My Beef with Religion

[dh_epic]

Aussie, I always liked your religious model as well... (actually, I recall two... maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.) My complaint is similar though. It's not that your religious model is bad, it's that it only becomes good when you combine it with some features like "factions", which are already quite complex in of themselves.

 

[cfacosta]

I have been following this thread closely because, as I mentioned earlier, a badly implemented religion system could have very negative results on gameplay. With that said, the Albow's "Ankh" idea has a lot of merit. Epic's comments are valid in that any aspect added to the game should bring its own diversity to gameplay and not simply fix an artificially created problem.

So why not have have the Ankhs actually represent a "religious currency" in the sense of built up church strength and influence. This would sort of represent the power that the clergy (whatever branch they happen to be for your civ) has accumulated over the years. As far as representing a historical reality, this model wouldn't be bad.

As for uses of this "religious currency", the first thing I would suggest is that it be available as an alternate to using gold to rush religious improvements. Not a replacement of gold rushing or pop rushing, just an alternate option that would represent the Church building its own structures (with your approval, of course).

The next thing I suggest is that this currency be usable to boost the luxury slider. What I mean is have a seperate slider for the church's use of its income which can alternate between building up influence and power, and expending some to keep the population calm. Again, not replacing the luxury slider, but adding a different option.

Before continuing with other suggestions about how to use the Ankhs, I would like to say that this wouldn't be a useless inclusion. Yes, this essentially provides a different way to do the same things as with gold. The point is that it allows for diversity of gameplay styles. After all, winning through a space race or through conquest are essentially different ways of doing the same thing...but noone would really complain that both were included. The potential for someone to rely heavily on religious power to accomplish goals would now exist, opening the door for what fundamentalism as a gov form tried to do in civ2.

Back to usage of Ankh suggestions... Tie the buildup of Ankhs to the type of government. I don't mean include a fundamentalist gov. Just make logical determinations about the role of religion in different society forms. Obviously communism would have next to no religious buildup. Democracy/republic would have less than a fuedal or monarchial system. This would probably make religion more important early on...as was historically accurate. In order to help out Fascism, religion (which would really represent more of an indoctrination of nationalist beliefs) could play more of a role...though this one is more sticky to justify. That is, of course, working only within the boundaries of civ3 govs. This would add another differentiator between governments, allowing for better distinction between them and for better balancing.

At that point you could make Ankhs useful for just about anything. They could be used in negotiations, to represent the use of Church power to influence your neighbors. (providing they have the same culture group or government etc.) Ankh's could be used as an additional cost to drafting in order to negate the happiness penalty. Ankh's could even be used as an alternate cost to some espionage options like propaganda (which could now be effective against democracies).

Anyways, I want to see what you guys think. I guess the bottom line is use religion as another tool to achieve victory by making it practical and applicable. Do, more effectively and abstractly, what fundamentalism tried to do in civ2.

 

[Rambuchan]

This is all very interesting, great thread.

Strikes me that religion is very likely to appear in Civ4 as an improved corruption mechanism. The religion and corruption parallel is strong and hasn't been pointed out yet. So let's dwell on that a bit.

Think of your empire with Christians and Muslims in it. Your people converted to Islam a while ago, conquered a minor Christian king's lands and now you are launching a war against another Christian kingdom on your borders. The predominantly Christian towns and cities would perhaps be less productive through this war, whereas the Muslim population would crank out troops gleefully. This offers a kind of war weariness meets corruption factor which you would have to get over - perhaps with Persecutor specialists or a persecution form of mobilisation. Eitherway, this is all a new representation of the old form of corruption but it would be one that I would welcome. It would make the existing system more colourful if nothing else. So the bad(ish) news is that it seems this use of religion and the factions systems mentioned all bear strong parralels with mechanisms we already have in the game - ie. war weariness, corruption and culture.

IOW we'd be getting 'the old wrapped as the new' as we so often fear from expansions. But I think if pushed further, in ways suggested in this thread and elsewhere, the introduction of religion would bring both the new features / challenges and new concepts which we all seem to crave.

The new clerical units seem to be a good, workable idea. I find the monks a great element in Age of Kings and this also caters for the clear need for a less militaristic style of play. On the grounds of what I've read in this thread it seems these clerics/monks/whatever would enter into the game based on a challenge then concept route of development and I have every faith this would be implemented well. The power of the church to contribute to the health of the treasury, building new improvements, offering cultural advances and influence are all areas in which religion can be introduced with a challenge first approach.

I'm confidently expecting something altogether new from Firaxis, something which surpasses Age of Kings or Europa. Civ is still the king IMO.

 

[dh_epic]

Rambuchan, I do think that happiness would make a great substitution for corruption. Corruption is too absolute, too inevitable. Happiness is something you can control and affect. And religion could factor into this easily. But even without different religions in your empire, you could do this with foreign nationals. The long and the short of it is that huge pluralistic empires would suffer productivity hits from unhappiness... so part of having a successful large empire involves having the good sense to convert your subjects and build their loyalty to their new home.

However, I'm skeptical about all suggestions about conversion because it opens up a lot of holes. For example it assumes that you'd have an incentive to convert to Islam, that it would have an advantage over other religions. Also, it assumes that -- if you've been converted forcibly by someone else -- there's still some incentive to promote someone ELSE'S religion, instead of just switching back somehow.

Tying back to the starts of this thread, you need a fully functioning "faction" system -- where you can have multiple factions within your empire -- before you can make religious conversion work in an interesting way.

Religion and factions together? Hell yes.
Factions by themselves? Sure, but I couldn't think of an elegent way to make this work.
Religions by themselves? Not really worth it.

-----

It took a while for me to digest Albow's ankh idea and cfacosta's extension of it.

I now believe that "Religious currency" is quite clever. Religious currency is more abstract than regular currency. If you've seen Galactic Civilizations "Influence", that's also a virtual kind of currency. You accumulate it, and you can use it in trade negotiations, and gives you a bigger advantage in UN votes, for example. Religious currency could be used for a few similar things to gold, but a few things it can't. For 1000 Ankhs, you might be able to draw a nearby neighbor into becoming an ally in a war. Or you might be able to force a peace treaty for 750 Ankhs. Or for 200 Ankhs, you might be able to quickly put down a resistance. For 500 Ankhs, you might rush a new cathedral.

Spoiler One thing that's good to avoid... :

(Note: I actually don't mind that cfacosta's model doesn't mention specific religions, but just sort of assumes that each nation has a specific or unique spiritual movement. In fact, I PREFER this to tangible religions, because those specific religions also beg a lot more questions that involve more complexity. What's the difference between religion A and B? How do I pick my religion? If I can be converted, what stops me from merely picking all over again?)

I would add this to other good ideas for religion models. Including one from Aussie Lurker where religion becomes one or two settings under your "social engineering". (Are you a blood cult or animist? Are you theocratic, religious, secular, or atheist?) I like these models. If I were to implement a small but elegant religion model, it would be one of these or some combination.

-----

However, I would sooner add a dimension of "influence points" from Galactic Civs, that are tied to a combination of culture and overall likeability. It gets you many of the benefits and sidesteps many of those difficult questions about religion. Which is kind of why religion was a "suggestion number 11" in my liist of 10.

And I still think religion would be best if Civ actually modelled multiple factions within your empire. Imagine "influence points" that were accumulated for all different kinds of factions, for example -- your religious elite, your wealth elite, your military elite, with their unique demands...

 

[Albow]

Dh_epic,

Its funny how ideas evolve as you discuss them in the forum. You are talking about A, while I'm yammering about Z ... in the end, we are both talking about the alphabet.

The point being, that I can see 'religion', being a basic model for the internal faction idea that we both crave. I think it would be a poorer model by itself (I'd love to have the multifaction thing, as per your last line) but realisticaly, this would be a big addition. More likely, if there was going to be more internal conflict type game play, it will be something much simpler (your will vs will of people perhaps?). This could be expressed as regionalism, or this could be religion. They are, in effect, the same base concept, but expressed in different ways.

If Nothing else changes in Civ 4 from Cvi 3 except the intro of such a system ... what is the difference between regionalism vs religion? Think about it.

1. Regionalism is a way of slowing down huge empires (so is fragmented 'ankh' production)
2. Regionalism can create civil wars (so too can religion)
3. Regionalism effects happiness (ditto)
4. Regionalism will allow for more 'flavour' as in difference between cities (religion can't do this easily)
5. Regionalism may be able to affect spying (ditto)
6. new types of govt like decentralised feudalism vs centralised monarchy (ditto)
6(b) a new way to control the late industrial age by blocking cities together (religion couldn't do this)

Now what can religion do that regionalism can't?
7. new units (I know what you think of this )
8. differences in happiness (lux vs religion)
9. new 'currency' as you stated
etc etc

So, why is that regionalism is the way to go? they both pretty mcuh come out the same ...

 

[dh_epic]

Well, if I were to pick between two options...

I remember what really put me onto regionalism over a lot of other features was its impact on the late game. In the early industrial age we saw America splinter off from England, and in the mid industrial age saw America fight a civil war, and then recover. In the Modern age we saw Germany, Korea and Vietnam divided. We saw Israel re-emerge as a recognized nation. By the late modern age, we saw the USSR crumble, and the Balkans gave us the meaning of the word "Balkanization".

Not that religion's impact is less. But it's hugest impact was in the middle ages, a period of the game that's already quite interesting. Regionalism is just more flexible, unless you do something ahistorical and let religion be relevent to modern day exactly as it was in 1200 AD.

 

[Albow]

tut tut tut dh_epic, was it not you who said that history should not be the judge of which feature should be in Civ?

but seriously, I agree, splintering empires is an interesting idea. I would caution however, a system which is designed merely to fracture the leaders to make the game last longer. Imagine how frustrating a game would be if you play ever so carefully right to the modern age, only to have your empire crumble into 3 new factions! A real hair puller ... and to what end?

Ages ago, I wrote a thread about Civs core fun feature was stress and adversity, with then overcoming that challenge and winning. I agree FULLY that the modern age, as is, is sucky, but is fracturing an empire the only way to make it fun (indeed, would it be fun if this happened each time you got to the MA? prob not).

There are many other suggestions that would make the MA more fun.

As for religions role in the MA? Well, first of all, as much as you or I are not religious (I'm guess here, but from your stance, that's my gut feeling) there are many billions in the world who are. If realism is the key factor for a feature, you cannot discount religion. I mean, our current friendly superpower is being lead by religious ideals. Many modern conflicts are done with religous rhetoric (yes, even the balkans!), eck, even the Pope dying is major news.

So, religions late game impact is, and still can be huge! (and also, in the late game, it can have changed characteristics ... such as the choice between stability and control vs technology and secularism).

 

[dh_epic]

My point had nothing to do with history but more to do with what had an impact in the modern ages. Adding something for the sake of adding a detail just wasn't worth it. It was only if it had a game play payoff.

Why didn't religion have that payoff?

Because religion just ended up being too much of a moving target. Religious differences punctuated the middle ages -- making its hugest impact in a time when the game didn't really need it. When you look for its modern age pay off, religion is more of a "yes or no" question or a "how much should it be involved in our daily lives" question.

Aussie suggested a model that worked for the modern age. One where you set the "secularism/religiosity" of your empire. I figure that was encompassed in Domestic Policy -- an Alpha Centauri style menu. That's more of a detail within a feature than a whole new feature. That's almost as easy as saying "religion is already in the game -- there are temples and cathedrals."

The other way to implement religion with a real pay off -- one that's actually a full fledged feature -- would be creating a religious model that evolves with time. And that's extremely hard -- we're talking about two or three different features. Local ancient religions, the world religions of the middle ages, and the modern questions of secularism, religiousness, and atheism.

There were suggestions for religion that managed to be that complex. But then we're talking about a feature that would take 3 pages to articulate, and totally change the face of the game. Not as much bang for buck.

(The alternative strategy didn't appeal to me -- having middle ages style religious wars in the 20th century. Then again, our President seems more than happy to fuel propaganda overseas that this is a clash of civilizations, rather than an effort to spread human rights and peace.)

That's basically why I didn't think religion was a top priority.

- Some models had relatively little pay off.

- Other models were too complex, or relied too much on a lot of features that just weren't in there.

- And other models still were downright absurd.

 

[Albow]

ok, but what is the bang for buck in regionalism? and regionalisms impact would have to be right from the start too - unless you are advocating that regionalism only starts after the advent of Nationalism ...

Bang/Buck of Regionalism:
1. new internal politics (unidimensional: core versus outer regions - simple but boring. multilateral: each region for itself, very complex and fun, way too hard to implement)

2. new ways to conquer land by undermining the core/periphery group of opponent (the buck for this is, much more complex foreign relations or much more in-depth spying, still, lots of work to do to make this right)

3. new way to control lareg areas of empire and reduce MM when in Modern Age (this is good as it makes interface simple, but be careful of those MM freaks who don't want to lose control).

4. New way to slow down the big boys (this means, need many more ways for the big boys to keep control, otherwise, you are only adding one additional feature (loyalty of core vs loyalty of region and a means to make regions more core loyal, that's pretty lame) ...

So, Bank for Buck ... looking pretty similar for religion.

 

[dh_epic]

Religion doesn't generally solve those problems in Civilization 3. Not by itself. No, you'd need to introduce some kind of faction type challenge. There are numerous games that have implemented factions of some kind, from Tropico to Galactic Civilizations. But pulling this off is incredibly hard. Not to mention that trying to please your religious/militaristic/environmental/etc. factions is more fun by itself than religion is by itself.

Coming back to the major point of this particular thread:

- Religion without factions has little impact on the problems from Civilization 3.

- Factions without religion fixes many problems from Civ 3, but is complex.

- Factions with religion would be awesome. 50% of people want this and believe this is what will be implemented, according to the poll. But it's still complex.

Bringing it back to the "big vision" document, where neither religion nor factions made the top 10, it had everything to do with a complexity thing. Either you had a simple model with no payoff, or a big payoff with too much complexity.

I didn't compare payoff by which allows you to do more... It had everything to do with solving problems from Civilization 3. The modern age was one of the most important problems with Civilization 3. And I just did a post before where I talked about how important regional influence and seperatist movements were in the modern age. That's what I mean by bang for buck. Low complexity, while solving many problems.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, in spite of all of my searching, I STILL can't find my original Religion Thread ! I will see if I can remember all of it!

1) Basically, you still 'research' religion-though such 'research' might well be of the 'blind' variety. Certainly, though, it won't be on a 'progressive' scale anymore.

2) Having certain religious and non-religious techs, along with the religion practiced by your neighbours and trading partners, will all have an effect on your chances of 'discovering' a new religion. You can also 'sacrifice' a religious great leader to get the religious tech you are closest to acquiring.

3) Once you 'discover' a religion, there is a small chance, each turn, that a certain % of your population will change to it-again, based on how many of your neighbours practice it-and the # of Ankhs they produce each turn

4) At any point, you can choose to ADOPT a religion which you are 'aware' of, which will boost the chance of natural conversion within your nation AND boost the number of Ankhs you produce for that religion-each turn.

5) Obviously, if you abandon an old religion to follow a new one, then the ankhs produced by your old religion will slowly disappear-as they lose followers to the new State Faith.

6) A big issue is 'are you the first in your culture group to discover a particular religion?' If so, then significant benefits accrue from this. First, anyone wanting to belong to that religion TYPE must either subscribe to YOUR version of it, or else go over to that religion within a seperate culture group (hope that made sense)! You get to build a 'Cultural Great Wonder' which basically signifies that your nation is the 'spiritual heart' of that faith. A large % of Ankhs produced by nations which convert to your faith flow to your cities-and vice versa-meaning that their are great rewards for co-operation. If, though, another nation ever manages to accrue more local Ankhs than your nation, then they can attempt to 'sieze control' of the faith.

Anyway, thats all I have for now. I will continue the rest later-and try and give you an 'in-game' example of how it might work.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, so for the next parts:

So, you have adopted a national faith, but what does it all MEAN? Well, that depends on the type of religion. The way I initially proposed it, each type of religion had certain benefits and penalties to balance them out.
Monotheistic faiths generated more Ankhs, and your people were less susceptible to conversion by another faiths Ankhs. However, they are more prone to sectarianism and schisms.
Non-Deist faiths, OTOH, are the exact opposite-they produce fewer Ankhs, and are more prone to conversion, but are less susceptible to schisms and sectarianism.
So, the ultimate goal is to convert as many people to 'THE FAITH' as possible, whilst at the same time reducing the amount of people converting to other faiths within your own nation. This can be a balancing act, as the very things you do to drive DOWN conversions are the very things which can lead to 'heretical' cities breaking away, or new sects forming within your nation-sects which can spread their influence far and wide and even challenge its parent faith (think about that moment that a single man nailed a document to a church in Wittenburg, and you will know what I mean !)
So, how do sects form, and what are they? Well, various factors contribute to sect formation. Obviously the religion type you are in-as I said above-the amount of ankhs in a city (compared to the average), how unhappy the people are in a city, the number of 'foreign' ankhs in the city, your government type, your theism level and if-and how-you try and 'stamp out' foreign religions within your nation.
There were a number of different sects, from Blood Cult to Ascetic to Fundamentalist to Reformist to Orthodox-and a few others which I cannot remember off the top of my head. Each main religion type has a 'most and least' likely sect (so, for instance, a Monotheistic faith is MOST likely to form an Orthodox or Reformist sect, but least likely to produce an ascetic or blood-cult sect), though this is modified by HOW the sect forms-and your civic settings at the time. Each sect has its own bonuses and penalties (for gameplay balance AND realism) and a nation is free to adopt a sect as its very own religion (for instance, you could say that Germany-which had a Mediterranean Monotheistic religion, suddenly develops a reformist sect within its borders. They can adopt it either in a 'Mediterranean Form'-making it more like its parent faith-or a Western European form of Reformist Monotheism (as no Western European Monotheistic faiths exist as yet) Its base name would therefore be West European Monotheism (Reformist)-which a player could name either 'Protestantism' or 'Lutheran'.
Anyway, that pretty much sums things up. If anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them, and I will try and come up with an in-game example to explain all of my ideas at some time!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Aussie. I always felt your ideas were pretty well thought out. There are obviously a few odds and ends that need to be worked out, but nothing that can't be solved by a bit of discussion and a lot of testing.

It still comes back to the fact that religion isn't really one feature but many features. And its payoff tends to be in the middle ages -- the beginning of which marks the advent of Christianity (Monotheism), and the end of which comes about with breaking away from the power of world religious figures (Nationalism).

Like I said, it's not so much that religion is a bad idea, but that it's a lower priority idea. In charity to religious proponents like Albow, or optimists who find ways to make everything work like you, Aussie ... I'd say that another possible vision for Civilization 4 would require a number of features that build towards a good model of religion:

You'd start with [1] The Will of the People (they become unhappy if you don't listen), but take a slight change in direction towards, say, [2] Revolutions, or some other consequence for not listening to your people. Then you introduce [3] Factions, with multiple interests in your empire, from Militarists to Intellectuals, who you need to please. Then you'd need to add [4] persecution, perhaps as a subset of a larger overhaul to espionage, so you can chase down those factions who you'd rather destroy than please. On the other hand, you'd add [5] Religiousity, with ankhs and all their pay offs. And this would finally allow you to implement [6] Religions, a subset of factions, so that you manage how you treat the Protestants and Catholics in your empire.

Although, to me, the big payoff would occur somewhere around [4], if you could pull it off. I think I avoided this route because even factions would be quite complex.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahhh, but DH, the reason for what you just mentioned is strictly BECAUSE of the rise of Monotheism in the Middle East. Not only that, but it only accounts for 1/3 of the world at that time. The rest of the world were either Non-Deist, Animist or Polytheist. Imagine, though, a world in which NO monotheistic faiths took hold, and all you had were a competing melange of polytheistic and non-deist faiths?
Its those 'what if' situations which I hope religion can bring to Civ4.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

But I'd argue that in other parts of the world at other times, for such an essential part of life, it's relatively boring or subtle. Just take a look -- when people think about religion, they think about holy wars, schisms, reformation, scandals, and spreading through the countryside like wildfire. When you ignore Christianity, Islam, and even to some extent Judaism (e.g.: pagan, polytheist, and animist faiths), they just never did any of those things. Not in any pronounced way.

There's always the "what if" for religion to have just as many interesting consequences in the later ages... but like I said, it's not that religion is a bad idea so much as it's a lower priority compared to other features.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, first of all, tell that to the Aztecs ! There was a Polytheistic society who were just as bloodthirsty as any of their Middle Eastern or European counterparts-though admittedly, this might be because they were a 'blood-cult' sect of a South American Polytheism.
That said, though, there is nothing in the game to stop a pagan society from seeking to convert its neighbouring polytheistic societies to their 'faith'-by force if neccessary-same with the non-deists as well.
As I said above, it really are these 'what-ifs' which make for religion being fun and exciting. Though I admit it must be done RIGHT for this to be the case.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, I FINALLY found the thread with my 'one true model' for religion. I am now going to repost it here, so that people can make their own judgements, as well as posting the link.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Key issues for me are:

Base Religions and traits (Stability vs Influence)

1) Animism-highest stability, lowest influence. Examples: Shinto, Aboriginal Dreamtime, Native American Totemism.

2) Humanist-second highest stability, second lowest influence. Examples: None come to mind, but any religion which focuses on a living human being-probably a temporal ruler-would fit the bill.

3) Non-Deist-average stability, average influence. Examples: Confuscionism, Taoism.

4) Polytheist-second lowest stability, second highest influence. Greco-Roman Pantheon, Norse/Celtic Pantheon, Hinduism.

5) Monothiest-lowest stability, highest influence. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Jehova's Witness.

Influence and stability are further effected by your civs legalism, libertarianism and spiritualism.

Sects and traits (Edited)

1) Orthodox (Increased happiness/culture from religious buildings, reduced tech research rate, increased stability) Examples: Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish Orthodox, Coptic church.

2) Reformist (Decreased happiness/culture from religious buildings, increased stability, lower religious corruption) Examples: Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist.

3) Ascetic (Reduced corruption-religious AND secular, reduced luxury and resource trade, increased happiness from religious improvements). Examples: Essenes, Catharists, Bhuddists, Menonites (Amish).

4) Blood Cult (Religious culture boost from sacrifices, reduced international rep amongst non 'blood cult' civs, increased stability and influence). Examples: Aztec and Incan religions, Kali cult.

5) Militant (Greater influence for 'active' conversion attempts, lower war weariness against 'foreign' religion types, lower stability). Examples: Wahaabi, Zionists, Evangelists.

6) Fundamentalist (Increased resistance to passive and active conversion, Reduced tech-research rate, increased stability).

Although there is the theoretical possibility of EVERY combination occuring within the game, some sects are more likely in certain base religions over others. As follows:

1) Animism-ascetic and blood cult most likely. Orthodox and militant least likely.

2) Humanism-Blood Cult and militant most likely. Ascetic and Reformist least likely.

3) Non-Deist-ascetic and militant most likely, Blood cult and orthodox least likely.

4) Polytheist-Blood cult and militant most likely, orthodox and reformist least likely.

5) Monotheist-Reformist and Orthodox most likely, Blood cult and ascetic least likely!

Of course, these base 'odds' can be altered by government type, proximity and/or trade with civ(s) of that sect, relative morality level, as well as your social engineering settings and in-game actions. The main issue, though, is that sects are NOT under the direct control of the player, and can occur spontaneously. You can manipluate the conditions for their appearance, however, AND you can choose to embrace, ignore or repress an emerging sect. Lastly, sects and base religions will be further defined by the types of Wonders (small and great), improvements and units you build.

Religious schisms can occur if the ratio of 'alien' to 'native' religious culture is quite high. With this base rate being influenced by happiness, religious corruption levels, distance from religious 'capital' and the like. If a religious schism occurs, the player retains 'TEMPORAL' control of the city. However, religious buildings in that city now produce x% (?) less religious culture each turn (possibly even none at all), and no further religious improvements and/or wonders can be built, by you, in that city (though a neighbouring civ of the city's new faith could!) Also, a city which 'converts' to a new faith is in greater danger of breaking away-either to form a new nation or to join an existing nation of the same faith!

Well, without going into any further detail, that is the model as I envisage it. I would not be completely AGAINST specific religions, so long as I can edit their traits (if any) in the editor and/or name them as they appear within the game! My preference, however, is for generic-and will remain so !

 

[CurtSibling]

The problem is that they (Firaxis) are not going to go heavily into religion for two reasons:

1)
They do not want offend the potential market base, especially the US market.

2)
If the game polishes over details like military strategy and even cultures of the world;
why are they going to go out on a limb about something as complex and touchy as religion?

Think about this:
How many other games out at the moment put great detail into the ethos of faith/churches/temples/etc???

So why would Firaxis, since they want to dumb the game down?

.......

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Some other key ideas from the thread-oh and the thread location:

I guess the main point I was trying to put across in my last post is that in my model you can't just go "Right, I have just changed from Mediterranean Polytheist to Mediterranean Monotheist, and NOW I'm gonna build 'The Church of the Holy Sephulcre". First, you have to wait to build up enough support for this 'new-fangled' religion within your nation, and probably allow sufficient time for the last vestiges of the 'old religion' to fade away too, before you can consider building great testaments to the new faith. Also, I do still feel that there should be a 'Theology' advance available around the early middle ages-an advance which reflects the 'consolidation' of religious belief and practices into an accepted 'formula'. This would probably allow each religion group a new category of improvements, wonders and units!

Using the religious culture model, a situation could arise where CivB, who was brought into the religion later on, has MORE religious culture than CivA-the original founder of the religion. There are several ways this might happen:

1) The founder may lose cities containing key religious wonders. An even more intriguing possibility is if CivA loses these cities to CivB via SECULAR culture!.

2) Civ A becomes increasingly more secular, thus reducing the amount of religious culture they produce each turn, and thus allowing civB to pull ahead.

3) CivA could undergo a religious schism, cauing them to lose cities to a new civ, based around the new religion and/or sect.

4) CivB manages to get more cities and, therefore, more religious improvements built over time than civA, allowing civB to accumulate religious culture at a much faster rate than civA!

-Every civ starts the game with NO State religion and NO religious 'techs'. The possible exception to this rule might be a civ with the Religious trait, who might be allowed to select a religion defined as an 'early religious tech' (like Anamism or Shamanism).

-The speed and order in which you acquire religious techs will depend on your degree of 'social development', your civ/culture group and the religious beliefs of those neighbours (both major and minor) with whom you have regular contact (via diplomacy, trade or conquest).

-When you acquire the prerequisite understanding of a religious belief, you will have TWO possible options-form your own religion, which will be 'hardwired' to your culture group OR adopt the religion of one of your neighbours, which will be 'hardwired' to THEIR culture.

-When you form a brand new religion, you will lose the bulk of your accumulated religious culture (probably less for religious civs, not sure?) Also, any improvements/wonders/units from your prior religion will slowly lose their effectiveness over a space of 2-5 turns (perhaps as much as 200 years!)

-If you adopt a pre-existing religion, you will still lose the vast bulk of your accumulated religious culture, but you will probably recieve a % of the religious culture of the other civs who adhere to the religion.

-The important bit is that you will NOT be able to build the Wonders of a particular religion until you have met certain prerequisites. These might be a minimum number of specific religious improvements, a minimum number of converts etc.

-The 'culture group' of any religious improvements you build will semi 'lock' you in for the purposes of building any other religious improvements and wonders. For instance, if you build a mosque as your first religious improvement, then all 'Middle Eastern' religious improvements and wonders will become slightly cheaper to build. OTOH, non-Middle Eastern ones will become more expensive.

-If you change the culture group of your religion, by building the religious improvements of another culture group, then you will lose ALL the benefits of your existing wonders and improvements.

OK, I feel I have addressed most of the key issues in this one, without going into more detail about conversion, religious tolerance, religious corruption and 'cross-culturalisation' of religious beliefs (which CAN occur in my model). I will deal with many of the other issues later, but I hope and PRAY that this will finally make the intent of my model CLEAR!!!!!

Oh and, this is the link to the thread in question-at the point where I think it becomes MOST interesting !

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=97371&page=20&pp=20

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CurtSibling]

Funny how posters here contine to post complex ideas, totally in denial that Firaxis will only skim over religion as a concept....

I suppose this is what happens when people do not understand the games industry...