Religion differences between Civ4 and 5

[vonSharma]

So first of all, I thank everyone who commented on my thread a few weeks ago where I asked if Civ5 had improved enough since its release... I have been an addict since Civ3 and I can say that I effing played until 5 am last night when I 2am was the limit (I work as a doctor and its completely unacceptable to be that sleep deprived when seeing patients).

Anyways, my question.. I just got G&K and I'm trying to figure out religion. I feel much more thought went into religion this game. What I'm wondering is how important is it to spread religions to other civs versus other city-states? Does it really end up effecting diplomatic relations like it did in Civ4 and do blocs of nations end up forming? Does there end up being an Apostolic Palace type situation where holy wars can originate from? And it seems like religion is very slow to spread on its own.. even my own 'adjacent to the holy city' cities did not convert after 50 turns and I had to use a missionary. Is there a benefit to a city officially converting? To me it seems the benefits in numbers is more for the happiness, faith, culture etc that you can extract with the belief modifiers.

Wondering your thoughts and how has it affected your game play and later game dynamics. Cheers!

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

1. "How Important is it to spread religions to toher civs verus other city states?" - You gain more benefit with your Founder Belief, because instead of a +1 Happiness from a CS following your religion you end up with way more (depending on how many cities follow your religion).

2. "Does it really end up effecting diplomatic relations?" - Not entirely, you don't get a diplomatic hit for following a diffrent religion (as far as I've seen at least), but if you spread your religion into a civilization who's has it's own civ you get a hit for spreading your religion over theirs. But you do get a Diplomatic Bonus if another Civ follows your religion.

3. "Do blocs of nation end up forming?" - Not because of religion.

4. "Does there endup being an Apostolic Palace type situation where holy wars can originate from?" - Nope. Never seen it happen yet.

5. "Is there a benefit to a city officialy converting (by pressure)?" - You save faith on buying Missionaries, as you don't spend the money, I only do that so I can enhance my religion quicker, i never buy missionaries until then."

6. "Is there a benefit to a city officialy converting?" - If you mean gaining a religion any way, then yes, because your city now recieves the bonuses of Pantheon and Follower, and I think in some cases Enhancer bonuses as well.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Religion has less diplomatic effect than in CIV, so wars are rarely fought because of it. There are smaller modifiers for it, so you can still use it to your diplomatic advantage if you're smart.
If your religion becomes the dominant religion in a CS, then the decay of influence will occur at a slower rate. Also many CS's will have the spread of your religion to them as a quest. If your religion becomes dominant in the majority of cities of another civ that doesn't jave a religion, you'll get a diplo boost. If you force spread (missionary/prophet) to a city of a civ that does have a religion then you'll get a diplo penalty (degree depend on flavours I think).

Natural spread is slow, especially later on. This is why there are missionaries, prophets that can spread too, and various enhancer beliefs that all make life a little easier. There's also a natural wonder which helps too. You might find natural spread especially slow if you went tall (and didn't build national temple wonder) as the spread mechanics favour lots of cities and low populations.

As said, religion is lessdiplomatic than before. What it is good at is flavouring your civ with unique bonuses, and furthers the unique feel of each game. Experiment with all of the beliefs and see which ones work best for you!

 

[Bex]

Well I was hoping religion would factor into relations more, but the diplo boost for other civs adopting your religion doesn't seem particularly strong, not worth spreading just for that IMO. Especially since you have to expect most of the other civs will eventually have their own religion and yours will eventually be unwelcome.

In my games there tends to only be only one civ without a religion of their own and it's seemingly never the one whose diplomatic friendliness matters to me. In the game I just finished, that civ (Japan) had no modifiers with me except 'happily adopted my religion', just the one green, and still was the only civ to denounce me (no reason given, the denouncing was the only red modifier)

On the other hand the diplo hit for converting other civs who are trying to spread their own religion seems quite strong and persistent, they never forget, but since I never encountered a problem with "not enough ways to piss off other civs before G&K," having one more way is not all that useful.

I tend to go for Initiation Rites (100 gold when cities first convert) because I can just send guys round converting cities and grab money at a time I tend to really need it, take the money and run, and then I don't have to worry about keeping followers after that... for the amount of gold I got experimenting with Tithe or Church Property the money wasn't worth the amount of work needed to keep reconverting followers. I certainly wouldn't want my happiness dependent on it either (Peace Loving?) I'm sure it depends on map size and game speed and # of civs etc. but stuff 'per follower in other civs' seems like never-ending maintenance operations once all the religions get going... not in a 'religion is fun' way but in a tedious way.

I build a lot of Wonders so I take Divine Inspiration and in the later game I have tons of faith to buy Great People... I put an Inquistor in every city of mine so I can ignore all the foreign missionaries/prophets floating around. After that, aside from sending out an occasional prophet to maintain my religion in allied CS (if they're not too far away), I ignore religion except as currency to buy GP.

 

[vonSharma]

wow, sounds completely different than Civ4. This is my first game into Civ5 and I was going crazy accumulating faith and focusing on spreading my religion but it seems that that may not be such a wise investment.. especially since I have almost no army and am at war with India and Carthage...

 

[krc]

since I never encountered a problem with "not enough ways to piss off other civs before G&K," having one more way is not all that useful.

Brilliant.

 

[Crafty Bison]

wow, sounds completely different than Civ4. This is my first game into Civ5 and I was going crazy accumulating faith and focusing on spreading my religion but it seems that that may not be such a wise investment.. especially since I have almost no army and am at war with India and Carthage...

Is very different . This kind of tactic can only work if you have a powerful founder belief, because that's the only one you'll benefit from for other civs' cities. Also you need to start very early. Later on, faith is best used to buy great people after the industrial era hits, so it's not a total waste if you decide to get lots of faith generation and don't habe that much to spend it on.
As with all civ games, building military is very rarely a bad thing .

 

[Zezima]

for the amount of gold I got experimenting with Tithe or Church Property the money wasn't worth the amount of work needed to keep reconverting followers.

Tithe and Church Property are based on followers in your cities, not the cities of other civilizations. So you shouldn't have to worry much about reconversion, especially if you are plopping Inquisitors in all your cities.

 

[Browd]

Tithe and Church Property are based on followers in your cities, not the cities of other civilizations. So you shouldn't have to worry much about reconversion, especially if you are plopping Inquisitors in all your cities.

Neither founder belief is limited to your cities. In fact, the power of these beliefs is they generate gold based on spread of your religion throughout the map. In fact, if you were to get your religion spread early to cities of other civs and CSs and then found your own cities getting prophet bombed and missionary spammed to the point where you've lost your religion in your own cities (except your holy city, of course), but continued to have your religion elsewhere on the map, the gold would continue to roll in from those other cities.

 

[joncnunn]

Civ 4: Sending missionaries into a civ that has its own holy site to a religion can pay off diplomatically by getting them to switch.

Civ 5: Sending missionaries into a civ that has its own holy site to a religion makes that AI mad at you. (They won't care if it naturally spreads).
It's still a good idea to send them to a civ that doesn't have a holy site to a religion as those that didn't found a religion give a positive modifier for adopting yours.

 

[BandC]

When G&K came out I think the overall consensus about new religion and espionage features were: religion was brilliant and espionage was OK. I disagree.

I personally think the religion implementation in Civ5 kinda sucks. It largely boils down to:

* rush to found a religion
* rush to enhance it as quick as you can
* pick some bonuses for your religion and spread it on your cities with a couple of missionaries

aaand that's about it.

What I don't like about religion in Civ5 is how almost completely disconnected it is from diplomacy. The other leaders largely completely ignore that you follow a different religion or same religion or you convert cities etc. Religion almost has zero effect on anybody but yourself (aside from some small diplomatic bonuses/penalties which don't matter much). No religious blocks or alliances. No religious wars. Nobody cares.

Religion in Civ4 was great. Blocks and alliances formed. Religious wars were fought. Religion actually mattered in the game. The only problem with religion in Civ4 was sometimes religion had a too great diplomatic effect and there was to much peace/war if everyone followed the same/different religion but even with its faults overall it was greatly a lot more realistic, more fun, and a better implementation of religion compared to Civ5 in my opinion.

 

[vonSharma]

totally agree with you, Band. I loved the holy wars and diplomatic maneuvering religion required in Civ4 although it had the unintended consequence of making diplomacy completely ridiculous at times. Not sure why they can't just find a happy medium in Civ5..