Religions

[volbound1700]

Is Civ 4 going to make Religions Civ-Specific like Greece (Pagan) America (Christian) Arabia (Muslim) China (Buddhist) India (Hindu) Israel (Jewish) etc? 7 Relgions should be Pagan(Rome and Greece and ancient countries), Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shaminism (Native America, African)

That is what religions should be, Shintoism would also be a good option. They should have religions civ specific too and do and Athiest factor too. Religions need to be historic too, lol dont want Christianity coming into play 2000 years before Christ comes would not make much sense.

 

[Thunderfall]

No, religions are not civ-specific in Civ4. They are linked to particular techs and the first to discover the associated tech found the religion. So if you are the first to discover Polytheism, you found the Hinduism religion.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Which does kind of suck, as you really should be able to CHOOSE what kind of Polytheism you want to found-be it Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Celtic, South American or Hindu. In fact, you could easily have a system wherby you have around 3-4 real world religions for each tech you can discover, be it monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrism and Mithraism), Animism (Dreamtime, Native American, Shinto, Paganism, North African Animism-the precursor of Vodoun) or Eastern Mysticism (Buddhism, Taosim, Confuscianism and Zen). The key, though, is to lock other nations-from the same culture group-out of founding the religion if they don't get the tech first. So for instance, if Rome gets the monotheism tech first-and selects Christianity- then Greece, Carthage and Spain, as Mediterranean civs, cannot found any other monotheistic faiths, only adopt a pre-existing one. I just think this would have worked a lot better than the system they have put forward so far.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[V. Soma]

I think we do not know every nuance about religion yet...
IMO, it would be disturbing to see matching civs and religions haphazardly.
How is a hinduist Germany or a chrisitian China?
I dislike that...
If this will be allowed,then what the heck is religion for, as such?

Civilization is a game that refers to the history of mankind, I guess...
As for me, I like and need the connection to real history to some level...
(if I understand it, Aussie Lurker thinks so, too...)

Oh, well, let's wait and see...

 

[Harleqin]

I do not think religions should be civ-specific. In fact, that would be a horrible idea.

The game is not a simulation about history. If so, why are the US in, why do Sumeria live on in the industrial ages, why does Babylon win a diplomatic victory or the Egyptians a conquest victory? Because it is not a simulation. It is a "what-if" game that focuses on empire building and just uses real civs as a foundation to build on.

If factions had been used like in Alpha Centauri or just random names like in Master of Orion, then people couldn't have cared less, but the appeal to the gamer is higher if they can imagine that they are beating down the Russians and removing them from the map.

Because of this it is not right to say that civ X should definately be religion Y. If you want that, then you should be playing Europa Universalis II.

Take my nation. We started out believe in what is now known as Norse Mythology, then converted to Catholism and later to Protestantism. Interestingly enough the old beliefs are actually resurfacing now and gathering converts.

But that is three religions in one nation. Simply put, it doesn't matter. I know there are some religious "fanatics" who would fume at the thought of America being Islamic, but come on... it is just a game. An escape from the real world. Don't take it too seriously.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, V. Soma, I am more in line with Harleqin. I don't see Civ as a historical simulation, so have no problem with a Protestant China, or a Bhuddist Persia. My big beef is that I feel like players are going to be railroaded-to a degree, because of a lack of choice. Hence, why should India become Hindu JUST because it was the first to discover Polytheism? They should be able to choose the Hellenic (Greco-Roman) Pantheon, Osirian Pantheon etc etc. If you can CREATE that choice, through the editor, then I will have far fewer problems with this element of the game. Otherwise, it will leave religion as nothing more than 'eye-candy'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mastertyguy]

CIV should have only one link with real world : names. It has no real impact in the game play. What is the real gameplay difference between having for Rome leader Ceasar or Marius? You can change the names if you want. Battle for religion founder shouldn't even be between mediterranean civ, but between neighbour civ. If you have Carthage on one continent and Greece on another, Carthage can't get the religion as Greece, at least at the beginning. It is more likely they will get Iroquois religion if they are neighbours (I'm not sure how to spell it, sorry, if I'm wrong, say it). If you are on archipelago maps, you should be able to get your on religion, and in pangea, you have better chances to get another religion. Civ should ot have one only religion, but diversity, and your main religion is the one you have the most. You can have muslims and christians in the same civ. It should work a little bit like a mix between culture flips and national assimilation.

 

[V. Soma]

CIV should have only one link with real world : names.

Exactly. Because "names" bring information, common knowledge
from the real world and therefore illusion into Civ...
It is not simulation I need when playing but I need "feeling".
And hey, I just do not get it with a "hinduist Germany",
say, with a leader named Montezuma...
Hm, you say, the Germany have leader named Bismarck?
There you go... names, illusion... therefore
- religions will be generic, after all -
just let that religion be somewhat referring to reality in NAMING...

Battle for religion founder shouldn't even be between mediterranean civ, but between neighbour civ. If you have Carthage on one continent and Greece on another, Carthage can't get the religion as Greece, at least at the beginning. It is more likely they will get Iroquois religion if they are neighbours (I'm not sure how to spell it, sorry, if I'm wrong, say it). If you are on archipelago maps, you should be able to get your on religion, and in pangea, you have better chances to get another religion. Civ should ot have one only religion, but diversity, and your main religion is the one you have the most. You can have muslims and christians in the same civ. It should work a little bit like a mix between culture flips and national assimilation.

I agree with it, when considering gameplay and theoretic characteristic
of this way of working of religion as a game element...

Only those pairings (civ+religion), how will they "sound"...
/taken this basic game when we have civs put randomly on a random map/

 

[NP300]

It is odd to see a "Hindu" China, since the word "Hindu" itself is connected to the word "India". Strictly speaking Hinduism isn't even a single religion but rather, an umbrella term.

In any case, it would make more sense to have the general tech, such as polytheism but have different names for every civ. If India discovers polytheism it becomes "Hindu". But if Rome discovers polytheism it gets the Greco-Roman religion. The naming could perhaps be tied to the culture groups.

I am also not sure how they would distinguish between Islam and Christianity since the enabling "tech" for both would be Monotheism.

Anyway, to conclude, it offends my senses to see essentially national religions, such as Hinduism, being given to any civ. On the other hand, it doesn't bother me so much when universal (as oppsoed to national/tribal) religions such as Christianity or Islam are adopted by many civs.

Shinto, Hinduism, Judaism and the Roman religion may be examples of national religions where it would look funny if ahistorical civs adopted them. On the other hand it doesn't bother me to see ahistorical civs adopt Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. If history had turned out differently there might have been an Islamic Europe, a Christian Arabia, an Islamic India or a Christian Japan and so forth.

Hopefully, if the game is a modable as they say, we will be able to fix religion to fit our tastes. We might even mod modern "religions" such as Communism, Nazism, secular humanism, or liberal-democracy into the game. Even though these ideologies are not religions in the strict sense they could be said to behave as religions in the modern world. After all Buddhism or Taoism are not a theistic religions but more philosophies or belief systems, yet they are considred "religions".

 

[Communisto]

what i'd really like to see is xenophobia in the game, like, your people begin to hate other civs with different religions and call you to go to war with that particular civ, there could be crusades and such, I would think that would be fun as long as it wasnt over inforced and you werent going to war every turn. Maybe it could only take place in ancient and middle ages and in industrial and modern you get deportations... i dunno, just a thought.

 

[Commander Bello]

As far as I see it, the Civ series now has reached a critical point.

Up to and including C3C, the only "link" to the real world was by the nations' names. That was good, since this was the "hook" to give the impression of realism.
Beyond that, everything was more or less very abstract. Ok, you had military units like swordsmen or tanks (and there are still debates ongoing, why the one has these stats and the other has those), but the abstraction was still strong enough to allow us to put our own imagination in.

Now, at least in Civ3 we have the chance to easily change certain parameters and values. If I would like to have expansionistic and agricultural Germans, I change the values and after that, I'm fine with playing.
But what would have happened, if my only chance would have been to change a nation's name? Then I would have to play with the whatever (forgot, which nation has those traits in C3C...) And my settlements would have strange names like "Zdasfu", "Ifzcjee" or whatever. They wouldn't have German names and by that, the feeling of realism would have gone....

Now, about religions.
Most of us understand themselves as members and parts of a certain nation. When you are asked, who and what you are, what you are determined by, you will quickly find that after you have told us about your name, gender and age, you will point out your nationality. You would tell us: "I am Pierre. I am 23 years old. I'm a male. I am FRENCH" (or whatever is true for you).

And with this nation, you would have told us a lot about the cultural and religious influences you have experienced in the past. This stands true for all of us (o.k., let's say for 98%).
Europe HAS been determined by Christianity. The arabian world HAS been determined by the Islam. Japan HAS been determined by Shintoism (? - I hope I'm correct here, please don't take this as an confrontation in case I would be wrong) - and so on.
Religions automatically determine the way we are thinking and acting, due to the virtues and instructions which are linked to them - even if we understand ourselves not much as being a "believer". By our sheer presence and living in such a community, we soak up quite a lot of those convictions, even - and especially - if we are not aware of it.

Now, what does this mean?
It means that if you have one "hook" (your nation's name) you get the feeling of "realism", but you still know that it is an abstract concept.
As soon, as more "hooks" are given, the feeling of realism becomes deeper and deeper, by that turning the game from an "what-if" imagination towards a simulation. And simulations don't work, if their inherent realism is broken.
So, having a simulative game in which you are British, but are "doomed" to play with Shintoism as your main religion, it will give you a feeling of unease. If you would have to use Babylonic names for your cities, you just would throw the game off from your hard disk.

Conclusion:
I think it is dangerous to have the real-world religions in, as they establish another step into "simulation" - because of all the things you subconsciously put into the religion's designator.
I really think that more generic polytheistic and monotheistic designators would be the better idea in terms of allowing you to put your own imagination into the game your are currently playing.
I guess it would be more "acceptable" for one's imagination to play with the British "Believers in the silver moon" than to play with the British "Bhuddism". Again, as long as you are "forced" by the game settings to have the one or the other.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Commander Bello, I couldn't have said it better myself ! I have NO objection, personally, to religion being in the game-as anyone reading my Sig can tell!! However, I just feel that it could have been done in a way so as NOT to create that extra level of realism Bello talks about. Giving players the OPTION-either to PICK the name of the religion they want to found from a list (like Christianity, Islam or Judaism for Monotheism tech-or Bhuddist, Taoist, Confucianist for Eastern Mysticism) or, better yet, to simply NAME a generic religion for yourself, would have been the best route to take.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CurtSibling]

This gripe-fest about religion, etc is tiresome.

If you chaps are unhappy with the game, then simply do not buy it when it comes out.
Your opinions, while worthy, are unlikely to count for all the fans out there.
Also, pouring bitter remarks over every new release of info is hardly any
help or any use.

I don't see any of the moan-meisters doing a new CIV game,
or developing new turn-based games software for the community -
So please stop the wails.

Until you are in the position make an 'informed' judgement (EG: when
the game is out) you are merely armchair critics...Just because you
want something, does not mean the rest of us are wanting it too!
Just who on Earth do you guys think you are, anyway?

The whole religion aspect is a minor cherry on top, in terms of the overall product.
The game mechanics and AI, along with intuitive interaction are by far the
most important things, I can imagine your presonal, ego-stroking demands
are not high on the developers 'to-do' lists, to be brutally frank.

So can we give it a break and stop savaging every aspect of an 'as-yet-not-released' game...

You can always go back to RTW if you wish...

I, for one are just happy that they are at least making a new CIV game.
I am patient and sensible enough to realise that the proto-version we are
seeing in the screenies, etc will be no doubt vastly different in due time.

Now, Please! Quit the bickering!

*goes for a lie down*

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Im not overly worried about religion, as long as you will be able to mod it around in the editor, I only play scenarios anyway.

What *does* worry me is the prospect of religion giving different benefits to their civs. For example Id hate it if Christianity is the umtimate religion for a peaceful civ and islam the best religion for a warlike civ, with the more original religions being altogether useless .

 

[Civrules]

Im not overly worried about religion, as long as you will be able to mod it around in the editor, I only play scenarios anyway.

What *does* worry me is the prospect of religion giving different benefits to their civs. For example Id hate it if Christianity is the umtimate religion for a peaceful civ and islam the best religion for a warlike civ, with the more original religions being altogether useless .

I don't think that is the case. They have said that religions do not give benifits, therefore all of them are exactly equal.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I think dodging traits was a VERY smart idea.

Religions are "empty labels". No contraversy. Each religion is whatever you think it is, good or bad.

 

[sir_schwick]

@Curt

It seems odd to come to a forum designed to complain, criticize, and give our opinions and rail the posters for doing so.

@Commander Bello

I actually like the idea of including more 'hooks'. What has always bothered me was the fact these 'hooks' were tied to gameplay effects. For example, why does being Egyptian automatically mean you are Agricultural and Religious? It only does because of some data in a file. So if they make it so that gameplay effects from what civ you play, then you can do cool things with the civs.

All the units would have unique(maybe some shared) graphics for units and definitely names and civpedia info. Their should always be Roman Auxilla, Legions, whatever tanks the Italians used, etc. City names are already unique, so should city graphics. Another neat idea, each revolution puts up a new leader(although you are still in charge). Also, your 'religion' could change like it did in history.

NOne of htis matters if the choices you make are not tied to these unique factors. This means if you play England twice, the Anglicanism that emerged could take totally different directions because thier are no inherent traits to Anglicanism. So if you make each civ unique except for gameplay, people play as the party they want to roleplay, not the ones with the bonuses they like to play with.

 

[TVA22]

It seems to me that if you don't get all religions at the same time, and yet they offer essentially the exact same benefits, then why would you ever switch from the first religion? I thought I read somewhere that if you switch, the AI will 'remember' that you used to endorse a different faith. So really if Hinduism is the first religion you get, then why would anyone ever switch away from it? Why not just pick the first religion that comes available and leave it that way. Any thoughts? Or am I missing a big part of the puzzle.

 

[V. Soma]

Good point there, TVA... I guess we just have to wait to get an answer for this...

 

[GoodGame]

It'd be interesting if the runners-up to a religion might have a chance to make a schismatic version of the religion, perhaps a use for a Great "Religious Leader". So different versions of Polytheism or Christianity or Islam that were culture-specific, and localized to a civ.

I'm assuming that the runners up of reaching a particular religion then automatically share cultural-fealty with the civ that founded that religion.