Religions

[antonio]

I didnt mean that it would be the case but if Americas state religon was islam regrardless o the amount of muslims in the country would have 9/11 happened.Also in the case of the Malian Emperor whos name i forget changed his relgion to islam and although it was recented by the majority of the population it opened huge new trading avenues for the merchants to buy and sell there goods.So changing the state relgon could have diplamatic reprecussions which should be takeen into consideration whetther they be good or bad.

 

[Sarevok]

mmm... a jewish superpower... I cant wait.

 

[Leto]

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.

commander you are right on the money. very well said.

perhaps.. and of course we are all just musing at this point.. but perhaps each nation does have a specific religion (or chain of religions) that is available on their own tech tree. that would make it so that different civs would have different branches off the tree, and happening at different times. those are some good variables for replay. it satisfies the issue you bring up, but also leaves it up to the player to decide how (if at all) religious you want your nation to be.

it's like how in C3C there are a few wonders that you can only build if you meet a requirement; like the statue of zeus (ivory) and the secret police HQ (communism). it makes it so that not all the civs progress the same. there are more unique treats for each civ in each condition. personally i just can't see firaxis doing something like that.. like making the american state religion hindu or the indian state religion catholicism. for the reasons commander already stated. they are smarter than that, and that is not a small step backwards.

 

[antonio]

Would be good to have to have different nations with different techs and o on but realy it is a what if not a historic simulation and adding further layers of realism could debase the whole game and turn it in to some sort of simulation andin some ways i am opposed to religoins for thos reasons because they add more realism to the game but they would e cool things to have

 

[Guagle]

Ok, just a quick question here: if religions are tied to techs (as it seems to be the case) what happens wen a civ trades a religious tech to another civ? will it creates converts in it? And what if the second civ doesn't have a state religion yet?

Food for thought

 

[antonio]

If they dont have a state relgion we should probaly assume that they would get given the relgion that comes from that tech but im not sure if they would be given the relgion of the civ they got the tech from or if they could choose.That is if there are multiple religions for each religous tech.If not then they would either convert to that relgion or keep thereown if they have one or a mixture of both.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

commander you are right on the money. very well said.

perhaps.. and of course we are all just musing at this point.. but perhaps each nation does have a specific religion (or chain of religions) that is available on their own tech tree. that would make it so that different civs would have different branches off the tree, and happening at different times. those are some good variables for replay. it satisfies the issue you bring up, but also leaves it up to the player to decide how (if at all) religious you want your nation to be.

it's like how in C3C there are a few wonders that you can only build if you meet a requirement; like the statue of zeus (ivory) and the secret police HQ (communism). it makes it so that not all the civs progress the same. there are more unique treats for each civ in each condition. personally i just can't see firaxis doing something like that.. like making the american state religion hindu or the indian state religion catholicism. for the reasons commander already stated. they are smarter than that, and that is not a small step backwards.

I seriously disagree with that for a few reasons,
1. The limited number of religions
2. The 'Great Wonder' Example (although things like Newton's University and Shakespeares Theatre may be tied to Great people...making them more reasonably named when the Chinese build it) A game that has the Great Wall of Japan where Japan is totally landlocked and the Aztecs as the scientific leader of the world in the Industrial Era building the Theory of Evolution, seems perfectly reasonable for Hindu Germans and the Jewish state of China.

 

[mitsho]

... and as you can see on one screenshot, we have the situation of a Jewish Mali fighting a (perhaps only religious, perhaps more) war against the Islamic states of Babylon and England (!). already, one city of them (Walata) has become muslim, (or is it christian, could be as well).

--> assumption: religion will result in fight, cool!
--> each city will have its religion. Not that cool, but probably a needed abstraction.

mfG mitsho

 

[Stilgar08]

Daoist influence can also allow you get gold from Daoist cities. Having your own religions spread throughout the world can have some profound tactical influences.

from http://pc.ign.com/articles/616/616871p2.html

Did I miss this so far or is this new?? If it is this might make religion an even bigger issue than it is already! Sending out missionaries like hell (an oxymoron! At least: almost ) to gain the upper hand in economic terms? Could work for me, although there aren't enough information about this so far...

 

[mitsho]

They will probably have a counter against this: Missionaries hard to get (either expensice what I do not believe, or they get spawned by the holy cities). Otherways, this will be exploited and would lead to massive micromanaging to get the most gold squeezed out to win in upper levels. --> no thanks

 

[Stilgar08]

They will probably have a counter against this: Missionaries hard to get (either expensice what I do not believe, or they get spawned by the holy cities). Otherways, this will be exploited and would lead to massive micromanaging to get the most gold squeezed out to win in upper levels. --> no thanks

You are right about MMing. But what, if you get a holy city (different from your own) and therefore get gold from other civs and their religion. Or it may be a civic only available later in the game, when missionaries won't be build any more (or a lot less)?