Replace Pacifism?

[fearuin]

Most totalitarian states have some kind of controlled free religion like China or the late Soviet Empire (while still pushing atheism). A really brutal state cult is often only enforced after changing to police state. A nice way to model this would be to give the state cult/police state combo a good stability bonus, but a high upkeep and unhappyness and foreign relations problem. So that the state will want to switch to free religion after the nation has stabilized again.

I agree.

However, now that Blasphemous assures that dualistic RC are possible, I'm strongly agree for it. So the State Cult will be Theocracy/Non SR. And its benefits, the mentioned by Wilhelm II. Other RC/non-SR may have others. Non-SR/Pacifism may give a lower +% bonus (50%, for example), but a boost to and . Non-SR OR may give some and stability, boosted if caste system is enabled (because of a powerful priest caste is present). Don't know about Non-SR FR... maybe because of tolereance in the country? (I'm thinking on France and the USA).

 

[Blasphemous]

I am strongly against the idea of Civics combos in any event. The great beauty of the design in cIV is that everything is so transparent and so simple. Combos are confusing and unclear to new players. The whole point of Civics is that they do not depend on each other at all. I usually find myself playing the late game with all last-tier Civics except for Environmentalism, which I replace with State Property to support expansive empires. I love it that when necessary I can abolish Universal Suffrage and switch to Police State to sustain a dangerous war.
It's true that in reality government policies tend to synergize and support each other, but this is incredibly complex and cannot be modeled well in-game without confusing players.
Am I the only one who feels we are arriving on a broad discussion of the role of Civics that would require a separate thread?

 

[Blasphemous]

Rediscussion of the Civics concept aside, here is what I came up with now initially for no-SR RCs.
The basic concept is to add some effect for cities without the SR, so you only really get those effects when you have no SR. This way nothing needs to be changed in the basic mechanisms. You can have no SR even in the ancient age, it just won't be very beneficial. In the late game it will often be better to have no SR. The AI can understand this.

* effects for SR
- effects for no-SR
+ general effects

Paganism
* can't select this Civic under an SR
- +2 in cities with no religion
- cannot construct any Temple, Monastery, Cathedral, holy city wonder, or any missionaries
Notes: This one is great as long as your cities are irreligious. Afterwards it is a horrible horrible choice.

Organized Religion (Suggested rename: State Doctrine)
* +25% build rate for buildings in cities with SR
* cities with SR can build missionaries without Monasteries
- -10% war unhappiness in cities without SR
- cannot build missionaries or Monasteries in cities without SR
Notes: The only change here to the original effects is you need the SR to build missionaries. This one is a little awkward but with Paganism fixed, we'll probably rarely see an early OR state without the SR in all or most cities. This way the funny effects will only be seen in late-game no-SR states that use this RC to control war unhappiness.

Theocracy (Suggested rename: Forced Compliance)
* +2EXP in cities with SR
+ no non-SR spread
- +3 Stability for each city without the SR
Notes: This one works oddly well. The no non-SR spread turns into no spread of religions at all which makes sense. The added stability means that under an SR the stability you would lose for some cities not following your SR (in a very indirect way) is compensated for, and under no-SR you get a huge boost to stability. That way this RC comes to represent the more aggressive state cults in history, like under Stalin. But it still works the same when you have an SR.

Pacifism (Suggested rename: Gentle Encouragement)
+ higher military maintenance
+ +50% in all cities
* an additional +50% in SR cities
- +1 per specialist in non-SR cities
Notes: This will now basically represent governments that are gentle outwards and inwards, encouraging the growth of their people. Cities with and without the SR will thrive in different ways, and having no SR will just mean they all thrive in the same way.

Free Religion (Suggested rename: Pluralism)
+ +1happy per non-State religion in each city
+ 10% in all cities
Notes: Oddly enough, this one is already designed to work great dualistically. When you still have an SR your cities are slightly less happy (the SR is the only religion that won't give you happiness) but with an SR your rivals may like you more. It's up to you whom to please.

I must say this does not satisfy me entirely, because I think we need to rework the Civics system more thoroughly, especially in the area of RCs. But this would be a nice start.

 

[Phallus]

Why the extra research in a free but religious society? I'd suggest that the research bonus should be limited to a state where religion does not have considerable authority. Here is my suggested change:

Free Religion (either Pluralism or Secularism)
+ +1 happy per non-state in a city.
- 10% in all cities.
* 10% in all cities? I'm sure this could be balanced properly.

 

[Blasphemous]

It's simpler and not completely unrealistic to just make it a flat
+ +10% in all cities
The boost to science is because people feel free to study the universe in a scientific manner, not limited by religious control. I'd class many western civs today as SR-FR in game terms, and those same civs are amongst those that have benefited greatly in the area of science from their legal freedom.

 

[Phallus]

I see your reasoning, but there are instances in less secular FR societies (the USA, for example) where the state favours religion over the progression of science or issues remotely related to it, such as Stem Cell Research. In more secular societies, many of these topics are not an issue (even among some followers of religion, as the Church of England's recent direction suggests), but really this depends on how you interpret a 'state religion'. I always saw it as something which has direct influence over a government's actions, and so Secularism, regardless of how religious the population is, would suggest a separation of state and religion. On the other hand it seems fair to say you see SR as something either followed by a majority or something deeply rooted in a particular state's culture.

Both suggestions make sense and ultimately you're right - it is simpler and not completely unrealistic - though I don't see the incentive for anyone to abandon state-religion if that is how the civic was adjusted.

 

[SadoMacho]

When you have a state religion, people who have an other religion are often opressed. With theocraty and OR, I would like to see -1 for non state religions. Now I ofetn spread as much religions as possible in my empire. It give a lot of extra culture and extra happiness and no downside. Having 2 (or more) religions in one city often leads to troubles. The stability-system gives it a bit of a downside, as spread of non state religions has a destabilizing effect.

EDIT:
When there is no state religion, you don't have to go to church (or temple) and some people love to watch sports on sundays, maybe a +1 for amphitheatre?

 

[Phallus]

While it would be accurate, it would discourage people from adopting a Theocracy in the first place. If we were to do this in the name of accuracy, we might as well give every religion -1 happy simply because they coexist in the same city. There's often a small amount of friction between radically different religions even in a secular society, and while it seems strange not to represent the tensions that come with a Theocracy, the non SR spread works just as well.

When there is no state religion, you don't have to go to church (or temple) and some people love to watch sports on sundays, maybe a +1 for amphitheatre?

This is irrelevent to religion. Fat lazy Atheists don't watch more sport than fat lazy Protestants.

 

[Blasphemous]

I see your reasoning, but there are instances in less secular FR societies (the USA, for example) where the state favours religion over the progression of science or issues remotely related to it, such as Stem Cell Research. In more secular societies, many of these topics are not an issue (even among some followers of religion, as the Church of England's recent direction suggests), but really this depends on how you interpret a 'state religion'. I always saw it as something which has direct influence over a government's actions, and so Secularism, regardless of how religious the population is, would suggest a separation of state and religion. On the other hand it seems fair to say you see SR as something either followed by a majority or something deeply rooted in a particular state's culture.

Both suggestions make sense and ultimately you're right - it is simpler and not completely unrealistic - though I don't see the incentive for anyone to abandon state-religion if that is how the civic was adjusted.

I see what you're saying but you would do well to recall how much the United States has contributed to the sciences in the last century. I see the stem cell research issue more like Bush turning down the science slider by 10% or 20%. The Civics in the US today still support a higher output of beakers, even though the US SR is Christianity.

The incentive to abandon the SR is obvious - you don't get happiness for your SR under this Civic. If you want happy people, go no-SR. If you want good relations with others of your SR, stick with it for a while longer.

 

[SadoMacho]

This is irrelevent to religion. Fat lazy Atheists don't watch more sport than fat lazy Protestants.

Fat lazy people watch sports, others do sports, but point taken.

 

[Blasphemous]

It would be nice to see secular entertainment become more prominent in progressive civs with religious "entertainment" getting less important, but the happiness balance in the late game is very delicate and currently very good, so we needn't touch it.

 

[Wilhelm II]

I did not want to force players to adopt a certain combo.
I just thought of it in the way Rhye has implemented the stability system where certain combos are bad (police state + free speech) and others good. Universal suffrage, emancipation, free speech and forced compliance should still be a horrible (i.e. unstable) combination.

Really great ideas, Blasphemous.

@Phallus: Keppler and others turned to science in order to understand the greatness of the creator and his creation. Sir Isaac Newton wrote books about theology. Relegion can have many effects on society, individual life and science. Sometimes relegion leads to fanaticism, sometimes it broadens someone's horizon.

 

[Phallus]

I know what you mean Wilhelm, but Newton probably isn't the best example to give. He was an alchemist and an occultist, predicted the end of the Earth and to put it simply he was an odd fellow. Odd enough to warrant the following by John Maynard Keynes:

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."

 

[Blasphemous]

Wilhelm, I probably lost track of it but my point was really that the Civics work separately and can be mixed however you want without anything non-obvious happening between them... I don't like the idea of making these non-transparent combos in Stability or anywhere else. Everything in the game should be transparent and simple to understand.

 

[SadoMacho]

While it would be accurate, it would discourage people from adopting a Theocracy in the first place. If we were to do this in the name of accuracy, we might as well give every religion -1 happy simply because they coexist in the same city. There's often a small amount of friction between radically different religions even in a secular society, and while it seems strange not to represent the tensions that come with a Theocracy, the non SR spread works just as well.

-1 for non state religion would be canceled out by the building of the temple for that religion, this symbolizes the tolerance of the state religion, letting people of other fate worship in peace. Having 2 religions in 1 city has so many advatages now it's unrealistic. You can build 2 temple = +2 and +2 culture ; 2 monasaries = +20% science and +4 culture, and you can spread the fate giving more cathedral type buidlings in your empire. A lot of advantages and no downsides, 2 religions have often split up the people of a civ and gave a lot of trouble, as well in the past as now.

EDIT: I often play as Japan, most of the time, you have conf. and tao. Some Budd. Being on the island and having an AI the isn't a master in invasions, you have the time to build 3 temples and 3 monaseries and some catherdals, and no downside for having a people split up by 3 fates.

 

[fearuin]

I really like Blasphemous proposition. It really develops my own posts before, better than I could expected! Good work, Blas!

You can build 2 temple = +2 and +2 culture ; 2 monasaries = +20% science and +4 culture, and you can spread the fate giving more cathedral type buidlings in your empire. A lot of advantages and no downsides, 2 religions have often split up the people of a civ and gave a lot of trouble, as well in the past as now.

I don't agree with you, sorry. You can have several religions in a country, and it doesn't directly lead to confrontation. I'll give you some examples:
-One of the most beloved kings among Spanish people was Alfonso VI, El Emperador (he was crowned as Spanish Emperor, for the first time). He was a Christian king, and Christianity was the official state religion. However, Toledo became a center of culture thanks to his tolerance with the other faiths, that allowed muslims and jews to practice their, faith, build temples, etc.
-During the brief existance of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, it became also a center of culture, peace and harmony. The SR was Christianity, but all faiths were tolerated. Only the presence of some outrageous christian nobles (many of them, Templar Knights), disturbed that peace, to the point that Saladine declared war on the Kingdom, because of the continuous attacks on trade caravans.

There are other examples, which I can't recall now. But I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. There's zounds of cities in the world in whose there are temples of different religions, built under times of a predominant religion (the SR). Single incidents always happen, but most of the time, people use to live worshipping the faith they like, without continuous disturbs or riots.

OFF-TOPIC EXPLANATION:

Spoiler :

Today most of us are influenced by an image propagated by media that sues for a conflict between civilizations, moved by different faiths (between the the muslims and everyone else). That's because today a lot of muslim countries are becoming "theocratic", so we are earning a lot of "diplo hit" against them, because we have different SR and different RCs.

However, I think this image is false. I think that people of different faiths can live together without tampering each other. Sadly, single incidents empowered by certain media try to make us to think that people from different faiths, nationalities, race, etc. have to live separately because it is the only way to avoid conflicts between them. This is true only in part. It doesn't consider that occasional chokes are a just a collateral effect, not the main effect, which is the stenghthen of a culture. Muslim civilization never never could have expanded so forth if Muslim rulers didn't tolerate other people's beliefs. Even the Coran says that. The same happens with most of other Holy Books. Intolerate persons trend to change the interpretation or hide this passages. But intolorence it's not inherent to religion, but to personal behavior, education, and culture.

 

[SadoMacho]

That's one example, but I am sure of every example of peacefull coexistence, we can find one with conflict. In Spain, when Granada was captured, all muslims got expled and I think the jews too. During the Spanish civil war, the catholic were on Franco's side, and against the more religious freedom minded republicans. Religions is more often then not a reason to fight, you just need to look on this forum. Say something bad about one religion and you'll get so much reaction you'll need a subforum.

 

[fearuin]

When Granada was conquered, only jews were rejected. However, it is more famous the retreat of the muslim court (because the mother of Nazarese king Boabdil II, seeing his son crying, in their last watch of the city, she replied him "Don't cry as woman what you couldn't defend as a man"). But muslim citizens were enabled to stay on the city. The reason was some several treaties made with other taifa's kingdoms, which surrendered to Catholic Kings Isabella and Fernando, paying a tribute for mantaining their faith, which was the same treatment that christian had under muslim rule. In 1502, muslims are compelled to convert to christianism or face expulsion. A lot of them maintain their faith secretly. Not until the XVIIth century, (on 22th September of 1609, under Felipe III's rule).

About the other one, catholics were with Franco because they saw the Republican something as a Soviet puppet. Franco's propaganda also showed his army as "The New Holy Crusade" .This particular fact it is a question of much debate, and probably in the late stage of the war (after the republican government fled to Mexico), when russian volunteers joined the fight, Republican Spain may should be entitled as a "USSR Vassal".

But in the rest, I agree. Religion it is more usually "something to add" to a confrontation, than the confrontation itself.

 

[MrThing]

While Pluralism would be a fitting addition, it so similar as to imply secularism (once again, there's no better example in history than America's "founding fathers") and it certainly shouldn't be limited to any portion of the game.
QUOTE]

Pluralism does not need to be like secularism.
The Persia of Cyrus the Great was both pluralistic and theocratic (and believe me theocracy gives no bonisus to military units).

 

[fearuin]

I often play as Japan, most of the time, you have conf. and tao. Some Budd. Being on the island and having an AI the isn't a master in invasions, you have the time to build 3 temples and 3 monaseries and some catherdals, and no downside for having a people split up by 3 fates.

I'm now playing Japan, and now I see what you're saying. But I think this is not bad, either. Japanese, nowadays, have as main religions all this three plus Shintoism. And usually, they follow two faiths at a time! (Shintoism, plus one of the others). Maybe for Europeans this can be shocking, but if it's possible both in the game and in reality, what's bad about it? The richness inherent to such options directs to a more strong culture. About a downside... you have it: the unhappiness hit of "We don't want to fight our brothers of faith".