Piety change

[Santa Maria]

On Piety - I think it should be competitive with Tradition, Liberty and Honor and so in some situations the best option. Therefore I think a buff is needed.

 

[isau]

Well, believe it or not, the game is about real life. If there was no historical immersion to the game whatsoever, I probably wouldn't be playing it. So if you call it piety but it's not piety, I'm going to object. If you call it France but their leader is Mao Zedong, I'm going to object. If you call it a battleship and it loses to a trireme, I'm going to object.

So do you object to the war monger tree being called "Honor?"

 

[fyar]

No. Warrior Code, Discipline, Military Tradition, Military Caste, and Professional Army are all concepts that are consistent with the military sense of Honor.

If you introduce a policy into Honor called Civilian Targeting (cities lose 1 population per bombing run or artillery shell) or Piracy (cargo ship looting worth triple gold) or Genocide (can raze cities of a different religion instantly), yes I would object.

 

[McSaucy4418]

No. Warrior Code, Discipline, Military Tradition, Military Caste, and Professional Army are all concepts that are consistent with the military sense of Honor.

If you introduce a policy into Honor called Civilian Targeting (cities lose 1 population per bombing run or artillery shell) or Piracy (cargo ship looting worth triple gold) or Genocide (can raze cities of a different religion instantly), yes I would object.

What about a policy of total war? Perhaps pillaging civilian improvements? Razing cities (how quickly you do it is not unfortunately a qualification for genocide), prize ships (good example of government double speak but privateers and pirates are the same thing), and pillaging are all bad things yet all valid strategies in the game.

On the notion of what is the point of religion I agree with you that the current set-up does not necessarily encourage having the most converts unless take a belief like tithe. However this thread has shown that many people would like a religion component that is about "winning" in that particular aspect. A more competitive take on religion if you will.

 

[Dralix]

Well, believe it or not, the game is about real life. If there was no historical immersion to the game whatsoever, I probably wouldn't be playing it. So if you call it piety but it's not piety, I'm going to object.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. There is no social policy of religious intolerance, or religious persecution. It is however beneficial to spread your religion to other civs, at the expense of other religions.

The game is not about real life. In real life, I can chop down as many trees as I want, and a hospital will never appear. It's an abstraction, based on historical things. Religion is abstracted by granting benefits to a religion's founder that increase as the religion spreads. I think there's plenty enough historical accuracy there to support the abstraction.

On the notion of what is the point of religion I agree with you that the current set-up does not necessarily encourage having the most converts unless take a belief like tithe. However this thread has shown that many people would like a religion component that is about "winning" in that particular aspect. A more competitive take on religion if you will.

Every single founder belief gives benefits for spreading your religion. It's not necessarily about "converts" you're right. It's only about converts when another religion is present. Assuming you want to reap the benefit, you'll have to convert a city if another religion is present. There's no two ways about this - if you want the maximum benefit from your founder belief, whichever one you take, you want to spread your religion as much as possible. If that means converting other religions, well, too bad for them.

 

[fyar]

What about a policy of total war? Perhaps pillaging civilian improvements? Razing cities (how quickly you do it is not unfortunately a qualification for genocide), prize ships (good example of government double speak but privateers and pirates are the same thing), and pillaging are all bad things yet all valid strategies in the game.

On the notion of what is the point of religion I agree with you that the current set-up does not necessarily encourage having the most converts unless take a belief like tithe. However this thread has shown that many people would like a religion component that is about "winning" in that particular aspect. A more competitive take on religion if you will.

If you want all of those suggestions, that's fine... just don't call it Honor because those things aren't honorable in the military sense of the word. Mod a new policy tree called Total War with all of those ideas and I'm fine with it. Not necessarily supportive of it, because I think there are more important and more relevant changes to be made, but I wouldn't necessarily object. I've already officially stated that I'm pro-nukes because they're good for gameplay and they're historical. But redefining Piety into your idea of what you think piety is would break the immersion, for me as much as making catapults into a flying unit.

If you really want to make a mini-game out of "winning" religion in your particular way, then go ahead and play that way. I've played games like that myself. (I've also used my share of nukes.) But IMO Piety is not for your winning your mini-game, it's for winning Civ V.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. There is no social policy of religious intolerance, or religious persecution. It is however beneficial to spread your religion to other civs, at the expense of other religions.

The game is not about real life. In real life, I can chop down as many trees as I want, and a hospital will never appear. It's an abstraction, based on historical things. Religion is abstracted by granting benefits to a religion's founder that increase as the religion spreads. I think there's plenty enough historical accuracy there to support the abstraction.



Every single founder belief gives benefits for spreading your religion. It's not necessarily about "converts" you're right. It's only about converts when another religion is present. Assuming you want to reap the benefit, you'll have to convert a city if another religion is present. There's no two ways about this - if you want the maximum benefit from your founder belief, whichever one you take, you want to spread your religion as much as possible. If that means converting other religions, well, too bad for them.

Which is part of the problem...

Founder belief= you want cities that are of your majority religion...

Religion spread mechanics=If cities are of your religion, yours is the only one that spreads/exerts pressure

This means that Secondary religions only occur on the border 'regions' of religious zones.
AND they don't give a benefit

Religious Tolerance changes the benefit but not the mechanism...
You can change the mechanism (with Religious Tolerance) in a way that you get secondary religions, and they are stable as secondary religions, rather than pushing your religion out.

And for realism..Religious tolerance can easily be said to strengthen the position of the majority religion... it is more solid, but less able to crush others... being slightly disentagled from society as a whole

 

[McSaucy4418]

If you want all of those suggestions, that's fine... just don't call it Honor because those things aren't honorable in the military sense of the word. Mod a new policy tree called Total War with all of those ideas and I'm fine with it.

If you really want to make a mini-game out of "winning" religion in your particular way, then go ahead and play that way. I've played games like that myself. (I've also used my share of nukes.) But IMO Piety is not for your winning your mini-game, it's for winning Civ V.

Those things already exist in the game, that was my point. More importantly I acknowledged that the main purpose of Piety is to help win a game of ciV. We have gotten very far off track however and begun to argue about things which are no longer relevant to the original post which was just an idea on a replacement for one policy in the Piety branch.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Those things already exist in the game, that was my point. More importantly I acknowledged that the main purpose of Piety is to help win a game of ciV. We have gotten very far off track however and begun to argue about things which are no longer relevant to the original post which was just an idea on a replacement for one policy in the Piety branch.

Because your replacement idea changed the nature of the policy when the nature of the policy wasn't the main problem...

The problem was the policy was
weak (increase strength)
hard to see (make it easier to see)
hard to control (make it easier to control.. or more uniform)

Those can be fixed

 

[fyar]

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. There is no social policy of religious intolerance, or religious persecution.

I'm objecting to the thread title which proposes it as a substitute for Religious Tolerance.

It is however beneficial to spread your religion to other civs, at the expense of other religions.

Not always. Because of that policy, there's a cost-benefit analysis. If the policy were stronger, that cost-benefit analysis would be a legitimate question.

There is more than one way to use your religion. There's nothing wrong with a policy that benefits an alternative playstyle from the one that you seem to like.

The game is not about real life. In real life, I can chop down as many trees as I want, and a hospital will never appear. It's an abstraction, based on historical things. Religion is abstracted by granting benefits to a religion's founder that increase as the religion spreads. I think there's plenty enough historical accuracy there to support the abstraction.

And redefining piety to suit what a few people seem to think piety should mean would destroy the abstraction, for me as much giving frigates the ability to move through a mountain range. Even if you argued that frigates on mountains were good for gameplay, I would oppose it. Likewise, this idea of piety is completely antithetical to the idea of what piety really is.

Every single founder belief gives benefits for spreading your religion. It's not necessarily about "converts" you're right. It's only about converts when another religion is present. Assuming you want to reap the benefit, you'll have to convert a city if another religion is present. There's no two ways about this - if you want the maximum benefit from your founder belief, whichever one you take, you want to spread your religion as much as possible. If that means converting other religions, well, too bad for them.

I guess you've never used Interfaith Dialogue?

 

[Dralix]

There is more than one way to use your religion. There's nothing wrong with a policy that benefits an alternative playstyle from the one that you seem to like.

It's not really about the playstyle that "I seem to like." It's about one of these things being not like the others. KrikkitTwo thinks that Religious Tolerance can be tweaked in other ways, which is fine. OP is of the opinion that as is, it's at odds with the very nature of religion in the game, which is that you want to spread it, and the presence of other religions is a threat to this.

And redefining piety to suit what a few people seem to think piety should mean would destroy the abstraction, for me as much giving frigates the ability to move through a mountain range. Even if you argued that frigates on mountains were good for gameplay, I would oppose it. Likewise, this idea of piety is completely antithetical to the idea of what piety really is.

I don't think that it's close to being on par with frigates moving through mountains. Would you object as strongly if the Piety tree was renamed to Faithfulness?

I guess you've never used Interfaith Dialogue?

I haven't, but I don't see how it doesn't give a benefit for spreading your religion. The only difference is that you don't have to supplant the existing religion to gain the benefit. But that's not something you're going to control is it? I mean, are you going to refrain from spreading and gaining that benefit just because you don't want to supplant another religion?

 

[McSaucy4418]

I just want to jump back in and say that while the conversation so far has been productive let's try to stay away from ridiculous comparison like flying catapults and frigates that traverse mountain ranges (lets be honest that would make England way too op).

 

[fyar]

Well I made those comparisons precisely because, no offense, but your suggestion is JUST AS OUT OF LINE with the definition of piety as frigates in mountains are out of line with the definition of frigate. I'm not exaggerating to make a joke, I really can't think of any other way to emphasize how wrong it is other than to make that kind of absurd comparison. Otherwise, you might think that it's just a matter of preference, when frankly, I'm saying that it's completely wrong, and honestly propagates a very unfortunate stereotype about people of faith.

It's not really about the playstyle that "I seem to like." It's about one of these things being not like the others. KrikkitTwo thinks that Religious Tolerance can be tweaked in other ways, which is fine.

I also suggested a tweak to Religious Tolerance. Did you think that it was also fine? Renaming it Religious Intolerance by the way is not a tweak, it's an overhaul.

OP is of the opinion that as is, it's at odds with the very nature of religion in the game, which is that you want to spread it, and the presence of other religions is a threat to this.

It's at odds with the way the OP wants to play the religion game. But as I've said many times, there's more than one way. I've played many successful Civ games where I got great mileage out of my own religion without eliminating every last non-believer in my cities. I didn't want to anyway, because it was much more fruitful to spend that faith on a scientist or a pagoda than on an inquisitor.

Since you seem to believe that the entire Piety tree except for Religious Tolerance is for exterminating every last non-believer (#1 of the two camps I listed), tell me, which policy in Piety are you referring to that's unique to that strategy? The answer is none. That extra faith from shrines? I would almost always prefer to spend it on a building or a great person or even a military unit than on an inquisitor. I can use the extra gold in Theocracy on whatever I want. My favorite Reformation beliefs are To the Glory of God, Jesuit Education, and Sacred Sites. Where did you get the idea that the Piety tree is about eliminating every last non-believer? Oh right, from your playstyle, which is not the only one.

I don't think that it's close to being on par with frigates moving through mountains. Would you object as strongly if the Piety tree was renamed to Faithfulness?

Yes. You're misunderstanding me if you think my objection is just about semantics.

I haven't, but I don't see how it doesn't give a benefit for spreading your religion. The only difference is that you don't have to supplant the existing religion to gain the benefit. But that's not something you're going to control is it? I mean, are you going to refrain from spreading and gaining that benefit just because you don't want to supplant another religion?

If you "wipe out" the other religion using prophets and inquisitors, you won't have anyone left to dialogue with, and now your founder belief is useless. Missionaries in general do not wipe out other religions. The best way to use Interfaith Dialogue is to send your missionaries into their Holy City so that it doesn't spread too fast.

 

[Dralix]

Since you seem to believe that the entire Piety tree except for Religious Tolerance is for exterminating every last non-believer

That's my queue to leave the discussion. You can continue without me.

 

[fyar]

Although to be honest, McSaucy's comment about England being op made me laugh.

 

[fyar]

That's my queue to leave the discussion. You can continue without me.

:shrug: The sentence that I quoted seemed to say exactly that, but if you don't want to explain how I misunderstood it, that's your call.

 

[Greizer85]

Yes. You're misunderstanding me if you think my objection is just about semantics.

Umm wut? So what would you be happy with, then? It's undeniable that religious intolerance has been a part of some religions (or periods of time within their existence). The inquisition and Aztec sacrifices are prime examples of this.

To further complicate things (or not), Dictionary.com says this about piety: "Piety, n. reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations: a prayer full of piety.". Notice how it doesn't state anything about the nature of the god in question. What if your god is a blood-god and the best way to devoutly fulfill his wishes is by carving the beating hearts out of your enemies? You're being 'pious', too, since you're fulfilling your religious obligations.

The key here might not be 'piety' at all, but who/what you're being pious towards, and how and why. Piety means loyalty to the god(s), basically, and there can be good or evil gods (from our modern pov). So this means that all kinds of policies can be fit under that label. Unless you have a different definition for 'piety', in which case I'd like to hear it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The key here might not be 'piety' at all, but who/what you're being pious towards, and how and why. Piety means loyalty to the god(s), basically, and there can be good or evil gods (from our modern pov). So this means that all kinds of policies can be fit under that label. Unless you have a different definition for 'piety', in which case I'd like to hear it.

I think that is they key phrase... all kinds.

The current mechanism of religion spread favors religious wars of elimination (Inquisitors and Prophets reflect that.)

However, adding an additional change would allow religion to play differently. Even better if it is tied to a policy.

 

[isau]

Otherwise, you might think that it's just a matter of preference, when frankly, I'm saying that it's completely wrong, and honestly propagates a very unfortunate stereotype about people of faith.

You are interpreting things far too literally in your attempt to find some way for this to be offensive. Your objection is arbitrary to the point of being completely off topic. Maybe the policy doesn't actually need to be named "Religious Intolerance"--call it "One Faith" or "Total Devotion" or "Glory to Heaven" or whatever you want--but the fact remains that the way religion is designed in this game, and the way the religious AIs in this game are set up, maximizing your own religion around the world at the expense of others is the core mechanic. That is at odds with the "Religious Tolerance" ability just like it would be at odds with the Honor tree to have an ability like "Grants defense to an enemies remaining cities after you capture one because you are such a good guy and we wouldn't want to insult people who have historically been honorable."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You are interpreting things far too literally in your attempt to find some way for this to be offensive. Your objection is arbitrary to the point of being completely off topic. Maybe the policy doesn't actually need to be named "Religious Intolerance"--call it "One Faith" or "Total Devotion" or "Glory to Heaven" or whatever you want--but the fact remains that the way religion is designed in this game, and the way the religious AIs in this game are set up, maximizing your own religion around the world at the expense of others is the core mechanic. That is at odds with the "Religious Tolerance" ability just like it would be at odds with the Honor tree to have an ability like "Grants defense to an enemies remaining cities after you capture one because you are such a good guy and we wouldn't want to insult people who have historically been honorable."

Actually it is more like the tribute mechanic..
You have a big army and Could declare war on this CS.. However, you will get some benefits anyways Without going to war.

The fascists get that benefit