Religion for 7

[BuchiTaton]

For me the big callenge about religion on CIV7 is how to keep it as a more independent aspect that players could manage to exploit it on different ways, but also keep some degree of direct customizacion. For example on the relation of religion and science venerate the Solar Deity as patron of one city would give you bonus to food and science, in the same way a religion with tenets like Esotericism (production+science) and Monasticism (culture+science) would help you to research at least until most of it is done in a bigger amount by late game specialized laic universities .

The question is how much and how the players are going to appropriate each characteristic for religions.

 

[CritterCipher]

I, for one, would not like to see religious units removed from the game. The fun parts of Civ are always the things that involve actually placing things on the map, moving them around, and bumping them into each other rather than just dealing with numerical abstractions.

 

[Zaarin]

I, for one, would not like to see religious units removed from the game. The fun parts of Civ are always the things that involve actually placing things on the map, moving them around, and bumping them into each other rather than just dealing with numerical abstractions.

That's never been the fun part for me. I keep a few ranged units garrisoned in my cities for defensive purposes, but otherwise the only units I really enjoy interacting with are my Scouts--and even that gets tedious once I have a few cities to manage, at which point I'm likely to turn on auto-scouting.

 

[Evie]

I'd say I'm kind of in-between: I like religious gameplay being something that happens on the map, but I agree with Zaarin that having lots and lots of units to worry about is not my cup of tea.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

My opinion on Civ VI's religion mechanics is complicated because on the one hand, I think it's (mostly) well-designed.

The Great Prophet race (on difficulties below Deity) is really engaging and the complex decision of "Should I incorporate religion into my strategy?" is a great one whose answer can shift based on your circumstances. It's a lot of fun.

...On the other hand, though, Civ VI's fully hands-on religion design leaves the random elements (faith bonus from tribal huts, Astrology boost being completely spawn-dependent) as detractors, when they're some of the most realistic elements of the system. Of course some religions would develop faster or differently based on inspiring landmarks. But, since religious control is so heavy, any realistic uncontrollable factors feel out of place.

I'm definitely in the camp of Civ VII adopting a more passive, organic religion system, as suggested by @Zaarin, as I think that could serve as the kind of unpredictable, semi-uncontrollable, tide-changing factor that GS's disasters tried and failed to be and that a more dynamic Loyalty/Cultural pressure system could also be. But between the two, I trust Firaxis much more with building off of and creating abilities for the passive religious spread system than creating a new one in its likeness.

(Unrelated, but for as much as I advocate for a cultural pressure system as a general feature, I can't see many ways of incorporating it into Civ abilities that aren't largely based on one-way or two-way historical relationships)

 

[MeganovaStella]

Gallileo, meanwhile, mostly got in hot water for writing what was supposed to be a dialogue presenting both sides fairly (which he had Papal permission to do) and doing a really, really, really, really, really, *really* terrible job of it. We're talking, getting Geocentric arguments wrong left and right, misrepresenting them, and naming the character who presented Geocentrism in his book "Simplicio", which, while he says he was refering to the ancient philosopher Simplicius, sounded a lot like he was calling the geocentric side "Simpletons". The Pope, who again had given Gallileo permission to write the book, was...understandably not happy about THAT one.

So Gallileo was a redditor sent back in time?

ANYWAY, I would love to see more schisms so late game snowballing is checked. If you spread a religion to India while you are Rome, expect a major schism resulting out of cultural differences

 

[Zaarin]

ANYWAY, I would love to see more schisms so late game snowballing is checked. If you spread a religion to India while you are Rome, expect a major schism resulting out of cultural differences

Especially when your Jesuit missionaries treat like garbage the native St. Thomas Christians who have been there for 1500 years.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I wish everyone could have its own religion. Additionnally, I wish everyone could pick anything eventhough you are not the "first one" to pick it.
Potentially, you could change your religious traits after a collapse.
I think that would open up for various gameplay elements, without... having one of the few religions possible, especially on higher difficulty levels.

Other than that, it would be cool if your people following the same religion would be more efficient working together.
Example : a trade route between two cities following the same religion would grant double yields.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Other than that, it would be cool if your people following the same religion would be more efficient working together.
Example : a trade route between two cities following the same religion would grant double yields.

Double Yields of What? Exotic goods and services are far more likely to come from a source that is more different than you, not more of the same. New ideas come from differences, not similarities. If Europe was manufacturing silk, why bother with a Silk Road?

Religion might make it easier to cooperate politically and economically, but I don't see how it would translate into more value in other counts like Production or Science: for that you need maximum variety - it is now hypothesized that the wide-spread trade routes and easy travel made possible by the Mongolian hegemony from China to the Ukraine increased wealth production all over - and also transmitted the plague from Central Asia to Europe. Differences matter.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Double yields. Double gold, science, culture, faith, whatever for international trade route, and food and production for internal, on the model of Civ6 of course.

It is because of the Cognitive Revolution that Sapiens have "conquered" Neanderthal. What is Cognitive Revolution ? A modification in Sapiens brain that allows him to believe in things that don't exist. That makes the cooperation between individuals possible from a hundred individuals to over thousands.

That all is what religion is all about : a system of beliefs that are cohesive.

Religion might make it easier to cooperate politically and economically

It does for sure.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Double yields. Double gold, science, culture, faith, whatever for international trade route, and food and production for internal, on the model of Civ6 of course.

On gameplay and ballance terms this would be overpowered and boring, wide conversion/extermination would be the only viable way to play. What would be the point of most famous traders CIV if all of them would end being Spain2, Spain3, Spain4, etc.

It is because of the Cognitive Revolution that Sapiens have "conquered" Neanderthal. What is Cognitive Revolution ? A modification in Sapiens brain that allows him to believe in things that don't exist.

That not fit with the evidence of symbolic objects made by Neanderthals, so any significative difference in their cognitive capacity is harder to demostrate than others factors like metabolism, locomotor anatomy, anatomical language capacity, immune system and reproductive rate.

That makes the cooperation between individuals possible from a hundred individuals to over thousands.

Homogenity facilitate control and order but at the cost less creativity, ingenuity and competitiveness. CIV7 would be more realistic and interesting if the player have the need to ballance their actions between exploit the affinities for diplomacy and population control VS stimulate a dynamic exchange of ideas and their products.

 

[Naokaukodem]

On gameplay and ballance terms this would be overpowered and boring, wide conversion/extermination would be the only viable way to play. What would be the point of most famous traders CIV if all of them would end being Spain2, Spain3, Spain4, etc.

I don't think a trade route giving traditionnally 3 gold jumping out to 6 gold would be overpowered. And as far as I know, Spain in Civ6 is not the only one civ which can launch an inquisition, right ? So in Civ6 we already have Spain 2, Spain 3, Spain 4... and we can see that AIs like to spam missionaries and apostles, so I won't worry about them being able to fight back (plus inquisitor act only in your cities), silly argument.

That not fit with the evidence of symbolic objects made by Neanderthals, so any significative difference in their cognitive capacity is harder to demostrate than others factors like metabolism, locomotor anatomy, anatomical language capacity, immune system and reproductive rate.

It's not from me, it's from Yuval Noah Harari who "rencently" wrote "Sapiens", which is about Sapiens and not Neanderthals. And it's not a "capacity", it's an aberration at this point.

Homogenity facilitate control and order but at the cost less creativity, ingenuity and competitiveness. CIV7 would be more realistic and interesting if the player have the need to ballance their actions between exploit the affinities for diplomacy and population control VS stimulate a dynamic exchange of ideas and their products.

That's very theorical also. And why not, we could have cities of the same religion working better together (double gold, food and production) and cities with different culture (because religions are mutually exclusive even if they can cohabit in some extent) having double science and culture.

 

[Zaarin]

It's not from me, it's from Yuval Noah Harari who "rencently" wrote "Sapiens", which is about Sapiens and not Neanderthals. And it's not a "capacity", it's an aberration at this point.

Yuval Noah Harari is a popular writer whose works are not taken very seriously in academic circles. As BuchiTaton pointed out, there is ever-growing evidence that Neanderthals had complex societies and practiced ritual behavior.

That's very theorical also.

One doesn't have to accept Jared Diamond's argument wholesale to accept the basic observation that culture contact promotes new ideas.

And why not, we could have cities of the same religion working better together (double gold, food and production) and cities with different culture (because religions are mutually exclusive even if they can cohabit in some extent) having double science and culture.

I think this is much more reasonable than your original suggestion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yuval Noah Harari is a popular writer whose works are not taken very seriously in academic circles. As BuchiTaton pointed out, there is ever-growing evidence that Neanderthals had complex societies and practiced ritual behavior.

Well that was a pleasant read, nearly a revelation. I find his theories very well fashionned and very credible. But I'm not an academician. Additionnally, it's long admitted that Neanderthal did care about his deads. The rituals certainly were linked to this, without absolutely meaning he could believe in something that didn't exist.

One doesn't have to accept Jared Diamond's argument wholesale to accept the basic observation that culture contact promotes new ideas.

I meant that does not have to be always the case. Additionnally, there's no evidence of that. Although, I could believe in that, in the same way I believe in Harari's theory.

I think this is much more reasonable than your original suggestion.

Thx to you all here.

 

[Zaarin]

Well that was a pleasant read, nearly a revelation. I find his theories very well fashionned and very credible. But I'm not an academician. Additionnally, it's long admitted that Neanderthal did care about his deads. The rituals certainly were linked to this, without absolutely meaning he could believe in something that didn't exist.

I mean, we can start with "believing in something that doesn't exist" is an ideologically charged statement to begin with; presumably what is meant here, in more neutral terms, is "capable of abstract thought." However, merely having rituals related to burial shows that the Neanderthals had some kind of religion. Combined with the existence of Neanderthal art and symbolic artifacts that have been discovered in the past few years, it's safe to say that Neanderthals were capable of some degree of abstract thought. Paleoanthropology is not my specialty so I don't know what the current consensus is about how intelligent Neanderthals were compared to H. sapiens, but the evidence is clearly sufficient to say they had a degree of intelligence more comparable to our own than any other creature we know about--certainly beyond other highly intelligent animals like whales, great apes, and octopuses.

 

[Phrozen]

Pretty sure it was known that Neanderthals certainly did that as I remember in my Anthropology classes that there was evidence that they buried their dead with grave goods. At the time it was thought that they were intelligent but not as modern humans due to their tool kit remaining relatively unchanged until contact with modern humans, to the extent that the archaeological record can preserve their tool kit, but that may be a 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' situation. Deglaciation setting in letting species that didn't need the extreme size of neanderthal spear points for example flourishing and modern humans tool kit was already adapted to hunting those animals. The neanderthals simply adapted what worked. Who knows if their toolkit would of adapted without contact with modern humans.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I mean, we can start with "believing in something that doesn't exist" is an ideologically charged statement to begin with; presumably what is meant here, in more neutral terms, is "capable of abstract thought." However, merely having rituals related to burial shows that the Neanderthals had some kind of religion. Combined with the existence of Neanderthal art and symbolic artifacts that have been discovered in the past few years, it's safe to say that Neanderthals were capable of some degree of abstract thought. Paleoanthropology is not my specialty so I don't know what the current consensus is about how intelligent Neanderthals were compared to H. sapiens, but the evidence is clearly sufficient to say they had a degree of intelligence more comparable to our own than any other creature we know about--certainly beyond other highly intelligent animals like whales, great apes, and octopuses.

Yeah ! Definitely. But Harari avoided to formulate it as "abstract thought", he always used the "believe in things that do not exist" constantly. I don't know if that makes a difference, it's quite hard to tell. Anyway, I think Neanderthal was able to have abstract thought. It is the basics of intelligence.

No, that's something else. I do believe that : Neanderthal was superior than Sapiens, hence this last being stuck in Africa and couldn't go past a certain way, then something moved in Sapiens' brain that allowed him to believe in "luring" things that pushed him ahead, and that made him obey orders more easily, so he could totally overwhelm Neanderthal that didn't know how such a thing was possible.

That's a little like the crowds effects. No matter how clever or dumb you are (or maybe yes after all), but in some cases you feel pushed by the crowd and do the same stupid thing. I know I can do it. But don't get me wrong, I don't need the crowd to do stupid things.

 

[MeganovaStella]

Yeah ! Definitely. But Harari avoided to formulate it as "abstract thought", he always used the "believe in things that do not exist" constantly. I don't know if that makes a difference, it's quite hard to tell. Anyway, I think Neanderthal was able to have abstract thought. It is the basics of intelligence.

the difference is one says that this thing is most certainly not real, while the other says it is just not material'

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yes, and the term "believe" differs from "think" too, for example.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, and the term "believe" differs from "think" too, for example.

People have no problem believing almost anything, but to recall an old quote, most people would rather die than think - and so they die for their ignorance, not their belief.