Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by etipton3, Oct 13, 2010.
religion gone = more unrealistic, arcadey, dumbed down civ.....
Please explain how the hell the load / save screen is "dumbed down".
How can you even dumb something like that down? I think you're really scraping the barrel for something to complain about here.
I just didn't like the idea that I could have more than one official religion for my civ. I could understand the presence of other religions in my civ, but the feeling that if I was out-teching my opponents it was unavoidable that I would earn many holy cities really got under my skin. If there was a way to tell the game, or for the game to just know, that I have an official religion and not to give me another, I wouldn't have a thing to say on the subject.
I like the way it is in V. It's there but not a dominating concept. I found too many of my Civ IV games being dominated by religion management and I didn't like feeling forced into that role.
Besides, it does seem kind of realistic in that while it's our job as leader to provide places of worship, it is NOT our job to tell the populace which deity to worship.
If there is a strategy guide that explains how to make this game challenging even at the hardest level, that would be something worth reading.
I'm upset that they didn't introduce a new and flawless religion system, the necessity of sequels is to improve the features, not removing them because were bad, as if Firaxis was incapable of making a better religion system (most probably, looking at the broken mechanics in civ V). And no, there is no religion in civ V, i don't see buddhism, islamism or others, all i see are two generic upgrade in socials (the most related to religion) and a building... So no excuses, that's reality...
Must be something like "how do I play so dumb, that the AI have at least a chance to win "
Point of fact: The design process does in fact include removing bad/unnecessary features, as well as adding new ones and updating existing ones.
Point of clarification: I finally understand. Your complaint of "they took religion out of Civ V" is actually "they took the theming of actual named religions out of the religion component." Yes?
Argument: You keep saying "they could have incorporated the fix from the mods." Except, well, the fix from the mods was a *major* change in functionality - it introduced national instability and revolutionary aspects, changes that were fairly unlikely to be included.
In Civ4, religion could provide both interesting diplomatic blocks and boring static words where everyone is the same religion (I play partially for watching the world system develop, and watching a continent of personalities like Elizabeth, Ramesses, Ashoka and Mansa sharing the same religion and being completely static from the time the last city was founded was not pleasant). Admittedly, Religion giving so big diplo bonuses isn't the only right way to implement religion.
Anyway, when playing Civ4 I make use of religion mechanics, but wouldn't miss them much if they were taken out. It's a rather minor, tertiary feature of Civ experience for me.
In my original post I said that religion in IV had it's flaws. I never advocated to keep that system. I don't agree religion in IV is as broken as you say, but it is flawed and I don't see it having a place in V. I'm not arguing for any of the extremes in this matter. I just think that the role that religion itself plays in V is next to nothing, what gives effects in gameplay are secondary features that are derived from religion. I would not mind a return of religion as a active concept, but in a different shape.
They could have and should have included a better version of the religious system from Civ 4. As it stands now, religion really isn't a part of the game. You don't pick something from the piety tree because it has to do with religion. You pick those policies for the bonuses, and, if you are like me, couldn't even name most of them.
I'm amazed it took till we got to page 5 before someone mentioned this:
SlothMD is outrageously exagerating the benefits of Holy Cities in CivIV. In fact his religion strats are so full of holes it boggles the mind, and I'm angry that he's misrepresenting the whole system just because he feels like he need to prove a point.
Are you nuts? First, "rush-build" - there's only two ways to rush-build in CIV4, Slavery and Universal Sufferage. If you can rush that many temples in a border city with slavery in a reasonable time-frame, then well you're a better man than I, and why not whip that many hammers worth of units instead and just attack and bugger culture? Or you can run Universal Sufferage (instead of godlike Representation) with the Pyramids and spend a ton of cash on 6 bloody culture and 6 happiness? As far as Monastaries go, either you are rush-building them at a time where the gold/hammer costs are going to be obscene for the little benefit that they give you, or they'll soon go obsolete to SciMeth.
Why did it take till page 5 to call SlothMD out on this?
Here are the facts about religion in CivIV:
1. Going early religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm) incurs a HUGE economic cost on you. Delaying early worker techs is often a crippling economic blow, that steamrolls into you falling further and further behind. Less improved terrain specials worked translates into smaller cities, less cities, lower productive capacity, ******** tech pace, ect. ect. ect. Going early religion is a very rarely an ideal strategy and should only be attempted when the stars align. It's a function of starting techs and terrain - like Spain, who starts with Mysticism and Fishing, if she grabs a seafood start then early religion might be a good idea - but outside of starts like that early religion is often a very bad idea. Players who play lower difficulty levels don't really see this because you aren't punished enough for it there. Trust me though, your addiction to religion is holding you back from the next difficulty level.
2. Later Religions don't have as much value since by the time that things like Confusionism, Taoism, and Chrisitianty are founded the earlier religions have already taken root. You can convert a neighbor away from a competeing religion, but it requires a signifigant hammer investment. Sure, you can share a dominant religion for diplomacy then have a different founded religion for shrine income, but this presented you with the problem that you basically have to spread two religions, the foreign one to your own cities so you can get state religion benefits, and your founded one abroad for shrine income. Also doing this denies you one of the primary benefits of founding a holy city - reduced espionage costs.
3. On Temples. Compared to other sources of gaining happy, Temples are very expensive hammer-wise. Temples are only worth building in most cases if A. you have no other option for happiness; B. you build one of the wonders that give temples more bang for thier buck; C. you are spirtual. +1 culture is small potatoes.
Wander into the "Strategy & Tips" for Civ IV section sometime, notice how many top-level players recommed Religion founding (and multiple religion foundings at that, which is the reason that a lot of posters seem to think that it was somehow OP in CivIV). The answer? Next to none.
("Appeal to authority, blah, blah, blah" --- SlothMD. )
I'm normally not this abrasive, but the dismissive and arogant way that SlothMD is adressing his fellow posters is very much getting on my nerves.
Not exactly, they don't replace the religion system with one better and flawless, instead they erased it completely... Olny to left a pair of building and two upgrade that barely can we recongnize as a feature...
My complain is that the religion was a good addition as a major feature in a Civilization game, but bad implemented, so replacing it would be nice, because without religion it feel now less a civilization game than Civ IV as concept (take in mind the difference between concept and impementing it).
The arguments over the importance of religion - for good and ill - are pointless. I doubt you could even find a crackpot historian that wouldn't term it critical (again, for good and ill) to humanity's development (most of the crackpots, in fact, would take the position "it was 300 years ago - so it should be today")... but it doesn't matter.
As Sid said in III -- gameplay over realism. So fine --
They could have replaced religion with facial hair preference. Bismark has adopted the Fu Manchu! Elizabeth has founded pencil thin mustaches! Washington demands you implement sideburns! Catherine insists her boyars shave their beards. Songhai has extra electric clipper trade goods to offer. Ramses just built the barber college.... whatever.
The whole point is that it was a deep and meaningful feature that had a lot of value to those that eschew warfare in their civ play.... and there was no replacement feature for it (spare me the "it's abstracted in Social Policies!" So was government. You're abstacting builders down to nothingness).
I still await an answer to the fundamental question.... Everyone agrees horseman are flawed. Should we eliminate horses and horseman because the implementation has exploits?
To the builder -- that would be a perfectly logical and rational equivalent.
I agree with the thread title
Personally, I still disagree with the core of his argument: that Religion was even broken to begin with. City-states are a more intresting way of creating dynamic diplomacy, I agree, but not to say that they both couldn't be elements. I very much disagree that Religion was a big, broken, expoitable, OP mess.
You didn't find the comment of "I was tangentially involved in some archeological work at the entry-level so I'm declaring your opinion of no value without bothering to address the merits of the argument" to be dismissive, but you did find me pointing out that it consisted *solely* of the logical fallacy known as "appeal to (false) authority" to be dismissive? That's...well, that's something.
removing the one of the biggest concepts in mankinds history is sickening to me, polytheism, monotheism has been around since the beginnings, to me it was wonderful to meet a transatlantic civ who worships a different god.
I share that idea - I would agree that they were exploitable, but so was everything else in the game!
The point, though, is that --- like everything else the warmongers wanted --- if there were complaints about it being 'exploitable'... sliders, civics, religion, you name it - Jon and company ditched it or dum...excuse me -- "streamlined" it.
Meanwhile, the military exploits are all still present - and worse than ever.... but no one would dream of eliminating mounted units.
Ohi dude i'm 33 and not an entry level, i work in a ancient pottery laboratory in an university as an assistant and i have a degree and a specialization (and a master degree of three years)... So mind your words, do you want a copy of my degree on a pdf?
I can still post it or my works dude...
Authority is something earned with work and study, so if you want my work on roman lamps and iconography of oriental religions i can sure give an excerpt to you...
So please refrain from your statement, i will accept your apologies.
Indeed - but it then becomes a basis for constructing your argument, not an excuse to blanketly dismiss other people's arguments without addressing their points. Note that I wasn't even the one you were dismissing.
Separate names with a comma.