Keep Religion in Civ V?

Do you want religion in Civ V?

  • No, I hope they drop it!

    Votes: 48 14.0%
  • Yes, but I want "vanilla" religions like in Civ IV

    Votes: 108 31.5%
  • Yes, but I want them to make changes (explain).

    Votes: 148 43.1%
  • Bananas

    Votes: 39 11.4%

  • Total voters
    343
I like religion in Civ. I think however that there should be more options available including being able to Customise your own religion. I want my civ to adopt Pastafarianism after all.

There should also be more conflict between religions where there is precedent for war, and you should be able to pump out your own kind of "fanatic warrior" similar to what was in Civ 2. I also think religions should also get into ideals like capitalist economy, communism etc. Forms of religion unto themselves.
 
As it happens, in the Mod I've been working on (seemingly forever ;) ), you start with founding religions (as normal) then just around the time they become less significant (i.e. Free Religion), you get Ideologies starting to appear instead (like Socialism, Fascism, Absolutism, Fundamentalism, Capitalism & the like). That way you have power blocs in every era of the game (much like in real life ;) )!

Aussie.
 
in civ 4, if you were different religions than someone else, it caused a big negative relation. I think they need to rework this, because it's not really fair that way.
 
I like that idea Aussie, and each one belief should have their own bonuses and setbacks.

I also think you should be able to customise a religion when you get it to how you want it to benefit your civ. It would be entirely upto the player to choose those bonuses and traits to avoid political sensitivies. You could have a violent religion, peaceful, etc etc.

If you are Christian and start a war with a civ with the Hindu religion then this would create a precedent for war amoing your two civs. The longer and more drawn out the conflict will become, the longer the hatred exists between your two civs. There would need to be precedent for religious conflict however and not have the silly system from Civ4 of diff religions automatically have dislike.
 
in civ 4, if you were different religions than someone else, it caused a big negative relation. I think they need to rework this, because it's not really fair that way.

I don't agree that it isn't fair - it is an important feature of the religion component in CIV if you want the game to be interesting (i.e. battles). There have to be reasons for war, and conflicting religions was one of the good ways to cause them to start. It was also a good way for the computer opponents to bully the player (and for the player to capitulate to the demands of the opponents to keep them from attacking them when the player could not afford it).

I find it least fun when a civilization would declare war for no apparent reason. Yes, there are a few leaders that will do that, but its better to see your neighbours get angrier with you over time because you're different.

I also tend to resist starting a war with a neighbour who choses my religion. I don't have to, but its playing along with the concept of religious buddies.
 
I concur Rexflex, but would have liked to see it done on an even deeper level in Civ4. For instance, you get a relatively small base penalty (say -1 or -2) for being of a different religion, then a further penalty if you're in a religious civic which penalizes *his* religion (like running Theocracy), then an additional penalty if you attack cities containing *his* religion (esp. if that civ founded said religion). Equally, it would have been great if, under certain civics, you could actually *remove* certain religions from a city-causing even more enmity with foreign nations. Another thing I would have liked to have seen in Civ4 is for multiple religions in a city to cause angst for that city under certain Religious Civics (again, like Theocracy) & for differing religious Civics to impact on Relations between Co-religionists (so, for example, antipathy between a Christian Civ practicing Theocracy & a Christian Civ practicing Pacifism).
So, far from *removing* religions, I actually think there is massive room for expanding religion in the game, all without upsetting the PC crowd!
 
I wish they kept religion, just because I don't like the thought that maybe my Civ doesn't really follow mine (I'm weird like that). Plus, I enjoy culture as opposed to constant militarism in the game. Religion helps out with that.

I would, however, like to see more religions in the game, particularly major Christian denominations, as well as Norse mythology and even an "extras" thing like New Age, but mostly Christian denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Baptist (which is actually not protestant), Evangelical/non-denominational and unitarian.

Come to think of it, personal customization would be preferable.
 
It's still a good discussion to have, regardless of age.

Personally, I think happiness should be awarded for a DoF with a civ whose state religion is the same as yours, since that's how it generally is in reality. And expanding on the policyesque/customization idea, I feel like somebody who follows a religion that they haven't founded themselves should be able customize it themselves, but have it considered a new religion (so America, having followed French Islam, decides to go war focus as opposed to growth, and American Islam would be born).
 
Adding religion into the game would be a major thing at this point. If they put that much effort into something, I'd rather have a better working and fuller diplomacy options.
 
CiV has to have a different system for religion. I had the suggestion of adding a religious policy tree. We could call them RPs. Each tree is a different religion, in Ancient and Classical times, the first three early religion trees would be open. What could these early possibilities be. Let's say Tribal or Pagan, Two sets of Polythesistic religions, one based on Mesopotamian beliefs, that there is no afterlife. The person is basically a vessel put on earth to do the bidding of the gods. The second form of religion instills the belief in the people who practice it, that there is an afterlife gained upon death. Indicitive of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, that afterlife can be shared by all, not just Pharaoh. Every person has a ba, which remains attached to the body after death, the ka, or life force, through funeral rituals is released, and rejoined to the ba, into an akh a form of afterlife. It was belief that the corpse be preserved so the ka could find the ba each night to recieve new life.

This form of Polytheism based on belief in an afterlife, could promote happiness, people live knowing as long as they live a good life, they will be rewarded with a glorious afterlife, they are not just some vessel for their gods amusement, or pleasure. The feeling is instilled that they are actually worth something.

Asian religions would have to be added as well. I think a religious policy tree would make the game more interesting. It could help give civs a certain identity, which can help mold diplomacy and other issues, among those how they deal with civs of different religions. Certain civs would get a type of bonus for taking on religions that they would more easily be associated with. Certain religions may hate others, like Christian and Muslim. Then again there should be a chance they can work together for a time.

As you can see I have not worked out exact details, but it is a feasible idea. The civs do need something to identify themselves from each other, something I believe the game is lacking.

The other way religion could be installed in the game is through certain religious buildings (a building would represent a certain religion, if a civ decides to change religion it sells the old religious building and builds the building for the newly chosen religion), perhaps religious wonders (which could act like a national wonder from civ 4), these buildings would give that civ certain advantages in certain areas, perhaps disadvantages in others...

Heresy could be one, Catholics (during the Spanish Inquisition for example) believed ingenuity, or inventive, scientific thought to be heretic, so if you use Catholicism, there may be a hit to science, but a substantial gain to gold or wealth, or happiness (the selling of indulgences to get your aunt or uncle out of the hot place).

Whereas the Muslims seemed to go right along inventing new things, and rewriting the classics, studying science. Science could be their big advantage. Gold as well, perhaps coastal trade becomes a plus. The details need to be worked out, but I believe that these ideas are workable. Keep in mind these are just thoughts I have come up with, thinking and reading posts about what the game could use to make it better. :)
 
I voted bananas because I feel they could have a significant impact on gameplay..!

Surely it will, I hope they use it to try something, to help make the game a bit more in depth. The AI civs are too static, too many of them act exactly the same. The sameness needs to change, players should feel that they are truly part of a unique world with a whole diverse variety of people that act differently, believe differently, from each other. In this way, it is fun to see how a civ that is different from another can work together, through differences, yet in relative peace. On the other hand, how they use different outlooks to conquer and destroy each other. This is the way of the world, this is mankind, if I may use the expression, this is how we roll! :)
 
I think we shall use the "culture" concept instead of religion.
Religion was transmited together with culture and the cultural impact that Arabia brought to the Middle East and that China brought to Korea and Japan is enormous.
Besides, I think that religions as they were present in Civ4 affect our imagination ( e.g. asian religions in european maps) in game and thus become a problem to what I think that is the coolest thing in Civilization: the opportunity to rewrite history.
 
I have been playing lately and civ diplomacy is very unsurprising. Nothing interesting ever really happens. The civs act like the same clone with different names, there is no identity. Does firaxis understand that people may be people, but they are different, with serparate ways of thinking and solving problems. Does anyone out there have any ideas of there own, that may help firaxis see this issue in a better light?

The other thing Firaxis needs to look into is giving amphibious operations naval escorts. Is it truly hard to help one of these cloned civs, build a naval escort or two to protect their troops that are embarked?

The AI still makes some odd amphibious landings as well, landing troops where they can be easily killed. However, the AI has impoved much over time.

How many more patches will it take, I wonder, to fix these problems?

This game is on the threshold of being great, it is fun now more than ever. My empire is much more balanced than it has been in previous patches. I have not been so frustrated, and I am having a great time building my empire larger and larger as the game progresses. I want to thank Firaxis for making the game better. A few things added to this game, could make it the best civ to date. Better diplomacy, naval ops, AI. Add a privateer and dive bomber, maybe give civs an extra UU, UB, or UA. This would help to give civs more identity. Perhaps they could be given a optional leaderhead, that helps the civ act differently. IDK the sky is the limit, use your imagination. :)
 
I'd like them to make changes. I don;t know what those changes should necessarily be, but I feel the decision to make them identical in civ4 was not one of game balance, but one of political correctness, and perhaps not wanting to get themselves bombed or shot by members of certain "unspecified" religions.

FFH had it easy in that respect because they could choose religions that didn't relate to any real religions.
 
The way to resolve the political correctness problem (or potential problem) is pretty simple, actually. All that's necessary is to make the benefit provided from a religion user selectable. i.e., when you found a religion you get to pick the benefit that it will provide from a list of available options.
 
I'd like to have custom religions similar (but not identical) to the social policies.
After some specific achievement (being the first to have a wonder, to settle near a natural wonder, to reach a new era, to have a great person ...)
or beeing the first one to get a certain tech or settling near a natural wonder you would found a religion and over the course of the game try to spread it to neighbours.
The customisation could be similar to a policy tree: You pick Monotheism, Polytheism, Reincarnation, or what have you and unlock new aspects (for example Monotheism -> Trinity, or Reincarnation -> Karma). These new aspects would like polices bring certain bonuses and interact with policies. "Divine Right" or "God King" would enhance Monarchy but be useless if you ignore the Tradition tree.
Now what makes this different from Policies ? The diplomatic impact. You can spread your faith and all the bonuses would then apply to any other civ which chooses this particular state religion, making different religions more or less attractive to other leaders depending on their policy choices and styles.
Improved relations are a given, and declaring war against a brother in faith would give the aggressor a happiness penalty and possibly a combat penalty. These penalties would be higher if the attacked party is the founder of the religion. Now besides the central tenets like Polytheism or Afterlife that are set by the founder (or possibly influenced by how he got to found it), other civs could modifiy some "minor" aspects to suit their taste which could eventually lead to schisms if the differences become too large. The minor modifications would be more similar to civics in cIV than to policies and can be activatet or deactivated at will (and at a price: culture cost, temporary happiness hit...). The neighbors might come to their senses, stop the heresy and readopt the orthodox version, or other civs with the same religion could join him in his heresy. That way games where only one religion is present on a continent don't become too peaceful.
 
Throughout all of history, religion has been a major driving force in shaping the planet earth. Religion is too important in history to be left out of a historical video game and I think it must be a part of civ v as to keep up with its predessecor in terms of greatness.
 
Top Bottom