My Beef with Religion

[dh_epic]

cfacosta, I appreciate the understanding. i definitely worry that religion is a topic for more of the same gameplay, rather than a source of new gameplay.

But if you're opposed to new gameplay that detracts from militarism, that's fine, but I politely disagree I do think that culture flips annihilating entire armies is kind of lame. But if someone has a lot of cultural pride, it's conceivable that they could resist conquest. Many occupations have failed, and not for a lack of military might (USSR, America, Italy, Germany have all withdrawn...). Not to mention that many roving barbarians have been assimilated, despite conquering the "civilized" world. The Vikings and other Barbarians terrorized Europe in the Dark Ages, but were eventually Romanized/Europeanized/Christianized, and settled down. China was ravaged by barbarians, but ultimately, the barbarians became Chinese!

Not that realism is the justification. But this sounds like a fun game, where you have two powerful forces colliding. You're perfectly welcome to disagree and say that Civilization is a pure war game. I just think that's narrow and prevents the franchise from improving, though.

 

[cfacosta]

The use of my own militant style was meant as an example of how features can detract from previous systems within the game. Culture flips annihilating armies, an event you seem to agree is lame, was put in as part of the culture feature. The point here is that a system already existed for riots to flip the allegiance of a city...civ2 provided for partisans to represent a revolting populace. Though I have no proof of such, it could be argued that the newer culture triggered flip was put in to smooth out the inclusion of the cultural element without careful thought into how it changed an already functioning system.
You are right in that civ is more than a war game. I just wanted to point out that "creating a new challenge" doesn't, by itself, describe how I would like the designers to think. If the new challenge is truly a new element requiring thought and tradeoffs, that is fine. However, if the new challenge is created by complicating an already functioning game system, that may not necesarrily be good. Religion must have its own set of benefits/costs that it brings to the game system. If religion is used as something to further hinder war by introducing more "advanced" and "powerful" rioting mechanisms, or complicate the system of culture spreading by creating subdivisions within existing cultural groups, one needs to ask if the inclusion isn't really just overkilling what is already there.

 

[dh_epic]

The new challenge is the start of the idea. If there's no new challenge, the idea is futile. (This is what I hate about all the people who cry out for a future age. What's the difference? And don't most players clinch victory by the middle ages?) Once you've identified the challenge, then you decide if it fits with the Civilization Franchise. You decide if the players would find it fun.

I WANT multiple paths. A lot of people agree, too. More open-ended gameplay. I want to be able to pursue a heavily militaristic strategy, OR a heavily cultural strategy, or economic strategy, or the like.

But in order for the two strategies to be worth pursuing, they need to be symmetrical. If militarism is much more effective than culture or economy, then there's really no point to doing anything but being a war monger.

Part of balancing the strategy means having the strategies be partially tied together. Someone pursuing a cultural victory couldn't have defenceless cities. Thus, they have to maintain a basic amount of military (or else they could easily be conquered). But to counter balance the military strategy, a militaristic person would need to have a basic amount of culture/happiness (or else their people would revolt, or defect to a more "Civilized" civilization.)

I'm not talking about weird or stupid stuff like entire stacks of troops defecting... but yes, I'm saying that as much as a cultural giant with a weak military could get a pile of cities taken, a military giant with weak culture could see his people unwilling to fight someone who's culture they admire, and could even see his people switch allegiances.

To summarize: the alternate strategies (religion, culture, economy, anything) can have their own benefits and costs. But that means that military strategy needs to have benefits and costs -- right now, there is no cost to conquesting like a mad man!

If you'd rather have a purely militaristic game, that's okay. But to some degree, you need to recognize that open ended gameplay requires that culture be powerful enough to thwart military (in sensible ways).

 

[crimson238]

I am in the pool of people who worry over the implementation of religion. I'd like to see Dh_epic's model put in of conflict through trade offs and appeasment of the people in your empire. Therein lies the conlfict which drives the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think that is key because it avoids the snowball effect because every time your empire's power grows so does the power of one of your 'enemies/competitors/obstacles' ie your own people (appeasing them is the primary thing that will tie you down if you get big...also a bit of overall diplomatic reality if you can't reach the 30% of world power easily... the point at which international diplomacy is something you can 'do away with')

 

[dh_epic]

That's the way I see it too, guys. Dealing with the different groups in your empire is a feature that prevents the snowball effect and keeps the game interesting all the way into the modern age. There's a tradeoff between getting what you want, and keeping your people happpy.

And to me it's just common sense. If you can't have multiple groups in your civilization, then what's the point of religion? 90% of interest of religion rests on the idea that you can watch as a quarter, a third, and then half of your enemy's empire switches over to your religion.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

My biggest beef with the concept of religion in civ IV is that many many civ fanatics will likely be obliged to 'crush' a upheaval of a different religion (let's say, Judaism, or Muslim) in one of your own cities to ensure productivity. There are some things in civilization that aren't meant to be copied.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not sure. In fact, if religion involved some of that stuff -- where you had multiple factions in your civilization and you can choose to persecute one of them for STRATEGIC reasons... that might actually be kind of cool.

I'm worried it'll be grossly oversimplified and really offer no strategic improvement. It'll just give people a chance to say "hey, I'm this religion!" when it really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If you take morality, culture, ethnicity and religion together-and make them all a great deal more than 'Cosmetic' (i.e. they actually have an effect on the game as a whole) then I think that it would solve both DH_Epics and QuoVadis' concerns. After all, if you have a state religion-or even have a religious minority within your borders-that is the same as a foreign nations, then it might improve diplomatic and trade relations between your two nations. By the same token, though, persecuting a religious minority might harm your relations with a nation that follows that religion, as well as counting as a possible 'atrocity'-thus reducing your morality level in general-which not only hurts your international relations, but also could hurt your relations with your OWN people.

Anyway, just an idea.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The new challenge is the start of the idea. If there's no new challenge, the idea is futile.

QFA.

(This is what I hate about all the people who cry out for a future age. What's the difference? And don't most players clinch victory by the middle ages?)

I, for one, do not win in the Middle Ages, and in fact my victory is still far from certain until modern times (my preferred methods of victory are Diplomacy and especially Space Race), and to be quite honest have you considered that some of these people calling for for future era play the way I do? Probably nobody (other than my father) neglects their military as much as I do, but our concerns are legitimate. Call me an iconoclast, but I HATE WAR!

 

[Sirian]

One can hate war without hating chess. It's just a game, even if it is a war game.

War itself is a bit more complex than that, too. Do you hate the war that protects you from Hitler's Third Reich? What about the one that preserves the Union of the States instead of letting a third of the USA decide to discard the US Constitution and wander off on their own because they wanted to preserve slavery?

I'm not sure that a future age would be the best way to improve the game, but I agree that Civ ought to offer a valid and fun way to play peacefully and honorably and still be able to win, if well played. Civ3 doesn't do as good a job of that as I'd like.


I still think religion could be fun. It might not be the next "killer feature" but as long as it adds to the gameplay and doesn't always have a "right" or "best" answer, I'd be willing to try it before judging it. If it sucks, well, I wouldn't be shy about saying so. But one can be realistic without necessarily becoming pessimistic.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

I don't hate war, and I'm certainly not a pacifist. But I do think it's overrated. Truthfully, after I play a certain amount of Civ as Caesar or as a Third Reich, I want to try playing as a FDR or even an Ancient Greece.

I hope religion isn't what they're resting on for the killer feature. If they rest on it as an extension of another killer feature (factions or regions), not only will the game be better, but that's probably a better implementation of religion as a whole.

Maybe there's a reason they brought up Civics and Religion in practically the same breath?

 

[Kosez]

I just hope they're approaching religion with the same intelligence. That it's the solution to a problem in the game, instead of just a "wouldn't it be cool if..." feature. I would hope and pray that this is their thought process:

1. Expansionism is too powerful a strategy in the game.
2. Perfectionism isn't a powerful enough strategy.
3. Land gets taken up way too fast.
4. The game is won in the first two ages.
5. Maybe bigger empires should have to deal with unity.
6. The player would have to please different factions in their empire.
7. Or if the player wanted to persecute the factions, they could do that too.
8. What if they could mess with the factions in other empires?
9. What should some of these factions be?
10. Government affiliation -- Fascists and Communists.
11. Maybe class? Rich, poor, middle?
12. Hey, why not religion?

I absolutely agree with dh_epic, religion shouldn´t be on top of the list.
There are many other things that can be improved or changed before implementing religion. Many things would have to be changed in order to make religion realistic and even more things would have to be invented in order to make religion contribute to the game´s pace.
For instance, what would happen to religious city improvements, should they be the same for all religions, if not, would abillity to build them appear at the same time as religion or with certain technology?
If religions had real names, would they be compatible with all civilizations?
OK, these examples are really banal, but there are many more things.
I don´t know, I am pessimistic about religion.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Maybe there's a reason they brought up Civics and Religion in practically the same breath?

That would be the best idea if 'civics and religion' was sort of an overhaul of the culture model of giving your people motivations (and therefore diplomatic and cultural alternatives to the military-industrial strategy)

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks Kosez, that sums up my thoughts perfectly. It's not that I think religion is a bad idea, but I think it would be a bad idea to implement it without adding few other key features.

Civics COULD be that set of "key features". Civics could refer to the factions in your empire and the mechanisms that the player uses to deal with them.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I am excited that religion will be added. Hopefully they can make it work right though, maybe something like in Europa Universalis. In fact the team can learn a lot from Europa Universalis I wonder if Sid has ever played it.

Here, here. EU II is a great example of how religon can be used in a civ game. It's a controllable feature -- you can change religons (at the cost of unrest), you can control tolerance of other religons (a great way to bring back fanatacism w/o making it a government), it affects diplomacy in an understandable and controlable way and it's fun.

It will be an asset.

 

[Albow]

Dh_epic
This is in continuation from the thread with the doco of 10 cardinal changes.
My response to why religion should be included (from someone who has painted themselves into a corner, and really only wanted power blocks, but here we go).

Why Religion?
First, we must ask why should this concept be in a game called civilisation. The answer is pretty simple. Religion has been a very powerful force in shaping our cultures and societies. It has been the centre of the great flows of history, in shaping our modern world, in influencing the ancient one. It has been a constant in shaping group identity, and with it, inter-group conflict and co-operation.

How to represent religion in Civ?
Let’s get to basics. By basics, I mean, lets make ‘religion’ – the game concept – have a direct function in the most basic of civ game units: the city! The city is currently the producer of culture, commerce and industry (and science as a subset of com) and of course, food which makes pop, which drives it all. So, so far, we have food/gold/shield.

Now, let us add to this mix, Ankhs (I took ankh, as it will give least offence, looks very religious and easy symbol to see).

Let us assume that each citizen will produce one ankh. Now, what can you do with these ankhs? Perhaps you can have them accumulate, so that at a certain level, your citizens have a religious need, fulfilled by a temple. (this need would be increased by war, famine and natural disasters). At this point, people become unhappy when the need is not fulfilled. (note: starving cities for control is Very short term)

Religious happiness will also decrease the negative effects from too much luxury (this is a new idea, that luxuries should make happiness but increase corruption and waste – once you are use to a certain level of luxury, you demand it, not as a luxury but as a staple. Think late Roman empire and its decadence).

Ankhs can be increased by religious buildings/techs and govt policies.

How many ankhs you have determines things like converting neighbours, or resisting direct conversion. Captured cities will have a supply of their own ‘ankhs’ – resisting your new religion.

Civ wide ankh levels will start to ****** your science levels.

(anyway, this post is getting long and I really gotta go, but as you can see, there is sooo much an ankh can do!) So many play possibilities and real trade offs to play with, much more so than simple ‘regionalism’. Perhaps, indeed, you would be happier if the concept was called ‘identity’ rather than ‘religion’, and made it a city by city thing! (with more advanced techs letting you more civ wide control over this phenomena until ‘nationalism’ at which point, you can use this identity to ‘attack’ other …

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree with dh_epic that many other things need to be changed before Religion is added. If religion is added into the current models of culture, then in fact it probably will make the game less progressive.

This topic is fundamentally a question of how necessary a revamp of culture is to the progression of the Civ series. Civilization 3 was the first time that this franchise has tried to utilize a culture model. In many ways I considered it a beta-feature that was heavily tested by players. Now is the time to learn from these lessons and make a truly comprehensive model that increases player interaction. Once culture is fixed, Religion can be discussed in much more practical terms.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey, Albow.

First off, I'm very sympathetic to the "it was very important in real life" line of reasoning. However, I disagree that this is enough to justify a feature.

First off, it ignores whether the feature can actually be implemented feasibly in a way that's good for game play. For example, in real life, the fact that meso-american civilization emerged 3000 years after meopotamian civilization is VERY important to history, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for game play to give the Aztecs or Mayans this disadvantage.

Secondly, it ignores the fact that there is more to that historical topic's importance than its mere existence. You need to look at WHY religion was important, not just say "it was important" and implement it. There's a risk of implementing a feature in a way that has no real impact on game play because you ignore why it was important in the first place.

I never used the "it was important in real life" as a justification for any feature, for those two key reasons.

-----

But with those abstract criticisms, let's focus on your concrete points about how religion should work.

I think the ankhs are a great start. It's the first time I'd heard of someone using it, and it just makes a lot of sense. So now we have a mechanism... but what is this mechanism used for?

Ankhs being a kind of "currency for happiness" is the most logical step. But when you already have a system for happiness, where temples produce a certain number of happy citizens, why implement religion at all? In that regard, religion has existed in the series since Civilization 1. Not that ankhs couldn't do this, but it would need to do more than this to be worthwhile.

You suggest something else the ankhs could do. But it's not to solve an existing problem, but creating a new problem to make ankhs mean something. This new problem (decadence) could have been solved by other things, like corruption reducing improvements, or happiness increasing behaviors.

Your next suggestion is much more like culture, the way it is now. How much culture you have determines things like converting neighbours, or resisting direct conversion.

But this is less than what culture does. With culture, you at least gain control of a rival's city. With religion, it appears as though it has no effect on ownership. Which begs the question -- why bother converting them at all?

Your notion of identity seems to be much closer to the notion of culture than it is to the notion of religion.

So you have ankhs as behaving as a kind of cross between culture and happiness. ... why not just let temples produce culture and happiness? Ahh, but they already do.

-----

I know you were in a hurry. And I look forward to furthering this discussion. But let me leave you with these final thoughts.

I think a lot of people are aware of where religion can (and should) go. The problem is that this religious direction is much bigger than "add religion". It involves adding a half dozen other features just to make religion work. Not to mention that the half dozen other features have more impact by themselves than adding religion (ankhs) does by itself.

I welcome you to further your suggestions, but my line of attack will be simple: I will try to say each religious suggestion is bigger than "add religion" and requires a lot more complexity than a single feature. Or, I will try to say that the suggestion is already highly similar to something already in the game and offers very little change to game play.

I look forward to a suggestion where those two lines of attack do not apply.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I believe that MY idea for how religion could work is the one which should be adopted (though I WOULD say that, wouldn't I? )
However, Ankh's would be a good way of implementing the seperation of 'religious culture' from standard secular culture.
I wish I had more time to re-iterate my original model, but I am sure that DH_Epic remembers it well enough. Time permitting, I WILL try and re-hash it here again, for the benefits of those who have not seen it before.
I think that, done well, religion CAN offer a whole new level of game-play, and allow even small powers to have very great influence on the final outcome of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.