Religions

Scilly_guy

Prince
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
403
I feel a lot of people, certainly some, have ideas based around religion so I feel a thread of its own is justified.

My personal problem at the minute is that cities either have a religion or they don't. I want to see volume of religion in a city like there is with culture. I also want a civ to be declared as being inclined to whichever religion is strongest in their cities. I hate the way you can force another civ to convert and then they just convert back a few turns later. You would still be able to choose a religion civic but I don't think organised religion should rule out non state religion spreading. Perhaps each religious civic has an affect on the spread of religions which isn't the civs most common, also a cities volume of religious people and the buildings would have an effect on the spread. If an Organised Religion city is 90% Christian and there is a monastry, temple and cathedral then it is less likey to accept Buddism than a Theocratic 60% Islamic city with a monastry and temple. But I am getting a bit complicated now. To go with all of this and make it a tiny bit more complex so that the player has some power over what religion the population follows they have the ability to fund different religions differently, so that although 65% of the population is Islamic the player can fund Hinduism more, causing Hindu religious buildings to be more effective and so increasing the amount of population that follows it.

I also feel that at the minute each religion is exactly the same just with a different wrapper, (in reality we know thats not true ;) ). I intend no offence, I realise this is dangerous ground, probably why Firaxis hasn't, and won't implement it, but wouldn't it be interesting if different religions provided different bonuses:
Christianity +5% military production
Islam +5% research
Judaism +5% economy/wealth
Hinduism +10% Health
Buddhism -10% unhappines
Taoism causes each city to be 2% better at what its best at (wealth, production or research)
Confucianism increased culture and great people birth rate

I'll say it again I INTEND NO OFFENCE.

Of course my figures are subject to balancing and I am unsure how these integrate with my first suggestion of no player selected state religion. I imagine it would be along the lines of a 50% Jewish 50% Buddhist city has +2.5% economy -5% unhappiness. Or it could be that the highest percentage wins out. Or the effects are nation wide based on national figures.
 
Yeah I like that and probably less likely to upset people defining them without naming them.
 
If you are going to have user-defined religions, I think alms66's system is a good one; I am not sure that appeals to me much myself, because it would be pretty fiendishly difficult to set up parameters so that user-defined religions had a) enough flexibility for the user to feel they were actually making something new and b) were still balanced; and if you come up with half a dozen different ones that are reasonably balanced, you're then bound to upset someone by giving them names connecting them to real-world religion.

The business of conversions should work citizen by citizen, I think. You send a missionary into a city, they can convert a certain number of citizens - then you have a simple mechanic for upgrading your missionary units over time to make them more capable [ a televangelist can reach more people, and possibly convert more, than a guy preaching in a public space ]. A city can build religious buildings of the appropriate religion only if it has more than a certain fraction of people of that religion [ maybe varying by government type, perhaps. ] Every new citizen a city gains has a chance of being any religion already represented in the city, depending on the existing mix of religions, the religious buildings in the city, and maybe having a missionary stationed in the city should help shape that as well as increasing resistance to conversion. I think this mechanic would also work with having a state religion, rather than being a thing you pick directly, being a thing that depends on your population mix - so that if you have, say, 40% of your people of religion A, and also not more than 20% of your people of any other single religion, religion A automatically becomes your state religion. What that does, and establishing freedom of religion if you want to, should really depend on the government type. I would be inclined to say that under theocracy you get bonuses as your civilisation becomes religiously unified, and maybe specific bonuses for any city that is entirely of one religion, whereas with a government like liberal democracy you get bonuses for how many religions have more than 10% of your population so that the benefit is from nurturing as many as possible.
 
Aye the designers would have to invent their own original names and symbols but I am sure its not hard to think of a few "Trenism" "Sworism" that took me a grand total of about 2 minutes to think of, I thought of a few others but I thought they sounded a bit like existing major religions, Birtism was too much like Bhuddism and Trinism could be related to the Christian Trinity. So given a bunch of names and symbols should it be possible to design your own effects and choose a name and symbol with the designers choice of names as default values or should it be as is now, just with the addition of effects.

Of course you could have it as an option in custom games whether you can design your own religions.
 
Aye the designers would have to invent their own original names and symbols but I am sure its not hard to think of a few "Trenism" "Sworism" that took me a grand total of about 2 minutes to think of, I thought of a few others but I thought they sounded a bit like existing major religions.

Yes, but made-up religion names with real civilisation names and wonder names and so forth doesn't work for me either, it's drawing attention in the wrong direction.
 
Ok I see your point, but I think religions do have effects on civilisations, whilst they are similar they do have their differences. Some religions are a lot more tolerant of others, some forbid aggression and killing.

Perhaps just giving the player the ability to outlaw particular religions if they are following a religion that allows it. I also feel that what religion a country followed used to be much more important than it is now however this is due to a number of factors and is my opinion. Candidates in American politics use their faith for influence with the voters where as in Britain it is not a big deal but the States would probably fall under Free Religion not Theocracy all though that really is debatable.

I just think that the religions at the minute are a bit empty, I always seem to be under attack by Buddhists, WHAT is that all about, I thought they're not supposed to hurt any living creature! I am not saying that particular Religions should dislike particular religions, I just feel they should have different attitudes.
 
Ok I see your point, but I think religions do have effects on civilisations, whilst they are similar they do have their differences. Some religions are a lot more tolerant of others, some forbid aggression and killing.

Well, yes. But real-world Gandhi never notably stabbed anyone in the back in a bloodthirsty way, either. I don't have a problem with how the religions develop being as different from the real-world ones as the civilisations.

Perhaps just giving the player the ability to outlaw particular religions if they are following a religion that allows it.

Yes, definitely.

I am not saying that particular Religions should dislike particular religions, I just feel they should have different attitudes.

You could have a set of seven defined attitudes and shuffle them randomly between the named religions at the start of every game.
 
"You could have a set of seven defined attitudes and shuffle them randomly between the named religions at the start of every game."

No no no! The religions should be as they are in real life, I can accept that the civilisations need to vary from their leader, Ghandi wasn't always the leader of India and there was a time in Indian history when they would have gone to war, I mean look at them right now, you never know what could happen. So seeing "Ghandi declared war on you" it'll always make me laugh but I can accept it. I just don't think that Buddhist states should be able to declare war, or some other military limiting factor, increased maintenance or something.
 
[ deleted ]
 
2 things:
Thing 1: Weren't the Mongols Buddhist though? You can't say they had much of a military disadvantage.
Thing 2: Regarding Christianity's advantage, read th Bible. Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was a pacifist. Then again, as the Mongols demonstrate, a religion's teachings have little bearing on the decisions of a state.
 
Well I was thinking more along the lines of the likes of the Knights Templar and Catholicism Theocracy. Most religions are founded with peace in mind and all like to claim the same or similar morals. "Though shall not kill/murder"

There is also the issue of offending people so I can't see this happening. It sort of is currently implemented with the religion civics anyway, and the way they come available with different religions.
 
Well I was thinking more along the lines of the likes of the Knights Templar and Catholicism Theocracy. Most religions are founded with peace in mind and all like to claim the same or similar morals. "Though shall not kill/murder"

The Aztec state religion kind of really notably doesn't; mass human sacrifice was a major part of it. I don't, myself, think that would be either appropriate or useful in Civ.
 
OK OK, and yes many of the older religions did worship war gods, the Norse and the Egyptians certainly did too, but as Civ concentrates on the current major religions it is those that I am talking about. I just think that having all the religions identical is in itself an insult of sorts, at the minute they are just different names for the same thing, kind of a team where you can have a bit of in fighting. but mainly you all get on. At the very least Judaism, Islam, should lose access to Pig resource, and Hinduism should lose access to cows. But then that makes those religions a a disadvantage (game speaking).
 
Look up the Thuggees (sic).

They actually took people's hearts out of them while they were still alive! Not really a "Thou (remember, it's "Thou", not "Though" shalt not kill" thing there.
 
If it's based on the historical traits of that religion, and as long as it's different from how they're portrayed now, I see how no one would find any wrong in it. Although having civilizations disliking a religion more than others (such as Spain disliking Islam, as in the Inquisition) seems fine, as long as it follows only historical aspects. I personally do not care, because it's all about the past/just a game. Religions disliking eachother seems like it would upset some people, but not me. Islam disliking Christianity because of the Crusades is fine in my view.
 
Religions are kind of too unbalanced to fit into a game when they all have different benefits, since most religions sort of rely on a reward in an afterlife to compensate for the hardship endured during this life, so increased happiness would be all that some of the religions would get, and they would be vulnerable to being pushed around by other religions because they do not believe in war.
 
If it's based on the historical traits of that religion, and as long as it's different from how they're portrayed now, I see how no one would find any wrong in it. Although having civilizations disliking a religion more than others (such as Spain disliking Islam, as in the Inquisition) seems fine, as long as it follows only historical aspects. I personally do not care, because it's all about the past/just a game. Religions disliking eachother seems like it would upset some people, but not me. Islam disliking Christianity because of the Crusades is fine in my view.

But the game is about alternate histories, so who's to say the crusades ever happened?
 
Top Bottom