taillesskangaru:
If the system isn't accurate, then it just skews our view of what history is like. Indeed, Civ IV's religion mechanics were just downright silly. In many ways, I find it preferable simply not to have religion at all.
Religious conflicts have often been quoted as being important reasons for conflict in history, but in all of these conflicts, the participants were also remarkably close to each other. China and India had different state religions, but did they wage war constantly throughout the millenia? Nope. Chinese kingdoms and states did have the same religion, and that without even schisms and such. Did they wage constant wars of fracture, rebellion, and reunification? Yup.
To me, fighting wars for religious reasons just seems like another by-product of being in each other's face all the time. England and China didn't have the same religion whatsoever, and that didn't make England hostile from the get-go. In fact, the major conflicts between England and China were driven by reasons of trade.
If the system isn't accurate, then it just skews our view of what history is like. Indeed, Civ IV's religion mechanics were just downright silly. In many ways, I find it preferable simply not to have religion at all.
Religious conflicts have often been quoted as being important reasons for conflict in history, but in all of these conflicts, the participants were also remarkably close to each other. China and India had different state religions, but did they wage war constantly throughout the millenia? Nope. Chinese kingdoms and states did have the same religion, and that without even schisms and such. Did they wage constant wars of fracture, rebellion, and reunification? Yup.
To me, fighting wars for religious reasons just seems like another by-product of being in each other's face all the time. England and China didn't have the same religion whatsoever, and that didn't make England hostile from the get-go. In fact, the major conflicts between England and China were driven by reasons of trade.