suggestions for civ 7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This would work quite well within the current constraints of Civ VI, where coreligionist states could determine differences in belief through ecumenical councils. There could be many ways to implement this. For instance, we could revive the Apostolic Palace from Civ IV so all coreligionist states would regularly convene to vote on beliefs. I am also open to another of Zaarin's ideas that adopting a Theocracy could trigger a schism on its own, modeling the seizure of religious authority. I will point out, though, many terms including "schism," "ecumenical council," and "reformation" are specific to Christianity and thus not necessarily applicable to other contexts.

Instead of using the term schism, the term sect is used by multiple religions and conveys the same purpose, though can also be described as belonging to different philosophical or political groups. Ecumenical Council could just be "Religious World Congress"

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If I recall correctly, probably from Death in Hamburg, this applied to many 19th-century European cities as well.

Up to the last 3rd of the century or so: there were virtually annual cholera and other epidemics in the big European cities until after 1850, and the infant mortality rate was, by modern standards, ghastly.

Nor was this new: the reason the aristocracy retired to their country estates for part of the year was that remaining in the city was too dangerous, and had been recognized as such since Elizabethan times!

 

[aieeegrunt]

I am against adding epidemics to the gamę because for 97% of game's timespan, before mass vaccinations and modern medicine and microbiology, there was very little to do much against them and preindustrial civilizations didnt even have the knowledge and paradigms required to solve the issue.

What am I trying to say, when you try to invent "rational and scientifically sound" for our modern perspective ways to overwhelmingly win with epidemics in the medieval age (while not having vaccine tech) , you already go meta and break game's immersion and realism anyway, because before microbiology people just... Didn't think that way.

Also, even besides vaccines, pre modern hospitals, medicine and border control were absolutely not on the logistical level to do much against mass scale epidemics.

So one way or another you always end up with either something ahistorical or something incredibly frustrating (your people die randomly and you cant do much).

You are Rome in the Third Century and a Plague Random Event deletes over half of your population and multiple barb camps spawn on your borders

This is a case where gameplay should overturn history, because how enraging would that be

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You are Rome in the Third Century and a Plague Random Event deletes over half of your population and multiple barb camps spawn on your borders

This is a case where gameplay should overturn history, because how enraging would that be

Actually 2 plagues, the Cyprian and Antonine, but between them (less than a century apart), they may have wiped up to 40 - 50% of the population and definitely caused (in game terms) an inability to recruit new units for sheer lack of manpower.
On the other hand, the Barbarian Problem was slightly different: the same number of Barbarian Camps (in Germany and central Europe) but instead of Warriors and Spearmen, they were now spawning Swordsmen and Knights (well, armored mounted spearmen, but close enough) after a couple of centuries of contact with the metal-using Romans.
Excessive contact with Barbarians tends to make the Barbs that much more dangerous, which is only implicitly shown in the game. Given historical examples like the Mongol use of (Chinese) gunpowder weapons against the Chinese and the Germanic tribes' use of metal armor, weapons, and cavalry against the Romans, in specific instances the effects can be devastating to the Civilization affected.

Another inclusion that, in game terms, would be Too Much for most gamers . . .

 

[luca 83]

Instead of using the term schism, the term sect is used by multiple religions and conveys the same purpose, though can also be described as belonging to different philosophical or political groups. Ecumenical Council could just be "Religious World Congress"

NO, A SECT IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO A RELIGION, SUCH AS BUDDHISTS IN TIBET OR ORTHODOX JEWS IN ISRAEL OR PAULICIANS, CATHARS, OR THE AMISH IN THE US. SCHISMS ARE BLOODY RELIGIOUS WARS, SCYTHIANS AND SUNNIS, RELIGIOUS WARS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, SCHISMS IN BYZANTIUM, ICONOCLASM, ETC.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

NO, A SECT IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO A RELIGION, SUCH AS BUDDHISTS IN TIBET OR ORTHODOX JEWS IN ISRAEL OR PAULICIANS, CATHARS, OR THE AMISH IN THE US. SCHISMS ARE BLOODY RELIGIOUS WARS, SCYTHIANS AND SUNNIS, RELIGIOUS WARS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, SCHISMS IN BYZANTIUM, ICONOCLASM, ETC.

And most of the different sects were formed because of the different schisms in their respective religions. They might not be the exact definition, but they are close enough, a cause and effect. Schisms will cause sects to form.

 

[luca 83]

And most of the different sects were formed because of the different schisms in their respective religions. They might not be the exact definition, but they are close enough, a cause and effect. Schisms will cause sects to form.

. but not strong enough to create a religious war as in germany in Luther's time. at most they can be eradicated with. inquisition

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

i would suggest a multi-layered development of theology where councils not the apostolic palace creates schisms also the grip of religion on countries could create schisms like a martin luther, or new and old believers in russia or monosiphists or arians in constantinople. for other religions, confucians have influenced taoism. buddhism shintoism, even there are doctrinal differences, shia and sunni in islam and the various sects should be kept in mind

I would be fine with a council mechanism that served to clarify beliefs. There could even be an "Ecumenical Unity" casus belli (or a more general name) for the mid-game to represent wars of religion among schisms and sects. How world religions have influenced one another is a topic I find interesting yet remain largely ignorant of. As to implementing it in-game, I would favor a population mechanism, where immigrants of another religious group might inspire syncretic beliefs.

Instead of using the term schism, the term sect is used by multiple religions and conveys the same purpose, though can also be described as belonging to different philosophical or political groups. Ecumenical Council could just be "Religious World Congress"

I think general terms like sect, pantheon, and even cult are fine. Terms like "Evangelize Belief" are likely exclusive even if not intended that way by developers. Ha! As for "Religious World Congress" I really would prefer a return to the Apostolic Palace!

 

[luca 83]

I would be fine with a council mechanism that served to clarify beliefs. There could even be an "Ecumenical Unity" casus belli (or a more general name) for the mid-game to represent wars of religion among schisms and sects. How world religions have influenced one another is a topic I find interesting yet remain largely ignorant of. As to implementing it in-game, I would favor a population mechanism, where immigrants of another religious group might inspire syncretic beliefs.

yes, but for every single religion, for Christians, for Muslims, for Buddhists