I have read some discussions about important modern empires like Soviet Union or Nazi Germany recently, where the question, what their "religion" civic was in terms of Civ4, was debated. It was not free religion, as (at least some) religions were suppressed in them, but it was also not any other, because the other civics need a state religion. Except for Paganism, but there is no need to switch to Paganism if Free Religion is available.
One of proposed solutions was to add something like "State Atheism", but I have tried to imagine a change in primal civics like Paganism to make them livable under certain (mostly scenario-induced) conditions in late game too. Their vanilla abilities are nicely clean now, but I tried to imagine changes, that are not too complex and have some flavor:
1) Paganism
+ 2
. + 1 
per a religion in the city. No state religion.
This tries to create conditions of early empires without a major religion. The civic is less effective (or even damaging) if you have too much major religious influence in your empire. It pushes you to oppose early major religion spreading as many "pagan" tribes did. It also reflects the unability of "pagan" empires to solve growing religious conflicts, but does not cripple it. Some modus vivendi (like in Roman Empire) is possible even with opened borders (which may be necessary for trading) until religions spread too much.
Also beneficial for modern totalitarian atheist empires, but a specific scenario or some kind of "inquisition" is probably required to make it really a match to Free Religion.
2) Decentralization
No additional upkeep for colonies.
Decentralization is nice as-it-is, but gets beaten by later civics, which may be more demanding, but are more effective too. I tried to imagine decentralization as some kind of a libertarian dream state or an economic mode, in which a loose coalition of various city states is operating - there is no economic authority, each player instead sets his own rules.
This form of decentralization stands somewhere between State Property and Free Market in terms of game effects (does not have additonal bonuses, but allows you to have corporations). Allows you to more easily expand on different landmasses if you want to (to simulate these trading colonial empires of Phoenicians or Greeks), otherwise does quite nothing else.
3) Tribalism
Settlers and Workes have power 2. Can only defend, get no fortification defensive bonuses.
This is a tricky one, but we can suppose, that it mostly represents a tribe working on it's own with labor being divided along traditional lines and mostly gender/age social stratification. Now, what benefits can such a situation have? It would not affects specialists (as there are almost no full-time specialists), money (as it is not required), workers (as there is not much expansion) or town growth (towns do not grow a lot). On the other hand, as the work is not much specialized, many people are probably trained in arts of war, as there is no clear dividing line between a tribesman and a warrior.
So, the proposed change allows Settlers and Workers to defend agains barbarians in the early game, as wandering tribal factions would probably do. In a modern history, this can be maybe also attributed for example to some religious sects colonizing American West.
4) Barbarism
+ 1
if city has no foreign trade routes.
The law of the stronger, but of tradition too. Most legal interaction goes along kinship lines. Blood feuds are possible, but there are other tools to solve many conflicts - like mediation, ritualised warfare, payments (in goats ), marriage... Uses similar legal tools like feudalism, but there is no law structure and enforcement above individuals and their families, no long chain of dependency. So, this is a kinship-oriented society.
The effect allows early cities to expand their influence a bit, but this influence is weak enough as other civilizations appear. Imagine early neolithic populations spreading both their culture and brides in Europe or established "barbarian" civilizations pushing on less established "barbarians" (real barbarians in Civ).
The bonus is small enough to prevent late game mercantilist barbarian empires
5) Despotism
Cost of Workers reduced by 50 percent.
Despotism has to differ form Hereditary rule (which usually has a more strict codex of descendency and imposes various other social rules) and from Police State (where the state has a complex bureaucratic structure tending to place every citizen to his assignment and suppressing unhappiness). Despotism has to reflect early despotic states, where there is not much thought control, but brute force and control of resources instead.
Cheaper workers seem like a plausible solution to me - it speeds up early expansion a bit, is not really strong in late game (unless under very specific conditions, when empire has to be rebuilt i a totalitarian way, but no military adventure is expected).
One of proposed solutions was to add something like "State Atheism", but I have tried to imagine a change in primal civics like Paganism to make them livable under certain (mostly scenario-induced) conditions in late game too. Their vanilla abilities are nicely clean now, but I tried to imagine changes, that are not too complex and have some flavor:
1) Paganism
+ 2
. + 1 per a religion in the city. No state religion.This tries to create conditions of early empires without a major religion. The civic is less effective (or even damaging) if you have too much major religious influence in your empire. It pushes you to oppose early major religion spreading as many "pagan" tribes did. It also reflects the unability of "pagan" empires to solve growing religious conflicts, but does not cripple it. Some modus vivendi (like in Roman Empire) is possible even with opened borders (which may be necessary for trading) until religions spread too much.
Also beneficial for modern totalitarian atheist empires, but a specific scenario or some kind of "inquisition" is probably required to make it really a match to Free Religion.
2) Decentralization
No additional upkeep for colonies.
Decentralization is nice as-it-is, but gets beaten by later civics, which may be more demanding, but are more effective too. I tried to imagine decentralization as some kind of a libertarian dream state or an economic mode, in which a loose coalition of various city states is operating - there is no economic authority, each player instead sets his own rules.
This form of decentralization stands somewhere between State Property and Free Market in terms of game effects (does not have additonal bonuses, but allows you to have corporations). Allows you to more easily expand on different landmasses if you want to (to simulate these trading colonial empires of Phoenicians or Greeks), otherwise does quite nothing else.
3) Tribalism
Settlers and Workes have power 2. Can only defend, get no fortification defensive bonuses.
This is a tricky one, but we can suppose, that it mostly represents a tribe working on it's own with labor being divided along traditional lines and mostly gender/age social stratification. Now, what benefits can such a situation have? It would not affects specialists (as there are almost no full-time specialists), money (as it is not required), workers (as there is not much expansion) or town growth (towns do not grow a lot). On the other hand, as the work is not much specialized, many people are probably trained in arts of war, as there is no clear dividing line between a tribesman and a warrior.
So, the proposed change allows Settlers and Workers to defend agains barbarians in the early game, as wandering tribal factions would probably do. In a modern history, this can be maybe also attributed for example to some religious sects colonizing American West.
4) Barbarism
+ 1
if city has no foreign trade routes.The law of the stronger, but of tradition too. Most legal interaction goes along kinship lines. Blood feuds are possible, but there are other tools to solve many conflicts - like mediation, ritualised warfare, payments (in goats
), marriage... Uses similar legal tools like feudalism, but there is no law structure and enforcement above individuals and their families, no long chain of dependency. So, this is a kinship-oriented society.The effect allows early cities to expand their influence a bit, but this influence is weak enough as other civilizations appear. Imagine early neolithic populations spreading both their culture and brides in Europe or established "barbarian" civilizations pushing on less established "barbarians" (real barbarians in Civ).
The bonus is small enough to prevent late game mercantilist barbarian empires
5) Despotism
Cost of Workers reduced by 50 percent.
Despotism has to differ form Hereditary rule (which usually has a more strict codex of descendency and imposes various other social rules) and from Police State (where the state has a complex bureaucratic structure tending to place every citizen to his assignment and suppressing unhappiness). Despotism has to reflect early despotic states, where there is not much thought control, but brute force and control of resources instead.
Cheaper workers seem like a plausible solution to me - it speeds up early expansion a bit, is not really strong in late game (unless under very specific conditions, when empire has to be rebuilt i a totalitarian way, but no military adventure is expected).
