Religion: Found or Adopt?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What is your preferred gameplay Religion strategy, Will you join race for prophets? or do you think prophet race is not worth a thing and adopting rivals religion is better strategy? (I usually turn off Religion Victory because i'm not really good at religion race). Assuming that you begin games either in Antiquity, Classical Era or Middle ages.

 

[Timewarp]

Fighting for a religion is very expensive. I often turn off Religion victory because I am not happy with its mechanics. At lower levels I'll fight to get a religion. But mostly what I use faith for is usually builders.

 

[Victoria]

If I start near holy CS then getting some temp,Es can be cool but fighting for a religion is a struggle on higher levels and things are bad enough nowadays.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Depends on my goals. Nowadays i always make myself variants to make the game more interesting. One of them is to obtain all victory condition in a single game. So i do religion because i force myself to.

If i were to play to simply win asap with any non-religion VC, religions are not worth it. While imo it is superbly easy to win a religious victory after you founded the religion. (the easiest VC i would say), founding the religion has (on deity) an extremely high opportunity cost and the rewards don't nearly seem to warrant it.

This is bascally te reason i do this all VC variant. If you don't go for religious victory, its not worth founding one, if you dont go for cultural, i don't really build theatre squares, and when not going for diplomatic, i sell every point of favor to the AI.

I think it would be better if founding a religion would be easier, but spreading it harder. (by removing the prosetelyzer promotion or reducing it from 75% to 25%, reducing the faith AOE effect from religious combat victory and changing the apostle promotion system to something you can't cheat so easilly.). Similarly, i think the theatre squares should be stronger (better adjacency so it provides culture faster instead of an era after building it) and more needed. (less culture from other sources) and the diplomatic favor should be more important even when not going for the victory.

Theres also games where on deity, by turn 70 you find that there aren't 5 AI's going for religion and you can still pick one up late. In that case i feel like its more balanced cost vs value.

 

[LMT]

I usually play on Emperor or Immortal. I try to found one on both levels. Not because it's advantageous to do so, but simply because I enjoy having one. Otherwise, I feel like I'm missing out on an entire aspect of the game. I usually go for a SV, so all of that faith is almost necessary for expansion and purchasing Great Scientists. Obviously, you don't need a religion for a lot of faith, but having a religion helps me keep focused on faith generation.

One thing I do wish is that all beliefs (including pantheon and founder) were an option at each belief level unless taken by another civ. That would make it a little more interesting.

On Deity (which I rarely play), it is almost silly to found one. It's very difficult to do so and the opportunity cost is just too big.

 

[Palo]

If I've got good early holy site locations I'll often build them even if I don't get a religion just for the faith which can be very useful in a golden age. It's even better if you do get a religion but a golden classical age when you've got good faith production can really jump start your entire game.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You generally need some kind of advantage such as being able to boost astrology, get a faith CS early, or have religious bonus. Going religion blind is often a really bad idea because you're not building army due to having to run projects; chances of getting killed can be pretty high.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

You generally need some kind of advantage such as being able to boost astrology, get a faith CS early, or have religious bonus. Going religion blind is often a really bad idea because you're not building army due to having to run projects; chances of getting killed can be pretty high.

You don't need armies in civ6. Send delegations, share open borders, give some gold if needed. (or a luxury, or some horses) Friendship guaranteed. Seriously guaranteed. I don't remember the last unexpected war in civ6.
Still, you want to be building settlers instead of holy sites and projects.

 

[Archon_Wing]

ou don't need armies in civ6. Send delegations, share open borders, give some gold if needed. (or a luxury, or some horses) Friendship guaranteed. Seriously guaranteed. I don't remember the last unexpected war in civ6.

I dunno about that; I've had AIs at friendly still not want friendship and attack anyways. I mean it works a lot of the time but it doesn't seem foolproof.

Also, barbarians don't care about any of that.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Oh yes, it happened to me too. It's not like that is some random surprise either though. When they don't want friendship while being in the green, you know something is up. In the last case i noticed this, it was because they had a settler on it's way to settle the contested area between us. As soon as their settler got to settle, they wanted friendship. Quite possibly if i had settled there first it would have been war. In this case it is quite obvious, we know the AI doesn't like you settling near them while they do like to do it against you, i don't know what other reasons they may have, but they aren't doing total surprise attacks. When it's green and they dont want to befriend, beware. See if there's anything that might provoke war and don't do it if you don't want war. And "beware" doesn't mean build an army, to me it means having a few units, being ready to build and buy more and to be ready to finish the tech to upgrade them.

Barbarians are a nuisance on default setting. 2-3 total units are normally plenty to deal with that.

 

[Archon_Wing]

the last case i noticed this, it was because they had a settler on it's way to settle the contested area between us. As soon as their settler got to settle, they wanted friendship.

That honestly seems like the dominant trigger. Is it a reason to settle away or just defend and smack them back?

Also barbs have been "fixed" lately in that they spawn a lot more but I guess more spawn busting helps.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I didn't settle there myself because i was limiting myself to 5 cities.
If i had wanted the land, i may have settled, although it depends on many things. Sometimes you may want to settle, build units "defend and smack them back", sometimes you want to let them settle, build units and take it from them.

 

[Ownsya]

Oh yes, it happened to me too. It's not like that is some random surprise either though. When they don't want friendship while being in the green, you know something is up. In the last case i noticed this, it was because they had a settler on it's way to settle the contested area between us. As soon as their settler got to settle, they wanted friendship. Quite possibly if i had settled there first it would have been war. In this case it is quite obvious, we know the AI doesn't like you settling near them while they do like to do it against you, i don't know what other reasons they may have, but they aren't doing total surprise attacks. When it's green and they dont want to befriend, beware. See if there's anything that might provoke war and don't do it if you don't want war. And "beware" doesn't mean build an army, to me it means having a few units, being ready to build and buy more and to be ready to finish the tech to upgrade them.

Barbarians are a nuisance on default setting. 2-3 total units are normally plenty to deal with that.

So I only recently got over my paranoia of getting attacked and stopped building armies whenever I see my neighbors with high might. But are you saying the AI won't attack me simply because my military is relatively weak? I'll have to be a bit more daring in my next few games and see how it goes. I shall blame you if it goes south

Also, what about certain leaders known to be backstabbers? Feels like people agree that Teddy and John are this way? In my current game John attacked me for no reason, twice, before I eradicated him from the game

 

[Leucarum]

The religion game has got better but still feels like an extended game of whack-a-mole to me. I usually pass

 

[MartinMcMartin]

I never go for a religion because i'm always too late getting a prophet. only game i got one was with arabia and that was because you get the last prophet automatically..

i never go for them anymore, i need all resources for archers because i am almost all the time at war with neighbors. i get my religion through conquest though!.

and about AI not declaring war and no need for armies.. if i settle near somebody (i am Kupe) they definitely declare war on me within the first 30 turns. and that is exactly my plan. they declare war, i try to hold on with 2 warriors and 1 slinger. if i survive i spam units and try to overrun the enemy...

MC

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

So adopt the religions of conquered people? You found that it's more flexible because you can switch to others should different players spread their religions to you.

 

[Arraz]

I almost always go for a religion unless I m doing something very important (like conquering the world with Mathias).
A founded religion is :
- The guarantee to be able to face a religious victory attempt from the AI
- A very powerful support for most victory types
- the opportunity to pick the useful/powerful beliefs.

Right now, choral music and crusade are almost always the most powerful beliefs. (reliquaries & jesuit education are ok)

Choral music enables you to completely bypass the theater square/GWAM race. Great for most science/domination civs and still generate a high amount of faith (useful for monumentality or Crusade).

If you re aiming for CV, having a high faith generation is key (natural parks, rock bands) and jesuit education/choral music (depending on which civ you play) can be very powerful.

To be honest, using religion is how I managed to go from emperor difficulty to immortal/deity.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Found. If I'm going to build some Holy Sites I always found one.

Although it is really costly, but if you don't found a religion you cannot expect your cities to automatically adopt a useful one. Yes maybe you can adopt some really good ones like Jesuit Education even without Holy Site, but in most cases things will be like you adopt sth. like Reliquaries while having no relics, or feed the world/choral music with no Holy Site, or you just adopt the useless monks. You don't have a reasonable chance to adopt a good one.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

So I only recently got over my paranoia of getting attacked and stopped building armies whenever I see my neighbors with high might. But are you saying the AI won't attack me simply because my military is relatively weak? I'll have to be a bit more daring in my next few games and see how it goes. I shall blame you if it goes south

Also, what about certain leaders known to be backstabbers? Feels like people agree that Teddy and John are this way? In my current game John attacked me for no reason, twice, before I eradicated him from the game

I agree with you.
Many games where I am greedy and not reading the situation correctly I end up getting rolled.

 

[Jarms48]

I would love the ability to be able to adopt a defeated players religion if I controlled their holy city. That would ultimately close the book on missing out as you could get one later by conquest anyway.