My Beef with Religion

[Aussie_Lurker]

Are you saying my idea is COMPLEX Curt? If so, then I am afraid that you have failed to understand the fact that the underlying mechanics of my model are-in fact-incredibly simple. When it all comes down to it, different religions are a mix of their 'influence' (in terms of their ability to convert others to their beliefs) and 'Stability' (their ability to remain internally consistent). All religions tend to sacrifice one for the other. Both these elements act in a semi-predictable fashion-based on very simple algorithms.
The same goes with sects-they randomly appear along semi-predictive lines-based on the character of your nation, and how stable your religion is. Once more, the algorithms behind it are VERY simple. Admittedly, it is based on the assumption that a civil war mechanism will be in the game, but I don't think that is such an unreasonable assumption to make.
The thing about my model is that it gives the 'illusion' of complexity, whilst being very simple for the player to use and manipulate. If the designers simply choose to give religion a 'gloss-over', rather than a proper treatment, then-as DH_Epic says-they should simply not bother implementing it AT ALL, as there are other things they would be better off spending their time on.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CurtSibling]

Are you saying my idea is COMPLEX Curt? If so, then I am afraid that you have failed to understand the fact that the underlying mechanics of my model are-in fact-incredibly simple.

Yep, your idea is sound in it's design, and we all verily bow to your genius, etc.



But that is not that factor I am making a point about.

What I am saying, my dear lurker, is that the developers will never get too heavily
involved in the concept of religion, lest they alienate a whole portion of their market.

When it all comes down to it, different religions are a mix of their 'influence' (in terms of their ability to convert others to their beliefs) and 'Stability' (their ability to remain internally consistent). All religions tend to sacrifice one for the other. Both these elements act in a semi-predictable fashion-based on very simple algorithms.
The same goes with sects-they randomly appear along semi-predictive lines-based on the character of your nation, and how stable your religion is. Once more, the algorithms behind it are VERY simple. Admittedly, it is based on the assumption that a civil war mechanism will be in the game, but I don't think that is such an unreasonable assumption to make.
The thing about my model is that it gives the 'illusion' of complexity, whilst being very simple for the player to use and manipulate.

But we both know they will probably implement some kind of slide bar,
or silly 'civ-state' like total war or peace time that we can see in CIV3...

If the designers simply choose to give religion a 'gloss-over', rather than a proper treatment, then-as DH_Epic says-they should simply not bother implementing it AT ALL, as there are other things they would be better off spending their time on.

I agree, they should drop the concept and increase the AI capabilities
and add more work on things like a good revolt/civil war representation.

.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie, I think your model is quite complex. Not to the point of infeasibility, however, like my crazy idea to make a religion mini-game (which I always knew was infeasible), or other crazy ideas where you basically uproot the entire game to make religion work. Moreover, your idea is feasible because you don't get into the sensitivities of "whose religion is better than whose" by going with an abstract choices, rather than specific religions.

But once again, the payoff is in the middle ages (mostly), as opposed to the modern age when the game really needs it.

When you add the "discovery of religion on the tech tree" to the "choose from several ingredients to make your religion", and then add the "ankhs that are currency for religious acts and projects", as well as the "convert your neighbors'... those are 5 or 6 quite huge features. you end up with enough features to say "that's enough change for Civ 4". And the payoff isn't as big as if you focused on other features that had more impact on the modern age -- just to focus on one specific problem.

To put it mathematically... let's rate features on a complexity of 1 to 10, where 1 is small, and 10 is the maximum amount of change you can expect from Civ 3 to Civ 4 (and 11 is a game breaker). And let's rate features on their ability to solve gameplay problems from Civilization 3 -- 10 solving all the problems, 0 solving none. Your religious model would be a 9 or 10 in complexity, but the payoff would be only a 3 or 4.

I think there's a better way to get big payoffs out of smaller features, when it comes right down to it.

 

[Crayton]

To propose another model (Is this for intellectual fun or is Civ4 browsing these threads?
Civilization is made up of a grid, each grid has it's own religion, representing Neolithic religions. Nomenclature for these religions is something like (23,46), in other words these religions on the grid need not be named. As leader of my people "nomads and farmers" I build the city Ur. My people's religion, as they are probably my extended family, is unified (Religion of Ur). A simple city such as this will spread its religion. Religion acts like a biological organism spreading across a Petri dish, the 'Religion of Ur' will slowly permeate the surrounding country side. As I get older I commission a temple to be built. Once completed, the speed of the 'Religion or Ur's permeation doubles from speed=1 to speed=2. My son builds a second city, Erech. The religion (22, 48) becomes the 'Religion of Erech'. He does not build a temple and over the next generations, as both religions spread across the land the 'Religion of Ur' will permeate to a greater degree and eventually convert the city of Erech. The surrounding country may remain of the 'Religion of Erech' but the city of Erech will now only produce (recycle, promote, believe, spread) the Religion of Ur. Before, this time the only homogeneous grid squares are the cities themselves, the countryside is mixed.
On the global scale nineteen civilizations will go through this process and eventually some civilizations will share a religion or be divided among three equal religions. This, of course, is not very historically accurate; and, although I don't think religion should not be controlled in anyway by the player, certain 'events' will mix up this bland religious model. Civilization, it is said has triggers. The Ten Commandments of Moses could appear (after building three temples, random chance, divine intervention) and either enhance the speed (vigor) of a religion or automatically unite the 'Religion of Ur' and the 'Religion of Erech'. The names for these triggered religions could be supplied by the player or an epic game could come complete with the world's true religions.
All of this is well and good but religions do meet inhibitions. Religions inhibit each other (Poitiers anybody?) and so does science. The clash in the human mind of the natural and supernatural, rational and irrational often yield to dissent among the faith. Germany researches the Reformation or God enlightens a man from Wittenberg and the Reformation spreads through Catholic Europe because of its vigor (speed) is initially very high. Also, new religions, like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and the others will throw continents into disarray.
Notes have been made about factions with/without religion. As of yet this religious model is only aesthetic but the religion (acting separate of the player) can set up buildings and the like in it's cities(Vatican) to combat it's extinction, like any biological organism would. These structures are what cause religious wars. If Europe and the Middle East did not have religion then the Christian Kings most likely would not have attacked the 'Holy' Land.
Cool Idea? Any suggestion? Criticism?

 

[jupiterkris]

So many bananas in this thread; here's one more .


A Skeletal Proposal for the Representation of "Religiousity" using Color Models


Religious State - RGB Maxwell Color Triangle

Whatever the religious label ...
Legalistic,Philosophical,Xenophobic,Animist
Orthodox,Reformist,Ascetic,Blood Cult,Militant,Fundamentalist
Animism,Humanism,Non-Deist,Polytheist,Monotheist,Atheist,Agnostics,
their states can be represented as a color point on the Maxwell RGB Color Triangle .

The RGB proportions determine relative qualities of ...
Red apex ~ Dogma,Animistic,Passionate
Blue apex ~ Reason,Atheistic,Intellectual
Green apex ~ Ascetism,Philosophical,Aesthetic
and actual placement on the triangle is left entirely to the imagination .


Religious Strength and Energy - Color Brightness and Light Energy

The Color Intensity/Brightness determines the strength of religious states .
Radiance determines the quantity (Energy,Mana,whatever) and is measured with light spheres or ankhs . (lumen)
eg 1 ankh of blue, 1 and a half ankhs of orange, and so on .


Religious Difference - CIE Chromacity Diagram

Hue/Chromacity difference (CIE color space) measures the conflicting difference of different religious states .


Religious Interaction - Averaging/Addition/Subtraction

Peaceful Spread of Religion occurs by averaging of Hue/Chromacity weighted by number of ankhs
Union of Religions occur with the additive model of color interaction
Warring of Religions occur with the subtractive model of color interaction


Religion and the People - Religious association by Guilds and Spiritual Well Being

Each unit, be it population, specialist, worker, military, special belongs to a guild ...

population, worker - labourer
scientist, engineer - academic
enetertainer - entertainment
taxman - merchant
king, queen, princess - royal
priest, missionary - religious

and each guild has a preferred color/state ...

labourer - red/passion
entertainment - white/neutral
royal,religious - green/aesthetic
academic - blue/intellectual

Each unit starts with an empty ankh .
Which can be filled from the civ's store of religious energy - The Divine Pool .
Color match (with preferred color/state) and ankh fullness determines the unit's state of spiritual wholeness or well being.


Traditional/New Religions - Civ Religious Affiliation and Spiritual Well Being

Like Civs, there are a certain number of known religions wth preferred states, and each civ starts by being affiliated to its traditional religion .
Color match (with preferred color/state) and ankhs per unit determines the civ's state of spiritual wholeness or well being.
Civs can research and switch affiliation to other known religions .
Civs can create a new religion through meditation, choose a preferred state and switch affiliation to the new religion .


Implementation

Each Civ starts with 10 white ankhs in their Divine Pool ... the story continues in your imagination

__________________
Favorite band - Bananarama

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Crayton, I rather like your idea for an automatic religion. I'd have to say, there are a few key approaches to religion that aren't totally crazy.

My beef with religion isn't that it won't work. My beef is that the payoff will always be too little, at least as we move from Civilization 3 to Civilization 4.

Aussie has a very well thought out model that doesn't totally break the game as we know it. But I believe that if they implemented this, they wouldn't be able to implement anything else. If you went with a simpler suggestion like an automatic religion model, that players react to and manipulate indirectly, there would be room for other features.

In both these cases, the religion model is at least well thought out. As opposed to suggestions where religion lets you declare holy wars that are the same as regular wars. Or suggestions where religion lets you declare acts of God on your neighbors.

But in every case, religion doesn't really help things. We already have a "peaceful conversion" that doesn't quite work called culture. The modern age is the really boring part and religion doesn't offer much to it. Religion doesn't allow you to form relationships with the AI any more than the absense of religion.

If you added religion along with something else, like religious factions, or religious regions, it would be useful. But then, the real pay off comes from factions and regions, not religion.

To me, religion should be added later. ... but somehow, I worry that the developers will not only take a cheap way out, but an unrealistic way out.

 

[ltcoljt]

I can't the point in adding religion if you aren't modeling actual religions. But then, I never liked culture either.

 

[Crayton]

So, automated religion could be implemented, and I rather think the RGB Religion indicator would be very eye-appealing. I guess the purpose of an automated religious model would not be for a civilization to use as a weapon or stepping stool to achieve greater glory but to add a challenge, to make do with the hand dealt to you. This type of model could be extrapolated to allow volcanic eruptions, plague, possibly interactions with barbarians, and many other 'non-civilized' factors. I just view religion as a constant, historical factor (whichever form) and not one that can be improved or altered by a ruler (player). True; China, Egypt, and Rome all viewed the ruler as both a temporal and divine ruler but any attempts by these rulers to switch between religions were thwarted (I believe an Egyptian ruler worshipped the sun monotheistically).
Anyways, just an alternate idea for religion's purpose in a historical game (religion's purpose

 

[dh_epic]

Crayton, I'm definitely a fan of that kind of model because it makes it easy for religion to adapt and go through strange events when they're not player controlled. (E.g: what player would want to have a schism? what player would want to have his population superstitiously demand that he kill 10% of his people?)

Of course, I see a lot of these automatic factors (like disasters) to be a lower priority than giving the player more things to play with. If I had my way on Civ 4, I think this would be a solid expansion or even Civ 5. So really, my beef with religion is still that it's just too soon -- there are things with bigger benefit to the game play of Civ.

One other small issue -- it's uncertain if Civ 4 will take the route of "you are the ruler of your Civ who answers to your people". As of now, there seems to be enough to suggest that they're taking a route where you ARE the people. And if you are the people, then you can't challenge yourself... (or can you?)

 

[jupiterkris]

Sorry dh_epic, but I strongly feel this must be said .

Beef does not go down well with some religions - notably the eaters of vegetable curry . (not that I'm one)

I would suggest refraining from associating this meat product with religion but, if you have to,
to use a dairy or vegetable product, like "cheese" or "corn" instead . Reference - The Sepoy Rebellion .

BTW, how about a religious poll of civfanatics ?
Afterall, religion is going to be in civ4 .

 

[CurtSibling]

When it comes to religion in games, it is best not to go there at all!

I wonder how Firaxis is going to handle this feature without annoying anyone.

.

 

[jupiterkris]

...with dairy or vegetable products .

 

[CurtSibling]

With making a decent AI system and a gameplay model that compensates for heavy-handed culture representations...

...

 

[jupiterkris]

QUOTE making a decent AI system

... why not try Troglodyte programmers


QUOTE gameplay model

adopt a common denominator approach
(a healthy Troglodyte diet of peanuts, bananas and ice-cream)

spiritual founders
good doctrine aka civics
rewards for adherence
penalties for digression
priests, missionaries, holy men
prayer, meditation and learning
monasteries for study
temples and halls of dissemination
monuments and shrines of dedication


QUOTE heavy-handed culture representations

avoid volatile, meaty foodstuff

inexplicable doctrine
deviant warlocks and sorcerers
marauding zealots
supernatural calamities and black magic
living sacrifices, cannibalism and witch hunts


QUOTE gameplay model that compensates for

opportunity for meat occurs ...

once very 500 turns
only on nights of a full moon ...