The Religous nuts...

[shadow2k]

Does anyone else think that some of these leaders are a bit too focused on religion?

I just finished up a game earlier today. And anytime someone mentions a religious nut, Izzy of course comes to mind. And that's who I'm talking about, although she's defenitely not the only culprit.

Anyway, she's Buddhist, I'm Buddhist...so of course, she loves me. I'm running her favorite civic as well. So that's like +11 between those two, plus another +4 for fair trade. So +15 off just those three, the main one being religion.

So of course, I declare war on her. I take 10+ citiies from her, I take all her gold, her map, and her next to last city (hidden island city) for peace. You know, everything but the kitchen sink (and techs of course, I hate how they rarely give them up in C4).

Anyway, peace is signed. And she's immediately back to friendly with me. Comes asking me for open borders. Wants to trade resources. She'll even trade her shiny new Rifles to me, but the price is a bit steep. So I'm playing around with it to see what she'll take for it, and I accidentally ask her if she'll give it to me for free. And she does. I mean, my troops have barely left her lands, and she's gifting me anything I ask for with a smile on her face?

I know you can ask for techs from Friendly civs with pretty decent success rate...but come on. On Epic speed, that's like a 5,600 beaker tech, I think we'd been at peace for two minutes, and she happily hands over a prime military tech to me for free. She's friendly, so even if she says no you don't get a hit for it.

That makes no sense. I mean, I understand that religion plays a large role in the game. But can't the AI at least be smart enough to realize that the guy who just annhilated them down to a OCC probably isn't their friend? To me it would make more sense if two civs with the same religion warred with each other (not a fake war, cities changing hands, lots of carnage)...that they'd actually end up hating each other more than just two different religions. You know, different sects or something. Sunni/Shi'a seem to want to blow each other up even more than the followers of other faiths. Tons of conflict between various sects of Christianity, Judaism, and pretty much every other religion. And they all seem to really dislike one another...you know, especially if you're invading their lands, or blowing up their temples or whatever.

I don't normally complain about the stupid AI much. I mean, it's a remarkable game, and I've spent way too many hourse enjoying it. But that just really bothered me. I wish I could turn religion off like I can do with the vassal nonsense.

 

[Janus0]

Since WW2, America's greatest allies have been Germany and Japan -- Two countries they burnt to the ground. Their greatest enemy? Russia, an ally.

I dunno. Makes sense to me.

 

[svv]

Fear can get you more than friendship sometimes. In this case it sounds like it might be fear. From a self-preservation standpoint, what she's doing makes sense. She's hoping she's more useful to you alive than dead.

 

[HalfBadger]

Fear can get you more than friendship sometimes. In this case it sounds like it might be fear. From a self-preservation standpoint, what she's doing makes sense. She's hoping she's more useful to you alive than dead.

Yeah, I agree with this statement. What good what Rifling do to her when she's eliminated? I'm surprised she didn't beg/ask to be your vassal etc and give you more stuff over time.

 

[Cam_H]

For me it's not the positive modifier for sharing the same faith, but it's the lack of larger negative modifier for "You declared war on us" that concerns me.

Sometimes the lack of a decay on this modifier is also a strange one. It's my impression that this is a linear decay (I'm not an expert on the mathematics behind the game's variables) whereas a more exponential-like decay rate would seem more sensible (I'm happy to be corrected on this one however). As such, you can be feeling the sting of an early-game opportunistic conflict in your relations for ages - albeit often quickly offset by a "mutual military struggle" if you bribe that tribe into another conflict later on. That Catherine sure knows how to carry a grudge!

Anyway, given that this is the Strategies and Tips forum, religion underpins the importance of being careful about selection, the strategic implications of switching to the same faith as 'a Saladin' or 'a Montezuma' versus the cost of missing out on leveraging religious Civics by not converting to any faith. It's a new dimension in the Civ series - and one that gives it even more appeal. Certainly once newer players start advancing towards the middle levels, old strategies about hopping into the first religion that you found begins to take on a slightly more cautionary tone, where real consideration of diplomatic strategising is lifted a notch.

 

[shadow2k]

For me it's not the positive modifier for sharing the same faith, but it's the lack of larger negative modifier for "You declared war on us" that concerns me.

I wouldn't give it just for the declaration of war. I mean, a phony war is annoying, but if not much goes on, there's no real huge animosity built up. It's the capturing of cities penalty that needs to be adjusted. You get pretty big hits for razing cities, and small hits for declaring war. But I'm not sure you get *any* penalty after the war for having captured a bunch of cities.