Religious conversions in the early game.

[Dnomal]

Anyone else found out the problem about religions being, that certain leaders, like Hateshtsput for instance. Try to convert as many players as possible, and to found all the other religions, so everyone teams up against any non-Buddhist or hindu.

Example: in my curent game everyone else is Buddhist, and I (persia) am Christian (only because i like to use my first great phrophet generated to grab me Theology) and everyone hates me, and everyone keeps invading, at war with four people at once! Luckly i am surrounded by sea so dont have to fight a multifront war.

Anyways in my experience its best if all the civs have different religions, that way they attack each other at best, or at worst they dont do anything when u invade a neighbour of theres, while if everyone but you is one religion your in trouble.

Anyone else found this?

 

[cabert]

why did you switch to christianity? you only gain enemies!
switch to the dominant religion, and you'll be happy ever after...

 

[Pogel]

Yep, I generally avoid religion in the early game unless I can use it to my advantage, diplomatically. If everyone's the same religion I'll convert. If my allies are one religion and my next intended enemy is another, I'll convert, but a lot of the time I'll stay without a state religion, even if it means working low population cities until I can use HR (not a major problem as I'll generally be using the whip pretty heavily).

The exception is if I try to control the religious game or if I'm seeking a culture win. This means founding hinduism or buddhism and actively spreading it while trying to grab the other religions (or conquer them) to stop others spreading them.

 

[Bast]

why did you switch to christianity? you only gain enemies!
switch to the dominant religion, and you'll be happy ever after...

Not necessarily. I founded Christianity with Isabella the Buddhist right on my door steps. Of course, I knew the war was coming so I quickly sent a missionary to Louis and complied with all his demands. He became Christian, he has the largest military in the known world and he's 'friendly' with me. I asked him to go to war against Isabella.

Of course, I got lucky with Louis and his military but Christianity can work.

 

[cabert]

Not necessarily. I founded Christianity with Isabella the Buddhist right on my door steps. Of course, I knew the war was coming so I quickly sent a missionary to Louis and complied with all his demands. He became Christian, he has the largest military in the known world and he's 'friendly' with me. I asked him to go to war against Isabella.

Of course, I got lucky with Louis and his military but Christianity can work.

you could have done all this without switching to christianity before louis did

 

[Bast]

you could have done all this without switching to christianity before louis did

I didn't switch. I founded Christianity. I went for Code of Laws for Confucianism too but missed it by 1 turn.

 

[Khalid]

I didn't switch. I founded Christianity. I went for Code of Laws for Confucianism too but missed it by 1 turn.

You don't have to adopt the religion even if you found it. It just makes one of your citis a holy city, not automatic conversion. And if you didn't adopt christianity, then nobody budhist will be angry.

On higher levels, I almost always stays with no religion and then free religion, so that i don't piss anyone. I usually adopt religions only for diplomatic reasons.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^ Yes, no need to switch to a religion just because you founded it. You aren't the AI, right!!? Spread Christianity to all of your cities anyway so you can grab shrine gold for it, but stay as the dominant religion. Chances are that a good portion of your current religious friends have Theocracy enabled, so spreading your new religion isn't really going to work(unless you spread Christianity like a virus as soon as you got it, which it doesn't sound like you did!). I find that if I don't found one of the earlier religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism) or if a neighbor on my continent has founded an early religion and spread it around a little already, then I don't really try for religions and focus on military tech (CS)/scientific techs (Literature/Education/Liberalism) or economic techs.

 

[CivDude86]

The only thing you lose from not adopting a religon you founded is the LoS from cities that has that religon which does you no good until you spread it.

 

[cabert]

The only thing you lose from not adopting a religon you founded is the LoS from cities that has that religon which does you no good until you spread it.

there are good things about state religions :
- religious civics! Who could say theocracy isn't worth it?
- 1 happiness where this religion is available
- relation bonus towards other civs who have the same state religion.

But those bonuses only come later.
So it's no good to switch before the religion has spread a bit, and you have the techs for a usefull civics change.

 

[Paeanblack]

there are good things about state religions :
- religious civics! Who could say theocracy isn't worth it?
- 1 happiness where this religion is available
- relation bonus towards other civs who have the same state religion.

But those bonuses only come later.
So it's no good to switch before the religion has spread a bit, and you have the techs for a usefull civics change.

You missed the point about switching to a religion you _founded_.

State religions have benefits, but you can pick any, not just ones you start. Pick the popular religion while spreading the one you founded to get both diplomatic and cash benefits and lose the LoS bonus.

 

[bassist2119]

On higher levels, I almost always stays with no religion and then free religion, so that i don't piss anyone. I usually adopt religions only for diplomatic reasons.

Regardless of difficulty level, I find it's usually more beneficial to have a few great friends and a few loathesome enemies than to have everyone kind of apathetic towards you.
Nonetheless, my recent game, which I had to abandon, took a major hit from an unexpected direction which would seem to indicate the futility of diplomatic bonuses. I was Bismarck, founded Confuciansim (which I always do). Mao has the truly wonderful city sites, which means that conquering him will solidify victory but I may need a "host" civ to conquer and acquire the resources to take him. Brennus is nearby and expanding towards me. Seems like a great host. Since he's close by, he also converts to my religion. As he's a spiritual civ (and hence gets a bigger diplo bonus from same religion) I figure I can take him at my leisure. Greatly beneficial since I'm w/o both copper and iron, figure the first assault will consist of almost exclusively cats. As I'm putting up my fourth building site, Brennus - not Mao - declares war on me! He was pleased but still declares war. The timeframe here is about 800 BC; without the metal resources, there's little I can do to defend.
It's obvious that allowing bad relationships to develop (here, by the token of religion) can ruin a game. But it seems that getting better relationships, through religion or other method, may produce pretty green numbers but I begin to question if there's really much more...

 

[entrada_sinful]

Have you ever thought of being a member of the dominant religion and waging war with your religious allies on the singular religious enemy.

In other words, next time make sure your one of the budhist guys waging war on the christian.....