To Civ IV developers, please please be careful with this 'missionaries' thing...

[Meleager]

Perhaps Fraxis should make it that only Christians can build missionaries at all. Then the whole world will become Christian every time and you would REALLY be complaining.

The only difference between religions is their names. Who cares what they are or what they build. If it really bothers you just change their name.

To quote Shakespeare:
"What is in a name? ..."

This especially applies to civ4. Maybe instead of getting caught up in such immaterial things as religions names we should be considering their effect on game play.
Just think:
1) Cities with the state religion have +1 happiness
2) The nation that controls a nations holy city gets line of site in all the cities
3) If a nation has a shrine for a religion (built by great prophets) they get money from every city with the religion
4) Nations with the same religion get along better
5) [Assumption] If 2 nations are at war and have different state religions (A and B) then every nation with religion A will like nations with religion B less (duplicates holy wars) [END Assumption]

Religions will have a huge effect on game play! But instead of congratulating Fraxis on their new innovative game play you are getting caught up in names! That is a bit shallow is it not? I can just imagine a game where I beeline to a religious tech rather than a military one so that I can get the holy city.

In the end you have to remember that this is a game and treat it like that.

 

[Djarum Kretek]

Perhaps Fraxis should make it that only Christians can build missionaries at all. Then the whole world will become Christian every time and you would REALLY be complaining.

The only difference between religions is their names. Who cares what they are or what they build. If it really bothers you just change their name.

To quote Shakespeare:
"What is in a name? ..."

This especially applies to civ4. Maybe instead of getting caught up in such immaterial things as religions names we should be considering their effect on game play.
Just think:
1) Cities with the state religion have +1 happiness
2) The nation that controls a nations holy city gets line of site in all the cities
3) If a nation has a shrine for a religion (built by great prophets) they get money from every city with the religion
4) Nations with the same religion get along better
5) [Assumption] If 2 nations are at war and have different state religions (A and B) then every nation with religion A will like nations with religion B less (duplicates holy wars) [END Assumption]

Religions will have a huge effect on game play! But instead of congratulating Fraxis on their new innovative game play you are getting caught up in names! That is a bit shallow is it not? I can just imagine a game where I beeline to a religious tech rather than a military one so that I can get the holy city.

In the end you have to remember that this is a game and treat it like that.

Actually, I don't mind if the Christianity religion have the missionaries and Confucianism don't. That is very realistic. I won't be complaining. Many tensions between civilizations was caused exactly because of this situation where one Civ has different values than the other. China never sent Confucian missionaries to Europe, but many many European Christian missionaries went everywhere and started tensions.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In keeping with my idea about religions acquiring traits during gameplay, perhaps it would be good if a religion belonging to a civ with a VERY strong culture, and/or which builds lots of religious buildings and missionaries, gets an Evangelical trait-a trait which gives both a bonus to its chances of converting other cities, and a bonus to the build time of missionary units (or simply a cheaper form of missionary). The downside of such a trait is that any of the cities-belonging to that faith-which consist of more than one religion suffer either reduced happiness or health (to reflect tension between the different beliefs) and they suffer poorer relations with nations of a different state faith.
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

In keeping with my idea about religions acquiring traits during gameplay, perhaps it would be good if a religion belonging to a civ with a VERY strong culture, and/or which builds lots of religious buildings and missionaries, gets an Evangelical trait-a trait which gives both a bonus to its chances of converting other cities, and a bonus to the build time of missionary units (or simply a cheaper form of missionary). The downside of such a trait is that any of the cities-belonging to that faith-which consist of more than one religion suffer either reduced happiness or health (to reflect tension between the different beliefs) and they suffer poorer relations with nations of a different state faith.
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I always liked the idea of a nation changing its traits during play in order to suit the players style (or depending on the players style). I don't know how much relevance it has to this conversation though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It has great relevence, Meleager. What I am saying is that as great as religion will be for gameplay just as it stands, it could be greater still if the religions could be differentiated via trait acquisition. I will try and explain this idea in brief. When a civ founds a religion, it is completely generic. However, depending on the founding civs leader, its Civics choices and a variety of other in-game factors, the religion can acquire certain 'traits'. To use the missionary example. Lets say that China's leader is Expansionist, and that the Chinese civ focuses heavily on its culture and religious strength. Then the religion they founded (Hinduism, lets say) will acquire the Evanglist trait. Any civ which adopts Hinduism later on will get this trait too-which grants them bonuses to the chance to convert foreign and domestic cities etc etc.
If a non-founding civ plays contrary to the traits of its religion, then said civ has a chance of seeing a sect spring up within his/her nation. To use the example above, lets say India adopts Hinduism, but then fails to 'Spread the Word'-and underfunds his culture. This may well lead to an Insular/Introverted Sect of Hinduism (poor choice of words, but you get the gist). Sect appearance can lead to some VERY interesting strategic choices for players-as they need to decide whether to crush a sect, leave it be, or embrace it as the new State Religion-any of which could have far reaching ramifications for your nation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

Like I said Aussie_lurker, good idea. I was just saying that I dont know how much it has to do with Confucianism having missionaries.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, I get where you're coming from now. Well, the point is that 'Missionaries' for non-evangelical civs could just represent the teachers which Djarum mentioned. i.e. they can 'teach' other civs about their belief, but only have a moderate chance of successfully converting other civs cities. An evangelical civ, OTOH, represents the real-world religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism which sought to vigorously 'Spread the Word' about their beliefs.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Crayton]

Before Christ, Ethiopia was also Jewish. The Queen of Sheba converted Sheba to Judaism to appease King Solomon too. Judaism was one of the first religions that got frequent flyer miles and was adopted by multiple civs; Brahmanism was confined to India. Confucius, Lau Tzu, and the Buddha were still "preaching" their inceptions of religion at this time. Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Religion was still polytheistic "Armies marching for one of many gods" and rather than adoption of the victorious god, pantheons of gods co-existed. The stability of Polytheism in India, because of castes, warrants a religion in Civ; while the Monotheistic moral codes of the West and Philosophic moral codes of the East should balance with 3 representative religions apiece.

 

[ThERat]

what happnes to a concept like Singapore for example, where one can find all major religions represented (christianity, judaism, buddhism, confucianism, muslim, daoism, hindusim and even free-thinker). Yes, all in one place and so far it works out quite alright. Now such a truly multi-cultural concept isn't found in many places, but it exits. Is that possible with this new concept?
I guess you would find yourself in conflict with all other since you also accept religions that are different from theirs.

 

[Reinhard]

Civ is a game where many of today's nations can commit atrocities such as slaughtering tens of millions of people or using force labour so brutal that entire cities populations are diminished to nothing.

In this scope I find this religion sensitiviness very weird, since most people both in the East and in the West identify themselves more through their nationality than their religion.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

This whole thread is why peo0ple should make their own religions if they get a prophet. choose traits. some would change and some would stay the ame, like polytheistic or monotheistic. Then people wouldn't argue over whether the method in which a religion spreads should be called a "missionary" unit or not.

 

[Risbinroch]

What about the flavors we have in CIV3? Can the sort of same thing work for CIV4? I don't like it when religion becomes totally random... And the missionaries - I have to agree with most of you, is a bad bad idea.

Religion should definetaly be abstract, unlike governments that should not, in my opinion.

 

[Horizon]

The player is supposed to be the leader of his civilization and unless this religion is stating this leader to be the supreme being of such religion, he should have no real control on missionaries/religious travelers/philosophy teachers etc...

A bit like in Civilization 3 where the player can't really decide a "culture" conversion to enemy cities.
the player in Civ 3 help culture to spread in his own civilization by building culture building and wonders, but it is the game mechanics that decide of culture conversion of border cities.

Civ3 religions should be handled the same and religion "spreader" units should not be able to convert cities on their own (maybe converting units) , but should count in a game mechanic that will decide if a city is converted to a civilization main religion.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I don't believe the player represents either the secular or religious leader of a civ. Instead, as Rhialto puts it, you are the 'Zietgiest' of your people. Namely, you represent the underlying moral, technological and political tendancies of your nation. Note, though, that these are tendancies only, and hopefully they will have a system in civ4 where these tendancies-as represented by the player-are occasionally at odds with the current will of the actual people-leading to unhappiness, rioting and possibly even civil war!
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Shaihulud]

As ruler of the great Incan Empire and Immortal Headmaster of the Confuciouism I can very well build missionaries if I want to. it seems wierd that confucious was born in South America and that jesus in Australia just as their respective land developed a new tech.

 

[onedreamer]

If you truly insist, then please revise it to Confucian Scholars or Confucian teachers or something. Even that is stretching it. They studied Confucianism not to intentionally convert the beliefs of people from other civilizations. I'm serious, really! Please check any world history book.... What happened in Korea and Japan was that they send scholars to learn Confucianism in China... No Chinese were sent there to intentionally convert Japanese and Korean to be Confucians...

Does it really matter if a unit is called Confucian scholar or confucian missionary ? Civilization is a computer game based on history, not a history lecture.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well the Current Names MAY be changed
Currently all the 'religion specific Units/Wonders/Improvements' have common names
there are no Christian Temples, and the Jewish Shrine should probably be called The Temple.

The thing is with these names, just like graphics they are not done yet. And Jesus being born in Australia is no wirder than Sun Tzu writing his art of war in Tenochitlan or Newton founding his University in Tokyo

So it is quite possible that when the game comes out, The Christian 'converting unit' may be the only one called Missionary the other ones may be renamed scholars, teachers, priests, prophets, judges, etc. and so forth... The Christian temple might be renamed a chapel etc. and so forth...
Of course this might not happen to allow the player to better understand what the chapel actually does and that it has the same effect as a Jewish synagogue or a Buddhist temple.

As for multi-religious cities I'm not quite sure but I COULD see a few option for a city
1. Dominated by one religion
2. No 'Civ-level' religion ie city is dominantly Atheistic/Animistic, etc.
3. Multi-religious city

I'm not exactly sure if 2 and 3 will be modeled differently, but I know that #1 will be modellable differently (since you will have an early part of the game with no religion, and I see no reason why a city With religion couldn't lose that religion)

 

[oldStatesman]

I am a bit confused...I thought I read or heard in one of the many previews/interviews/etc that missionaries were going to be hidden nationality units...like priviteers in Civ3....so open or closed borders will not matter one bit...

 

[Carver]

According to one of the latest interviews you need open borders to allow foreign missionaries into your country - which I think is cool - you can still be a reclusive, isolationist country with a unique religion if you want to.

 

[Slyk]

1. If I refuse to have a 'state' religion, then what? Do I HAVE to pick one?
2. If I slaughter the little buggers the minute their "holier than thou" feet cross my borders, do I risk war with their homeland?

I just don't like the idea. Religion is a major influence throughout history, but all things being equal, it has led to more conflict than any other single cause. Maybe that is a game aspect to consider, but honestly I'd prefer to play without it and would intend to mod my games accordingly....unless I could be the great evil empire of un-godliness...that might be a fun challenge.