Religious Combat Silliness

[Le Sage]

So I've been watching some of the YouTubers play the game and I really like the look of it, have pre-ordered and I'm really looking forward to it. Going to be a hard week of waiting ahead! It's all looking really classy and tasteful; I even like the artstyle of it.

But then we get to "religious combat". What's up with that!? It seems so out of place and really badly implemented. Major invasions of apostles into your territory that has to be countered by your own apostles waging some kind of godly magical war with lightning bolts and thunder. It looks better suited to some kind of a fantasy game. And what's it supposed to represent from real history? Religious debates or what? It's silly and totally unimmersive.

A function like that would have been OK if it had been reserved for spies and intelligence, for an example. Agents, counter spies and intelligence operatives fighting it out on the parallel map layer; little James Bond characters shooting and stabbing each other in stealth to gain the upper hand in the covert war. But for religion? I hope that religious combat function is drastically changed, because, in my eyes, it's terrible.

 

[Sonereal]

The religious combat represents doctrinal and theological conflict between the apostles. The special effects are there because two old guys just yelling at one another isn't fun to watch. I think it is a nice touch, because it makes the job of converting other cities a lot more interesting that constant dropping religious bombs and counter-bombs like in Civilization V.

I actually would not like a return of spy units, but that's because I've had enough of those from my Civilization IV playtime to last me four lifetimes.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

You can declear war upon the civilization who send religious agentes to you which allow you to kill them with military units.

 

[kaspergm]

The special effects are there because two old guys just yelling at one another isn't fun to watch.

Actually, two old men yelling at each other would have been pretty fun to watch, and would probably have suited the theme of the game better.

I don't mind too much, but I do agree the whole lightning-strike thing is probably a bit over the top.

 

[Lyoncet]

The religious combat represents doctrinal and theological conflict between the apostles. The special effects are there because two old guys just yelling at one another isn't fun to watch. I think it is a nice touch, because it makes the job of converting other cities a lot more interesting that constant dropping religious bombs and counter-bombs like in Civilization V.

Pretty much this. It's good gameplay, and you need some sort of graphical representation. They could be throwing books/scrolls or mud-wrestling, or having rap battles as quill18 suggested, but pretty much whatever way you go is either going to look stupid or silly. May as well go silly.

About the best compromise I can think of would be chanting at each other, but I don't think that would noticeably improve my gameplay experience.

 

[Sonereal]

Throwing books and scrolls probably would be an improvement. It fits the humor of the series to a t.

 

[Lyoncet]

Throwing books and scrolls probably would be an improvement. It fits the humor of the series to a t.

Yeah actually the more I think about it, the more that appeals to me.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Actually, two old men yelling at each other would have been pretty fun to watch

Not when they're the size of ants.

 

[kaspergm]

Not when they're the size of ants.

Fortunate, then, that units in Civ6 are the size of mountains.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Actually, two old men yelling at each other would have been pretty fun to watch

If they yell at each other in a fake language like the Sims, it is just as immersion breaking for me as lightning strikes. At least the lightning bolts have a certain Cecil B Demille's Ten Commandments flair to it.

 

[Morningcalm]

In later ages the thunder and lightning should be replaced by furious debating. It's silly to see monks summoning crackling thunder in the Modern Age.

Also, do apostles look different for each religion or no? They all look vaguely Christian so far from what I've seen. No shaved head Buddhist/Hindu missionaries ala Civ IV.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In later ages the thunder and lightning should be replaced by furious debating. It's silly to see monks summoning crackling thunder in the Modern Age.

Also, do apostles look different for each religion or no? They all look vaguely Christian so far from what I've seen. No shaved head Buddhist/Hindu missionaries ala Civ IV.

Maybe it depends on region... East asian Apostles, Middle Eastern Apostles, and SubSaharan apostles should all look different.

So I could see European ones with beards, East Asian ones with shaved heads, etc.

 

[Jaybe]

As one who dislikes the religious game, and rarely spreads my religion beyond my cities in civ5 ... Arggh. Have to defend my religion with my own apostles/inquisitors again. The religious combat is going to be another distraction from building my infrastructure/units.

 

[Zaarin]

As one who dislikes the religious game, and rarely spreads my religion beyond my cities in civ5 ... Arggh. Have to defend my religion with my own apostles/inquisitors again. The religious combat is going to be another distraction from building my infrastructure/units.

Considering you'll be purchasing those apostles and inquisitors with faith and you'll be building infrastructure and units with production, it really won't. Besides, if all you're doing is defending, you just need one apostle to start the inquisition and then you just need inquisitors for defense.

As others have said, theological combat represents conflict of doctrine, not physical conflict. Sure, the lightning bolt is a bit over-the-top, but I can't think of anything that would have suggested a doctrinal conflict any better without being either too subtle (which is not Civ6's aim) or equally silly.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I think the gameplay mechanism (of strategizing your conflict location so you can influence surrounding cities) can be a fun, good addition to the game. However, I do not think religion was the right theme/topic/concept in the game to be using this mechanism.

I don't know what exactly could have used this mechanism, perhaps merchants engaging in "bidding wars" at trade posts or something for some form of economic victory (at least these units can upgrade with time in a way that makes sense, into corporations and such). But I do know after watching all these let's play videos that religion does not fit this mechanism.

I thought the "Plague Inc"-like mechanism of passively spreading your religion (with some help of missionaries) was both fun and appropriate in Civ5. I think the focus on active "combat" for religion was really unnecessary.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I love the religious combat...it's great to have a mechanic to expel/defeat enemy religious units without having to declare war. The bolts of lightning are just icing on the cake.

 

[Jaybe]

Considering you'll be purchasing those apostles and inquisitors with faith and you'll be building infrastructure and units with production, it really won't. Besides, if all you're doing is defending, you just need one apostle to start the inquisition and then you just need inquisitors for defense.

DOH! Thanks for the reminder.

Edit: Just have to be sure to build that Holy Site to be able to get those apostles to at least prevent someone else from getting a religious victory.

 

[Promethian]

I'm not particularly bothered by it but that might just be my ability to not take everything I see seriously. This is a real skill that everybody should cultivate. Failing to do so is to risk living an extremely unhappy life.

Also I like the idea of religious combat being throwing books and scrolls at each other.

 

[Morningcalm]

Considering you'll be purchasing those apostles and inquisitors with faith and you'll be building infrastructure and units with production, it really won't. Besides, if all you're doing is defending, you just need one apostle to start the inquisition and then you just need inquisitors for defense.

As others have said, theological combat represents conflict of doctrine, not physical conflict. Sure, the lightning bolt is a bit over-the-top, but I can't think of anything that would have suggested a doctrinal conflict any better without being either too subtle (which is not Civ6's aim) or equally silly.

Age of Empires I and Age of Empires II didn't have its monks use lightning bolts to show doctrinal differences--they used sound (Wololo chanting) and monks waving arms to show that. I don't see why Civ can't do something similar to show religious conflicts Renaissance era onward. The Reformation, after all, did not rely on monks with magic lightning for its success. It relied on debate, vigorous argument, and military conflict (only because Catholics declared war on Protestants, but anyhow). Nor did the spread of Shinto Buddhism or Islam rely on magic lightning, so I see little purpose for it other than ancient age fun and/or laughter. Because these lightning wielding monks can't defend against military units at all. Ha!

 

[Manifold]

The lightning bolts and thunders could be good part of a Medieval Fairy Tale/Fantasy world scenario

Hey Le Sage, good to see you back again