[mod] TOTAL REALISM 2.0

[Hian the Frog]

Houman, All,

@ Houman.
About Religion:
When you says a Religion is "local", is it because of the few number of its adepts or because the few land mass under its rule (if i can say like that) ?

@ Houman and all.

I would prefer to speak of "old" and "modern" religions. Most of all old religions are now dead (not all, Hinduism for exemple is still very active. It's the third largest religion... whereas Egyptian Religion is now dead. Sorry Ankenaton. )

My idea is simple.

1) You should add some old religions as we already talk about. ( Egyptian, Celtic, Scandinavian, Aztec...in fact many old pantheistic religion).
These religions should spread very slowly by themselves only inside their frontiers and of course with the help of missionaries, even outside their frontiers in that case. As you says, to be an active religion.
Why very slowly ? Because of the poor quality of communication (less roads, difficulties to travel by boats,...).
Why inside if not active ? Most of these old religions were followed by one and unique people, sometimes more but these peoples were very closed to the first (language, geography,...)
Remember Ashoka, who founded Buddism. He spent half of his life to "build" his religion, to travel along the Gange Valley (which is a small part of India) to spread what was more at that time a philosophy than a religion.

An other problem: will ai civs try to spread actively their religion or only wait for some lucky conversion ?

2) Modern religions should spread normaly outside and inside their frontiers and would also received more than the ridiculous one missionary. This number should be of at least 4.
Look at Christianism history. It took around 400 years to spread all over the mediterranean sea and to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. How many turns of TR are representing 400 years ? It was even more faster for Islam. Probably the fastest and largest spread of a religion in history...

3) I don't know if it's possible to do that but i would also like to add the birth of schismatic religions.
This religion would not be created by techs. They would borned when something special occurs to a modern religion (only these ones were schismatic) . As i already says, it could be when an amount of money earned by the holy shrine is reached or when a city is too far away from the holy shrine. In that case, the new religion holy city appears in a choosen city where the "mother/old" religion diseapper...

4) I would also like to add a religious/diplomatic malus for free religion civic. Why ? It could be strange to say that for an unbeliver or atheistic guy like me, but on that planet of more than 6 billions people, at least 80% of this pop follow a faith of any kind. Many are hating unbelivers/atheistic more than those who follow an other faith (these ones are on the wrong way but are on a way whereas unbeliver/atheistic are lost..)
Look at Russia. Communism and its hate of religions tried to destroy Orthodox Church and this one, like the Phoenix, reborned from ashes.... It's now a true political power in Russia. Only 17 years after the death of USSR, strange isn't it ?



Here are some of my ideas and some took from others guys. Thanks to them.

Last thing. I read what you says about Zoroastrians and Buddists. I don't know how many follow these faithes but i think it's difficult to know. Many are still living in "oppressive" countries: Iran, China, Pakistan, Birmania, Saudia Arabia... where beliving in an other faith than the official one is nearly impossible or where beliving in a faith of any kind is forbidden.

The Frog.

 

[Houman]

Hi Frog,

Houman, All,

@ Houman.
About Religion:
When you says a Religion is "local", is it because of the few number of its adepts or because the few land mass under its rule (if i can say like that) ?

"Local" means it can spread normally in the own borders of a civilization. But it can not spread over the borders to other countries. Your missionaries cannot spread religion in other countries either but they can do it inside your own borders.

We also have a "Dominant" terminology. A religion in Total Realism can be beside local also dominant or it can be only dominant. What does it mean? It means this religion doesn't allow other religions in the cities where it has spread itself. Only their holy city allows the existence of other religion. At this time Islam is an only dominant religion in the game and Judaism is dominant and local.

Your idea about 1) is exactly what I have mentioned in my 1). Slower spread rate for ancient religions, with no other limitations. Higher spread rate for modern religion with no other limitations.

2) Modern religions should spread normaly outside and inside their frontiers and would also received more than the ridiculous one missionary. This number should be of at least 4.
Look at Christianism history. It took around 400 years to spread all over the mediterranean sea and to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. How many turns of TR are representing 400 years ? It was even more faster for Islam. Probably the fastest and largest spread of a religion in history...

Islam's fast spread rate is not surprising. It just need to study the Hadith (ancient Koran commentary), Koran itself and books from ancient Arab historians such as Al-Tabari. All are describing the same thing; Islam could spread so fast, not by conviction, but by plain force and conquest. The garrisoned cities had always been given three options by the Arabs:
1) You accept Islam as your Faith and you pay no additional tax.
2) You stay by your fith but you pay the Poll-Tax (and also Land-tax if you own lands) both additional to the normal taxes Muslim had to pay
3) You face us in battle and God will jugde upon us.

option 2) was not given to everyone, but only for "People of the Book" (in first line, Jewish and Christians, but in the beginning also Zoroastrians, Manichaeans were also accepted as people of the book)

Islam never really used missionaries. I am seriously considering taking away the missionary from Islam and give Islam a new feature. As soon as they conquer a city, after 10 turns, Islam will spread into that city. This way the game is even more diverse and interesting.

About 3) that might be considered in the future.

about 4) well, we don't have yet a Free Religion civic. UDSSR was trying to do that by force intead of by education. Maybe one day that would be possible. Hence restricting Free religion civic won;t be a good idea.

Last thing. I read what you says about Zoroastrians and Buddists. I don't know how many follow these faithes but i think it's difficult to know. Many are still living in "oppressive" countries: Iran, China, Pakistan, Birmania, Saudia Arabia... where beliving in an other faith than the official one is nearly impossible or where beliving in a faith of any kind is forbidden.

I can't speak about all these countries, but I can speak about Iran from own experience, that other religions get oppressed. Some less (like Jewish & Christians) some more (Zoroastrians) some openly persecuted (Bahaiis). And Conversion out of Islam in Iran means death sentence but in spite that conversion out of Islam in Iran happens more than you think...hiddenly

 

[Ankenaton]

Houman, All,

@ Houman.
About Religion:
When you says a Religion is "local", is it because of the few number of its adepts or because the few land mass under its rule (if i can say like that) ?

@ Houman and all.

I would prefer to speak of "old" and "modern" religions. Most of all old religions are now dead (not all, Hinduism for exemple is still very active. It's the third largest religion... whereas Egyptian Religion is now dead. Sorry Ankenaton. )

My idea is simple.

1) You should add some old religions as we already talk about. ( Egyptian, Celtic, Scandinavian, Aztec...in fact many old pantheistic religion).
These religions should spread very slowly by themselves only inside their frontiers and of course with the help of missionaries, even outside their frontiers in that case. As you says, to be an active religion.
Why very slowly ? Because of the poor quality of communication (less roads, difficulties to travel by boats,...).
Why inside if not active ? Most of these old religions were followed by one and unique people, sometimes more but these peoples were very closed to the first (language, geography,...)
Remember Ashoka, who founded Buddism. He spent half of his life to "build" his religion, to travel along the Gange Valley (which is a small part of India) to spread what was more at that time a philosophy than a religion.

An other problem: will ai civs try to spread actively their religion or only wait for some lucky conversion ?

2) Modern religions should spread normaly outside and inside their frontiers and would also received more than the ridiculous one missionary. This number should be of at least 4.
Look at Christianism history. It took around 400 years to spread all over the mediterranean sea and to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. How many turns of TR are representing 400 years ? It was even more faster for Islam. Probably the fastest and largest spread of a religion in history...

3) I don't know if it's possible to do that but i would also like to add the birth of schismatic religions.
This religion would not be created by techs. They would borned when something special occurs to a modern religion (only these ones were schismatic) . As i already says, it could be when an amount of money earned by the holy shrine is reached or when a city is too far away from the holy shrine. In that case, the new religion holy city appears in a choosen city where the "mother/old" religion diseapper...

4) I would also like to add a religious/diplomatic malus for free religion civic. Why ? It could be strange to say that for an unbeliver or atheistic guy like me, but on that planet of more than 6 billions people, at least 80% of this pop follow a faith of any kind. Many are hating unbelivers/atheistic more than those who follow an other faith (these ones are on the wrong way but are on a way whereas unbeliver/atheistic are lost..)
Look at Russia. Communism and its hate of religions tried to destroy Orthodox Church and this one, like the Phoenix, reborned from ashes.... It's now a true political power in Russia. Only 17 years after the death of USSR, strange isn't it ?



Here are some of my ideas and some took from others guys. Thanks to them.

Last thing. I read what you says about Zoroastrians and Buddists. I don't know how many follow these faithes but i think it's difficult to know. Many are still living in "oppressive" countries: Iran, China, Pakistan, Birmania, Saudia Arabia... where beliving in an other faith than the official one is nearly impossible or where beliving in a faith of any kind is forbidden.

The Frog.

I agree pretty much with what has gone before, with a brief clarification: I believe what we have been referring to as "local" religions would be best described as "tribal" or tribe based. Most religions that history remembers have gone from being a tribe based religion to that of a "regional' (later national) religion (i.e. Hinduism), where most remain. As regarding Christianity, Islam & Buddhism these are the only "transregional" and/or "world" religions based upon their reach and numbers of adherents. Other smaller faiths such as Zoroastrianism and the Ba'Hai's, though transregional, do not today qualify as world religions due to their limited numbers (though growing). As for Egyptian religion, most Egyptologists would state that what we know as Judaism owes many of its tenets and belief systems to both Zoroastrianism and to the followers of the Aten (e.g the monotheistic religion created by the Pharoah Ankhenaton, later declared a heresy by his successors). There are theories that Moses was a secret follower of the Aten while in Pharoah's court. Anyway the more religions the better. No one civ in the game can dominate.

 

[Ankenaton]

Hi Frog,



"Local" means it can spread normally in the own borders of a civilization. But it can not spread over the borders to other countries. Your missionaries cannot spread religion in other countries either but they can do it inside your own borders.

We also have a "Dominant" terminology. A religion in Total Realism can be beside local also dominant or it can be only dominant. What does it mean? It means this religion doesn't allow other religions in the cities where it has spread itself. Only their holy city allows the existence of other religion. At this time Islam is an only dominant religion in the game and Judaism is dominant and local.

@Houman
Islam's fast spread is best understood by basic tenets of human psychology. As you so eloquently state that most were not given option #2 if they did not belong to one of the recognized monotheistic faiths. For most in Africa and Asia it was conversion at the point of a sword. Whereas the early converts may have been (most probably were) insincere in their beliefs; over time as the generations pass and children/grandchildren are born they become the true believers as their parents/grandparents die off. Off course during this conversion process there is usually a sizable military presence there (or nearby) to provide the muscle/intimidation needed to keep (at least in public) the converts in line. Whereas many refer to it as the religion of peace today. Many of its early Arab, African and Asian converts would definitely have arguments with that point. And you are right Houman there are definitely many more "Mutards" (i.e. Islamic converts to Christianity and other faiths) in Iran than is commonly known. The Ba'Hai's are hunted down like animals. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the official reason why they are so hated/persecuted by the Mullah's is that the Ba'Hai's violate the tenet that Muhammed is the "Seal" (last) of the prophets. Whereas the Bai'Hai's follow the tenets of Bai'ullah (forgive the spelling) who basically believed that all of the monotheistic religions are linked, have merit and are essentially expressions of the same faith.

 

[Hian the Frog]

Islam's fast spread is best understood by basic tenets of human psychology. As you so eloquently state that most were not given option #2 if they did not belong to one of the recognized monotheistic faiths. For most in Africa and Asia it was conversion at the point of a sword. Whereas the early converts may have been (most probably were) insincere in their beliefs; over time as the generations pass and children/grandchildren are born they become the true believers as their parents/grandparents die off. Off course during this conversion process there is usually a sizable military presence there (or nearby) to provide the muscle/intimidation needed to keep (at least in public) the converts in line. Whereas many refer to it as the religion of peace today. Many of its early Arab, African and Asian converts would definitely have arguments with that point. And you are right Houman there are definitely many more "Mutards" (i.e. Islamic converts to Christianity and other faiths) in Iran than is commonly known. The Ba'Hai's are hunted down like animals. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the official reason why they are so hated/persecuted by the Mullah's is that the Ba'Hai's violate the tenet that Muhammed is the "Seal" (last) of the prophets. Whereas the Bai'Hai's follow the tenets of Bai'ullah (forgive the spelling) who basically believed that all of the monotheistic religions are linked, have merit and are essentially expressions of the same faith.

Very interesting and right about "Mutards". We had a problem last year in France with a young Algerian girl that converted to Catholicism when she married a french man.... It created many many problems. Some furious guys at the head of some mosque would like to see her beheaded. No more no less .....
A simple off topic question (my apologies for other guys) : who are those Ba'Hai ? I don't know about them.... Please send me some info via private message/e-mail if you can and want.

The Frog.

 

[Spartan117]

Hi Frog,



"Local" means it can spread normally in the own borders of a civilization. But it can not spread over the borders to other countries. Your missionaries cannot spread religion in other countries either but they can do it inside your own borders.

We also have a "Dominant" terminology. A religion in Total Realism can be beside local also dominant or it can be only dominant. What does it mean? It means this religion doesn't allow other religions in the cities where it has spread itself. Only their holy city allows the existence of other religion. At this time Islam is an only dominant religion in the game and Judaism is dominant and local.

@Houman
Islam's fast spread is best understood by basic tenets of human psychology. As you so eloquently state that most were not given option #2 if they did not belong to one of the recognized monotheistic faiths. For most in Africa and Asia it was conversion at the point of a sword. Whereas the early converts may have been (most probably were) insincere in their beliefs; over time as the generations pass and children/grandchildren are born they become the true believers as their parents/grandparents die off. Off course during this conversion process there is usually a sizable military presence there (or nearby) to provide the muscle/intimidation needed to keep (at least in public) the converts in line. Whereas many refer to it as the religion of peace today. Many of its early Arab, African and Asian converts would definitely have arguments with that point. And you are right Houman there are definitely many more "Mutards" (i.e. Islamic converts to Christianity and other faiths) in Iran than is commonly known. The Ba'Hai's are hunted down like animals. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the official reason why they are so hated/persecuted by the Mullah's is that the Ba'Hai's violate the tenet that Muhammed is the "Seal" (last) of the prophets. Whereas the Bai'Hai's follow the tenets of Bai'ullah (forgive the spelling) who basically believed that all of the monotheistic religions are linked, have merit and are essentially expressions of the same faith.

speaking of ba'hai, sort of ironic. just 2 weeks ago my uncle was talking about the bai' hai faith.

my uncle and his family are ba'hai. He discussed with me different aspects of the religion with me. I think it started 1840 something but i am not sure. I my self am atheist, however my uncle gave me books from the bahai faith.

With these many holy cities for these religions. i think the holy temple/shrine building should have different effects?...I think it would be interesting. although i dont have any suggestions.

 

[Spartan117]

Very interesting and right about "Mutards". We had a problem last year in France with a young Algerian girl that converted to Catholicism when she married a french man.... It created many many problems. Some furious guys at the head of some mosque would like to see her beheaded. No more no less .....
A simple off topic question (my apologies for other guys) : who are those Ba'Hai ? I don't know about them.... Please send me some info via private message/e-mail if you can and want.

The Frog.

i just did a wikipedia search. so hope thiis helps. I was right i was thinking 1844. anyway here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_history

 

[Houman]

@Houman
Islam's fast spread is best understood by basic tenets of human psychology. As you so eloquently state that most were not given option #2 if they did not belong to one of the recognized monotheistic faiths. For most in Africa and Asia it was conversion at the point of a sword. Whereas the early converts may have been (most probably were) insincere in their beliefs; over time as the generations pass and children/grandchildren are born they become the true believers as their parents/grandparents die off. Off course during this conversion process there is usually a sizable military presence there (or nearby) to provide the muscle/intimidation needed to keep (at least in public) the converts in line.

Very good observation. However this is not told by the Muslim clerics. In Iran for example only educated people know about these real events. The clerics or Mullahs have convinced the majority that Iranians have accepted Islam with their open arms. Reading books from ancient historians, archeologists, modern historians and Islam-Scholars like Prof. Dr. Mary Boyce, Prof. Dr. Jamshid Choksy, Prof. Dr. Farhang Mehr, Prof. Dr. Zarrinkub, Prof. Dr. Shafaa and Ali Dashti have clearly showed in their research based on historical facts that the occupation of Iran during Muslim armies was a very bloody one. Uprisings in most cities more than several times. The rural country was in the first centuries totally unaffected by Islam. The major cities where the military presence of Muslim Arabs could oversee everything, developed very slowly into a Muslim community. It took despite all the tax and social pressure 300 years until the majority of every Iranian major city converted to Islam. The rural country became finally Muslim in majority in 1200 AD (550 years after the initial invasion). It must be said though that after 200 years the Arabs were defeated and Iran was no more under occupation. However the Muslim Converts kept the faith and the practices of Sharia, so that the conversion could go on...

Not many Iranians know about that but the well educated ones. And often you have to shut up about the truth and what has really happened in order not to insult religious feelings. Sometimes I ask myself what is a religion worth if its based on lies....

The Mullahs also are trying to denounce the Zoroastrians as Fire-Worshippers, which wasn't true at all. It would be the same like calling Muslims Stone worshipper just because they go around Mecca for 7 times and prey to the black asteroid inside. Or as calling the Christians Cross Worshipper etc.

Whereas many refer to it as the religion of peace today. Many of its early Arab, African and Asian converts would definitely have arguments with that point. And you are right Houman there are definitely many more "Mutards" (i.e. Islamic converts to Christianity and other faiths) in Iran than is commonly known. The Ba'Hai's are hunted down like animals. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the official reason why they are so hated/persecuted by the Mullah's is that the Ba'Hai's violate the tenet that Muhammed is the "Seal" (last) of the prophets. Whereas the Bai'Hai's follow the tenets of Bai'ullah (forgive the spelling) who basically believed that all of the monotheistic religions are linked, have merit and are essentially expressions of the same faith.

I have to disagree here. It is not the Mullah's interpretation that Baha’is have to be persecuted. It is an Islamic law and has to be followed by every Muslim. According to Koran, Islam is the last update from god's will. Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus were the previous versions and are outdated. Islam is the last update and Mohamed was the last programmer. I tried to make it a bit funny, but this is how it is seen. Mohammed is last prophet, and he brought the most "complete" religion. There won't be anything more complete.

Now who are the Baha’is? In order to understand that you have to understand who Shias are. Since the Iranians under the Arab occupation was not able to fight them off and push them back through the uprisings. A new idea came up to fight religion with another religion. The Shia religion was born. The Shia religion - not its Philosophy - but most of religious signs and the rituals are very much copied from Zoroastrians.

- Cleaning ritual of Shias are the opposite way of the Arabs.
- While painting human pictures is forbidden in Islam, especially pictures from the Islamic figures, Shias do paint the 4th Caliph or 1 St Imam Ali. They also - you won't believe it - paint Mohammed's face on golden necklaces.
- Praying times a day are different
- Shias pray at one part, with bowed and uplifted hands - exactly like Zoroastrians - Sunnis never do that.

I keep it short now. But the biggest difference is that Shias believe in Ali as the legal successor of Mohammed. They believe that Omar (2nd Caliph who has invaded Iran) did unjust to Mohammed, by not bringing Mohammed a pen and paper for writing his last wish when he was dying. (This is one of the biggest mysteries what Mohammed insisted to write down before he was dying and why Omar didn't allow anyone to bring him the piece of paper).
Iranians are used to Monarchy since 7000 years, therefore it was clear that even the Imams had to follow by birth. Therefore the kids of Imams become the following Imams after Ali was assassinated. Until the 12th Imam - by the way all of the Imams were assassinated, they were very much loved I suppose - the 12th Imam who drowned in a well as a kid, is told he disappeared into the sky and will return one day as Messiahs. (Again the copy of Zoroastrian Sushians - it were the Zoroastrians who brought the idea of a Messiahs long long time ago and Shias copied it- Sunnis do not believe in a Messiahs who would come and bring justice on the Judgment day.

Anyway since over 1000 years the Muslims and Zoroastrians in Iran are now waiting for the Messiahs.

Until about 200 years ago when a man said he is the Messiahs and started the Baha’i religion. He said I am the 12th Imam you were waiting for and as my responsibilities I say that everything that was said before by Islamic laws is no more valid. From now you have to live by the new rules. It came to a civil war in Iran and he got eventually executed. Baha’is believe that he was not executed and vanished one more time into the skies. Until his arrival the conversion to Baha’is has to be complete.

In defense of Baha’is I must say that their religion is very modern and not tradition based at all. It goes with the problems of nowadays rather than stick with problems of Arabian deserts 1400 years ago.

So now remember what Koran said? No other prophet is allowed because Mohammed was last. So who is now this new man? Is he the Messiahs (12 Imam) or a new prophet? Way it cannot be (according to Shia Islam), so everyone who believes in that shall be persecuted and through torture in prisons he or she might find the righteous way!! I have seen with my own eyes Baha’i neighbors who were arrested and their house was confiscated.

So enough history, most are asleep already...

 

[DarthCycle]

Gameplay feedback on the catapult unit.

In this mod, catapult can bombard both city defense and units at the same time,without any adverse effect on the catapult. In its current form, this is extremely powerful.

With 4-5 catapults, you can reduce city defense in 1-2 turns, and all defending units will be reduced to 50% strength at that point. Taking the city is not an issue then. In my last game, once I had 5 catapults, I wiped my neighbours one after the other (and they had the technology to build the catapult). From a gameplay perspective, this is unbalanced.

Things should be rebalanced a little.

1) Perhaps reduce the effectiveness of catapult a little: -33% or -50% of current efficiency.

2) They shouldn't be able to completely reduce the city defense to 0%. Perhaps reduce it to 50%/33%/25% of the max value. So a city with 50% defense bonus could be reduce to 25%/17%/13% by catapults.

3) Make it more appealing for the AI to build such units. I don't see the AI build enough of these. Catapults are now extremely valuable for defense against stack of invading units, especially the infamous SOD most of us still use in Civ4. This is something that vanilla Civ4 does well but in most mods, AI somewhat loose interest in catapult/canon units.

 

[Ankenaton]

Very good observation. However this is not told by the Muslim clerics. In Iran for example only educated people know about these real events. The clerics or Mullahs have convinced the majority that Iranians have accepted Islam with their open arms. Reading books from ancient historians, archeologists, modern historians and Islam-Scholars like Prof. Dr. Mary Boyce, Prof. Dr. Jamshid Choksy, Prof. Dr. Farhang Mehr, Prof. Dr. Zarrinkub, Prof. Dr. Shafaa and Ali Dashti have clearly showed in their research based on historical facts that the occupation of Iran during Muslim armies was a very bloody one. Uprisings in most cities more than several times. The rural country was in the first centuries totally unaffected by Islam. The major cities where the military presence of Muslim Arabs could oversee everything, developed very slowly into a Muslim community. It took despite all the tax and social pressure 300 years until the majority of every Iranian major city converted to Islam. The rural country became finally Muslim in majority in 1200 AD (550 years after the initial invasion). It must be said though that after 200 years the Arabs were defeated and Iran was no more under occupation. However the Muslim Converts kept the faith and the practices of Sharia, so that the conversion could go on...

Not many Iranians know about that but the well educated ones. And often you have to shut up about the truth and what has really happened in order not to insult religious feelings. Sometimes I ask myself what is a religion worth if its based on lies....

The Mullahs also are trying to denounce the Zoroastrians as Fire-Worshippers, which wasn't true at all. It would be the same like calling Muslims Stone worshipper just because they go around Mecca for 7 times and prey to the black asteroid inside. Or as calling the Christians Cross Worshipper etc.




I have to disagree here. It is not the Mullah's interpretation that Baha’is have to be persecuted. It is an Islamic law and has to be followed by every Muslim. According to Koran, Islam is the last update from god's will. Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus were the previous versions and are outdated. Islam is the last update and Mohamed was the last programmer. I tried to make it a bit funny, but this is how it is seen. Mohammed is last prophet, and he brought the most "complete" religion. There won't be anything more complete.

Now who are the Baha’is? In order to understand that you have to understand who Shias are. Since the Iranians under the Arab occupation was not able to fight them off and push them back through the uprisings. A new idea came up to fight religion with another religion. The Shia religion was born. The Shia religion - not its Philosophy - but most of religious signs and the rituals are very much copied from Zoroastrians.

- Cleaning ritual of Shias are the opposite way of the Arabs.
- While painting human pictures is forbidden in Islam, especially pictures from the Islamic figures, Shias do paint the 4th Caliph or 1 St Imam Ali. They also - you won't believe it - paint Mohammed's face on golden necklaces.
- Praying times a day are different
- Shias pray at one part, with bowed and uplifted hands - exactly like Zoroastrians - Sunnis never do that.

I keep it short now. But the biggest difference is that Shias believe in Ali as the legal successor of Mohammed. They believe that Omar (2nd Caliph who has invaded Iran) did unjust to Mohammed, by not bringing Mohammed a pen and paper for writing his last wish when he was dying. (This is one of the biggest mysteries what Mohammed insisted to write down before he was dying and why Omar didn't allow anyone to bring him the piece of paper).
Iranians are used to Monarchy since 7000 years, therefore it was clear that even the Imams had to follow by birth. Therefore the kids of Imams become the following Imams after Ali was assassinated. Until the 12th Imam - by the way all of the Imams were assassinated, they were very much loved I suppose - the 12th Imam who drowned in a well as a kid, is told he disappeared into the sky and will return one day as Messiahs. (Again the copy of Zoroastrian Sushians - it were the Zoroastrians who brought the idea of a Messiahs long long time ago and Shias copied it- Sunnis do not believe in a Messiahs who would come and bring justice on the Judgment day.

Anyway since over 1000 years the Muslims and Zoroastrians in Iran are now waiting for the Messiahs.

Until about 200 years ago when a man said he is the Messiahs and started the Baha’i religion. He said I am the 12th Imam you were waiting for and as my responsibilities I say that everything that was said before by Islamic laws is no more valid. From now you have to live by the new rules. It came to a civil war in Iran and he got eventually executed. Baha’is believe that he was not executed and vanished one more time into the skies. Until his arrival the conversion to Baha’is has to be complete.

In defense of Baha’is I must say that their religion is very modern and not tradition based at all. It goes with the problems of nowadays rather than stick with problems of Arabian deserts 1400 years ago.

So now remember what Koran said? No other prophet is allowed because Mohammed was last. So who is now this new man? Is he the Messiahs (12 Imam) or a new prophet? Way it cannot be (according to Shia Islam), so everyone who believes in that shall be persecuted and through torture in prisons he or she might find the righteous way!! I have seen with my own eyes Baha’i neighbors who were arrested and their house was confiscated.

So enough history, most are asleep already...

@Houman. Thanks for the clarification Houman on the whole Seal on the Prophets thing; I did know that religions before Islam were considered incomplete and that Islam is supposedly the "Final" revelation". I had forgotten about Muhammed not being given the pen and paper for his final wishes; one wonders what he would have wrote? Anyway get some sleep. It is only 2:15pm in NYC on a Friday, LOL. Now for some party!
@Spartan117. Thanks for the wikipedia site. Frightening.

 

[Ankenaton]

@ Spartan117. I think that is a great idea. All of the holy shrines (almost said holy cities) should have different effects. What is so funny is that Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the Ba'hiai's all maintain religious sites in and around Jerusalem. So basically 4 (if not more) major religions can claim it as "their" holy city. I guess after all of the CTD bugs and others are worked out, we can all put our heads together and think up more features. Funny thing is that I am Christian (Catholic) and I was thinking about converting to the Ba'hai' faith back in 1999, but I never went through with it. As far as spreading the faith goes, they are not hard sellers, which is a good thing.

 

[Hian the Frog]

All,

When i read what Houman wrote about religion and what i already know about them, i'm sure that my opinion about them will not change. All of the religions of "the People of the Book" boast about their right vision of the truth, and so on. What a lack of tolerance ! How can they be so proud and so sure to think that their vision and only their vision is the right one ? Many many of their texts could be contested....... Meanwhile, chosing his religion freely (or being atheist) is sacred for me....... mmmm ....i'm off topic, sorry.

Spartan117 idea about different effects for holy shrines is a very very good idea. Furthemore, i don't think that it needs many work to done. (Probably Houman will contest that ). But, what could be the effects of the differents holy shrine ? Go on guys ! Let your ideas flourish ....

The Frog.

 

[mrmistophelees]

Gameplay feedback on the catapult unit.

With 4-5 catapults, you can reduce city defense in 1-2 turns, and all defending units will be reduced to 50% strength at that point. Taking the city is not an issue then. In my last game, once I had 5 catapults, I wiped my neighbours one after the other (and they had the technology to build the catapult). From a gameplay perspective, this is unbalanced.

Things should be rebalanced a little.

3) Make it more appealing for the AI to build such units. I don't see the AI build enough of these. Catapults are now extremely valuable for defense against stack of invading units, especially the infamous SOD most of us still use in Civ4. This is something that vanilla Civ4 does well but in most mods, AI somewhat loose interest in catapult/canon units.

I agree that siege weapons themselves seem to be overpowered. I had a sizable army of about 10-12 units, 4 of which were catapults, later upgraded to Trebuchets. I walked up to the capital of the greeks, which had about 10 units or so, one of which was a catapult. I started off the siege which took 2 turns with heavy bombardment of the city. First turn, their defenses were reduced from 100% to 32% and most of the army was reduced to half hp. Second turn, of course, their defences were reduced to 0, the rest of the army was at half power, and I walked right over them.

I agree that the AI should be tweaked to effectively use siege weapons in defense. The Greeks should have been bombarding me for the two turns they were under siege.

As for solutions... I think the power to reduce city defenses should be reduced significantly! If you think about it, a catapult strike against a city wall might make a hole in it, or knock some battlements down, but it won't bring the wall down. It takes demolitions to knock walls down, in other words, gunpowder.
With that in mind, I think that pre-gunpowder units should do a MAXIMUM of 5-10% damage to a city's defenses. That will create nice long sieges, where the attacker has to pay for the siege (in terms of units staying longer in enemy territory). I personally think 5% is better than 10%.

Once cannons are being used, then the power can be upped a little... say 10% damage to city defenses. I think that will make for a much more interesting game with siege weapons.

Finally, I think that siege weapons either need to hit fewer units in a stack, OR do less damage a turn to units, OR make the maximum damage less than 50%. Or a combination of these ideas.

 

[Mexico]

@ALL
sorry, just returned (22:10 pm) from unexpected bussines trip (whole week) with restricted inet access
tomorow is 1st anniversary day for my baby so i hope i can continue modding at sunday/monday (at first read all your posts - this take me about one day )

mexico

 

[Hian the Frog]

@ALL
sorry, just returned (22:10 pm) from unexpected bussines trip (whole week) with restricted inet access
tomorow is 1st anniversary day for my baby so i hope i can continue modding at sunday/monday (at first read all your posts - this take me about one day )

mexico

As we say in France for a day like tomorrow :" Joyeux Anniversaire "

The Frog.

 

[Ankenaton]

@ALL
sorry, just returned (22:10 pm) from unexpected bussines trip (whole week) with restricted inet access
tomorow is 1st anniversary day for my baby so i hope i can continue modding at sunday/monday (at first read all your posts - this take me about one day )

mexico

Congratulations, and many more to come

 

[Ankenaton]

All,

When i read what Houman wrote about religion and what i already know about them, i'm sure that my opinion about them will not change. All of the religions of "the People of the Book" boast about their right vision of the truth, and so on. What a lack of tolerance ! How can they be so proud and so sure to think that their vision and only their vision is the right one ? Many many of their texts could be contested....... Meanwhile, chosing his religion freely (or being atheist) is sacred for me....... mmmm ....i'm off topic, sorry.

Spartan117 idea about different effects for holy shrines is a very very good idea. Furthemore, i don't think that it needs many work to done. (Probably Houman will contest that ). But, what could be the effects of the differents holy shrine ? Go on guys ! Let your ideas flourish ....

The Frog.

Yeah The Froggie and I PM'd each other concerning the religious shrine bonus'. Maybe Egypt could have some type of granary based bonus? Maybe the Celtic shrine could have some type of nature/wildlife based bonus?

 

[WarKirby]

Oops. Didn't mean to double post.

 

[WarKirby]

As for solutions... I think the power to reduce city defenses should be reduced significantly! If you think about it, a catapult strike against a city wall might make a hole in it, or knock some battlements down, but it won't bring the wall down. It takes demolitions to knock walls down, in other words, gunpowder.
With that in mind, I think that pre-gunpowder units should do a MAXIMUM of 5-10% damage to a city's defenses. That will create nice long sieges, where the attacker has to pay for the siege (in terms of units staying longer in enemy territory). I personally think 5% is better than 10%.

Once cannons are being used, then the power can be upped a little... say 10% damage to city defenses. I think that will make for a much more interesting game with siege weapons.

Finally, I think that siege weapons either need to hit fewer units in a stack, OR do less damage a turn to units, OR make the maximum damage less than 50%. Or a combination of these ideas.

Baaad ideas. Civ IV is too defense oriented already. It takes literally hundreds of years to lay seige to a decently sized city. Making it take even longer is just silly.

The attacker already pays dearly for assaulting cities. Archers get a standard city defense bonus, plus the cultural defense bonus for the culture level of the city, plus the bonus for walls which the AI is likely to build, plus city garrison promotions which AI also has a habit of bestowing upon archers, plus the stack aid bonuses that come from AI's tendancy to put 3-6 units in a city.

Maximum of 5-10%? That is just ludicrous. You already need to out do your enemy about 4 to 1 to take a city, plus the enemy heals faster because they're in a city.

A catapult striking a city walls may not do much. But we're talking about a battery of catapults being fired repeatedly over many years. Around the time of catapults, 1 turn = about 10-20 years. If you had a few catapults and enough ammo, the average city would fall in a week or two, and you think it should take longer.

Make the maximum damage less than 50%. Definately not. If you bombard someone repeatedly, a magic shield does not appear around them once they get injured. Throw rocks at someone repeatedly and, make no mistake, they will die.

The max damage should be all the way at 100%. Now that's realism. Maybe doing less damage to units per turn though. In my curent game, I seem to be killing units with one bombardment.

There should be a downside to mega bombardment though, like destruction of buildings (barracks, library etc.) and severe population drops. Meaning that if you pound a city into dust, you won't benefit from claiming it afterwards.

WarKirby

 

[rebsiot]

You already need to out do your enemy about 4 to 1 to take a city, plus the enemy heals faster because they're in a city.

Military theory calls for at least a 3 to 1 advantage and up to a 5 to 1 advantage to assault a fortified line and assure victory. As for laying seige to a city, or actually assaulting a fortified city, the ratios must skyrocket so that you can rotate troops, surround the city completely, cut off their supplies, as well as supply your own troops.

Of course, this isn't exact troop vs. troop, but also can take into account other factors, such as experience, supply, weapons, and weariness. Assaulting positions/cities is actually well accounted for and could be made more difficult if that's all you need.

Of course, that's my opinion, and I'll have to spend time finding battle specifics if you want. But then again, that's all classified and I'd have to hunt you down and assault your position for simply having the knowledge....or not.

Rick