Poll: Making Holy cities immune to religious conversion

Would you like Holy cities becoming immune to religious conversion?

  • Yes, make that universal for all Holy cities

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Yes, but make it dependent on something, for example Fealty opener or sth else

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • No, I dislike this idea, keep Holy cities vulnerable to religious conversion as they are currently

    Votes: 39 76.5%
  • No, I dislike this idea, but I would like to see this problem changed another way (please explain)

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • ..... break between the two parts of the poll ......

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Make Holy cities immune to conversion from both active and passive conversion

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Make Holy cities immune only to active conversion

    Votes: 5 9.8%
  • Make Holy cities immune only to passive conversion

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • Total voters
    51
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
757
Hello. A while ago I and some other forum members talked about the possibility of making Holy cities immune to both active and passive religious conversion, so basically they would use the old Spanish UA to make them immune to missionaries, great prophets and passive religious pressure.

That would mean that for example if a human player founded the religion Taoism in Jakarta, Jakarta would basically forever (as long as the city wasn't conquered or if the human player himself didn't manually convert it to another religion) have Taoism as the majority religion in Jakarta (and unless the human player manually used missionaries of other religions, Jakarta would never have followers of other religions). The same would apply for AIs.

The benefits of this would be that civs would no longer have to spend faith to keep their holy cities following their religion and we would no longer see AI holy cities lose their religion for the majority or a big part of the game (I still see it happening). Some negative downsides is that pagodas would be slightly less useful (unless you manually used foreign missionaries to introduce foreign followers into your holy city, which is something the human could do, but not the AI) as well as the Taj Mahal wonder (that grants yields for each religion present in the city).

One option is to have this change apply across the board (for all holy cities) or to make this change/protection exclusive, i.e. tied to a specific element of the game, for example for those that would select the Fealty opener (to reward those religious civs that pick Fealty).

Also another dichotomy is whether we would want this to apply to all religious conversion (like old Spanish UA), just passive religious conversion (like the Celts have) or just active religious conversion (so just immunity against missionaries and great prophets).

So please vote twice (you have two votes), once for whether you like this as general, as dependent on something or don't like it at all, and once for whether you would like total immunity, immunity just to passive conversion or just to active conversion.

I wanted to see what the community's thoughts on this are. Thanks for the votes and comments!
 
A big NO on this one for me. Both gameplay and real life, Holy Cities are hard to convert but they should be convertable. Otherwise your going to struggle to convert an enemy to your religion, as the holy city's pressure will just flip everything back.
 
I'm in the Big NO camp on this one. I like being able to create a one world religion by getting rid of all the heretics.

That said I do think there are things with the spreading of religion that perhaps should be addressed. The main thing is how you combat religious conversion. As it stands now you really only have two-three options -- tell them to stop and they'll just tell you to f*ck off in the absolute majority of cases, tiny diplo penalty that isn't even worth mentioning, then you have the annoying pressure system and flip flopping with missionaries like we do today or you declare war and get rid of them.
The best idea I have come up with so far is that I would like to be able to "plunder" foreign missionaries just like you can plunder trade routes or something similar. An inquisitor (and prophets) of your religion in your land should be able to just "kill" missionaries of foreign religions if you like to without the need for war or any thing of the sort. With open borders they could be "safe" to enter, without it they are fair game. If your inquisitors deal with the heretics there might be some more grievous diplomatic penalty then just having different religions.
 
No, mainly because it'd be a massive nerf to Prophets
 
No on many levels including playability and real life in even the abstract.
It's like giving spearman 1000 cs.
However sql files and IGE allow for all kind of individual desires.
 
I voted no, however I think the lack of resistance for conversion of a holy city is very underwhelming overall. The religious influence exerted from a holy city in general is in need of tweaking in my opinion, particularly in regards to eras.

With the birth of religion it should be nigh impossible to erode religious pressure of a predominant religion within a holy city and surrounding cities. With each successive era passing, that sphere of influence should decay due to cultural influence of neighboring nations and subsequent trade networks (Think of the influence of the Silk Road once it was established and maintained by the Mongols)

The holy city itself should however remain a backbone for the developed religion, even if to only become a minor religion, it should remain to stand the test of time if it has been established for generations.

The conversion of another civilization would have to modified to allow for the base religion to remain, a total conversion of religion is and always will be nigh impossible in real life.

In the case of complete and utter destruction of the founding civilization, the religion should only then fall if there was no influence in other neighboring cities at the time.
 
Top Bottom