Nine Ideas

I will make my position clear: there was never in history, ever, a group of people that associated itself with something they called "Mesoamericanism". This is a made-up name for a loose association of beliefs in a culture that whoever made this name for was not familiar with. I have never read or heard anything to convince me the beliefs of the Aztecs or the Inca or the Maya were ever of the kind that fits into the scheme of World Religions here.
 
That's what I was saying. It's a term made up for the world religions mod and has no value for realism.
 
Yeah, I know you're not against me, I just wanted to make this clear because I'm getting sick of this issue.
 
I would have thought that that was common sense. Grouping all mesoamerican beliefs and religions together would be like taking all forms of polytheism, paganism and so forth and grouping it under a name such as "Europeanism".

I'm sure it was done so that the mesoamerican civs would have their own religion, but Blasphemous is right, it has no realistic value.
 
OK. Leave Mesoamericanism out of it, and a lot of other unreal religions.
But don't deny the mod has some good ideas that would be nice to add to RFC. It has more than 7 religions, that could be used for the problemes with judaism and taoism. It has flavoured religions, that would be nice too.

Negative criticism is easy, I like to be more constructive, and so nice things added to RFC. But ideas need to talked about.
 
I liked the unique features of religions in mods such as Total Realism, but I seem to remember they caused plenty of bugs (and I hated those moving holy cities).
 
One of the main problems with adding religions is the optimal saturation point, which Firaxis decided was 7 religions. I remember making this argument with Wonder additions too in some thread who's name I can't remember, but ultimately the message became this; "the more you add, the less unique everything becomes."

7 religions ensure that, given a standard build of 18-24 civs, there can be roughly 3 civs per religion (slightly less with 18 and slightly more with 24, with 21 being the point at which 7*3 becomes true) Adding many many more religions will create a case where everyone has their own unique religion, at which point as Syndrome from The Incredibles said "When everyone is super, no one will be." It will create an atmosphere of nothing but hate and warfare. Furthermore if there are less religions then that yoiu will get into a world of complete and total peace, with no one ever at war, or at least always the same people at war with the same enemies. Obviously both of these are extremes, and i've almost forgotten what I started writting this about. Essentially, I am Against adding new religions and giving the mod more than 7 religions (it could probably handle 8 pretty well if we want to add Zoroastrianism) because it could destabalize the entire thing.

About the religious schisms, if it can be modded, and I'm sure it can, perhaps civs should only get a diplomacy bonus if they share the same religion AND the same religious civic. Then the Religious civics could be considered to be, or perhaps remade into, different interpretations such as; fundamentalism, progressivism, or other ideas that I can't think of myself.

As for modding this, the schism feature I described should only require adding a simple AND statement to the AI sdk file, so that where normally it checks if 'civ A has same state religion as civ B' it now checks to see if 'civ A has same state religion AND religious civic as state B'.
 
we only have 6 religions now, because china has confusianism and taoism now (at least most of the time) and taoism rarely comes out of China.
 
SM is right. We should remove Taoism, add Zoroastrianism, and see if we need any additional religion (I think we don't.) I like the idea of reshuffling Religion Civics so that they also represent schisms, and making the "Brothers and Sisters" diplo boost dependent on Civic as well as SR. Or maybe the bonus should get -2 (with the possibility of simply cancelling it if it's below 3) when the other civ shares SR but not RC with you. That way fundie Christians will like eachother a lot, but like progressive Christians more than they like Muslims.
This is the kind of idea that save unnecessary complication and clutter. Again Vishaing, wtg. :)
Oh, and here is my regular reminder that we need a Pagan Altar, a "we find your lack of faith disturbing" diplo hit, and probably Paganism forcing no-SR and being the only RC you can build Pagan Altars under.
 
I was more thinking of adding a religion. We would have 8 religions but with the behaviour of taoism, it would still look like there are only 7, witch is ideal acording to Firaxis.
 
Yeah, but what's the point of taoism then? If you're not even considering it to be a religion in the game then we might as well scrap it...
 
Taoism boost china's culture, that's why it should stay in. Adding an other religion would give the world back it's 7 religions, with an 8th one as a sort of unther cover religion.
 
China doesn't really need a culture boost... Being around from 3000BC and having confucianism takes care of that.
 
I actually like the idea of a dead-in-the-water religion as a kind of cultural undercurrent, boosting culture here and there. It also helps reflect the great diversity of Far East philosophy and religion. It makes the East a hotbed of religions and culture and this has many ways of affecting the game in certain scenarios: more religions means any Western civ invading Asia and conquering there is exposed to more religions seeping back into Europe; the civs with these many religions in their cities have more fall-back options when a religion loses power due to war or due to new civs popping up... To sum it all up, four Far East religions means a more interesting Far East. But this is not critical to gameplay, and if we must choose it's definitely Zoroastrianism over Taoism.
 
I don't see any problem with 8 religions (as long as its bug-free). Taoism never becomes a state religion and hopefully Judaism will be disabled from doing so, so it'd be like having 6 religions as far as diplomacy is concerned anyway, with two extra religions making an impact on culture/happiness etc.

I'm not keen on the civics representing schisms. A state religion of 'progressive' Christianity or Islam would be one in which its role as the state religion is very limited and people have equal rights regardless of their religious beliefs. In other words, it is the Free Religion civic. That is the kind of state that progressive-minded religious people support.

If you look at how the Protestant/Catholic schism affected diplomacy in Europe it was to do with basic tenets of belief, not civics/different ways of organising the state church. For example, when Elizabeth I restored the Protestant Church of England, its organisation and theological doctrine was very different to the forms of Protestant doctrine and church organisation being fought for on the continent. In fact its organisation and relation to society had barely changed from the Catholic structure.

In so far as English foreign policy was affected by religion, it judged countries according to whether they professed Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, not how their churches were organised in relation to society.

I just don't see how you could get civics to represent schisms that have anything to do with history.
 
You're certainly right, lumpthing, the 30-years war for example had nothing to do with the organization of the belief itself in the regions. BUT, it had lot to do with who ruled (the state belief of the region is the one of everyone, theoretically). So, this is certainly one twist to counter you, but I have a way better argument for you: Gameplay!

Won't it become horribly difficult and messy, if you just double the religions (by schisms?). Now, Catholicism and Protestantism have to be/can be spread again by missionaries (did that happen?), will have new temples, etc. This will a) "spam" the building possibilities with not essential things, clump the city "bar" and c) create more culture, needing new balance, etc. . Instead of this huge balance fest (diplo modifiers?!), the system which uses the (renamed) religion civics seem to be more clear, clean and does the job as well!

mfG mitsho
 
It had to do with who ruled (more specifically, their faith) but now how they ruled.

I wouldn't advocate doubling the number of religions, just dividing Christianity into two or three denominations. The other religions tend to be much less popular in RFC so I don't see a need to show their schisms. Also, I'd be very happy to dump Judaism and Taoism to make way for Christian denominations. So basically, the way I would want it, there wouldn't be a significant increase in the number of religions.

What's wrong with Protestantism/Catholicism being spread by missionaries? What do you mean by 'again'? Rhye has modded the way the current religions spread in RFC so I'm sure he'd be able to mod a schism so it behaves fairly realistically.

But I'm open to the idea of using civics to represent schisms, I just can't imagine what they would consist of if they are going to be vaguely based on history. Maybe somebody else can.
 
Also, I'd be very happy to dump Judaism and Taoism to make way for Christian denominations. So basically, the way I would want it, there wouldn't be a significant increase in the number of religions.

So what happned to Zoroastrianism? ;)
 
My wishlist:

Definitely: Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Protestantism, Catholicism

Maybe: Orthodoxy, Taoism, handicapped-Judaism

That means 7, 8, 9 or 10 religions. Not a big difference whichever number you pick.
 
Back
Top Bottom