Petition for Religion

[zeggy]

I would like to create a petition for keeping religion as a major part of the game..

Religion has been a massive factor through history along side major civs and if they remove it from the game i think it will really loose a strategic part of the game.. religions have influenced almost everything in history, from philosophy to wars and construction of buildings ..i think if Civ looses this it will be bad for the game as a whole.

I feel more Civ players want religion in the game than not.

Please support the petition for Civ5 and future Civ games to include and improve religions!

 

[bonafide11]

Look, I'm disappointed they scrapped religion too, but they're not going to introduce religion this late into the development process, and if they did, it wouldn't be very good. It'd be rushed and sloppy. Your best hope is that an expansion pack brings religion into the game, and I'm sure there will be several mods that do it. I think it was a mistake to get rid of religion, but if they designed the game to be without religion, throwing it at the end isn't going to make it any better. Plus I trust that Firaxis is right -- it will restrict the new diplomacy system they're going for.

 

[cardgame]

There's undoubtedly a reason they removed it. Let's wait till the game actually comes out, so we can see how it is, first...

 

[GigaNerd]

I'm with Bonafide on this one: it'll probably come in an expansion pack. If they do decide to implement it, I hope they make it better than it was in Civ IV. Honestly, almost every culture comes up with their own religion and/or faith. If you're playing a game with 16 civs, and only 7 can invent religion, it doesn't reflect real life very well.

Another thing Civ IV screwed up was the idea that differing religions screw up diplomatic relationships. Did China refuse to trade with medieval Europe just because white men didn't believe in the same spirits they did? No! Historically, it's almost always when conflicts arise between faiths, such as the Crusades over the Holy Land.

Finally, I believe that how religions were assigned wasn't a very good idea, either. Every early culture (historically) starts out with some sort of religious belief. Was the Egyptian pantheon a religion? What about the Greek pantheon? The Chinese folk religion? All of the pre-Columbian faiths? I think that in Civ V, every civ should start out with a religion, which can evolve into a different religion with the coming of a Great Prophet. (EG: Siddhārtha Gautama starts Buddhism, L. Ron Hubbard starts Scientology, etc.)

 

[Seventh Child]

The cynic in me wonders if they purposefully left Religion out just to include it in an Expansion pack. But the Civfanatic in me says they'd rather not jam it into their dev cycle and rush out a poor system or a rehash of Civ IVs system and would rather scrap it altogether or do it well in an Expansion pack.

I'd like to see it in as well, but the game will be fine without it. We've gone three games without Religions and it's been fine.

 

[Quasar1011]

Another thing Civ IV screwed up was the idea that differing religions screw up diplomatic relationships. Did China refuse to trade with medieval Europe just because white men didn't believe in the same spirits they did? No! Historically, it's almost always when conflicts arise between faiths, such as the Crusades over the Holy Land.

Right, but not always. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was chiefly a war between Catholic and Protestant nations. But towards the end, when Catholic France was alarmed that the Catholic Habsburgs in Austria and Spain were getting too strong, they allied themselves with the Protestants.

 

[Dryhad]

Another thing Civ IV screwed up was the idea that differing religions screw up diplomatic relationships. Did China refuse to trade with medieval Europe just because white men didn't believe in the same spirits they did? No! Historically, it's almost always when conflicts arise between faiths, such as the Crusades over the Holy Land.

I think the problem is not so much that it had an effect, but that it had too great of an effect. Same with "Our close borders spark tensions". It's perfectly realistic for these things to impact diplomacy, but to have relationships consistantly made or broken on them isn't.

 

[ClasuSiosa]

I pray (no pun intended) that religion will be added in an expansion.
I think it is realistic that there are only 7 or so religions, because look at the world, where are the original pantheons? They died out of the most part, fights over religion were mostly between religions that said/say that their way is THE WAY (Judaism, Chritianity, Islam, Zoasterism, Skism, Catholics and Protestants,etc...) not A WAY (Budism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, native religions, etc...), so i think that religious tensions are viable. Maby in civ 4 they were exagerated in that they were automatic, not event/belief based.

Maby a way to fix tis would be to make the Jewish holy city automaticly be the Christian and Muslim holy city. And then make there be innate religious hostility based on history (eg. Islam - vs Christianity & Judaism and vice versa, Catholic vs Protestant, etc.) and all other tensions come from events, eg. a missionary race, a crusade, an "infidel" controling the holy city, a war between the founders, etc., there by making it more realistic. I know that Mecca not Jerusalem is the Holy City of Islam but game-wise I think it's necessary (and in my deffence Jerusalem is A holy city if not THE Holy City).

I would like it if a religion could split into sects, eg Islam into Shiites and Sunnies, Christianity into Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, etc.
I would also like to see some of the other significant religions that got missed, Shinto, Zoasterism, maby the Grecco-Roman, Egyption, Celtic & Norse pantheons, and Blood Cult (Aztec/Mayan). Also seccondary Holy Cities with similar but not so high advantages (eg. Rome (Catholic), Constantinople (Orthodox), Mecca (i know Jerusalem sould be here instead but i already covered that)).

For the reccord i am a non-denominational evangelical Christian

Srry for the poor formating and all the etc's.

 

[bonafide11]

I pray (no pun intended) that religion will be added in an expansion.
I think it is realistic that there are only 7 or so religions, because look at the world, where are the original pantheons? They died out of the most part, fights over religion were mostly between religions that said/say that their way is THE WAY (Judaism, Chritianity, Islam, Zoasterism, Skism, Catholics and Protestants,etc...) not A WAY (Budism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, native religions, etc...), so i think that religious tensions are viable. Maby in civ 4 they were exagerated in that they were automatic, not event/belief based.

Maby a way to fix tis would be to make the Jewish holy city automaticly be the Christian and Muslim holy city. And then make there be innate religious hostility based on history (eg. Islam - vs Christianity & Judaism and vice versa, Catholic vs Protestant, etc.) and all other tensions come from events, eg. a missionary race, a crusade, an "infidel" controling the holy city, a war between the founders, etc., there by making it more realistic. I know that Mecca not Jerusalem is the Holy City of Islam but game-wise I think it's necessary (and in my deffence Jerusalem is A holy city if not THE Holy City).

I would like it if a religion could split into sects, eg Islam into Shiites and Sunnies, Christianity into Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, etc.
I would also like to see some of the other significant religions that got missed, Shinto, Zoasterism, maby the Grecco-Roman, Egyption, Celtic & Norse pantheons, and Blood Cult (Aztec/Mayan). Also seccondary Holy Cities with similar but not so high advantages (eg. Rome (Catholic), Constantinople (Orthodox), Mecca (i know Jerusalem sould be here instead but i already covered that)).

For the reccord i am a non-denominational evangelical Christian

Srry for the poor formating and all the etc's.

That's all great for a mod, but that's way too controversial for Civ to implement in its game. If religions are in the game at all, they're going to all be generic and be exactly the same to avoid any controversy.

 

[mjs0]

I would like it if a religion could split into sects, eg Islam into Shiites and Sunnies, Christianity into Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, etc.
I would also like to see some of the other significant religions that got missed, Shinto, Zoasterism, maby the Grecco-Roman, Egyption, Celtic & Norse pantheons, and Blood Cult (Aztec/Mayan). Also seccondary Holy Cities with similar but not so high advantages (eg. Rome (Catholic), Constantinople (Orthodox), Mecca (i know Jerusalem sould be here instead but i already covered that)).

If and when religions return I would like to see more of them available to start, but a way for them to eventually wither and die, as of course most religions have over the course of human history.

An actual struggle not just to spread your indigenous religion but to keep it alive would be great...especially if there were interesting decisions to be made along the way.

Do I continue trying to grow and/or save my religion or do I jump on the bandwagon of that larger more popular faith that is spreading in my lands?​

Of course there are similar decisions to be made in Civ IV, but if your investment in your own religion were more real and switching to a different state sponsored faith were to cause your own (together with any benefits it brings you) to actually decline and eventually vanish then the decisions get more important and more interesting.

 

[jb2386]

I would love to have religion in Civ 5, but as a developer myself I can see this from their point of view. For all we know, the developers probably WANT to put religion into the game, but they have schedules and don't want feature creep or to over complicate the game (compared to others, Civ is fairly simplified).

I did always find it a bit disheartening as a programmer to see things like this, where our product as a whole is great but people complain about the one thing it doesn't have. And even if you try to explain, they won't listen.

I think we should support Firaxis in what they are developing, and if we want to encourage them to do anything, it should be to make it truly as moddable as they are saying, so that we can put our own religion features in, or so that it is easy enough for them to do so in a future release.

 

[squadbroken]

I pray (no pun intended) that religion will be added in an expansion.
I think it is realistic that there are only 7 or so religions, because look at the world, where are the original pantheons? They died out of the most part, fights over religion were mostly between religions that said/say that their way is THE WAY (Judaism, Chritianity, Islam, Zoasterism, Skism, Catholics and Protestants,etc...) not A WAY (Budism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, native religions, etc...), so i think that religious tensions are viable. Maby in civ 4 they were exagerated in that they were automatic, not event/belief based.

Maby a way to fix tis would be to make the Jewish holy city automaticly be the Christian and Muslim holy city. And then make there be innate religious hostility based on history (eg. Islam - vs Christianity & Judaism and vice versa, Catholic vs Protestant, etc.) and all other tensions come from events, eg. a missionary race, a crusade, an "infidel" controling the holy city, a war between the founders, etc., there by making it more realistic. I know that Mecca not Jerusalem is the Holy City of Islam but game-wise I think it's necessary (and in my deffence Jerusalem is A holy city if not THE Holy City).

I would like it if a religion could split into sects, eg Islam into Shiites and Sunnies, Christianity into Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, etc.
I would also like to see some of the other significant religions that got missed, Shinto, Zoasterism, maby the Grecco-Roman, Egyption, Celtic & Norse pantheons, and Blood Cult (Aztec/Mayan). Also seccondary Holy Cities with similar but not so high advantages (eg. Rome (Catholic), Constantinople (Orthodox), Mecca (i know Jerusalem sould be here instead but i already covered that)).

For the reccord i am a non-denominational evangelical Christian

Srry for the poor formating and all the etc's.

The problem with more "realistic" religions is they directly conflict with Civ being a game of alternative history. You're forcing players to follow real-world history instead of forging their own.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You can definitely include me in any such petition. I think that the few polls regarding the removal of religion from Civ5 show that views supporting its removal are most *definitely* in the minority. As with the removal of Espionage, I fear this represents a dumbing down of the franchise-an attempt to appeal to the console game/tactical wargame community. To suggest that Espionage & Religion have had no impact on diplomacy in the past represents a massive ignorance of history. Now, I'm not saying religions can't be massively improved, but the same could have been said for the introduction of culture, unique civ attributes, golden ages & even resources-when they were first brought into CivIII. Yet rather than drop them because they were imperfect, the designers of CivIV chose to *improve* them instead. One major improvement they could make to religion is to give a focus to the national pantheons which predate the 7 more "international" religions in Civ4, as well as giving players an option to retain a national pantheon rather than switch to a "Major" religion. I do think the penalty for differing religions should be toned down-& maybe be more based on each players in-game treatment of other religion (razing of cities of the opponents religion, conducting inquisitions, having social policies intolerant of other faiths etc etc). Another improvement they could make is to allow players-especially the founders of a religion-greater power in adding their own flavour to religions via doctrinal settings & attitudes towards different religions & sects.

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Dryhad-like it or not, Religion has played a major role in diplomatic relations over the last 2000 years or so. To not have it represented in the game is a major oversight IMHO-one which they finally corrected in Civ4. Yes the diplomatic penalties/bonuses for Religion in Civ4 were too over-the-top, but that could be easily rectified. Either way, I found the interaction between religion & diplomacy in Civ4 a vast improvement over the "well you're winning the game at the moment, so *all* the other civs are going to gang up on you" of Civ2, or the even worse "well we've been friends for 2000 years, but we're going to declare war on you for no good reason" of CivIV. Although back-stabbing & chicanery were still a part of diplomacy in Civ4, I at least had a good idea of which civs I could count in in times of need &-if they did turn on me-there was usually a fairly good reason!

Aussie.

 

[Double A]

This would make the game too crazy, as very few, actually probably no, countries have ever kept their religion through all of history... if Cid could implement that in a way it worked, it would be awesome. But if he can't he won't.

 

[LegioCorvus]

Religion is in the game.

It's just not like how it was in Civ4.

They already revealed that it'll be a branching civic much like government, labor, etc.

This is like watching a political talking point. Someone says something, it's misinterpreted into "death camps," and next thing you know everyone is talking about death camps and not what was actually said.

They said religion would not be in the game like it was in Civ4.

They never said religion wouldn't be in the game. In fact, they have already confirmed that it is in the game.

Dang.

 

[DPyro]

I'm actually glad they've removed religion and espionage as they are currently implemented for Civ V. All religion seemed to do was form arbitrary alliances and enemies irregardless of the international situation. Hostility and friendship is better modeled by similarities and differences in culture. Besides, I always found the "grab a religion and manage it" bit of Civ a bit tedious. I'd rather just focus on all-out culture and diplomacy through intentional actions. Also, I didn't like espionage, it was given its own budget slider and yet it didn't really do much. In Civ II espionage was more useful in that you could bribe armies and cities and even detonate smuggled nuclear explosives. In Civ 4, its mainly "can they see my cities or not?", since poisoning/unrest doesn't cause as big an impact as the equivalent actions in Civ II. I just couldn't figure out anything interesting and useful for my spies to do.

 

[Iván de España]

Religions should be included, if not, CivV will be worse than CivIV.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

You can definitely include me in any such petition. I think that the few polls regarding the removal of religion from Civ5 show that views supporting its removal are most *definitely* in the minority. As with the removal of Espionage, I fear this represents a dumbing down of the franchise-an attempt to appeal to the console game/tactical wargame community. To suggest that Espionage & Religion have had no impact on diplomacy in the past represents a massive ignorance of history. Now, I'm not saying religions can't be massively improved, but the same could have been said for the introduction of culture, unique civ attributes, golden ages & even resources-when they were first brought into CivIII. Yet rather than drop them because they were imperfect, the designers of CivIV chose to *improve* them instead. One major improvement they could make to religion is to give a focus to the national pantheons which predate the 7 more "international" religions in Civ4, as well as giving players an option to retain a national pantheon rather than switch to a "Major" religion. I do think the penalty for differing religions should be toned down-& maybe be more based on each players in-game treatment of other religion (razing of cities of the opponents religion, conducting inquisitions, having social policies intolerant of other faiths etc etc). Another improvement they could make is to allow players-especially the founders of a religion-greater power in adding their own flavour to religions via doctrinal settings & attitudes towards different religions & sects.

Aussie.

I believe there are hints that religions will be in the game, only not with such an overdone impact as in Civ IV. As for espionage, it was a real pain in the butt, and I'm glad they have scrapped it.

 

[Insanity_X]

How about we wait and see how the removal of religion and espionage influences the game before we start ranting and raving about how the removal of a couple of features have 'ruined the game'. If the game would be radically altered and improved by the addition of religion and/or espionage, then you can rant and rave. Until then stop *****ing and moaning.

Also, a petition isnt going to do much to change an already (largely) finished game. If public outcry is this bad in the autumn they'll include it in the first expansion pack in a form that'll work with their new diplo system. (and people will still ***** and moan about it because they've either discovered that they like the lack of religion, or because it wont be as good as CIV's religion system).