Religion gone from Civ V is a Blessing

[Misterboy]

So do you think that the Pope as monarch of Pontifician state is not important at all for history, as an example... As excuse or not, religion is itself a reason of wars, as Franco Cardini and other historians as Le Goff can prove you...

If you want i can suggest some books of medieval historians... You will learn a lot about the importance of religion in history, the religious wars and such other things.

We may be having a semantic difference. I suppose it's fairly obvious that "Religion" defined as a political concept is a major contributor to war. I'm boiling it down far below that. You could bash me in the head with a million specialists and a million books, but if I can't redefine the argument so you can understand what I'm getting at, it won't make much difference.

I am *not* dismissing your argument here, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Actually, if you could suggest your *favourite* book relevant to this topic, I would very much like to read it. Thank you.

I guess the concept I'm trying to convey is that when Group X wants what Group Y has, they take it if possible. They justify this in various ways, one of the most popular of which is religion. That's what religion is, afterall: groupthink. We stay together as a group and we help define ourselves by our beliefs. That is, until we have a resource scarcity and then we choose to use a fragmentation of our beliefs to justify the next war.

My point is, spirituality doesn't start wars. I don't think that religion does, by extension. It's folly perhaps to try to jump into others heads, but I doubt that it's happened very often where one group says, "we're going to invade you because you don't believe what we believe". What they are doing is saying, "we want what you have, or we percieve you as a current or future threat of some form or another, and we will justify our actions by saying we are holy and you are not". It's semantics.

I'm sure there are cases where zealots have caused a war or conflict based on religion alone. I'm not saying it never happens. Just rarely.

Which is why I mentioned my example. People seem to think terrorists are attacking because they are Muslim and "we" are Christian. No. Wrong. I believe that the same applies to all eras. We aren't attacking you because we're Christian and your Celts. We're *really* attacking you because we want your stuff (women/land/resources/etc).

The Crusades were not about religion. They recruited via religion. Religion was a great tool. But the very core essence of those wars was not to simply "convert the heathens". So yes, I'm arguing that the most holy of "holy wars" were not religiously based.

I firmly believe that "religion" is a symptom of a greater truth, which is the cause of warfare.

But now we're way off topic. My reason for even broaching this subject was to counter a point made, which I thought was a blanket argument in favour of religion in Civ 4.

 

[skallben]

And while I am *glad* religion as was present in Civ 4 is gone from Civ 5, I really do hope they bring it back in. I loved the idea of it being there. Can't wait to see where they take Civ 5 next. They fixed so many core problems, that the foundation they've created will serve us all very well.

I have come to believe more and more that this is what they will be doing in general. They are deconstructing the civ-concept and try to rebuild it but in a more moderate tempo. Despite the ravings on the forums the last weeks, it seems from poll to poll that the game have support and we have expectations.

Most seem to agree the game needs balancing and some fixing. If the vast majority of games can be compared to a DVD-movie, buying Civ would rather be like buying a chess-board. Ending a game of civ does not "consume" your experience of civ as next game will be is unique. Compare that to, say Half-Life, you know where the tentacles will be.
The horses might be jumping a square too far but as every game is unique, you will only have more balanced future games to look forward to as the game evolves. It's not like having to watch Lord of the Rings with purple horsies.

After reading the examples from upcoming patch, I am also certain they are watching us. Civ has been greatly moddable, they have integrated parts of this community etc.

Anyone see where this rant is going?
Instead of breaking heads over how to value IVs religion or the absense of an active religion-mechanics in V, do you want to consider what you would want an eventual addition of it to be?

If so, go here:
Don't tread on me.

---

 

[CornPlanter]

Actually, I'd argue that map size is relevant. Economies based on religion work better with huge empires for a host of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason is shrine income. The second reason are the associated temple buffing wonders like Univsity of Sankaore, Spiral Mineret, and Apostolic Palace. More cities mean more oppertunities to build temples/monstaries and get that flat +2 science, +2 gold, +2 hammer bonus. Much like how the flat +5 hammer with Communism in the Order tree in Civ 5 is better for large empires, so is also getting the flat bonus with temples was in Civ 4. Additionally, as I've alluded to a couple times, there is the synergy between religion and espionage. Esiponage is easier to generate in large empires with limited spy specialist slots and the flat bonus that courthouses give you that one can combo with the -15% modifier to espionage missions that the Holy City gives you.

In order to reap the benefits of Huge map size, you need way more missionaries and they do have a cost Never forget the cost. Now if we are talking benefits only, ofcourse Huge offers a lot. That's why it's so nice to capture a holy city with +60 row shrine gold. Good thing AI built all that and missionaries and I build army

And I haven't even started on diplo issues yet...

Now *that's* dismissive, of the best kind - it's always amusing to see someone be condescendingly inaccurate. There's got to be a good German word for that.

Unfortunately I do not speak German that good. Good thing that difficulty level names were in English so you can stop beating around the bush and tell us on what level you played. And succeeded with that five-religions-spam-to-the-border-city awesome strategy on a regular basis

 

[Peregrine]

Sloth, I saw your suggestion re; the missionary spreading and shrine income. Thought, "hmmm, maybe that can be done.

I'll try it.

I'll admit, like most so-called "exploits," it sounds good . . . until you attempt to put it into action. I played a noble, huge map, marathon custom game w/random leaders. Takes awhile, but then I'm pretty quick when motivated. Here is what happened;

Built a modest little empire of 8 cities, some good, some not so good. Occupied the northern portion of a large continent. Saladin south of me w/a considerably larger empire. Pretty early on, started to produce missionaries, confucian, as it happened. He'd founded Hindusim and, as I discovered, spread it to virtually every city he'd founded. My missions were very successful. All but one out of 12 or so placed my religion in his cities. Then . . .

No go. He had gone to Theocracy. So no more spread. AND then he started sending his own missionaries to MY cities, which worked because I wasn't running theocracy.

True, one test game does not bring in a final verdict, but it DOES demonstrate that the AI in CIV can react to such an exploit, and counter it effectively. I also can't help but notice you failed to mention anything like this. Has this never happened to you? If you've used this strategy as much as you seem to purport, did you never encounter this? After I did, I recalled that I HAD run into the theocracy counter before, but forgotten about it. Did you forget too? Seems like religion in CIV isn't as simple as you claim it is. I did think about espionage to change the theocracy civic of my enemy, but didn't try it. do you include that tactic as an adjunct to this exploit? I don't recall you mentioning it, but haven't read the entire thread.

FWIW

 

[QuixotesGhost]

A few people in this thread keep mentioning that thier primary problem with the Civ4 religion model is that it fails to model internal pressures that arise from differing religions within an empire.

Do you think a model similar to Master of Orion's 3 proposed but later scrapped "Ethos" system would be suitable for the Civ franchise?

http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/religion01.html

Perhaps (like a lot of things with Moo3) a bit needlessly complex, but the general idea is that modular religions made up of a host of traits constantly battle behind the scenes for dominance and you can either subtly support or supress them.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

We may be having a semantic difference. I suppose it's fairly obvious that "Religion" defined as a political concept is a major contributor to war. I'm boiling it down far below that. You could bash me in the head with a million specialists and a million books, but if I can't redefine the argument so you can understand what I'm getting at, it won't make much difference.

I am *not* dismissing your argument here, and I'm not trying to be snarky. Actually, if you could suggest your *favourite* book relevant to this topic, I would very much like to read it. Thank you.

I guess the concept I'm trying to convey is that when Group X wants what Group Y has, they take it if possible. They justify this in various ways, one of the most popular of which is religion. That's what religion is, afterall: groupthink. We stay together as a group and we help define ourselves by our beliefs. That is, until we have a resource scarcity and then we choose to use a fragmentation of our beliefs to justify the next war.

My point is, spirituality doesn't start wars. I don't think that religion does, by extension. It's folly perhaps to try to jump into others heads, but I doubt that it's happened very often where one group says, "we're going to invade you because you don't believe what we believe". What they are doing is saying, "we want what you have, or we percieve you as a current or future threat of some form or another, and we will justify our actions by saying we are holy and you are not". It's semantics.

I'm sure there are cases where zealots have caused a war or conflict based on religion alone. I'm not saying it never happens. Just rarely.

Which is why I mentioned my example. People seem to think terrorists are attacking because they are Muslim and "we" are Christian. No. Wrong. I believe that the same applies to all eras. We aren't attacking you because we're Christian and your Celts. We're *really* attacking you because we want your stuff (women/land/resources/etc).

The Crusades were not about religion. They recruited via religion. Religion was a great tool. But the very core essence of those wars was not to simply "convert the heathens". So yes, I'm arguing that the most holy of "holy wars" were not religiously based.

I firmly believe that "religion" is a symptom of a greater truth, which is the cause of warfare.

But now we're way off topic. My reason for even broaching this subject was to counter a point made, which I thought was a blanket argument in favour of religion in Civ 4.

Ah Ok, it was simply a misunderstanding, i'm truly sorry, i lack the empathy to perceive in english some language hints. I understood that you were dismissing religion as a factor of war at all, it's called in italian "concausa" as one of the principal factor, but non the primus. For the books i could suggest:La civilisation de l’Occident médiéval, Pour un autre Moyen Age: Temps, travail et culture en Occident and L’homme médiéval by Le Goff, Il movimento crociato by Cardini (Cardini as a major historian of crusaders ha written a lot, that's an introduction to the matter). Sorry I don't know the english edition (if exist).
Interesting are the works of Hermann Schreiber on the Arabs in Spain or G. Duby. Of course there are others but i think those are the essential, the must have (like the Les Rois Thaumaturges by Block that every medieval historian has)...

 

[spoooq]

Its more realistic, its rediculous to think one nation will fall under one religion.

In general I don't agree with you, which is fine, we can all have our opinion, but I don't understand what you mean here? Are you saying there have never been nations that contain a single religion? I would hazard a guess that single-religion nations have been the standard!

 

[etipton3]

D i l

 

[Misterboy]

Ah Ok, it was simply a misunderstanding, i'm truly sorry, i lack the empathy to perceive in english some language hints. I understood that you were dismissing religion as a factor of war at all, it's called in italian "concausa" as one of the principal factor, but non the primus. For the books i could suggest:La civilisation de l’Occident médiéval, Pour un autre Moyen Age: Temps, travail et culture en Occident and L’homme médiéval by Le Goff, Il movimento crociato by Cardini (Cardini as a major historian of crusaders ha written a lot, that's an introduction to the matter). Sorry I don't know the english edition (if exist).
Interesting are the works of Hermann Schreiber on the Arabs in Spain or G. Duby. Of course there are others but i think those are the essential, the must have (like the Les Rois Thaumaturges by Block that every medieval historian has)...

No need to apologize I wasn't terribly clear. In any case, I think it's time for a group hug!

Thank you for the book! I'll see if there is an English translation. I always appreciate reading recommendations

 

[lemmy101]

I agree that it was a smart move removing religion from the base Civ V game. The Civ IV religion system just wouldn't sit well IMO since it was almost entirely diplomatic in nature.

In case anyone's interested, we're developing our own religion system, which we hope will fit well within the ethos and design of Civ V, and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[Monadenia]

I agree that it was a smart move removing religion from the base Civ V game. The Civ IV religion system just wouldn't sit well IMO since it was almost entirely diplomatic in nature.

In case anyone's interested, we're developing our own religion system, which we hope will fit well within the ethos and design of Civ V, and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

I like the idea. This is exactly the sort of thing that's too much for a core game, but would be an excellent mod (or expansion).

One thing that just came to mind is the possibility of empire-wide GP points somehow playing into this Piety resource you talk about, depending on the "religious principles" of your empire. It would give more of an incentive towards running different types of specialists, as even the types of GP points that can't "catch up" to produce a GP fast enough will still be doing good.

 

[lemmy101]

I like the idea. This is exactly the sort of thing that's too much for a core game, but would be an excellent mod (or expansion).

Thanks! Yeah to be honest this is one thing that always irks me about the 'dumbed down' argument. The problem with Civ IV in my opinion is that, with two expansions and all the different sub-systems of the base game, any mods were being put on top of an already quite substantial set of different game systems. While I don't think Civ V's 'strategy' or 'depth' suffer by the removal of religion and espionage etc, I think it gives modders a much more solid base to add features without feeling the end result was too bloated.

I felt personally that, 'mega-mods' such as RoM, while certainly a great achievement and much loved mods, are way too bloated with too many game systems, techs and units for my personal tastes. As mods, great, but many people were suggesting that Civ V should have had the same amount of content as RoM which I would disagree with. Less is more in my opinion, I know that isn't the universal view but it's why I'm glad to see things like Religion disappear from the core game and more focus being put into the remaining concepts. RoM for Civ 5, for example, I think wouldn't feel as bloated as it would be built upon a (don't take this word out of context) simpler base.

One thing that just came to mind is the possibility of empire-wide GP points somehow playing into this Piety resource you talk about, depending on the "religious principles" of your empire. It would give more of an incentive towards running different types of specialists, as even the types of GP points that can't "catch up" to produce a GP fast enough will still be doing good.

To go off topic for a while, this is an interesting idea we'll be sure to think about I don't think literally empire wide GP points as I'm not sure about changing the way Great People work, but certainly having Great People have a tying into the system, perhaps certain doctrine require them to unlock. But definitely we're looking to include specialists in this massively, perhaps reintroducing the Great Prophet in some funky way.

Anyway I should shut up, I don't want to derail the topic of this thread, so if anyone has any other suggestions feel free to reply in thread.