social harmony????

[Cliff2005]

yes it is due to a matter of opinion but is it only me that feels having several religions in a city would lead to more problems rather than the bonus it gives in civ4. Some people argue cultural diversity is a good thing, but if you mix different cultural and social groupings together espcially religions, as shown by history itself, it causes civil unrest and prejudice.

I do hope i dont get accused of being a racist or an extreme right winger for saying that.

 

[IamSid]

I believe you are right, but look at New York City .. Then again look at Jerusalem!

 

[ThePhysicist]

I agree with you, Cliff. It has caused problems before and does now. That doesn't make you a far right extremist, just an educated person. However, sometimes it blends and actually improves things. Old ideas are replaced by new and better ones, and diversity can increase open mindedness. In my humble opinion, both scenarios should be reflected in the game. Different government types should cause different relations between religions, or something along those lines.

 

[Caprice]

Diversity is great as long as the original cultures aren't diluted in the process. I'm honestly quite glad that the powers that be chose to give a bonus for multiple religions rather than a penalty... while the penalty may be more historically accurate, the game has so many historical and techincal inaccuracies (30 turns or 600 years to build a Forge, the manner in which artilery pieces work, etc.) that it doesn't really matter.

IMO, the game is great the way it is and I'd wager good money that if it were too much more realistic people would hate it. It would be either impossible to play because it would take too long to play a game, or it would be impossible to understand because of it's immense complexity.

That, and it would take up to much fraking disk space.

 

[Ranos]

I would like to see penalties for having multiple religions based on what religious civic is being used.

Paganism: +.75 unhappiness per non-state religion.
Organized Religion: +.5 unhappiness per non-state religion.
Theocracy: +1 unhappiness per non-state religion. Can activate ethnic cleansing to eliminate additional religions in cities. Lowers reletions with civs that have cleansed religion as state religion as well as civs with Pacifism and Free Religion.
Pacifism: no penalties or bonuses.
Free Religion: +1 happiness per non-state religion.

Religions should be linked to population points. If a city that has a population of 10 with Hinduism has Judaism spread in it would then have 9 Hindu citizens and 1 Jewish. Cleansing the city would take x number of turns and eliminate any population not following your state religion.

Non-state religion in a single city could possibly cause unhappiness in all cities with the state religion.

If a city is 100% Hindu, then its settlers should also be Hindu and when that settler founds a city, it would start out with Hinduism.

 

[Saint_Saturn]

I think that having multiple religions inside a single city is perfectly fine the way it is right now. I do however, think that maybe some small changes could occur randomly. For instance, if their are multiple religions inside a single city, their could be the chance of a riot occuring, temporarily lowering happiness and maybe causing a standard improvement to be destroyed. If you have a religion inside a city that was founded with a civ you are currently at war with, that specific city could have extra un-happiness added because you are fighting their spiritual founders. This would give an extra layer to multiple religions and keeping it realistic without going to an extreme or re-doing the entire system.

 

[calyth]

I don't particularly see that multiple religions in a city is the cause of unrest.
Arguably, plenty of religious conflicts also have other reasons why the conflict exists.

 

[Molock]

Whats wrong with being a right winger (points at self )

I think that you got a point; diversity does more often than none cause conflict within a society. I believe there should be more reasons behind the prejudice.

For example, if one of your city's has Christians and Muslims and you just got attacked by a Muslim civ, that city should have some citizens.

Another example is kind of like pre-NAZI Germany when economic conditions were poor and the majority blamed the Jews for the poverty and unemployment.

I think we just need to realize that usually there is a military or economic reason behind a prejudice against a group, and that should be represented.

 

[ceiph]

its always been said, civ is where everything works as it should communism works in civ, well so does diversity, in civ land people can understand diffrences and appreciate them, not fight...

 

[panzooka]

that maybe true and false

look at china, long it have dominated by confucianism, buddhism, and taosim, while not much conflict.

 

[Andygal]

well confucanism and taoism (especially the former) are argurably not "real" religions so perhaps that does not count. And Buddism isn't exactly a "kill the unbelievers" kind of thing mostly.

I'm a left winger (not that it really matters) and whole I like the way mutiiple religions are handled in the game currently I do know that historically religions (and even different sects of the same religion) have not exactly co-exsisted very well in most cases.

I like to think that the Civ way of not having unrest and stuff in cities with multiple religiosn is the way it should ideally work in real life, even though of course it doesn't actually work that way...

 

[Elhoim]

Can activate ethnic cleansing to eliminate additional religions in cities

This is why they didn´t used a penalty per non state religion system, because if they put an option to kill population because they religion is different would lead to many problems... I think the only way to reduce the unhappines penalty should be with civics, that way they won´t be any acussations against Firaxis, and we would get something more realistic and interesting in terms of gameplay (flood enemy cities with missionaries to create unhappiness!)

 

[The Q-Meister]

I think everyone here has raised some very good points. Yes, there are times in history where a fusion of different cultures and religion did not work out well; whereas other times it did. It does indeed depend on the government type, historical situation, popular attitudes and prejudices, etc. The question is now: How to implement that in a Civ game?

One idea that I have that I think might work (and which I will include in a larger thread about expansion pack ideas) is the concept of having official "Enemy Relgions" and Enemy Civics just like you have official state relgions and state civics. That would re-create scenarios where you could have a "Jerusalem-like" conflict.

What I think is missing from the Civ games is the option to DISlike certain religions or civics, that you deem dangerous, "unholy", ideologically at odds with or whatever the case may be. The situation right now is that you pick a certain religion and dislike all equally whereas in the real world we know that is not the case; some religions and some civics are more compatible than others. This idea would implement that.When you declare a religion or civic to be an official Enemy Religion it would automatically increase the animosity between you and the state(s) that have that religion. Those states will be far less likely to negotiate with you, and trade with those civs will be nearly impossible. On the other hand, you now have the option to forcibly "cleanse" out the population of your cities that have the rival religion, though this may result in a loss of population. It also enables "Holy Alliances" with other civs that have the same state religion and enemy religion that you do. Perhaps a Crusader or if you want to use a more generic term, "Religious Warrior" would be created automatically every 5 turns from such an alliance.

If you go to war with an "enemy" civ and you conquer one of their cities, you will have the option of forcibly converting that city to your relgion and eliminating their religion, though since not all will consent to being converted this will result again in a major loss of population. On the "positive" side, it will be much easier to put down revolts in those cities since the people left alive will be so scared of getting killed themselves. Once peace is declared however, and people feel more secure, lingering resentment may increase. If war is re-declared however, those same people will be less likely to show overt signs of unhappiness since they remember all too well what happened last time. This way, you could re-create a scenario where a theocracy attempts to impose its own religion on the rest of the world and eliminate all others.

 

[Wodan]

Theocracy: +1 unhappiness per non-state religion. Can activate ethnic cleansing to eliminate additional religions in cities.

Did you really just suggest adding Ethnic cleansing to the game ?

Might as well have outright slavery in the game. whoops.

 

[The Q-Meister]

On a final note about this, I don't want a scenario where everyone is changing their Enemy Religions/Civics when they go to war and then changing them again when they are at peace the same way in Civ 3 when countries changed from Fascism and Democracy left and right.

So in order to prevent this, there should be a long period of anarchy when you attempt to change an official Enemy Religion, I'm thinking 5 or 6 turns because it has been so hard-wired into your people's brains that this is the enemy. So this way it makes players think very carefully when they declare a religion or civic to be an official enemy since the repurcussions will last for a very long time.

 

[HeXeD_3010]

I do hope i dont get accused of being a racist or an extreme right winger for saying that.

Many people get this confused.

Left and Right wings in politics refer to economics only, and not liberalism or conversative gendres.

We all get what you meant so no harm done, I just thought I'd point it out.

 

[warpus]

Did you really just suggest adding Ethnic cleansing to the game ?

Might as well have outright slavery in the game. whoops.

if you really think about it, the expansion of borders via culture is a form of ethnic cleansing; one ethnic group is displaced by another.

 

[Cliff2005]

How about the police state option allows ethnic cleansing of anyone at choice. for example you could remove a foreign national or a foreign religious follower from your city. Obviously there would be a penatly which i havent thought about yet.
And to a lesser extent the slavery option or maybe the caste system could allow you to choose people as slaves. They could for example increase production with unhappyness as the drawback.