So what if I don't want to get a religion?

[Glassmage]

Okay so let force everyone to pick Piety policy when you get to Classical Era because history is wrong without it! And no one can get Rationalism until you get Free Religion. Are you people happy now????

 

[Kilroy Was Here]

Glassmage, you seem to miss the point of social policies. They're not what your empire IS, they're what it focuses on. There have been plenty of states in history that did not focus entirely on religion (Viking culture, if you could call that a "state"), and plenty that never had any sort of concept of "liberty".

Also, why on Earth would they replace religion with something else just for those who don't want religion instead of making it a separate feature altogether?

 

[Buccaneer]

, the IMPORTANCE of religion will diminish, you won't be able to spread religion easily, and the diplomatic effect will decrease. that's it.

To continue playing devil's advocate, why? That sounds like a great idea for a scenario but why force it into every game? Why can't there be a way for its diplomatic effect to increase instead of decreasing? If we focus on something (population, culture, production, military, policies, etc.), we can improve upon anything of them as the game progresses. Why can't it be the same for religion (which is a similar mechanic to culture and policies)? Conversely, why can't we have a game where the importance of religion has been diminished from the start?

 

[bhavv]

If you dont want to focus on religion, then your time spent focusing elsewhere will help you towards a different victory.

To continue playing devil's advocate, why? That sounds like a great idea for a scenario but why force it into every game? Why can't there be a way for its diplomatic effect to increase instead of decreasing? If we focus on something (population, culture, production, military, policies, etc.), we can improve upon anything of them as the game progresses. Why can't it be the same for religion (which is a similar mechanic to culture and policies)? Conversely, why can't we have a game where the importance of religion has been diminished from the start?

I would assume that they are trying to mimic the real world, where religion was extremely important in the earlier days of civilization, but significantly less important from around 1850 AD onwards.

 

[Buccaneer]

I would assume that they are trying to mimic the real world, where religion was extremely important in the earlier days of civilization, but significantly less important from around 1850 AD onwards.

Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

 

[bhavv]

Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

And we have liberty available from the first policy pick, but not piety untill the classical era. Silly game!

(and stoneworks can't be built on a plains tile, windmills can't be built on hills, observatories can't be built anywhere but on top of mountains, and universities are best located in vast stretches of jungle!).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Not to mention that our planet changes with every game...

 

[Buccaneer]

But still, religion should not follow any predictable rise or decline pattern.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I dunno, I think we shouldn't really care that much and go into the details and find every possible flaw. I know that I even complained about the civilization's color scheme. We should be glad we're getting an expansion pack in less than 6 months

 

[moysturfurmer]

Does religion always have to be dominant in a game or perhaps by circumstances, they all add up to a minor set of bonuses? Or by alternate circumstance, religion becomes very dominant, even till the end? Can these two extremes happen (I hope)? That's why quotes like "by Renaissance, religion will be on the decline at the expense of science" sounds scary for the main game. What if I and the AI opponents focus on science from the start, choosing to make religion irrelevant? What if I want to put a lot of effort into spreading my religion in order to get more gold/bonuses and keep it that way into modern? Don't tell me the main game will become like a scenario.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Explanations of the universe? Hey, sounds like religion.

And as far as I can tell, units/buildings just get harder and harder to buy with faith in the later eras.

 

[Buccaneer]

All advocating aside, it's probably like culture in which after Telegraph or Radio, there are no more cultural buildings or wonders you can get. Does that mean culture becomes diminished? Hardly, the bonuses really adds up. I do hope one can make the choice to keep up the faith bonuses and the spread, even though other elements can come into play. No reason a civ can't dominate the game in the modern era via religion.

I don't recall but will there be a religion victory condition for the main game?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

You keep bonuses until you either win, quit the game, or are abolished from the world.

But the ability to spread religions is HARDER (Missionaries get expensive). but it's possible.

 

[Babri]

Yes but that has nothing to do with a civiization game. We are building a National College by 2400bc to boost science in the so-called ancient age. Or we can have games where culture and social policies play minor roles. Why should religion follow different rules?

To make it different from SPs & tech tree. There already many topics about three trees, imagine if religion has no such pattern, many people would start whining that SPs & religion are too similar etc.
Also the point that it would become scenario like, effect replayability or be too much uncivy, I would like to ask u about the strategic resources. Iron & horses are used earlier in the game, later in the game they are replaced by aluminium & uranium. Now why don't u call that uncivy & too much scenario like. The religion's rise & fall is very similar to already present strategic resources mechanism which change with time.

 

[MARDUK80]

Or Atheism. Let's say Atheism for the benefit of the new explanation.

Choose beliefs you don't thing relate to religion (or relate to not having religion), such as scientific bonuses, florishing of the arts, etc.

Build a complete "Atheist Inquisition". Just purgue all those cities whose stupid citzens decide to believe in gods and not in Atheism.

If you feel so... build a Missionary army to spread the truth: that there is no God.

Take over the world with Atheism and you will be sure noone believes in god anymore.

LOL

I am in favor of this. You know, "When they aren't in churches/holy places praying/worshiping they are studying/working."

 

[CYZ]

It'd be silly to be rewarded for not investing in faith. I mean, it's not like you get rewarded because you haven't invested in culture: ''Hey, you only have 3 policies while the rest has 5, let's give you a bonus''. would totally defeat the point.

It is your choice to invest in religion or not. If you don't focus at it at all you will be able to focus more on other areas. However, it will mean other civs have the advantage when it comes to religion. Their religion will spread to your cities (giving you free bonusses by the way!) and this will help them. Only fair, you chose not to invest in it and they did.



I can imagine we'd have games with alot of focus on religion. With civs racing to get great prophets first and being the first to pick beliefs. With several civs trying to spread their religion all over the world. This could lead to religionbased world wars etcetera.

However, it could also be the civs don't focus on religion. then there will only be few religions with smaller bonusses and the diplomatic effect will be smaller. Perhaps even one religion will become dominant in the world, and thus the diplomatic effect will become very small.

I hope we will see this variety in games.

 

[bhavv]

Looking at all the pre release info about the expansion so far, I get the feeling that Firaxis will introduce Atheism into the game, and it will require faith to unlock, missionaries to spread, and will need to be organised across your empire via building many cathedrals to be of any use.

And also, Atheism will most lilely provide a science boost, just like you can't possibly be pious and rational, surely you can only be scientific as an atheist, just like Einstein, Newton and Descartes were!

 

[Alk3Crimson]

No no no. I am not against turning off religion or anything. I'm asking if the devs compensate you for not playing with religion. This is just like you don't have to pick Piety policy. If you don't pick Piety does it mean your people are not religious??? If no one had a problem with NOT picking religious "Piety" tree before then so why start now?

If you choose to not build buildings to produce Faith, you are inherently going to produce more Culture/Science/Production then those who do. If you want to focus on science rather than religion, then build science buildings. Sure, religions may still spread to your lands, but they won't really affect how you run your civ. You aren't "penalized" for not founding a religion.

 

[Buccaneer]

If you choose to not build buildings to produce Faith, you are inherently going to produce more Culture/Science/Production then those who do. If you want to focus on science rather than religion, then build science buildings. Sure, religions may still spread to your lands, but they won't really affect how you run your civ. You aren't "penalized" for not founding a religion.

I like your response; it alludes to a more situational outcome determined by choices.

 

[Lieu]

And also, Atheism will most lilely provide a science boost, just like you can't possibly be pious and rational, surely you can only be scientific as an atheist, just like Einstein, Newton and Descartes were!

To be clear, Einstein was non-religious and a self-described agnostic. His use of the word 'god' was a bit ambiguous. In fact, he was a humanist.

On that note, no reason we can't name one of them Humanism in-game (in that it is a belief system, unlike atheism. Makes more sense with bonuses, although the source is still faith and not philosophy or something :/)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Humanism is a Rationalism policy, iirc. Although the Humanists were somewhat backwards thinking when it came to Latin, since they viewed it as Latin uber alles. One of the best known Italian poets, Petrarch, was ashamed of his poems because they were in vulgar Italian. However, Humanists were essentially holding back creativity in order to adhere to a dead language.