Too much religions?

[bobbobjack]

I think maybe 7 religions is too much for a normal game. I played my first few games with everything "normal" - land, civs, ect. I killed a civ in the medieval era (so there was only 5 other civs besides me) and about then, every ennemy civ had is own religion. Then, what's the point? I tought that civs would form "blocs" depending on their religion and civics, but in the end, there's not much big difference... any toughts? Maybe i should play on a large map with more than 7 civs?

 

[nho3]

I think maybe 7 religions is too much for a normal game. I played my first few games with everything "normal" - land, civs, ect. I killed a civ in the medieval era (so there was only 5 other civs besides me) and about then, every ennemy civ had is own religion. Then, what's the point? I tought that civs would form "blocs" depending on their religion and civics, but in the end, there's not much big difference... any toughts? Maybe i should play on a large map with more than 7 civs?

So far I have played mostly on large maps with a bunch of AI civs and every now and then one asks me to convert to their religion but its just empty threats. Sometimes the AI spreads his religion in my civ but it doesnt seem to matter what religions I have I always come out on top as long as I let the ppl worship whatever religion they want. I think its not until the skill levels above noble that actually make a difference with religion. I have not yet played on those harder levels but the AI should only ally with the same religions.

 

[Sailsa]

In some games it does seem that 7 religions is too many since every civ can found their own. However, in most games I have played, a couple civs will found 2 or more religions so there won't be enough to go around, or some religions will spread all around before the late ones are founded. I usually end up with 2 to 4 blocks of 1 to 3 civs with the same religion in a normal 7 civ game. I agree that this will probably work better in larger games but I don't think reducing the number of religions would be a good fix. Religions are very powerful and if you got rid of a couple of the religions then it would eliminate the strategies for obtaining them. If you only had the 3 early religions then there would be no option to skip them and research straight for a late one with a free missionary. And if you got rid of 1 or 2 of the early ones, then the remaining 1 or 2 would be too strong.

 

[bobbobjack]

I played on Noble only too. To tell the truth, i was hoping for more strategy depth with religions in civ IV but so far, its only use is to make ppl happy in my cities...

Sailsa: then again, if a civ fouded 2 or 3 religions, then only the state religion of that will be of any use except the happiness bonus since its non-state religion will never have the power to form a "bloc" or even converting other civ to them. I just don't see the point of forcing a civ to convert in a religion that you founded but is not your state religion. Then, you have on your hand 1 (or 2 in the case that civ founded 3 religions) "useless" religions... IMO

 

[suspendinlight]

I have been playing on Standard continent maps with 18 civs so quite a few civs share a religion. In my most recent game on Prince, I had the unfortunate chance of starting on an island near a big continent by myself. I founded Hinduism, but I wasn't able to spread it until I managed to get a boat over to the main continent. By that time, the entire continent had converted to Judaism and so I was never able to make any friends or get a foothold there. Finally, in the later game I managed to befriend some Confucian civs on the other side of the world so I finally have some allies. I have noticed significant differences in the way religion affects the game.

 

[StevenJoyce]

<Delurk>

Don't forget the cash from shrines. Suppose you found two religions and build both shrines. If you spread each religion to 15 cities, that's 30gpt before multiplying by improvements. If you focus on relgions, it's not too hard to run your entire empire using only the shrine income (at least on Noble).

 

[bobbobjack]

suspendinlight: with 18 civs i think religion does improve the overall strategy in the game, but with everything at normal (7 civs game) 7 religions is too much. It's a shame because my computer tend to lag a lot with larger maps...

 

[devilsassasin]

What I find the most annoying about the religious part of the game, is that (on a standard or smaller map without seas parting anyone) it's either buddhism or hinduism. I haven't played a single game in which islam got above 7% influence. It's different on continent maps, but when everyone's able to reach each other, mostly it'll just turn up with 2 blocks.

What I find rather stupid is, that some civs hate me for my state religion even though their state religion has it's founding city in my land.

 

[lordomni]

I have learne dto enjoy the religious strategy. In my current game on Noble, I have 4 of the religions founded by myself. Buddhism is spread to most other empires,a nd occasionally a few of the others as well. WHy? Shrines. I make a lot of money and a lot of happiness on these things. There is also the pleasure of being able to see what all my opponents have in their cities to decide whether or not to attack them.

I do think they made few too many, confucianism shouldn't even be listed as a religion. But I do enjoy the affects.

in my other game I played I was the crusading christian, with it being the hgihest influence religion in the world.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What I find rather stupid is, that some civs hate me for my state religion even though their state religion has it's founding city in my land.

That's actually VERY sensible (ie Crusades: Christian states hated Muslim ones that controlled Christian Holy Cities)

However, they might want to consider rebalancing it (maybe provide an extra missionary to much later faiths like Islam... perhaps with certian techs religions can naturally expand a lot faster). another option would be restricting early religious spread, after all religions didn't really spread that far and fast before Islam, or the post-Roman Era (except within an empire)...perhaps let an official religion Really help passive spread within an empire, but make missionaries not available until later.

 

[kingpenguin]

What I find the most annoying about the religious part of the game, is that (on a standard or smaller map without seas parting anyone) it's either buddhism or hinduism. I haven't played a single game in which islam got above 7% influence. It's different on continent maps, but when everyone's able to reach each other, mostly it'll just turn up with 2 blocks.

Of course, the 2 blocks are fully formed just when free religion hits and it barely matters. Anyone noticed, btw, that missionaries rarely work in later eras? I wonder exactly what happens there, if it's era or # of religions, or time passed since founded, or what.

 

[ndthsmdy]

I'm thinking (just a guess here) that the reason there are so many religions is so that founding an early religion didn't become a Civ 3/GL-like crutch. Not that it's mattering--it seems like almost everybody is making founding an early religion a huge part of their early strategy, no matter who or where they are

I've played a couple games as non-philosophical/spiritual leaders and really enjoyed not caring about religion. Once I wound up founding Confucianism anyway (since CoL is a very sweet Classical tech), but honestly, you don't need the hassle if you're financial/spamming cottages or aggressive/building a kickass military. There are plenty of other things for you to worry about at the higher levels besides missionaries, temples to build your shrine, etc.

Not to imply that religion is overrated, but it seems like everybody's getting really into religion and Great People, mostly because they're the most prominent new exciting aspects of the game. Eventually though we're going to have to figure out the pros and cons of each of them.

 

[Shillen]

I have been playing on Standard continent maps with 18 civs so quite a few civs share a religion. In my most recent game on Prince, I had the unfortunate chance of starting on an island near a big continent by myself. I founded Hinduism, but I wasn't able to spread it until I managed to get a boat over to the main continent. By that time, the entire continent had converted to Judaism and so I was never able to make any friends or get a foothold there. Finally, in the later game I managed to befriend some Confucian civs on the other side of the world so I finally have some allies. I have noticed significant differences in the way religion affects the game.

I had a similar game on Prince earlier today. I couldn't meet the other civs until Astronomy. By then they all had their own religions and most cities even had multiple religions. I had wanted to win the game via diplomacy because I haven't tried that yet, but I ended up having to go for a space race because I couldn't get them to like me. It didn't help that as soon as I made contact I traded with all of them, like I usually did in civ3. Well that turned out to be a big no-no. Almost every civ gave me a -4 penalty for trading with their worst enemies. That -4 penalty seemed to stay for the entire game too, to go along with the penalties for having a heathen religion.

 

[Si_Lurker]

Well, even though entire world is Budhist or Hindu, and you have founded a late religion, you can help to aleviate tensions:

I played a game where I have founded Christianity and Islam, Christianity being a state religion, while Hatty founded Judaism and Hinduism, the latter becoming the religion of the rest of the world. Once I spread christianity to all of her cities, she switched to free religion civic (was beneficial to her since all her cities had 2-3 religions) and she was no longer upset about religious difference.

 

[Volstag]

It depends on the game. I'm playing an epic, terra, 12 civ game... and 9 of the 12 civs are using Judaism. Diplomatically, my hands are tied with just about everyone (hinduism). At a more challenging level (playing warlord), I think this would make a huge difference -- trading is much more difficult.

 

[Greek Plunder]

I love te religious aspect of thee game. Diplomacy is much more subtle, and moves have to be planned. Try choosing the option to discuss something else with a Civ you want to please, and see how they feel toward the OTHER civs. Then, don't trade with a Civ they are annoyed with. It's pretty simple, really.

Every game I've played thus far, religion has played a large part. Blocs HAVE formed as a result of it. I don't know what that other person is saying, whenever I play Standard maps, it isn't just Buddhism and Hinduism. In the early game, yes, but I find most of the other religions get converted to by at least one Civ eventually. Try playing a strategy where you don't found a religion, and then you get to decide who you want to ally with based on religion, as well.

 

[theim]

The main thing I use religion for is a diplomacy booster.

Just found a religion, build missionaries, and send them out to another Civ's cities. In one game the Chinese were a Bhuddist nation, but after I spread Judaism to every one of their cities I persuaded them to convert, and they actually stayed that way for the rest of the game. I imagine this would be quite useful if pursuing a diplomatic victory.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I find religion a fun and important aspect as well. I have used various strategies for carious games. In one game I restricted myself to one city for a while and attempted to found EVERY city in that city ... and succeeded. In a game where my friend and I were collaborating he really want to found Confucianism so he did. That one was a large continents map. We (the English) started on one island with one other civ (the Aztecs) while the other two islands had five civs and four civs, respectively. It ended up that the Aztexs and us were Confucianist, the 4-civ island only had Judaism on it, and the other island had every other religion on it and there were about three state religions prevalent on the 5-civ island. That made the game rather interesting, not to mention that the only land bridge between us and the Aztecs was a one tile wide peak. And this was on Warlord. It looks like there have been some religious fueled wars on the island. Only problem with that game is for some reason when Qin Shi Huang contacts us, the comp freezes (We ended up cancelling all trade with him in hopes that he would go away lol).

 

[SwedishChef]

My experience has been mixed.

I first played a game on the world size one smaller than standard, and on noble difficulty. I ended up on one end of a long continent with a Peak (impassable mountain) choke point, so it was some time until I met anyone else, and even then only 2 other civs. By the time I met others I had a solid lead in the game, particularly in technology, so religion seemed to play little role in my relations with other nations - because those relations didn't matter much. However, I was concerned about religion. I destroyed one civ that never liked me. I attacked another, made peace and we never fought again but between the attack and the religious difference he hated me forever after. Only ONE civ I made friends with early (I was Rome, he was America) was actually willing to trade regularly. For some reason the religious penalty wasn't enough to wipe out that one alliance.

For my next game I picked a standard world size, terra (is this the new pangaea? if so that was an accident - I thought it was "earthlike" or something). I also selected one difficulty level up from noble (prince?). I believe I met every other civ by about 2500-3000 BC. Fast - and we're all on one continent. Despite a fabulous starting location and perhaps being first to found my second city, Egypt managed to create a huge lead, and the land around me was quickly filled in by the #3 and #4 cities of several other civs.

This forced me to fight some wars to expand. I'm more of a builder, but I tried to view it as practice of the new military system. My wars were pretty successful - first agains the Japanese, and then the Germans. They are both no longer threats and I have more land and cities in a mostly-contiguous empire. I also picked up some nice resources including copper and iron along the way.

BUT now back to the point of the thread - religion! I've never been at war with Spain, or Egypt. I had open borders with both, which Spain canceled for no reason. Though I've met Greece, I've never seen a Greek city. NONE of these three will trade with me regularly. Only the leading civs had any techs I didn't have and the -4 "heathen religion" penalty has made is so they all dislike me. Doesn't matter that we've never had war. Some say I attacked their friends (didn't have much choice...) others say I trade with their enemies, but even the one that DOESN'T have any other modifiers still dislikes me because of my religion.

I find being unable to trade annoying and a severe impediment as I fell behind in tech as I pursued my war.

Things I've considered:
Converting - but I can't because the other nations have not spread their religions to my country. We have 2 apparently unpopular faiths on tap at the moment. I don't think there's a way for me to spread a religion I don't have.
Fighting more wars - Does the "you attacked us!" penalty ever go away? I can probably pursue a strategy of a series of limited wars, trying to weaken one opponent at a time, but this doesn't help position with other countries.

I am about 4 techs behind the 3 most advanced civs at this point - 1 of which is egypt with HUGE culture and a HUGE game score. The other is my equal in most respect. The third not far behind me. None of the 3 are very close, and so are difficult to fight.

I feel like I have few options when it comes to diplomacy, and that this lack of options is due to religions differences causing all other nations to dislike me too much. Perhaps I could convert to "no religion" - if that eliminates the penalty. I haven't checked yet. (Lack of options in a game is bad feature.)

I'm just not seeing a lot of options for pulling this game out. Maybe I'm not good enough for this difficulty level yet, but I was OK at Emperor on civ3, so I'm a bit surprised at the way this game is going. I just can't seem to grow and produce enough, even though I probably now have the most cities of any civ. I'll be very interested to see what the HECK Egypt was doing in the first 50 turns. I didn't think you could pop cities or settlers out of goodie huts any more (except on "chieftan" or tutorial or whatever it's called now).

Sorry to ramble, but I'm not enjoying the religious experience just yet... I'm trying to separate my "religious issues" from the fact that this particular game on this difficulty setting with this particular map happens to be hard for me. But my first instinct is "get allies! splinter the opposition!" but that seems impossible because of religion...

(suggestions welcome)

 

[Greek Plunder]

Civ 3 and Civ 4 are vastly different games... I would take it down a notch.