Religion is coming to a patch? thats what ive heard

jojorah

Prince
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
520
As said by horizeb apparently he/she thinks religion is coming to the game in a patch or dlc, i however do not heres what he/she said

Religion is coming to Civ5 in the next patch!
Now, what about all the other much-requested features like espionage? Will they be patched in for free?

If so I will gladly buy all the DLC.
The thread was then closed by threads becuase of lack of proof and content. Does any one no if this is true? If so do you suspect it will be a better system in civ 4. Im personaly happy if they DONT give religion "powers" to be honest i think religion is impossible to grasp the full meaning. If buhhidism (say) has a culture bonus that means the khans where very cutured when they where somewhat warlike (not refering to the khan family as a whole). what if they give (say) christianity a military bonus, what about france and italy. The whole idea is flawed ImO. I would also dislike trees for religion, a way a religious leader acts has nothing to do neccessarly becuase he currupted or interpreted the religion wrong.

I had an idea when i made my first post here for faith counters to measure the faith of your people. Say the more faith your people have the more happy and productive your empire comes, you can use this production to do what you want, including military.

What do you think would happen if this claim is true and religion is coming?
 
I highly, highly doubt that religion will be patched in. If it is added I think it'll come in an expansion. But I'd be happy to be wrong as I think the game has a big religion sized hole atm.

I don't think we need to worry about offense too much, the entire game over-simplifies and stereotypes whole nations and cultures, so it shouldn't really offend to have the world's religions receive the same treatment.
 
yah but people have been saying that some religions should have culture bonuses and some war bonuses, frankly that can be abused to make christianity judism buddhism hinduism ect look bad
 
I'm new to Civ so I have no idea how religion worked in Civ IV but I think it would be kinda fun to have it added in the game.

I don't understand what you mean by "Im personaly happy if they DONT give religion "powers" to be honest i think religion is impossible to grasp the full meaning" and "I would also dislike trees for religion, a way a religious leader acts has nothing to do neccessarly becuase he currupted or interpreted the religion wrong."

Like snarz said, its all simplified and stereotypes.

Edit:
frankly that can be abused to make christianity judism buddhism hinduism ect look bad
:mischief:

A lot of stuff is incorrect and made look bad(historically) in this game.
 
I guess so, but some civilizations have war bonuses and some culture bonuses. That could be made to make them look bad, but nobody cares..... I'm not sure I see the difference, sorry. Is there one?
 
I don't think we need to worry about offense too much, the entire game over-simplifies and stereotypes whole nations and cultures, so it shouldn't really offend to have the world's religions receive the same treatment.

I'd tend to disagree with that.
I've got no idea why, maybe it's just me, but at least I take insults against my religion somewhat more seriously than insults against my culture. Not sure why; not sure if anyone else shares this inconsistancy, but I do.

Religions, if they're added to the game at all, shouldn't get individual bonuses over others. It could be added like I hear it worked in Civ IV, with differences/similarities effecting diplomacy, but it shouldn't effect it so much that it takes over the already disagreed upon system.
 
Time until this thread turns into an Atheist V Theist Flame War estimated at approximately 5 more posts

:popcorn:

Oh no.
Alright, diffusing this now:
I personally take slightly more offense to insults against my religion than culture. I don't claim it's logical or consistant, I just do. This is not a debate over religion, I was just pointing out my personal views because I don't believe I'm the only one on Earth that sees things like this.

A request from this point on: Can we please keep the discussion to discussing the game mechanic, and not the real thing?
 
I'd tend to disagree with that.
I've got no idea why, maybe it's just me, but at least I take insults against my religion somewhat more seriously than insults against my culture. Not sure why; not sure if anyone else shares this inconsistancy, but I do.

Religions, if they're added to the game at all, shouldn't get individual bonuses over others. It could be added like I hear it worked in Civ IV, with differences/similarities effecting diplomacy, but it shouldn't effect it so much that it takes over the already disagreed upon system.

Not sure I see where any insult would exist in adding religion into a game about the history of human civilization. Some religious people could be offended by the minimalist approach to adding religion into the game the way it is now, it doesn't play much of a role in civ 5 atm.

On to how it should be added........hmmmm I'm not sure, but I think it'd be a big addition, one which fundamentally changed the gameplay. I hope it happens because I've always been fascinated by religions and religious history and I was pretty disappointed about it not really being added to civ 5.

I'd prefer individual bonuses and a clear difference between the religions that are added, but that's just me.
 
Not sure I see where any insult would exist in adding religion into a game about the history of human civilization. Some religious people could be offended by the minimalist approach to adding religion into the game the way it is now, it doesn't play much of a role in civ 5 atm.

On to how it should be added........hmmmm I'm not sure, but I think it'd be a big addition, one which fundamentally changed the gameplay. I hope it happens because I've always been fascinated by religions and religious history and I was pretty disappointed about it not really being added to civ 5.

I'd prefer individual bonuses and a clear difference between the religions that are added, but that's just me.

The offense would come if some religions were clearly better than others, or if they possessed abilities that made them only good for less moral (suspend disbelief for a moment here) strategies.

A suggestion: Fantasy religions (easy as not using a name)? You can't insult followers of a religion that blatantly doesn't exist.
 
Peace dude, I wasn't criticizing you or anything I have just seen where this board (me included when I'm bored) takes religious discussions from time to time.

Religions have such a colourful and rich history, I thought it was a shame in civ 4 to just reduce them to carbon copies of each other. I'd like more than just religious UA's or something like that. Give us religious unique units like knights templar or warrior monks and unique buildings too. The possibilities are endless...
 
Peace dude, I wasn't criticizing you or anything I have just seen where this board (me included when I'm bored) takes religious discussions from time to time.

Oh sorry. I wasn't meaning to imply that I was offended.

For the record, civfanatics is offically the most flame proof forum I've ever seen. :)
 
The offense would come if some religions were clearly better than others, or if they possessed abilities that made them only good for less moral (suspend disbelief for a moment here) strategies.

A suggestion: Fantasy religions (easy as not using a name)? You can't insult followers of a religion that blatantly doesn't exist.

I understand the reason you suggest fantasy religions and I honestly share with you a desire to not cause offence or to hurt peoples feelings. But Civ is a game about the history of humanity, sure it offers a chance to replay history in your own given way, but I'm not willing to support compromising the integrity of the display of history for some hurt feelings. It would be like having Zarglebroth the leader of the ShumanFu Civilization added into the vanilla version of the game.

Quote "For the record, civfanatics is offically the most flame proof forum I've ever seen." LOL totally.
 
I understand the reason you suggest fantasy religions and I honestly share with you a desire to not cause offence or to hurt peoples feelings. But Civ is a game about the history of humanity, sure it offers a chance to replay history in your own given way, but I'm not willing to support compromising the integrity of the display of history for some hurt feelings. It would be like having Zarglebroth the leader of the ShumanFu Civilization added into the vanilla version of the game.

I think fantasy religions would be safest, when it comes to avoiding things like this, but I do see your point and I do understand that I might be slightly overreacting. As demonstrated by every flame war about this, people have somewhat extreme feelings on the subject.

Although this opens a good debate, how could religion be intigrated (without using fantasy religions) in a way that it would be a dynamic system without causing undue offense?
Prehaps giving a flat culture bonus, diplo system bonuses/penalties for all of them.
Different religions get things like bonus great person points? Adjusted for the differing powers of great people. In my opinion: Great Scientist > Great Enginner > Great Merchant > Great Artist, but that to is an entire new topic.
 
yes, that is the question. I guess the danger would lie in portraying any of the Abrahamic faiths to be particularly warmongerish or bloodthirsty. Buddhism wouldn't run the risk of recieving such bonuses, Confucianism will likely have something to do with scholarship etc... I don't know, some religions might like the idea of being associated with war.

One way would be to take war bonuses out of the equation all together, but I wouldn't really like that as I'm hoping for religious uu's which I think would be fun.

And to be honest I love the idea of going on a mad religious crusade or cleansing my lands of unbelievers in an inquisition or a witch hunt in the game just because I think it'd be fun, it is afterall just a game. But if I'm doing so under the guise of an actual world religion then I guess this might cause offence.
 
And to be honest I love the idea of going on a mad religious crusade or cleansing my lands of unbelievers in an inquisition or a witch hunt in the game just because I think it'd be fun, it is afterall just a game. But if I'm doing so under the guise of an actual world religion then I guess this might cause offence.

Yeah that's basically what I was talking about.

Requirements for using real religions unoffensively:
*Bonuses would be balanced.
*Bonuses would avoid any form of prejudice or offensive stereotype.

What else?
 
I think we are setting ourselves an impossible task. By it's very nature the implementation is going to be stereotypical, right? There's no way to go into depth about the subtleties and nuances of each religion. It'll have to be a simplification, just one that tries to not be offensive but considering the vast amount of variation there is concerning the way that people personally implement each religion in their lives it seems you'll never make everyone happy. This was surely the motivation behind the way in which religions were put into civ 4 where it made no difference if you were a Hindu, a Muslim or a Taoist.
 
No offensive stereotypes. I understand it isn't possible to completely accuratly recreate every religion.
 
Question - would you personally (I'm assuming you're Christian, forgive me if I'm wrong about that) be offended if, say, an Inquisitor was some sort of unique religious non-military unit only available to the civ that founded the Christian religion? This wouldn't be the be all and end all of Christianity in Civ 5, just a small part of it along with other aspects of historical Christianity that are viewed today as more savory. Can any genuine part of Christianity be portrayed, even if it has some negative connotations or does this type of thing have to be avoided all together in your view?

This is just an example of the kind of thing that I'd like to see implemented. There are positives and negatives to all religions, nations, civilizations, people and well to just about everything right? Is this fair game?
 
The simplification in Civ IV was just completely bonkers though.

ZOMG, your people are not Buddhists like mine, -7 reputation and eventual WWWAAAAARRRRRR to forcefully convert your populace to Buddhism .......

Erm, Buddhism was really an aggressive fascist militaristic religion IRL was it now? Well, thats what Civ IV taught me.

Also even funnier - if you dont have a state religion and remain 'secular / atheist', every other religion loves you just the same, but they hate each other if they have different religions?

Complete bonkers.

Ok, so maybe if we did have religions in Civ V, and they became a little more realistic ....

Bonuses apply if you adopt the religion as your state religion:

No state religion - -2 reputation with any religious state.

Buddhism - +2 :c5happy: per city with Buddhism, permanent peace with all other Buddhist states. If a city with Buddhism is captured, it permanently loses Buddhism.

Hinduism - +2 :c5culture: per city with Hindusim. Culture bonus doubles in cities that reach 2000 years of age after gaining Hinduism.

Judaism - 50% more :c5production: of settlers in each city with Judaism, -4 reputation with any civ that adopts Christianity or Islam. Any of your cities that are captured may be diplomatically retaken after completion of the UN based on a city state vote.

Christianity - +4 :c5gold:, -2 :c5science: per own city containing christianity, +2 :c5gold: per enemy city containing Christianity. Astronomy, Scientific Method and Biology take twice as long to research under christianity, and any GS born between Calender and Scimeth has a 10% chance of being executed each turn. A single population point per city may suddenly disappear up to the renaissance age due to citizens being accused of witchcraft.

Islam - Upon adopting Islam you gain a 25% :c5science: bonus up to scientific method. You gain a 10% combat bonus against cities belonging to other religious states, and 25% defense against any Civ with Christianity as a state religion. If you capture any city belonging to a Jewish state after completion of the UN by any Civ, all other leaders instantly declare war on you.

Thats somewhat kind of realistic at least. Yea sorry, I picked on and stereotyped the monotheistic religions too much.
 
Top Bottom