"Religion has room to grow" - What to hope for & expect?

[m_mus]

In the the recent developer update video (for those who have missed it: here), Edward Zhang also talks about the pantheons and belief-additions within the latest patch. While doing so he states that:
"Religion has still room to grow when it comes to engaging gameplay. This update adds some variety, but we have our sights set on the biggest changes in the future, so stay tuned." (5:56)
For those of you who regularly engage with religion in the exploration age, what do you hope for these "biggest changes" to be? What do we want for "engaging gameplay"?
I suppose that theological combat won't make a comeback, as this would work against Civ7's credo of reducing micromanagement. But I do miss the strategic relevance of forcing your opponent to spend faith on religios units to fight back, which he otherwise could save up for buying naturalists or rock bands in Civ6. So what kind of deepening gameplay mechanics could we plausibly expect which would be in line with Civ7s general vision?
As it stands, religion is the most lackluster of the available legacy paths in the exploration age, whereas it should be front and center or at least on par with the other 3. How could that be achieved in a fun and immersive way that offers strategic complexity without overwhelming the player? What are your thoughts?

 

[user746383]

Great question, I always thought that religious spread pressure was a nice mechanic so I wouldn't mind that returning. Being able to invest in buildings that emanate religious pressure would be fine in terms of micromanagement. Maybe they could even find a way to make it work and be balanced without missionaries, spreading in both directions along trade routes?

Apart from that, having endeavours, sanctions, and causus belli associated that take into account same or different religions would be cool.

As far as legacy paths, in ancient uniting all your own people in a strong, mature religion would make for a nice goal, though maybe tricky mechanically. In exploration, maybe something around holy wars. In moder not sure, uniting the world under a religion sort of duplicates the exploration age idea. Maybe enlightened ascension and rapture, or development of psionic abilities a la Stellaris.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Religious pressure, together with tourism and loyalty are just bad mechanics. Player actions don't have direct effect, instead, their results are piled together with opponent actions for some shady formula, which produces some really delayed effect. It doesn't do much about strategic decisions, after you decide which victory to pursue.

Religious combat is an exploration of an interesting idea. Since Civ5 when we got tactical combat, Firaxis struggled with finding something similar to do when you're not at war. Explorers in Civ7 try to serve similar role, but for some reason it doesn't work as well as with normal combat.

What I'd like to explore more with religion is more clear leftover for the modern age. Civ7 already has this concept that you could use legacy bonuses for converted settlements and last patch seem to enrich it, but I'd like to see more going in this direction.

 

[user746383]

Religious pressure, together with tourism and loyalty are just bad mechanics.

Well, that's just.. like.. your opinion man. I had fun with all three.

 

[Krikkit1]

Big ideas:

1. Players don’t Found religions, they adopt them. (and there are only 2 or 3 religions in a “Land”)
Players could switch which religion they followed
Players would be able to add ?and remove? beliefs the religion they adopted with certain accomplishments.
By the end of the age they would also be able to schism it to their own individual religion.
…this way you have religious “blocks” for most of the age.

2. Missionaries are still the only way to spread religion (with some exceptions) but they require Influence to do so.
The Influence cost depends on the “Religious Pressures” in a settlement. (Accumulated based on the religion the settlement has and the religion of Relics in settlements it is connected to/has trade with)

This way player actions are the only way to spread religion but it’s not just spamming missionaries….there are easy places to spread and hard places to spread (ie the good of religious pressure without the bad)

 

[McSpank01]

Religious pressure, together with tourism and loyalty are just bad mechanics.

I'm on the completely opposite side of this. I much prefer mechanics that feel more intuitive and can be interacting with each other without the direct actions of the player. Religion is one that seems to perfectly fit that. It makes very little practical sense that the only way to spread a religion is through a missionary unit. Sure it might be how you create a seed of a religion in a settlement, but the way it spreads should be more organic and based on numerous other factors. Missionaries is another crude tool to describe how religion works, and it's kind of ugly.

The absolute worst thing in recent civ games is religious combat, and that is because it is micro heavy and tedious, and it also just doesn't 'feel' grounded in any sort of immersive reality. It's gamey and silly and also not fun. Right now in Civ 7, religion is a game of wack a mole and it's boring. It doesn't even feel like a religion being spread.

I would take cues from games like Plague inc, and treat religions like a virus to be spread around, because.. well thats kind of how it works in real life!

 

[MutilationWave]

What if military units could take out missionaries in some way? Probably too dark for Civ (unfortunately), but it's not like it hasn't happened again and again and again in history.

There could be a diplomacy penalty involved for civs following that religion. It could be a flat number, then the % of each civ's penalty equals % of their population following that religion?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What if military units could take out missionaries in some way? Probably too dark for Civ (unfortunately), but it's not like it hasn't happened again and again and again in history.

They could in previous games, so I don't know why they couldn't in Civ 7. At least as far as Civ 6 is concerned you actively had to be at war and use a "Condemn Heretic" action so it could easily be implemented.

 

[Krikkit1]

What if military units could take out missionaries in some way? Probably too dark for Civ (unfortunately), but it's not like it hasn't happened again and again and again in history.

There could be a diplomacy penalty involved for civs following that religion. It could be a flat number, then the % of each civ's penalty equals % of their population following that religion?

It should be

For any Civilian units that can't be attacked (ie Missionaries Traders Explorers)
if they are
1. In your Territory
and
2. Belong to a Civ at war with you

Then whenever you move adjacent to them with one of your military units they are sent back to their capital (at Reinforcement Speeds)

Other than that I just think Policies, etc. that increased the influence cost would be enough.

 

[MutilationWave]

They could in previous games, so I don't know why they couldn't in Civ 7. At least as far as Civ 6 is concerned you actively had to be at war and use a "Condemn Heretic" action so it could easily be implemented.

I forgot about the condemn heretic thing. I don't think I ever used it. I'd like to see a diplo penalty rather than requiring war.

 

[moondog385]

My understanding currently is that there is no passive element to religion in 7. Traders should spread religion and there should also be “religious pressure,” functioning as the political pressure that forced leaders and governments to convert in real life.

Just whatever they do please don’t bring back the grievances from spreading your religion to other civs.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Religious pressure, together with tourism and loyalty are just bad mechanics. Player actions don't have direct effect, instead, their results are piled together with opponent actions for some shady formula, which produces some really delayed effect. It doesn't do much about strategic decisions, after you decide which victory to pursue.

Religious combat is an exploration of an interesting idea. Since Civ5 when we got tactical combat, Firaxis struggled with finding something similar to do when you're not at war. Explorers in Civ7 try to serve similar role, but for some reason it doesn't work as well as with normal combat.

What I'd like to explore more with religion is more clear leftover for the modern age. Civ7 already has this concept that you could use legacy bonuses for converted settlements and last patch seem to enrich it, but I'd like to see more going in this direction.

I actually don't mind having a few things just run on their own in the background. I wouldn't want them to return the way they were last time, but, IDK, I find the misionary game more of a chore than anything else.

 

[UWHabs]

I actually don't mind having a few things just run on their own in the background. I wouldn't want them to return the way they were last time, but, IDK, I find the misionary game more of a chore than anything else.

Yeah, I understand not liking the opaque "random algorithm in the background" feel to some of those pieces, but if my alternative is missionary spam and micro? Give me the passive voice all day.

Maybe something in the middle would be better, though. They have the influence action to convert a city, I wonder if they could simply clean up the interface there, and make all the religion spread run through that. It might be annoying, but probably no more annoying than moving missionaries around.

 

[m_mus]

As it stands now for me, losing or keeping one's own religion has too little impact on the associated legacy path. I just finished the exploration age with a completed cultural legacy path ... and didn't have to care in the slightest to defend my religion. In fact, foreign missionaries were coming left and right and converted my cities back and forth, but as I can still recruit missionaries of my own religion even in cities without my religion being the majority religion ... it's irrelevant.
This feel like a missed opportunity for consequential gameplay. I know that associating the spreadability of religion with religious units causes headache to some of you in terms of more micro, but right now religion and its legacy path feel underwhelmingly non-complex for a complex 4x-game. I want complexity and strategic relevance. Right now religion feels like a stripped down version of Civ6 religious-system. Yeah, it's way less micro-intensive, sure, but it's also devoid of intriguing gameplay aka 'fun', at least in my honest opinion.

 

[MutilationWave]

As it stands now for me, losing or keeping one's own religion has too little impact on the associated legacy path. I just finished the exploration age with a completed cultural legacy path ... and didn't have to care in the slightest to defend my religion. In fact, foreign missionaries were coming left and right and converted my cities back and forth, but as I can still recruit missionaries of my own religion even in cities without my religion being the majority religion ... it's irrelevant.
This feel like a missed opportunity for consequential gameplay. I know that associating the spreadability of religion with religious units causes headache to some of you in terms of more micro, but right now religion and its legacy path feel underwhelmingly non-complex for a complex 4x-game. I want complexity and strategic relevance. Right now religion feels like a stripped down version of Civ6 religious-system. Yeah, it's way less micro-intensive, sure, but it's also devoid of intriguing gameplay aka 'fun', at least in my honest opinion.

Yes, I find it much better to not bother converting my own cities. The policies are nice but just not worth fighting for.

 

[m_mus]

Yes, I find it much better to not bother converting my own cities. The policies are nice but just not worth fighting for.

But don't you think that not having to bother to keep one's own religion alive runs completely counter-intuitive to how you would expect religion to "function" in the historical timeframe the exploration age attempts to mirror?
Both from an immersion and gameplay-perspective I find the current execution rather lackluster.

Edit: I mean "cuius regio, eius religio" - I think it should factor into your progression along the cultural legacy path, whether you can keep your own religion alive in your very own 'culture'.

 

[Krikkit1]

But don't you think that not having to bother to keep one's own religion alive runs completely counter-intuitive to how you would expect religion to "function" in the historical timeframe the exploration age attempts to mirror?
Both from an immersion and gameplay-perspective I find the current execution rather lackluster.

Edit: I mean "cuius regio, eius religio" - I think it should factor into your progression along the cultural legacy path, whether you can keep your own religion alive in your very own 'culture'.

I think some/many of the Relics should require time that you keep the target your religion. ie Earning the Relic happens when the target stays your religion for X turns.

 

[MutilationWave]

But don't you think that not having to bother to keep one's own religion alive runs completely counter-intuitive to how you would expect religion to "function" in the historical timeframe the exploration age attempts to mirror?
Both from an immersion and gameplay-perspective I find the current execution rather lackluster.

Edit: I mean "cuius regio, eius religio" - I think it should factor into your progression along the cultural legacy path, whether you can keep your own religion alive in your very own 'culture'.

Oh I agree completely, but I'm one of those annoying people for whom realism just doesn't matter that much. Civ is a fantasy game to me, I know I'm playing a game, and I guess I just don't care.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But don't you think that not having to bother to keep one's own religion alive runs completely counter-intuitive to how you would expect religion to "function" in the historical timeframe the exploration age attempts to mirror?
Both from an immersion and gameplay-perspective I find the current execution rather lackluster.

Edit: I mean "cuius regio, eius religio" - I think it should factor into your progression along the cultural legacy path, whether you can keep your own religion alive in your very own 'culture'.

This where I think a separate "Medieval Age" between Antiquity and Exploration could have worked. It would also allow for religion to play a bigger part across two ages. Medieval Age would all be about acquiring relics and Exploration would actually send the missionaries out to convert other civilizations.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This where I think a separate "Medieval Age" between Antiquity and Exploration could have worked. It would also allow for religion to play a bigger part across two ages. Medieval Age would all be about acquiring relics and Exploration would actually send the missionaries out to convert other civilizations.

The problem is, that's a false distinction.

In reality, the major religions started spreading virtually as soon as or before the current Exploration Age nominally starts in 400 CE: by that date Buddhism was already spreading from India into China, and had already spread into central Asia. Christian 'missionaries' like Padraig (Saint Patrick) were spreading the Christian religion into northern, Pagan Europe also early in the 5th century, and Islam began spreading at the point of a spear almost as soon as it was written down.

Separating the period 400 - 1600 CE into two would still leave the initial, sometimes very rapid, spread of religion in the first Age, with the second Age, to be different at all, being full of the conflicts between and among sects of the same religions, and the increasing identification of political leadership ('anointed kings') with religion, which only increased the viciousness of their conflicts by fomenting Religious Wars.

Given that the Crisis period between Exploration and Modern Ages already seems to include the time of the Thirty Year's War in Europe, arguably the worst of the religious wars, the current Age groupings seem to already have it covered.