Keep Religion in Civ V?

[SpearMan153]

my thoughts:

want something social policy like that develops over time
you could have the option to spend you culture on either normal social policies or to get religion policies

you found a religion by spending your culture on the opening policy. could have a limited number of religions that can be opened with each era.

the religion policies would effect everyone with the religion and anyone with that religion can buy new policies. that way you are trading off a shared development via religion or social policy development just for you.

religion policies would cost more for more cities like social policies but would be counting cities for all civs.

putting your own culture into the religion would then give you the benefit of directing its progress

the religion policies picked would determine things like +ve, -ve diplomatic modifiers, CS bonuses etc rather then being fixed.

there could be mutually exclusive branches that lock each other out (war vs peace branches) - then you can add an option to create a schism and form a breakaway religion by choosing a locked out branch. Then everyone in that religion would have to choose to follow the breakaway or stay orthodox (with big -ve diplomacy modifiers for the 2 sides).

in civ4 you had to have lots of religions to get full benefit this got a tad boring for me. too much missionary spam, always building another temple - so in this model you'd get greater benefit by developing an existing religion over create more, and more

I'd also like to see the idea of secular idealogies take over from religions once you hit industrial era. These would be like the order/autocracy/freedom social policy branches and would work pretty much the same way as the religions but with maybe quicker progression (to make up for later start), and different bonuses (culture bonuses to libraries, universities and schools for instance).

would need some kind of religion victory condition - be the leader of the religion that converts the world...

The existing social policies would have to be reworked - particularly piety vs rationalism

would need missionaries to convert city states (and get influence) but you'd want these to stay active and not be used up. I'd tend to avoid having to convert every single city and make everything state level though.

 

[shihuacao]

I would like them to keep religion out of regular games, but make it a concept in Scenarios.

 

[kaltorak]

Yes, bring religions back. Maybe with them we could move away from this boring diplomacy and start having real friends and enemies again.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well if religion was an AI Flavor-then your religious choices could impact on some civilizations more than others, that would add another interesting layer to diplomacy. Also, it would be interesting if we had Spiritual City States!

Aussie.

 

[Furycrab]

Well if religion was an AI Flavor-then your religious choices could impact on some civilizations more than others, that would add another interesting layer to diplomacy. Also, it would be interesting if we had Spiritual City States!

Aussie.

This is my problem, where you see Religion as adding flavors to the AI, I see it as adding dumb mechanics that make the AI act stupid. Several dev videos on the CiV changes talk about this with good reason.

It wasn't all bad, it did add some dynamic to the various Civs (Spiritual was one of my favorite traits because of religion) and it did give you something else to "rush" other than Wonders and Eras. However, religion as something that would help diplomacy is terrible.

Btw... Don't need to revive such an old Post to discuss adding something like religion...

 

[Generals3]

This is my problem, where you see Religion as adding flavors to the AI, I see it as adding dumb mechanics that make the AI act stupid. Several dev videos on the CiV changes talk about this with good reason.

It wasn't all bad, it did add some dynamic to the various Civs (Spiritual was one of my favorite traits because of religion) and it did give you something else to "rush" other than Wonders and Eras. However, religion as something that would help diplomacy is terrible.

Btw... Don't need to revive such an old Post to discuss adding something like religion...

Actually it depends. What i found bad in Civ IV is that religion simply had too much impact on certain civs. You could get like -/+ 7 due to religions, which was a bit too much and made religions the must have diplomacy tool. But religions having a small diplomatic impact would be nice. I remember sending those priests "en masse" to AI's for diplo. It added something extra to think about on top of simply sucking up to them.

Overall i'd like religions to be back but with some tweaks. Like i just mentioned a lesser but still existent impact on diplo. certain city states being "spiritual" which would give certain boosts to religions. Maybe some unique units for certain religions would be nice as well? And each religion giving a unique bonus instead of all of them being exactly the same.

 

[MAGBaxter]

It would be good if there was like a great person, a Great philospher or something, or it could be you have to put alot of culture towards him and, once he is born you move him to a location it could be city or it could be in the middle of nowhere and he creates a HQ for that religion, and you can see like culture, it spreading but it spreads alot faster and can spread through other peoples cultural boundaries and if you build any citys after that, it starts spreading out of them, it alot similair to culture except this culture doesnt define political boundaries.

For example im Arabia, a great philosper or Prophet is born , i move him to mecca i selct Islam as the desired religion, it has atrributes that i have not thought of yet, and he builds a special building which is now the centre of that religion, with some sort of new interface you can see the religious cultural borders which spreads much faster and can spread through out the land, if a civ has not founded a religion it is more than likely that nearby civs will have that religion come into their religious borders ad they will become that same faith, if two faiths collide, then the relgion it stops there, unless you make a new unit called a pilgrim or something that can only be used by the civ that has founded that religion and go up to the borders ( much like the great artist except that religios culture and culture are too completley seperate things ) and use a relgious culture bomb, then that religion has taken up an area that once was, lets say hindu.
and this can create tension between two civs.

Remember that this is an very basic idea.

 

[Deggial]

So far I can read how religions....

- shall be founded
- shall spread
- shall develop

and most of it looks verry interesting and worth to be implemented.

But what will be the EFFECT of religions?

- "You" (as far as I did follow this thread) don't want to affect them diplomacy, because you don't like the block-building.
- I say: They must not effect happiness, as there is already a (meanwhile) well balanced system which is fine-tuned to limit excessive growth without making large empires impossible. Every new source of hapiness will destabilize this system and will make a new turn of rebalancing (with plenty of nerfs!) necessary. Again!
- Money is generated by an already well working system of buildings and trade routes. Here is no need for religion.
- Culture has it's own system, too, affecting border growth and SoPos. The gain of culture is balanced to Culture Victory and game length. So again: no need for a new source of culture.

While I concur that religion was and is important in the real world, I simply don't see the need for it gamewise. If it would be included, we would have to prepare for a complete new flood of balancing patches for at least a half year, changing *everything* that finally setteld down nicely. Thank you, but NO thank you!

To be honest, the ONLY effect of religon I see, is diplomacy!
Maybe not as negativ modifier that makes good relations impossible, but as a positiv modifier (which still are rare, even after the latest patch).

Or do I miss the obvious? What should be the EFFECT of religion in YOUR opinion?

Sorry for beeing such a crank, but never the less very interested in your proposals,
Deggial

 

[nokmirt]

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.

Yes, I love these ideas. This is a surefire way to begin to open up diplomacy, and begin building a fully customizable civ through interesting choices. This would help each game begin to take on a uniqueness which generally is missing.

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.

A very important point! Religion is the yeast CiV needs for it to rise.

 

[Sonereal]

I voted bananas simply because it's closer to what should really be done than implementing a new mechanic in a game where several mechanics only work right a quarter of the time.

 

[flairin]

only if it ties in with culture

 

[cuchulain]

One way that the developers could achieve a greater variety of religions would be if every civ started off with a national religion. Almost every Civ in the game had its own "national mythology" that was used in part to legitimize the authority of its rulers (Including America, surprisingly enough... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis_of_Washington) I think this should be represented somehow since these mythologies are both fun and important.

I would also like to see religion made more fluid, and a bit more complicated. As others have posted, the idea of tying religion to technology does not make a lot of sense. I would like to see religions form schism and/or blend with other religions over time. Maybe this process could be tied to social policies rather than culture? For example, Judaism could fragment into Christianity if Republic or Free Speech are being used.

@ Deggial- I think I agree that religions need to do something, and I definitely agree that there aren't many good ideas as to what it would do apart from diplomacy. On the other hand, if there is one thing I feel Civ5 lacks, it is the fun-for-fun's sake stuff from earlier civ incarnations (i.e wonder movies, palace building, etc). I would prefer that religions do something, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if they didn't.

 

[civnoob13]

My idea for religion:

Like civ 4, you have to 5 main religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (deepest apologies if I forgot one!)
They are founded with great people, rather than through technology. These great people would of course be great prophets, which, instead of founding a religion, could also trigger a city-local golden age for 20 turns, an empire-wide GA for however long as an other GP, or it can spread religion to three AI cities if you pop it in the AI borders (open borders is not required). There is another thing it can do, which I will explain later. You can earn a great prophet point from the construction (on a worked city tile) of a shrine, which reduces gold and food yield by one on the tile it is placed. Shrines can be constructed when you do one of the following:
Open the piety tree
Construct 3 world wonders (basically all early wonders are religion related)
Research theology (which will become a tech dead-end and will no longer be needed for a garden or monasteries for balance reasons)


Obviously, religion is going to affect diplomacy. Not nearly as much as in civ 4 though, but similar to civ 4, religion matters to some more than others and has more of an effect when who founded the religion is considered. But what does religion actually do in a city? For one, every religion in a city speeds up great people acquisition by 15%. Every religion in the empire also increases golden age length by 15%. Finally, each religion will also increase wonder production by 10%. However, every religion you adopt increases the the risk of anarchy by 4% after a new tech has been researched and time of anarchy by 1 turn . This deters a person from getting all religions, with there being a 20% chance of 5 turns of anarchy every time a new tech is researched. Would you say that this is a balanced mechanism?

Religion also influences city-states. You can build missionaries to spread religion to both the AI and to city states. City states can only hold one religion, and will automatically adopt the religion which has the most influence. Missionaries add 30 influence for whatever religion you are spreading to that city, which decays in the same way that normal influence does. Great Prophets can increase City State influence by 75 for 1/4 of the known city states on the map. Religion affects city-state diplomacy by acting as a multiplier for normal influence. This multiplier ranges from 0.5 to 2. A player's influence will be multiplied by two if the player only has one religion, which is the same as the city-state. If the player has 2 religions, one similar, the multiplier will be 1.8, three 1.6 and so on. If the player has no religions in common with the CS but 1 religion against, the multiplier will be at 0.9, 2 religions against 0.8 and so on. Again, would this be a balanced mechanism?

Researching theology would also allow you to build a tomb, which decreases unhappiness generated by that city by 10% (not sure about this) and allows to prophet specialist slots. Prophet specialists obviously earn great prophet points, and they also increase golden age points by 20% of happiness per turn. (does that make any sense?)

 

[nokmirt]

My idea for religion:

Like civ 4, you have to 5 main religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (deepest apologies if I forgot one!)
They are founded with great people, rather than through technology. These great people would of course be great prophets, which, instead of founding a religion, could also trigger a city-local golden age for 20 turns, an empire-wide GA for however long as an other GP, or it can spread religion to three AI cities if you pop it in the AI borders (open borders is not required). There is another thing it can do, which I will explain later. You can earn a great prophet point from the construction (on a worked city tile) of a shrine, which reduces gold and food yield by one on the tile it is placed. Shrines can be constructed when you do one of the following:
Open the piety tree
Construct 3 world wonders (basically all early wonders are religion related)
Research theology (which will become a tech dead-end and will no longer be needed for a garden or monasteries for balance reasons)


Obviously, religion is going to affect diplomacy. Not nearly as much as in civ 4 though, but similar to civ 4, religion matters to some more than others and has more of an effect when who founded the religion is considered. But what does religion actually do in a city? For one, every religion in a city speeds up great people acquisition by 15%. Every religion in the empire also increases golden age length by 15%. Finally, each religion will also increase wonder production by 10%. However, every religion you adopt increases the the risk of anarchy by 4% after a new tech has been researched and time of anarchy by 1 turn . This deters a person from getting all religions, with there being a 20% chance of 5 turns of anarchy every time a new tech is researched. Would you say that this is a balanced mechanism?

Religion also influences city-states. You can build missionaries to spread religion to both the AI and to city states. City states can only hold one religion, and will automatically adopt the religion which has the most influence. Missionaries add 30 influence for whatever religion you are spreading to that city, which decays in the same way that normal influence does. Great Prophets can increase City State influence by 75 for 1/4 of the known city states on the map. Religion affects city-state diplomacy by acting as a multiplier for normal influence. This multiplier ranges from 0.5 to 2. A player's influence will be multiplied by two if the player only has one religion, which is the same as the city-state. If the player has 2 religions, one similar, the multiplier will be 1.8, three 1.6 and so on. If the player has no religions in common with the CS but 1 religion against, the multiplier will be at 0.9, 2 religions against 0.8 and so on. Again, would this be a balanced mechanism?

Researching theology would also allow you to build a tomb, which decreases unhappiness generated by that city by 10% (not sure about this) and allows to prophet specialist slots. Prophet specialists obviously earn great prophet points, and they also increase golden age points by 20% of happiness per turn. (does that make any sense?)

Very interesting, very sound ideas. I hope Firaxis reads this thread. This is different than my idea of adopting a religious policy tree (which would have effect on culture and other things as well), but I like it. Someone mentioned an idea about linking religions to technology, where was that post??? I am not sure what to think of that, but I would like to look it over.

 

[shihuacao]

a more complicated system would result in even more incompetent AI. I would rather wish game system itself is kept simple, to hope for one day AIs will not cheat that much as they do today.

and one more thing, keep religion out of diplomacy system. a bonus modifer only useful for human to exploit AI behavior and not the opposite is not a good idea at all.

 

[civnoob13]

a more complicated system would result in even more incompetent AI. I would rather wish game system itself is kept simple, to hope for one day AIs will not cheat that much as they do today.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that attitude at all. We should not have to have a game as simple as possible for the AI to catch up, we should have a game with complexity and then competently teach the AI how to do it.

and one more thing, keep religion out of diplomacy system. a bonus modifer only useful for human to exploit AI behavior and not the opposite is not a good idea at all.

I fail to see how this would only be useful for humans. We can already see the 'we want friendly relations with your empire' modifier. Let's say that that will trigger them sending missionaries of their religion into your lands. If the AI asks you to go to war against someone, first they send in a missionary in one of the civs that will cause conflict.

 

[civnoob13]

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 really like this idea too, altogether. How would you earn these RPs though? Through culture? That would mean that to achieve a cultural victory, you could never touch religion. I also worry that it might just become a sort of copycat SP. If it was done well, it would be great, if done badly, it would be a waste. I like the idea of those specific religious buildings. I agree it would be a great idea to go beyond the simple wonders founded by great people in civ 5. However, if we were to do this, it would have to be for made up religions or just for religions that nobody believes in any more. If you make Christianity and Islam have different traits, there is a chance that people could be offended if they believe one to be better than the other. You can just imagine the idiotic threads now with people saying that firaxis are 'commie b*****ds that are making muslimism look better' or someone complaining that firaxis are biased towards Christianity due to their 'blind american patriotism'. I'd really like to have certain religious buildings like you suggested to help identify certain civs and to enhance certain things. All in all, I think your ideas are great.

 

[shihuacao]

Sorry, but I don't agree with that attitude at all. We should not have to have a game as simple as possible for the AI to catch up, we should have a game with complexity and then competently teach the AI how to do it.

Simple rules doesn't mean it is not fun, however, as any strategy games, incompetent opponent will ruin your fun. I would of course appreciate a game with complex rules and competent AI opponents, but if I can't have both, I choose the latter.

I fail to see how this would only be useful for humans. We can already see the 'we want friendly relations with your empire' modifier. Let's say that that will trigger them sending missionaries of their religion into your lands. If the AI asks you to go to war against someone, first they send in a missionary in one of the civs that will cause conflict.

As we can see in Civilization 4, when religion modifers come into decision making, it only handicaps AIs not human. When declaring for wars, humans will almost never consider if you are about to invade someone sharing a same faith. When choosing who to befriend, humans choose religion to match their ideal friend, not the opposite.

 

[civnoob13]

Simple rules doesn't mean it is not fun, however, as any strategy games, incompetent opponent will ruin your fun. I would of course appreciate a game with complex rules and competent AI opponents, but if I can't have both, I choose the latter.

For a game like civ, simplicity = a dull and easy game. I don't even believe that we can't have a far more intelligent AI. All you need is people who will dedicate some real time into it.

As we can see in Civilization 4, when religion modifers come into decision making, it only handicaps AIs not human. When declaring for wars, humans will almost never consider if you are about to invade someone sharing a same faith. When choosing who to befriend, humans choose religion to match their ideal friend, not the opposite.

Hmm, this is a very valid point. Even though humans may not take into account religion, I still think that it affects them. If you have a different religion to an opponent, their relation with you is going to be worse, hence you are more likely to DOW on them and lower the risk of repercussion that you could receive if DOWing on a friend etc. Also, the AI could be programmed to artificially make relations too by use of missionaries. If they are afraid of a civ's military might, they can spread influence to it in order to stay on their good side. Also, the human player doesn't necessarily have to be the only one who doesn't really care about religion. You have have some AI flavours have their diplomatic religion flavour at 1 or 2, so they care as little about it as the AI do. The bottom line is that I'd still argue that religion can be a handicap to the human player because you can't have a successful relationship with an AI just because you want to. If they don't like you due to your religion, they don't like you due to your religion. You can try to change this, but so can the AI.

 

[kaltorak]

Religion should totally affect diplomacy. It's not something for the player to abuse. It's something to give leaders personalities. They should do things based on their personallities. You could clearly difference leaders in civ4. You learnt to know them.
In civ5 they are just one single AI playing chess.

Improve AI by making it take better decisions at unit management, city placement and developing, and such. Don't try to make them better by taking away personallity and only caring about winning. It's not working anyway. And it takes away the feeling of different leaders with it's own personallity.