[MOD] Realism:The Third Resurrection

[Houman]

@Israfil

Hey a Bahaii brother in Canada. I bet you have celebrated Nowruz!

I am actually not a Zoroastrian by birth, I have studied a lot about it and its philosophy has really touched me. Believe it or not, I am a Shia-Muslim by birth. However it still hurts, when I hear judements that are based only on a misunderstanding. I know Ivan didn't mean any bad at all. And I am no way offended, I just explain how it really is.

Regarding your religion idea, it is really great but damn hard to implement. Maybe we could be able to do it if the SDk comes out. However until then I can tell you that only think you can modify is the spread factor of religions.

Judaism has the highest spread factor of 110%. However you only get 1 missionary. Christianity has 20% or so. However you can build up to 10 missionaries. Others are between. These numbers make all religions equal in spread factor and yet set those that have no missionaries in the proper way.

We could change this too and set the number for Judaism to 90%. In this case there are under pressure. However we could give them a bit more commerce bonus. They still could hold the religion with inquisitors...just a thought...

BTW, it is now possible to add religions without overwriting old ones. Like Shinto Mod. I am planing to add a South American religion, which wouldn't collide with other religions. If we have the SDk and could implement some of our ideas, there is even room for more religions. Maybe Bahaii would be the next and you could honor Baab.

Cheers
Houman

 

[Houman]

@Los Tirano,

Very interesting idea. I give the Mod a go and see how it is. But sounds very promising.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

One is that some religions may not always be missionary/spreadable, and different religions (historically) had different curve periods. Also, different religions have more or less effect on a community, depending on how much it's a "philosophy" vs. a fully community-defining faith. Taoism vs. Islam, for example. The impacts of time with these two are quite different, and I'm not sure how to represent this in the game mechanics.

I see a lot of people around speaking to this point...religion vs. philosophy, to simplify. And often, the examples (roughly) Christianity and Islam are religions, Buddhism and Taoism are philosophies. But, if one studies religion one can see that this distinction is really not appropriate, its too simple and somtimes a distinct mark of bias. When the Jesuits came to China, they wanted to use local religious preferences to convert people to their standard; of course, that makes sense. To do so, they had to seperate the "philosophical" and "religious" aspects of what they encountered. This distinction is entirely subjective, and does not fit with traditional Chinese religion at all. The whole philosophy versus religion thing is really an artifact of the "missionary lens," so to speak.

Taoism, to run with that example, ran the gamut of personal "philosophy" to a booming state "religion," replete with ordained officials and certified monastaries. Different Taoist sects/branches (or practitioners) could range from personal endeavors (hermits seeking enlightenment) to elaborate organized religious bodies, with a full pantheon of gods and spirits and the rituals appropriate for communing/negotiating with said entities. Calling something, like Taoism or Buddhism, a philosophy or a religion ignores the larger picture, and imho, ignores historical development.

The other problem, of course, is that my own bias shows here, insofar as my religious beliefs state that newer religions are more relevant/valid, the same way that newer university classes are more useful to the student. The older religion is still valid and true, but less relevant, and the newer one supercedes the older. However, a hard core Zoroastrian, for example, may not agree that his religion is less relevant now. However much my view might be that they are all "of god", the relevancy factor definately can be perceived as a sort of chauvenism, and my intention is not to pass judgement.

No religion is static. Just to stick with Taoism as a running example, let's say that an early example of Taoist thought is the Laozi (Lao Tzu, or its more familiar title, the Tao Te Ching; Dao De Jing), then over time, there's the development of various sects; Celestial Masters, Numinous Treasures, Highest Purity, and so on (just to top a couple of the bigger groups). When the Mongols invaded they allied themselves with the Complete Perfection movement (for a while), then later crushed it to a large extent. These groups had similarities, they all called themselves Taoists, but what that has meant exactly varied greatly with time and location.

Also, new Buddhist sects, Taoist sects, and so on, are opening and closing every day. A religion may come about in history earlier, but that doesn't mean it never evolves. Also, historical movement doesn't ensure progress (unless you're a Marxist, but that's a different kind of progress ), so to say that newer religions are more valid is streching it, I think. I see your point of relevance; something more in touch with the times is more relevant to the people, but that leads to my point of religious evolution; different branches, doctrines, state policies, and so on effect the relevance of any religion. To hit an example on this point, Buddhism in Japan. Japan has almost no Christian population. It's newer, sure, but not relevant.

Lastly, I would not agree that all religions are "of god." Simply not a sentiment I would endorse.

On another note, I am glad you brought up religious modding. Personally, though I enjoy the more "realistic" religions, and I'm sure people have worked on balancing issues, the religions look to me like
1) The West got all the attention (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity)
2) The East, well, who even knows where that is....No, seriously though, it does seem like it was flubbed a bit. Perhaps we could discuss it and possibly rework it here?? I mean, all Hinduism affects are cows, Taoism is supposedly "anti-state" (I think there can be a LOT of argument the other way) and Buddhism's most striking feature is stone-work; I'm just not sure that it couldn't be done better.

Also, because this got me thinking about religious/cultural interactions, perhaps there could be certain religions that work well together, and others that don't. My base thought was/is religious syncretism in China; Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were seen as three different aspects of a person's full development, and therefore there was less animosity between these groups (although that's not to say it didn't exist, as is all too apparent in some eras). But Islam or Christianity, for example; no religious syncretism, that's in the religious doctrine itself. So perhaps newer religions, while spreading faster, could cause trouble with the older religions. Practical example; I have a Taoist city, eventually Christianity spreads to it, but because Christianity either has to convert or destroy its opposition, there could be -2 happiness or something, to show the agitation between the religious groups.

Well now....yep...

 

[Nightravn]

Is there a way to increased the spread of religon within a CIVs borders and restrict it outside of it? Judism by it's very nature is not very widespread religon and is really limited to those born in to it. Where as Islam and Christianity are very expanisonist. If it is possible I think Judism should have little or no spread outside of the CIV thats founds it but with in it on borders it spreads automatically.

I too like the idea of a kinda of Religous "culture" aspect. But unlike national culture one religon should not completely take over unless you are in a civic that allows such like maybe Theoracy where as Free Religon allows for equal parts. This definitely something to ponder.....

 

[Houman]

@Blue

I must say I really liked your analysis. As you know I have only implmented the Religious Mod as it was and have only improved it by adding more textures and skins.

I agree there is a lack in Buddhism and especcially Hunduism.

Since you seem to be an expert in Taoism. What suggestions do you have to make it more realistic? Or also the other two east religions.

Thanks
Houman

 

[Perfect_Blue]

My thanks for your kind remark, but I am certainly no expert; not really trying to come off that way either (in case that is a perception), I just like discussing these things as religion is one of my focuses at university.

After class I'll throw some ideas around, but right now I have to get ready for mathematical logic .

 

[israfil]

My thanks for your kind remark, but I am certainly no expert; not really trying to come off that way either (in case that is a perception), I just like discussing these things as religion is one of my focuses at university.

@Blue

Yeah, I really liked your comments, and of course my earlier comments were strikingly simplistic. Even looking at Taoism, as you did, it's complex. I also studied religious studies in university, and Taoism was one of my main foci. The distinction between "philosophical taoism", "religious taoism" and "alchemical taoism" were quite striking, and almost seemed like three entirely unrelated systems. Also the heavy competition between Buddhism and Taoism under the Mongols was surprising, especially given the aggression showed by Buddhist missionaries.

Also, as an aside, my "all of them are of god" comment can be treated with "god" in quotes. A better way to put it is that they are all based in truth except for a few that are deliberate exploitations (destructive and commercial personality cults, etc.). The use of the term "god" is certainly controversial in inter-religious dialogue and study. I personally brush it aside and use the term, and freely translate "Tao" into "Will of God" and Buddhist chain of causation into first cause deity. The reason I feel free to do this is that my notion of what "God" is is quite a bit more abstract than the "old guy on the mountain" stereotype. But this is a long conversation for another forum.

Back to the general topic, however, we simply must simplify. Perhaps we can simply set some ground rules for treatment of religion within Realism.

1. All religions represented will be considered equally true in any game-relevant aspect.

2. Individuals should not be penalized on average over an entire game for playing a given religion. However:

2.1. There may be area/time/circumstantial advantages or disadvantages. Playing one religion in an early phase may be better, but less advantageous later in the game, and vice versa.

3. Attempts to make "neutral point of view" descriptions of each religion in the civilopedia will be scrupulously maintained.

4. No religion given will be trivialized by the game mechanics or descriptions.


Some open questions:

Within the above framework, we should determine whether we want lots of religions (eventually) or few, because some systems for interplay of religions may not be suitable for large numbers of religions. For example, hte holy city advantages are irrelevant if every civ can found two or three.

Is it desirable and/or feasible to address the notion of schisms? I think not, both for simple complexity reasons, and because it adds a point of potential historical conflict of opinion. Also, the founding of a new religion in and of itself is often related to, or considered a schism by some, so the basic mechanics may practically take this into account.

How can we re-think religious treatment to avoid the east-west imbalance, or missionary/cultural imbalance, etc.

I'm sure there are plenty of other questions.

I suggest a whole sub-thread on the religions topic to start addressing the "what do we want out of this" question. I suggest that we figure out what our ideal gameplay would look like, then work backwards towards an implementation strategy, dropping things where necessary due to limitations.

Israfil.

 

[israfil]

Hey a Bahaii brother in Canada. I bet you have celebrated Nowruz!

Sure did, Houman. Had a nice buffet dinner at an Iranian restaurant in Baltimore (since I'm working there weekdays). I sure missed Tadiq. So fattening, but sooo good. Mmmm....

However it still hurts, when I hear judements that are based only on a misunderstanding.

This certainly highlights the essential difficulty in treatment of religion in games, history, etc. I've been quite involved in inter-faith dialogue, and believe me, it's a hard set of skills to master. I sure haven't yet. But we try.

Regarding your religion idea, it is really great but damn hard to implement. Maybe we could be able to do it if the SDk comes out. However until then I can tell you that only think you can modify is the spread factor of religions.

Probably true, but I'm looking at digging right into the python and changing some rather fundamental things, so don't wory about it. As I said elsewhere, let's discover what we want, then worry about implementation.

BTW, it is now possible to add religions without overwriting old ones. Like Shinto Mod. I am planing to add a South American religion, which wouldn't collide with other religions. If we have the SDk and could implement some of our ideas, there is even room for more religions. Maybe Bahaii would be the next and you could honor Baab.

Hmm, how? I am just getting into it again, but can you describe what you're doing? I know you can add any number, but display of the religions is difficult, without re-working several user-interface elements to support more than 7. This would have to include the city screen and the religion advisor screen. I'm very interested to see how you do it.

Cheers.
Israfil.

 

[israfil]

A religion may come about in history earlier, but that doesn't mean it never evolves. Also, historical movement doesn't ensure progress (unless you're a Marxist, but that's a different kind of progress ), so to say that newer religions are more valid is streching it, I think. I see your point of relevance; something more in touch with the times is more relevant to the people, but that leads to my point of religious evolution; different branches, doctrines, state policies, and so on effect the relevance of any religion. To hit an example on this point, Buddhism in Japan. Japan has almost no Christian population. It's newer, sure, but not relevant.

Yeah... I simplified the position almost to the point of absurdity. Put another way, is that religion is progressive and evolving. But the Baha'i position is that if religion ceases to educate humanity and serve it, God (the universe, whatever) offers a messenger to re-align religion. This often starts a new religion, though such a messenger may see it as merely revitalizing or restating the existing religion in a more relevant/modern context.

Additionally, what is relevant is relative. Your point about Christianity in Japan is well taken. The whole issue is worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation, and this forum is insufficient medium to adequately treat it. Please treat your comments as well taken, but grant that the full theory takes such into account.

Lastly, I would not agree that all religions are "of god." Simply not a sentiment I would endorse.

Again, this is way to simplistic as statement, both mine, and this response. As I said it, it is almost so simplistic that I don't agree with it, depending on what you mean. However, the basic sentiment is that all of the major world religions are connected essentially, though not in obvious external ways. At its core, that's an assertion, not a sentiment. It's not syncretic pathos, but a positive theological doctrine. But it does require a lot of discussion to fully explore, and I accept that it's hard to swallow stated so categorically, without explanation.

Israfil.

P.S. This should really be taken off-line, and I'll not continue part of the discussion here, except where relevant to the mod. Sorry for the distraction.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

Again, this is way to simplistic as statement, both mine, and this response. As I said it, it is almost so simplistic that I don't agree with it, depending on what you mean. However, the basic sentiment is that all of the major world religions are connected essentially, though not in obvious external ways. At its core, that's an assertion, not a sentiment. It's not syncretic pathos, but a positive theological doctrine. But it does require a lot of discussion to fully explore, and I accept that it's hard to swallow stated so categorically, without explanation.

You are more than correct. It is rather hard to decide at what point to reduce one's comments to make them readable in this forum, and unfortunately, then must by default tend to be over-simplified.

Also, now that I see where you stand (moreso) I think we are probably of like mind to some extent. My initial apprehensions came from the rough outline of the 'argument' (if one will) that was stated. What I mean to say is; I've seen (as I'm sure you have) so many in forums such as this draw terribly crude conclusions about religious traditions across the globe, outside the West that is. One tends to find people that can argue all points about the Christian tradition, but beyond that there seems to be little true discussion and/or understanding of anything else.

Point in case the "philosophy" versus "religion" argument that seems to get tossed about so much when a discussion of the game religions comes up; that discussion tends to be focused through a modern, Western lense, and honestly that just doesn't always seem appropriate if one wants to give the subject of religion a 'fair shake,' so to speak.

Anyway, I can see I clearly misunderstood you, but please don't take my remarks as direct criticisms or critique. Yours was just the post that sparked my mind (and fingers) to the subject, the critique was leveled more at the view that I see as permeating this online haunt, and of course at the way the religious mod treats the East (another reason for the "anti-Western lense" type draft).

Anyhow, more than right; to the game mechanics!

For one, I know nothing about tech tree placement or the balancing issues involved therein, so I can't even begin to comment. But, as to traits....hmmmm

 

[Los Tirano]

I see you were also thinking of adding other religions Houman. Its a great idea isnt it? The more put in, the more realistic the mod becomes.

 

[Paulk]

I think jungles should produce productions. To keep this balanced you could make jungles have two options:
1. SLash and Burn. It takes less time but doesn't give you any productions.
2. Harvest. More time but gives you productions.
In real life the amazon jungle is one of the largest supplies of lumber and i think it should be represtented. Just a sugestion. I havent read all the earlier threads so i dont know if this has already come up, nor do i know if it is already in the game.

Paulk

 

[AvianAvenger]

You haven't tried the assassin mod have you? They can assassinate the leaders of cities and incite the population to riot, as well as stealthily moving through enemy territories. When they go well the city is in anarchy for a number of turns. They can even kill great people, those that join cities as specialists that is. Also handy to knock off missionaries or great people moving between cities, because in the assassin mod they are stealth units, and despite being weak, can kill missionaries and great people with ease.

No i haven't tried it, don't really have too much time on my hand's the only mod ive got time for is this one. Can the assassin's take out the specialist within a city? That would be a good use of one, take away all those +5 to gold people.

--------------------------------------------------------​

Is there a way to take religions away from a city? I thought that was what the inquisition unit was for but all it does it some weird +-
~or something. An historical example of what i mean would be like when the roman catholic's killed off all the cathar's (and by all of them i really do mean EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM).

--------------------------------------------------------​

By the, im pleased to mention that the slow down that i experience on the world map seemed to have only occured the first time i played it, i have tried a few other teams and haven't experienced any other than the expected.

The first time i played the egyptian i experienced extremly bad slow down, to the point where the game had pretty much crashed occured around 900 BC (*i think), yesterday i played as the chinese up till past 200 BC - i killed off & conquered the mongolian's and the game was still playing fine with only about 10sec's time per turn.

 

[Bringa]

Is the current Worldmap working for anyone? Because it isn't working for me. I get "failed to load RealismWorldmap_0.72.Civ4WorldBuilderSave".

 

[Bringa]

Things I've noticed while playing:

All the text variables for Inquisitors are unfilled (they show up as TXT_KEY_UNIT...)

I cannot build more than one Rabbi at a time (it says 0 left when I'm just building one)

Generally this mod has a rather haphazard, random feel to it. Also, adding ALL those resources without trying to find a way to balance their overly positive effects might not have been a smart move. Maybe the game is designed to be played only on your world map, but on a random map, let me tell you, I had happiness and health enough for 26 size cities by 0 AD.

 

[israfil]

Things I've noticed while playing:

Thanks for playing, Bringa.

All the text variables for Inquisitors are unfilled (they show up as TXT_KEY_UNIT...)

This is a known bug, and will be fixed.

I cannot build more than one Rabbi at a time (it says 0 left when I'm just building one)

This is by design. Different religions have different relationships to missionaries. Christianity, for example, has a low natural spread, but you can make 10 missionaries at a time, and you can make them cheaper. The attempt is to simulate some historical tendancies within the mechanics of the game. It'll take some time to find the right balance. The balance for Rabbis is that Judaism spreads implicitly without lots of rabbis.

Generally this mod has a rather haphazard, random feel to it.

Hmm. Sorry you feel that way. I think if you read the trail of this forum, you will find that the underlying reasons for things are not haphazard, though the fact that you encountered the mod that way concerns me. Please do put suggestions here, as to how it can feel more integrated.

Also, adding ALL those resources without trying to find a way to balance their overly positive effects might not have been a smart move. Maybe the game is designed to be played only on your world map, but on a random map, let me tell you, I had happiness and health enough for 26 size cities by 0 AD.

Well, that has more to do with the generator, which could be worked on. Having said that, I'm not that convinced this is problematic. Certainly the roman empire had dozens of cities under its influence by then, as have many other historical empires. We should definitely keep examining this balance.

Anyway, thanks for trying it out. Keep mentioning things you notice, and as we feel it appropriate, we'll include them.

Israfil

 

[Houman]

@Bringa

Israfil has already responded. Only thing I can add, the generator is not yet in perfect balance. For this reason playing the worldmap is much more fun.
And yes the resources are distributed on the world map in a way that improves the trade routes between the civs.

If you have problems with loading the map, clear your cache. Go to c:/Document and Settings/yourName/My application/My games/Civ/cache
and delete everything inside the cache folder. (If dont see the My application is because it is hidden)

Then hold the shift button and double click on the map. If its still not working, move the Map to your public map folder.
load the game normaly and load the Mod and select load scanario. Now select the Realism world map and play. Next time already you should be able to double click on the map, if you would like to start a new game.

The pointers in CIV4 game eingine are still quite buggy and this can happen with any Mod or Map.

I am working on the Cold Fusion bug. An soon as I have solved it, a atch will follow. 100% this weekend though.

Have fun,
Houman

 

[Houman]

Which Domestic Advisor do you prefer?

1) homegrown's DA + Rabit Whites extension
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135189&page=6&highlight=domestic+advisor

or

2) 12monkeys
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148109&highlight=12monkeys


What we have now in Realism Mod is based on
Based on the "Special Domestic Advisor" v0.92 from Requies

Thanks
Houman

 

[Houman]

First Page Updated -
Go further down the first post and read Patch info and ToDO list for next version

Comments appreciated!!

Thanks
Houman

 

[Los Tirano]

This is really an ambitious project (and it is succeeding), and a lot more good stuff looks like it will be added (assassins )

However, im wondering about the immortal. Its become quite a good unit in my games and its a shame some other civs will lose it. I play the egyptians and use the immortal as the elite guard for my cities while my chariots are out. I do this because the egyptian archers are quite weak. The archers are not a great second UU, only 1 extra first strike or whatever it is. They dont compare to the immortal.

So i realize why you are removing it, to be more realistic, but it does fill the niche of a pharaoh's guard of sorts; something that would have no doubt existed.

What do you think Houman?