Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch

Not quite.... it was like that in 3.0X , but in 3.13 the AI atleast would try to bring it to a more populated city nearby ( normally 1 turn away ). It was not the equivalent of simply spread the religion.... and ( IMO ) a indicator that it was meant that the AI would think a little of what to do with the missionary.

Yes, I know that the AI might move the missionary. I just wanted to show that it is not harder to spread a religion to a theocracy then to a civilisation not using the theocracy civic.

Regarding the Theocracy... preventing the spread of non-state religions is basically a Penalty it has, like the -gold from Pacifism.

Does it really matter if it's an advantage or disadvantage whether you can spread a religion to a theocracy?

I'm not arguing that it's an exploit (although I don't really think that a human would do it in a situation where it would be disadvantageous). I'm arguing that you can spread a non-state religion to a theocratic civilisation just as easy as you can to a non-theocratic civilisation using missionaries. And that seems buggy since the civic seems to want to blockade non-state religion spread by foreign missionaries.


By the way, I agree with the quote, Minor Annoyance.
 
Yes, I know that the AI might move the missionary. I just wanted to show that it is not harder to spread a religion to a theocracy then to a civilisation not using the theocracy civic.



Does it really matter if it's an advantage or disadvantage whether you can spread a religion to a theocracy?

I'm not arguing that it's an exploit (although I don't really think that a human would do it in a situation where it would be disadvantageous). I'm arguing that you can spread a non-state religion to a theocratic civilisation just as easy as you can to a non-theocratic civilisation using missionaries. And that seems buggy since the civic seems to want to blockade non-state religion spread by foreign missionaries.

However the point is the game allows you to aid your rival by getting around theocracy's restriction.

The thing is a Theocratic Civilization can not Get a religion as easily as a non-theocratic civilization, unless they get it from a human player.

I think it doesn't need solving, or if it does it needs a radical rework of Theocracy (making it more like Mercantilism and giving it some serious bonuses)
 
However the point is the game allows you to aid your rival by getting around theocracy's restriction.

The thing is a Theocratic Civilization can not Get a religion as easily as a non-theocratic civilization, unless they get it from a human player.

I think it doesn't need solving, or if it does it needs a radical rework of Theocracy (making it more like Mercantilism and giving it some serious bonuses)

Yes, I know that it could be a potential disadvantage to a theocracy if it couldn't get a non-state religion from foreign missionaries.

But I'm not talking about advantages or disadvantages, exploits or not. I'm talking about a limitation in the theocracy civic that actually isn't a limitation. The rule that foreign missionaries can't spread a non-state religion to a theocracy effectively accomplishes nothing. Thanks to the possibility to gift a missionary, a foreign missionary can spread a non-state religion to a theocracy.

So either this limitation of the theocracy civic should be removed or it should be reinforced.
 
Or the civilopedia and the Civic screen needs a rewriting . It would not be the first time.....

What would you suggest? Something like:

Spreading a non-state religion to a theocracy cannot be performed by using the missionary. You have to give the missionary to the theocratic civilisation so that they spread it themselves.

Ok, who can read this without laughing? ;)

I must say that I like the direction this discussion is going. It's getting funny. :D
 
No, it should say "and don't even try to gift those missionaries, you geezer!"
 
What would you suggest? Something like:

Spreading a non-state religion to a theocracy cannot be performed by using the missionary. You have to give the missionary to the theocratic civilisation so that they spread it themselves.

Ok, who can read this without laughing?

I must say that I like the direction this discussion is going. It's getting funny.
Well, it is funny... but even funnier:

-Theocracy prevents spread of Non state religion ( F3 definition )
-But I can spread a non state religion to myself in Theocracy
-Ok, you can do it to yourself. But you can't do it to other civ
-But I can give them the missionary, and...
-Shut up! Someone can listen...

And all of this could have been avoided by a "unwanted" word ( pun intended ) in the F3 screen when the game got out some years ago... ;)
 
Roland, your opposition to gifting missionaries seems to be solely on the basis that the AI doesn't know what to do with them, so it just blindly uses them to spread religion exactly like it had built the missionary itself.

So, the problem isn't the gifting of missionaries, it's that the AI won't destroy them (if that is a better option for the AI than using them or just holding onto them).

In other words, what you really want is a more intelligent AI, not a ban on gifting. Gifting units (any units) is part of the game. There are ways to exploit the dumb AI by gifting them tons of crappy units, not just missionaries.

So, what makes missionaries so special? Maybe you're exploiting the dumb AI, but you can do that with gifting useless warriers.

If you ban gifting missionaries, you have to ban gifting any unit, for the same reasoning. Or, you fix the AI, which is a big task for "fixing" such a minor exploit that only a human player can use.
 
You mean spreading a religion to a theocratic neighbour by giving them cities that have another religion then their state religion? In that case, you aren't really actively converting their citizens with missionaries to a non-state religion, you're giving them new citizens with another religion.
Two responses.

1) In the story: So why would the theocratic government even consider accepting this whole city of heathens? Ha. That's like Israel accepting the "gift" of Amman.

2) Gameplay: And it's just as abusive / exploitive of the AI as gifting a missionary. It costs a little more, that's all.
 
Instead of blocking gifted missionaries, just alter the AI to delete any gifted missionary if it is running Theocracy. This should not be that difficult an AI change. It doesn't have to do any thinking or analysis, just a simple "if unit is non-state-religion missionary and we're running Theo, delete unit" check.

Edit: CvUnit::gift() does the conversion from one player to another. This function could be modified to check that the receiving player is a Theocratic AI. If it is, delete it if it is a non-state-religion missionary.

I don't like having player-specific code in CvUnit, so perhaps add CvPlayerAI::shouldDeleteGiftedUnit(CvUnit* pUnit) to allow for better extension of the ability to detect other special cases in the future.
 
So, the problem isn't the gifting of missionaries, it's that the AI won't destroy them (if that is a better option for the AI than using them or just holding onto them).

This whole argument seems to assume that the only reason a civ runs theocracy is for exclusive religious control... of course there are military benefits to be gained from theocracy as well. Furthermore, I have seen situations where a civ has been in theocracy for a while, but waits several turns before switching to... guess what... organized religion when I gift a missionary.

Plus, I think the AI is intelligent enough to refuse gifts... I have seen plenty of situations where I move a unit to a neighbors land and the gift button is not highlighted... what? You don't want me to give you 51 horsearchers? So it would seem. I have seen the same when all their cities are converted to my faith... there have been times that the gift button isn't highlighted anymore.

In all, I'm not convinced the AI doesn't like missionaries being gifted to it under theocracy... it's just that it found theocracy attractive for some reason and is willing to spread my faith as well if I make it that easy for them. They won't waste the hammers, but I can ;)
 
I must say that, since the beginning, I always thought that (according to the civilopedia's description), under a theocracy, only the state religion can spread (automatically or not). Which greatly simplify things.

Since the system allows for non-state religion spreading, providing that the leader does it himself with a missionary, I feel that there is no "good" solution.

Mine is to trust Solver: he has already done good work, lots have been debated here already, so I trust his judgement. And I also feel we should more think about giving him more work with new fixing than debate about this missionary thing ;)
 
Missionary gifting again. I wonder if I ever discussed a topic on the internet for this long. But I do notice that we're somewhat listening to each others arguments and we're moving a bit closer to oneanother, so I guess it's not completely useless. I've seen a few of these discussion on the internet that seemed to go nowhere (better not mention any of these discussions specifically as not to curse this thread. ;) )

I have said it a few times. My objection to missionary gifting isn't really based on the exploitation potential of the AI, but mostly on the circumvention of a game rule: Missionaries cannot spread a non-state religion to a theocracy. The fact that AI-controlled civilisations tend to automatically use the missionary on their cities makes the exploitation potential worse, but I also don't think that missionary gifting of a non-state religion missionary to a human controlled theocracy should be allowed. It would allow this human to circumvent the game rule that a foreign missionary cannot spread a non-state religion to his/her cities.

The rule isn't specifically beneficial or detrimental to the civilisation running a theocracy. It's a limitation with some beneficial effects and some detrimental effects. A well programmed AI and a smart human player will not use the civic when the detrimental effects are worse than the beneficial effects. The civic is a package deal, you get the good with the bad.

But the main discussion point for me is whether it is a good thing to have a game rule that can be circumvented so easily that it is in effect non-existent. I think that is a bad thing. It's bad from a game design perspective and it's bad because it is confusing to gamers not familiar with the intricacies of the game. In that case, I would like to remove the game rule or reinforce it. In my opinion, leaving the situation as it is is not an option. In this specific case, I would vote for reinforcing the rule.

Roland, your opposition to gifting missionaries seems to be solely on the basis that the AI doesn't know what to do with them, so it just blindly uses them to spread religion exactly like it had built the missionary itself.

So, the problem isn't the gifting of missionaries, it's that the AI won't destroy them (if that is a better option for the AI than using them or just holding onto them).

In other words, what you really want is a more intelligent AI, not a ban on gifting. Gifting units (any units) is part of the game. There are ways to exploit the dumb AI by gifting them tons of crappy units, not just missionaries.

So, what makes missionaries so special? Maybe you're exploiting the dumb AI, but you can do that with gifting useless warriers.

If you ban gifting missionaries, you have to ban gifting any unit, for the same reasoning. Or, you fix the AI, which is a big task for "fixing" such a minor exploit that only a human player can use.

As explained above, my objection to gifting a non-state religion missionary to a theocracy is a bit more fundamental. The potential for exploitation does make it worse, but it's not my main ground for objection.

Whether unit gifting is so vulnerable to exploitation that it should be disallowed altogether is a discussion for another day.

Two responses.

1) In the story: So why would the theocratic government even consider accepting this whole city of heathens? Ha. That's like Israel accepting the "gift" of Amman.

2) Gameplay: And it's just as abusive / exploitive of the AI as gifting a missionary. It costs a little more, that's all.

1) You're right that there are many elements in civ that are illogical from a realism point of view. However as explained above, realism based arguments aren't my main objection to the gifting of non-state religion missionaries to a theocracy. I do agree that the game probably could have been made more consistent or realistic without necessarily worsening the gameplay. For instance, I don't think it would worsen gameplay if the non-state religion was automatically removed upon accepting the gift of the city (by a theocracy) combined with a 5 turn rebellion in the city and some loss of population and buildings.

2) As explained above, exploitation based arguments aren't my main objection to the gifting of non-state religion missionaries to a theocracy. Your example of gifting a city with a non-state religion to a theocracy could potentially be exploitive, I agree.

Instead of blocking gifted missionaries, just alter the AI to delete any gifted missionary if it is running Theocracy. This should not be that difficult an AI change. It doesn't have to do any thinking or analysis, just a simple "if unit is non-state-religion missionary and we're running Theo, delete unit" check.

Edit: CvUnit::gift() does the conversion from one player to another. This function could be modified to check that the receiving player is a Theocratic AI. If it is, delete it if it is a non-state-religion missionary.

I don't like having player-specific code in CvUnit, so perhaps add CvPlayerAI::shouldDeleteGiftedUnit(CvUnit* pUnit) to allow for better extension of the ability to detect other special cases in the future.

Automatic deletion of the missionary by a theocracy would have a similar gameplay effect to blocking the gifting of the missionary to a theocracy. However, the human player doesn't know that the missionary is automatically deleted so I guess that this rule is less friendly to new players or players who didn't notice that the foreign civilisation is using the theocracy civic.

Isn't it possible just to insert code to prevent missionaries from being able to be gifted. The fact they can be gifted kind of defeats the purpose of the missionary idea! :crazyeye:

In Bhruics unofficial patch for BTS 3.13, missionaries couldn't be gifted to a theocracy. So yes, this is possible. We're discussing whether it is a good idea (I'm in favour of this rule).
 
As explained above, my objection to gifting a non-state religion missionary to a theocracy is a bit more fundamental. The potential for exploitation does make it worse, but it's not my main ground for objection.


Hmmm... okay, I'm much less interested in a philosophical debate about theocracy. I'm much more interested in how it affects gameplay. I thought we were discussing gameplay.

In terms of gameplay, I don't see the big deal about gifting missionaries.

I don't think the spreading of non-state religion under theocracy (which the game allows you to do yourself), it a big deal either. All the religious civics have an advantage:

Org religion: 25% bonus to building
Theocracy: +2 experience points
Pacifism: 100% GP birth rate
Free religion: increased happiness and science

So, if you pick theocracy, you give up the benefits of the other civics. You also don't get the automatic spread of religion, and you can't introduce a new religion to your civilization. But you can gift missionaries to other theocracies for them to do whatever they want with them (use them, torture the heathens, whatever).

I'm not sure if the latter is design-intent, or if it's an exploit. But, it doesn't seem to hurt gameplay, so I'm okay with it. If you think it hurts gameplay, don't do it. I don't need a patch to stop me from cheating.
 
I think we all agree that the best solution of the Theo stuff would be a smarter AI code, that would decide if it was worth it to keep or delete the missionary ( or simply fortify it, if it wanted to ). The big problem is that no one in here expects that Firaxis will recode this with CivCol coming by and possibly Civ V already in the starting run ( possibly to get out somewhere in late 2009/2010 ), so we are left with the decision of recoding ourselfes this or to make a quick , hard rule to prevent the AP missionary donation misfeature......

Like I said, I prefer the recoding......
 
In terms of gameplay, I don't see the big deal about gifting missionaries.
I can gift a missionary to each civ, put in an AP vote, and quite easily win the game in 100AD. That's not a big deal?

I can also gift a single missionary to a single civ, which then gives him a seat at the table, and I can force him to be my biotch or to suffer the penalties of refusal. For example, I can give civ A a missionary, then I can force both of us to go to war "against the heathens" which is Civ B over on the other side of Civ A. Guess who's going to be doing all the fighting?

If you think it hurts gameplay, don't do it. I don't need a patch to stop me from cheating.
:confused: This has been discussed ad nauseam. How is this cheating? It's part of the game. The designers permitted it in the game, and it's allowed. "Cheating" doesn't enter the picture.

I think Roland said it best, "the main discussion point for me is whether it is a good thing to have a game rule that can be circumvented so easily that it is in effect non-existent"

Now, if we convince Solver to do the change, then we momentarily become "the designers" and we say, No, in fact we do not want this in the game because we consider it exploitive and poor for the overall game experience.

Wodan
 
I must say that, since the beginning, I always thought that (according to the civilopedia's description), under a theocracy, only the state religion can spread (automatically or not). Which greatly simplify things.

Since the system allows for non-state religion spreading, providing that the leader does it himself with a missionary, I feel that there is no "good" solution.

Mine is to trust Solver: he has already done good work, lots have been debated here already, so I trust his judgement. And I also feel we should more think about giving him more work with new fixing than debate about this missionary thing ;)

I'm afraid it does not simplify things. There is more than one possibility here:

1. Civilopedia has an inaccurate description of the intent... namely that the civ in question could spread a different religion but other civs cannot spread different faiths to them. In other words civilopedia's description is too simplistic.
2. (more likely) The game has implemented the intended design incorrectly by allowing someone in theocracy to spread a non-state religion.

If option 2 is correct, this does not automatically mean that you must prevent gifting... you could program the AI to hold onto the missionary until it's ready and switch to another civic if it wants to. In fact I have seen the AI use this behavior too.

Regardless we will have debates like this until someone with knowledge of the original intent comes forward and makes a ruling.
 
That is a dangerous path , Wodan.... if we are going to halt humans to do stuff just because the AI will not be able of countering it properly , we need to prevent the open fort tactics, woodman warrior choking, the UN ( FR vote can make a WW... I already done that once ), 2+ move units ( because AI simply does not understand it )...... basically the humans would need to be forced to be as smart ( dumb ) as the AI if you push that to the end.

@GatlingGun

Given the non recoding of the theo code since vanilla on that point and the indications that Solver gave some pages ago ( saying that this had been discussed in Firaxis ), I feel that 1 is more correct
 
GatlingGun > What I meant is that, if it was that way (only spread state religion under theocracy), it would greatly simplify the situation as well as the problem (which would be inexistent).

Sorry if I wasn't clear :)
 
Back
Top Bottom