there need to be restrictions of some sort. But, there are too many variables, and information, especially in more modern times spreads quickly.

EDIT: The abolition analogy would probably have been better than the one of Native American National Policy. But both focus on issues and ideas that were managed on a Federal level to some extent, regardless of the presence of the idea/issue within the capital. Washington DC did not need to be located within a "free" state for the head of state to take the position he did. Likewise, I don't think the capital needs to be located right in an area with a certain religion to still adopt a policy towards it.

EDIT, again: Sorry. Maybe there should be a comromise to address these issues. Maybe religion should be present within a certain percentage of the nation for it to be adoptable.

 

[Thorburne]

I agree, Native American policy is quite different than religion. However, the point is that heads of state can still determine policy without having to have the issue take place in the capital. The Sioux never needed to be present in Washington DC, or torch the city, for the Federal government to still take the views that it did in crafting a national policy. Even in Washington DC, they were aware of the existance of the Natives - similar to leaders potential awareness of religions within their civ.

So I guess in a sense I think some consideration should be taken for the fact that heads of state receive information from more distant parts of the empire. Also, heads of state can and do leave the capital cities and visit other parts of the world/ their empire, which should be accounted for in some way.

Now granted, the likely-hood of a leader adopting a religion that is not even within its borders is slim. I would not like to see a Constantine in CivV adopt Christianity under the circumstances you pointed out. But on the other hand, what if religion has spread all throughout the country-side, to places like New York City, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc... but it has not spread to Washington DC. Should the leader still be prohibited from adopting the religion because it has not spread to the capital yet? I have played games in civ where my capital has always remained a religious anomaly in that it never aqcuired the religions of the other cities.

I understand what you are saying about the restrictions on spread of religions, and I agree there need to be restrictions of some sort. But, there are too many variables, and information, especially in more modern times spreads quickly.

EDIT: The abolition analogy would probably have been better than the one of Native American National Policy. But both focus on issues and ideas that were managed on a Federal level to some extent, regardless of the presence of the idea/issue within the capital. Washington DC did not need to be located within a "free" state for the head of state to take the position he did. Likewise, I don't think the capital needs to be located right in an area with a certain religion to still adopt a policy towards it.

EDIT, again: Sorry. Maybe there should be a comromise to address these issues. Maybe religion should be present within a certain percentage of the nation for it to be adoptable.

In any case, I still have to disagree with you here. I feel that, in the case of religion, the leader would have to be exposed to it and know about it before he/she would consider adopting it as a state religion. It may exist in a remote region of the empire, and the existence of it may have been brought to the attention of the leader, but I really doubt that they would say

What is this? Some people in a far off city, miles from here, have started to convert there religious beliefs to some religion called Bobism? Maybe we should adopt it for the state, then!

I think that your examples, be them abolshment of slavery or native american policy, would be more comparible to pushing a religion out, not bringing one in.

Still, in the very remote chance that they would say that, then another suggestion could be that if the religion is not present in the capital city, then the period of anarchy is increased corrolating to the distance from the capital. How is that for a compromise?

 

[vonSharma]

I actually felt religion was very well done in Civ4. The only thing was that on Emperor it was really hard to spread yours when you had civs like Justinian seemingly popping out missionaries at every turn. The only thing I didn't like about religion was the negative diplomatic points... I feel in history trade trumped religion in diplomatic importance. I know they are revamping diplomacy, but if I were the developers and included religion, I'd allow each religion an Apostolic Palace and really allow collusion so there could be holy wars and crusades. It would be amazing to have global holy wars... so fun.

 

[NA00]

In any case, I still have to disagree with you here. I feel that, in the case of religion, the leader would have to be exposed to it and know about it before he/she would consider adopting it as a state religion. It may exist in a remote region of the empire, and the existence of it may have been brought to the attention of the leader, but I really doubt that they would say

Hence why I said there should still be some kind of restrictions. I just don't agree that it must be present in the capital before it can be considered for adoption.

I think that your examples, be them abolshment of slavery or native american policy, would be more comparible to pushing a religion out, not bringing one in.

In the case of these examples, especially the abolition of slavery. I consider emancipation to be bringing a "religion" in and making it national policy. Simply because the abolition movement had a doctrine and a set of principles, as well. However, I'll agree that in a way, for the purpose of this topic, a "religion" was being kicked out as well, albeit replaced by another, because slavery was based in its own doctrine as well.

Still, in the very remote chance that they would say that, then another suggestion could be that if the religion is not present in the capital city, then the period of anarchy is increased corrolating to the distance from the capital. How is that for a compromise?

Again, which is why I think there still should be some kind of restriction imposed, to nullify those slight odds while at the same time taking into account the fact that religion can still become a mainstream part of a culture, without necessary being planted directing into the capital itself, as seems to be the case for me frequently on CivIV.

A lot of bloodshed could have been avoided in places like Kansas as they were fighting over which "religion" to adopt. They simply should have been required to wait for the first one to reach the steps of their capital before making any decisions . But seriously, I can see why you want this restriction on civs. I don't like seeing them convert immediately either. I just seem to have so many instances in CivIV where my entire civ will have a religion and my capital will have another.

 

[Gral]

I voted yes, but I have an idea.
If the border are not going to be influenced with culture, and that is better option, since borders were/are created with wars, culture could be used instead of religion. How
Simple, you spread your culture and get bonuses, similar to religion ones in Civ IV. This could be more complex, for example culture could have more elements: movie, music, philosophy, food, dressing, sports, holidays, etc.
For example if movies from your country are popular, than you generate more money, or if you build movie corporation they get more revenue.
Similar, if you build food/dressing corporation, they get more money.

Diferent aspects of culture, could bring different bonuses. For example, if you spread your holidays, you don't get money, but you get attitude bonus from influenced civilizations.
Possibilities are endless. Another aspect of culture could be promoting your ancient wonders. By doing this promotion in some country, you get more tourists from that country and get money from tourism.

Now, how culture is going to be spread? Missionary unti, or just giving money for it ?

 

[Jaca]

The only thing I didn't like about religion was the negative diplomatic points... I feel in history trade trumped religion in diplomatic importance.

I thought the diplomatic penalty was the exact reason why religion was introduced into the game as a mechanic: it tried to create a few power blocks rather then loose civilizations.

 

[vonSharma]

I thought the diplomatic penalty was the exact reason why religion was introduced into the game as a mechanic: it tried to create a few power blocks rather then loose civilizations.

yeah but the negative diplomatic points is really stifling. The only civs I felt you could consistently trade with if you were different religions was Egypt, Mali and sometimes the Dutch/Ethiopians. The idea of power blocs is awesome, but being totally excluded from trading techs because of religion over one's own trading or military interests I feel is mostly inaccurate