Religions w/ different effects

[LyricalAssassin]

in civ 4, all the religions were pretty much the same except for their names. i think that, if religion is present in civ 5, they should have different effects. all of them would create a happiness bonus, but maybe confucionism could have an increase of science, or buddhism with a happiness bonus when not at war, or maybe islam could give your units extra experience. hinduism would create more culture than the other religions, and judaism would give your units defensive promotions, while christianity could have an increase to production. each building would give bonuses to the religions abilities, like a confucion academy could have a 25% bonus to religion, and islamic mosques could give plus 3 experience, or be able to produce military units faster. hindu temples could have a 25% bonus to culture, and christian temples could have a 25% bonus to production, and buddhist temples could have an added happiness bonus when not at war. they could all have their own specific unit, like christianity could have the Knight Templar, which has a plus 25% bonus attack when attacking a city with a seperate religion present, islam could have Mamluk Camel Riders, which could have plus 1 movement in desert, or have a plus 25% defence bonus against the christian Knight Templar unit, buddhism could have Warrior Monks, with a 50% bonus to city defence and a -25% penalty to city attacks. hinduism could have Hindu Elephant Riders, which have a 50% bonus to melee units along with their normal 50% bonus againts mounted units. i don't know, but it sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Sciguy001]

That would be potentially racist if one religion happened to be more powerful than another religion which would be bad for marketing: the reason why all religions had the same effect in Civ IV.

 

[Robo-Star]

That would be potentially racist if one religion happened to be more powerful than another religion which would be bad for marketing: the reason why all religions had the same effect in Civ IV.

Different Civilizations happen to be more powerful than other Civilizations, although perhaps that's a necessary racism/unmarketable-feature.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Yeah but people get very testy when the subject turns to religion (or politics for that matter) I mean look at what happens when anyone discusses Israel on this site. Civilizations some of which are long extinct aren't the same as someones religion.

 

[revengeofmakno]

It is a logical idea but would create the kind of controversy and arguments that the developers really don't need.
Fortunately, there is a way to bring it in through civics that flavour how a religion is being expressed and handled in a specific civilization. Each major religion has a range of interpretations from fundamentalist/rigid to open-minded/flexible. These can work in a range of several dimensions via civics, e.g, Pacifism-warlike, tolerant vs intolerant, politically/diplomatically involved or not, aggressively converting/crusading vs self contained, economically directing vs indifference to economics, etc are dimensions that can be worked via civics without painting any particular faith as more typical of it. Each of these dimensions would have benefits or restrictions. This is very realistic and has numerous historic examples.
CIV4 started to get into that and it could be taken a lot further. There are indications that CIV5 will do that but dropping religious labels itself is not something that I think is needed.

 

[P-Dubya]

It is a logical idea but would create the kind of controversy and arguments that the developers really don't need.
Fortunately, there is a way to bring it in through civics that flavour how a religion is being expressed and handled in a specific civilization. Each major religion has a range of interpretations from fundamentalist/rigid to open-minded/flexible. These can work in a range of several dimensions via civics, e.g, Pacifism-warlike, tolerant vs intolerant, politically/diplomatically involved or not, aggressively converting/crusading vs self contained, economically directing vs indifference to economics, etc are dimensions that can be worked via civics without painting any particular faith as more typical of it. Each of these dimensions would have benefits or restrictions. This is very realistic and has numerous historic examples.
CIV4 started to get into that and it could be taken a lot further. There are indications that CIV5 will do that but dropping religious labels itself is not something that I think is needed.

I have to agree for the most part. You can take a religion at large and note its historical effects on any given civilization. But a any given civilization can have a unique effect on a religion, whether we're talking locally or abroad. I think its best to keep all religions equal in how they effect a civ, however, like makno said, HOW a civ utilizes that religion should shape how the religion effects it. There have been times when nations may have recognized a religion yet was tolerant toward other religions (rare, I know, but has happened). Or, you could be a stone cold converter and shove it down everyone's throats. And, perhaps, religions should be effected by how its been used by a civ. Say, if America is Christian but fair to all civs, then that should add positive "points" to the religion as a whole, making nations less hostile toward Christian civs. But, if some A-hole on the other side of the planet is conquering and slaughtering in Christ's name, then that should add negative points to the religion as a whole.

However, that last bit might make things a bit complex or even aggrivating. My friends and I always aim for Christianity and spread it to e/o ASAP. But, one of my friends always plays the madman. Under such a religious system, he'd make Christianity appear more like Satanism in ten turns flat

 

[TheDS]

That's why when I made a similar suggestion a couple years ago, I left it up to the player to determine what the special powers of his religion would be.

Essentially, in my suggestion, I said that you would "shun" something in order to gain an advantage elsewhere. Frex, Hindus aren't into eating cows, and so a player wanting "historical accuracy" might choose to "shun" the Cow resource for his Hindu followers. But why limit that to Hindus? Why can't artificial Taoists and Confucianists also shun Cows for the same benefit? Or any other resource for that matter?

And why limit it to religions? Maybe there's a culture out there who shuns usage of whales. Maybe it's the Japanese. The Japanese Muslim player can shun Whales based on the fact he's playing as Japan and shun Pigs based on his religion. He'd be unable to use or trade for those resources, and get some kind of bonus for shunning them, like extra happiness, or maybe a casus belli on other civs/religions that didn't shun them.

But to combine the idea with that of the OP, who's to say this has to be the shunning of a resource? There could be a list of 7 effects, and when someone founds one of the 7 religions, he chooses which effect that religion will have. Each effect is available only once. Now the player is again in control of what's happening and can only be offended at himself.

By the way, hate-crimes based on religion are NOT racism. You guys throw the word around like you don't know what it means. I don't recall what the proper negativ-ism is, but that's not it.

 

[PeterWimsey]

One problem of having different effects for different religions is that religious fervor can lead to all kinds of different results. Looking at Christianity, at different times, there could be a military bonus (Crusades, Reconquista), a cultural bonus (Cathedrals, Bach), or an economic bonus (Europe after the Reformation; colonization). The same could be said of Islam.

If you wanted to address this (and I'm not sure that you should), I think the best way would be to have some sort of "Religious Golden Age" in which bonuses make it easier for a civ to increase production, expand militarily, increase culture, make wonders, research techs, etc. - at the civ's option. Basically, a religious golden age would somehow marshal the resources of the civ, but the civ itself would determine how this would be channelled.

 

[Earthling]

By the way, hate-crimes based on religion are NOT racism. You guys throw the word around like you don't know what it means. I don't recall what the proper negativ-ism is, but that's not it.

No, that's not really true, for some religions it may be more accurate than others, but for instance a hate crime against Jews is going to be seen as racism as well as against the religion.

 

[TheChanger]

im interested to see how they have incorporated 'religion' into civ 5, and then to see how difficult it will be to mod them in with actual game play affecting differences. religions are one of the things i will miss in civ 5

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Please stay on topic!

That this thread has partially gone off topic even on the first page clearly shows, why the civ4 religions all had the same effect: Everything else is to controversial.

 

[lazyguy]

I think such a system would remove freedom from the players: I tend to play as a Jewish creative Civ and go for a culture or space race win (once I got a diplomatic win by accident; I used the UN to try ang gauge the world's opinion of me), so making Judaism a defensive religion would tear me between my traditions.

 

[RQRose]

I submit to you: Command and Conquer Generals.

The Terrorists were most CERTAINLY Muslim and you were able to play the game as a Terrorist.

WHY is Civ unable to incorporate a 'terrorist' element into the game?

If they continue leaving VERY Important parts of the game out eventually they will become Culturally irrelevant.

We gamers can forgive Civ 4, but if Civ 5 is more of the same bland baby crap, we'll turn out gaming dollars elsewhere.

I've purchased every game Sid Meiers has made...but Civ 4...zzzzzzz.

 

[Khan Quest]

Here is my take: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=256047

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I submit to you: Command and Conquer Generals.

The Terrorists were most CERTAINLY Muslim and you were able to play the game as a Terrorist.

WHY is Civ unable to incorporate a 'terrorist' element into the game?

If they continue leaving VERY Important parts of the game out eventually they will become Culturally irrelevant.

We gamers can forgive Civ 4, but if Civ 5 is more of the same bland baby crap, we'll turn out gaming dollars elsewhere.

I've purchased every game Sid Meiers has made...but Civ 4...zzzzzzz.

Most Muslims are not terrorists. Period. End of story.

 

[Darth Caesar]

They would have to be careful about how they implemented this.

 

[RQRose]

They would have to be careful about how they implemented this.

Yes I agree, they would need to be careful and for that reason it's probably good that they most likely did not include it, STILL.

To discount that religion has an effect on civilizations is like saying that water does not have an effect on a sail boat 'because it's powered by the wind not the water' as the argument goes.

Perhaps it's better if they simply make Civ 5 really easy to Mod and we the users will add in features such as all the religions and their effects.

 

[rogue131]

What about Liberal and Consertative sliders?

Like are you following strict Roman Catholic dogma or Protestant? Are you an Islamic devout or a little liberal. Orthodox or modern Jew? Hmmmm

 

[Sciguy001]

This thread doesn't really matter anymore as CiV comes out in V days and religion will not be included

 

[rogue131]

This thread doesn't really matter anymore as CiV comes out in V days and religion will not be included

And the door is slammed in our proverbial faces. J/k