I like the random element. It means you can't really start out with the idea of ''I will found a religion this game''. On the other hand, you might be founding a religion without planning for it too
I would assume you keep your faith when the Great Prophet spawns. Would be very unfair if you fixate on faith generating buildings and such and someone else doesn't. Then both spawn a GP and you will have lost alot of faith and the other civ only a little amount.
Exactly, if I decided the religion that I had founded no longer suited my goals, then I'd like to change it - if it worked for Henry VIII, then it should be possible for me. And if I don't found my own religion, what happens then? I would like to play out a scenario where I take the holy city of the civ whose religion "oppresses" me, and wipe it out. But then am I left without a religion and its bonuses? What if I've just discovered an exotic civ on another continent and I want to befriend them by committing to their faith - I would like to know if I have that freedom.
I also wonder how smart the AI will be when founding their own religions.
I shall be a bit disappointed if this sort of thing [religion switching] isn't possible; for now I'm going to trust that they have thought of it and implemented it. Hopefully it is just something that we haven't seen yet.
In the situation where you want to "wipe out" the religion, I think that they are unlikely to offer that. Apart from the moral problems (!), which they do seem to think of, there is also the fact that if you take control of the holy city, there are no actual negative effects attached to religion at all. It is all positive and so there is little reason to want to get rid of it. If such a button existed in the game its only purpose would be to remove a large number of bonuses that you benefit from. From what we have seen religions always begin in the capital city, which already cannot be destroyed, as well.
As for the last point; even in Civ IV you needed to have access to the other player's religion in your cities before you could commit to it as the state religion. There was a message to that effect, which I forget the text of; so it isn't that unreasonable to make you wait for it to directly spread.
I'm pretty sure its been confirmed that this is the case. I think half the number of maximum civs on a map constitutes the number of religions that can be founded.
I like the random element. It means you can't really start out with the idea of ''I will found a religion this game''. On the other hand, you might be founding a religion without planning for it too
I would assume you keep your faith when the Great Prophet spawns. Would be very unfair if you fixate on faith generating buildings and such and someone else doesn't. Then both spawn a GP and you will have lost alot of faith and the other civ only a little amount.
In the situation where you want to "wipe out" the religion, I think that they are unlikely to offer that. Apart from the moral problems (!), which they do seem to think of, there is also the fact that if you take control of the holy city, there are no actual negative effects attached to religion at all. It is all positive and so there is little reason to want to get rid of it. If such a button existed in the game its only purpose would be to remove a large number of bonuses that you benefit from. From what we have seen religions always begin in the capital city, which already cannot be destroyed, as well.
Perhaps "wipe out" was a bit strong a phrase, though I don't think that it would be any more morally dubious than being about to commit genocide in the game. But Inqusitors allow you to remove religions from your cities. It stands to reason that there would be some sort of negative to a religion, otherwise what would be the point of Inquisitor units, beyond being able to maintain superficial ideas? The point is I'd like the opportunity to remove the influence of a religion, or even religion as a whole, from the game, if I so choose - regardless of the potential loss of bonuses. Even if it is just a game, if I play as England I would always be an enemy of France. The same extends to my religious paths. If I play as the Ottomans I will be welcoming as many different religions as possible, but if I play as the Spanish I would rather play the fanatic route. Simply put, I would like to know that there are two opposing paths that I can choose, instead of just the "having as many religions as possible to incur as many bonuses as possible" path.
What I want to know is:
Will the AI be smart enough to look at multiple different religions flowing into their borders and decide which is the best one for them to spread?
Scenario:
The Celts (ME) found an early pantheon and choose "goddess of the hunt" (+1 food from camps), then spawn a great prophet, found religion X, with [insert founder belief] and [insert follower belief].
The Byzantines (AI) found a somewhat later pantheon and choose "sacred waters" (+1 happiness for cities settled near rivers), then spawn a great prophet, found religion Y with [insert founder belief] and [insert follower belief].
The Dutch (AI) start getting both religion X and religion Y flowing across their borders (because they're close to both the Celts and Byzantines). They have no camps (deer, boar, elephants, furs) within their borders.
Ignoring the follower beliefs for now (for the sake of this example), is the Dutch AI going to be smart enough to say: "Um, I don't have any camps therefore religion X is useless to me, so I would much rather promote religion Y as my state religion because of the sacred waters benefit"?
(N.B. This is all based on the assumption that there will be an option to "adopt" a state religion)
Perhaps "wipe out" was a bit strong a phrase, though I don't think that it would be any more morally dubious than being about to commit genocide in the game. But Inqusitors allow you to remove religions from your cities. It stands to reason that there would be some sort of negative to a religion, otherwise what would be the point of Inquisitor units, beyond being able to maintain superficial ideas? The point is I'd like the opportunity to remove the influence of a religion, or even religion as a whole, from the game, if I so choose - regardless of the potential loss of bonuses. Even if it is just a game, if I play as England I would always be an enemy of France. The same extends to my religious paths. If I play as the Ottomans I will be welcoming as many different religions as possible, but if I play as the Spanish I would rather play the fanatic route. Simply put, I would like to know that there are two opposing paths that I can choose, instead of just the "having as many religions as possible to incur as many bonuses as possible" path.
I don't assume that you mean "wipe out" like that; I'm just pointing out that Firaxis tends to avoid that sort of thing and that I think for that reason they are less likely to include it. Somehow that sort of thing seems to extend to the religious populations, but not the populations of entire cities, which can be burnt down and the people massacred. It's notable, for example, that slavery didn't return for Civ V and I wonder if they are trying to move away from this sort of thing more - or perhaps it will be back for expansion II.
I think that the point of the inquisitor is to remove the enemy religion's believers from your own cities; if you've taken the holy city then it is no longer true that they belong to the enemy. This is intended to be useful for some of the bonuses to take effect I assume:
Goddess of Love: +1 Happiness from cities with population of 6+
If this means that there have to be 6 believers, rather than simply a population of at least 6 with the majority of them part of the Goddess of Love religion, then that alone is a good reason to remove the believers of the rival religion if it allows for the bonus. This is more of an opportunity cost than an explicitly negative effect. When you take the holy city, I don't think that they are likely to let you totally destroy it.
What I want to know is:
Will the AI be smart enough to look at multiple different religions flowing into their borders and decide which is the best one for them to spread?
Scenario:
The Celts (ME) found an early pantheon and choose "goddess of the hunt" (+1 food from camps), then spawn a great prophet, found religion X, with [insert founder belief] and [insert follower belief].
The Byzantines (AI) found a somewhat later pantheon and choose "sacred waters" (+1 happiness for cities settled near rivers), then spawn a great prophet, found religion Y with [insert founder belief] and [insert follower belief].
The Dutch (AI) start getting both religion X and religion Y flowing across their borders (because they're close to both the Celts and Byzantines). They have no camps (deer, boar, elephants, furs) within their borders.
Ignoring the follower beliefs for now (for the sake of this example), is the Dutch AI going to be smart enough to say: "um, I don't have any camps, therefore religion X is useless to me and I would much rather have religion Y for the sacred waters benefit"?
(N.B. this is all based on the assumption that there is an option to "adopt" a certain religion as the state religion)
It seems religion is citybased not empirebased. So you could try to get religion A in the cities that could use it the most and religion B in other cities that would benefit more from that. However, your question is valid. Can the AI succeed in choosing the right beliefs for their situation and adopting the right religions in their cities?
No way to know really, let's hope they do fairly well.
Yes because if they are clever enough to decide between religions, that makes for a very different approach when you are founding religions yourself.
If you want to make a successful world-wide religion, you would try to choose benefits for the religion that apply to as many civilizations as possible and not just yourself.
If, however, the AI couldn't care less and adopts any old religion, then you may as well always go for whatever benefits you the most within your own borders (i.e. localised benefits).
My point is, based on how the AI handles those decisions will change how people may choose to customise their religion
Indeed, and it'd be better if they actually think about it. Otherwise it's just another advantage for the human. My worst fear is that their choice will actually be leaderbased (India will always try to get buddhim, Spain will alwyas try to get Christianity).
I don't assume that you mean "wipe out" like that; I'm just pointing out that Firaxis tends to avoid that sort of thing and that I think for that reason they are less likely to include it. Somehow that sort of thing seems to extend to the religious populations, but not the populations of entire cities, which can be burnt down and the people massacred. It's notable, for example, that slavery didn't return for Civ V and I wonder if they are trying to move away from this sort of thing more - or perhaps it will be back for expansion II.
You could be right, but perhaps slavery just didn't fit in with Civ V's concept of being simplified. Slavery isn't so much a mass issue for western civilisation anymore, so I don't think they'd exclude it on the basis that it is immoral. Religion and religious prejudice, on the other hand, is very much a western topic of moral debate, so it's not unimaginable. Still, I don't think moral questionability would be that much of a qualifier, because at the end of the day Firaxis isn't responsible for what a player does in a game. It seems more likely to me they would exclude that as an option if there was no gameplay-related purpose or benefit. The same would be the case for slavery, or, to an extent, the adopting of different governments (which was a part of Civ III, which they since have taken out), and even corporations. All of these things are controversial, perhaps even frightening concepts for some, but I think the lack of their inclusion in CiV is just a matter of there being no place for them; gameplay-wise. Regardless, I would hope for a second expansion to reintroduce these things, because they would make for a much more dynamic flavouring to each game.
Indeed, and it'd be better if they actually think about it. Otherwise it's just another advantage for the human. My worst fear is that their choice will actually be leaderbased (India will always try to get buddhim, Spain will alwyas try to get Christianity).
Perhaps that's the way it will be. Perhaps for the AI each religion is already filled out (not all at once, of course) - for example, every leader which chooses Christianity might already have their founder and follower beliefs chosen by default, and it is only the player which can choose their own. I would rather it wasn't like this, because it would become very repetitive, and also there would be disproportionate use of religions. Then again, I think this is a type of controversy that Firaxis tried to avoid, by trying to define the benefits of one religion over another, so I do doubt it is like this.
Perhaps that's the way it will be. Perhaps for the AI each religion is already filled out (not all at once, of course) - for example, every leader which chooses Christianity might already have their founder and follower beliefs chosen by default, and it is only the player which can choose their own. I would rather it wasn't like this, because it would become very repetitive, and also there would be disproportionate use of religions. Then again, I think this is a type of controversy that Firaxis tried to avoid, by trying to define the benefits of one religion over another, so I do doubt it is like this.
I'm worried that they will choose for something like that. But I'd hate to see Polynesia go for a seabased belief when they're on an all-land map, just because they're Polynesia.
I just hope they will give the AI a way to consider the benefits of each belief, shouldn't be that hard and it doesn't have to be perfect. Let's see what will happen
Here is a question: how does one switch State Religions, assuming religions act in this way? I have yet to see any interface changes which could allow this. Are you restricted to the religion you found, or, more likely, do religions not act as a component of the state, and you simply get the benefits of all religions in your cities? Also, would their be a benefit to holding the Holy City, or it just a symbol of one's founding of a religion?
I'm going back and forth here. On the one hand, the diplomatic aspects of religion suggest that adopting a religion is possible. On the other hand, there's been no evidence of this. One thing you can do is essentially abandon your religion and use someone else's. For example, if their follower belief is better than your founder belief, you can start using Missionaries to spread their religion. This might be their compromise between extremes. Your state religion is the religion the majority of your people are following.
I personally hope you can have a state religion. If you do, you should only be able to use the follower beliefs of that specific religion. Then, if you adopt the Free Religion policy (or finish the tree or something) you can then get all the religious bonuses. This means a state religion would be used for the strategic bonuses and diplomacy as one thing. You might have to choose which you prefer.
state religions:
It seems to me, that for the sake of the pre-renessiance diplomacy, non-founders can adopt a state religion founded elsewhere, or how else could religion effect diplomacy? Sharing a common religion is a diplomacy boost and having differing faiths makes them hate you. Thus you should be able to adhere to a faith.
Holy cities:
Holy cities seem less likely. None of the founder beliefs have any benefit to a Holy City. If such a thing were possible, the founder beliefs would be the place to see an indication of it. Now without Holy Cities, I don't see how it would be possible for you to take control (and reap the benefits of founder beliefs) of religions that you didn't found.
A question that I have is this:
If you wipe out a civ that has founded a religion before they have completely filled in all the follower beliefs, what happens to cities that adhere to that religion? Will they automatically abandon it or will they stick with it inspite of a lack of follower benefits? Will other religions attempting to spread in those cities benefit from that religion's death of the founder?
You'll probably still get the follow beliefs, but no founder beliefs. It might be worth going for other religions in that scenario, though, unless you really like the follower beliefs.
Holy cities seem less likely. None of the founder beliefs have any benefit to a Holy City. If such a thing were possible, the founder beliefs would be the place to see an indication of it. Now without Holy Cities, I don't see how it would be possible for you to take control (and reap the benefits of founder beliefs) of religions that you didn't found.
I think that we can be pretty sure that they are included; the question is more to do with their effects. If they exist, then clearly their ownership can also change hands. As Arioch says, it seems to always be the capital of the founding civ that becomes the Holy City.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
