Unrealistic Religion system

[The Boz]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:
1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

All five points are at odds with historic facts and events. Sure, you can find examples where religion is good, was under control of the nation, did not interfere etc., but these are far from the norm.

I loved the way CiV solved the religion issue by dimping all the art, literature, religion and other "intangibles" into Culture. Even with all the failings of CIV, it at least had the "no religion" option. This is a step back.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:
1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

All five points are at odds with historic facts and events. Sure, you can find examples where religion is good, was under control of the nation, did not interfere etc., but these are far from the norm.

I loved the way CiV solved the religion issue by dimping all the art, literature, religion and other "intangibles" into Culture. Even with all the failings of CIV, it at least had the "no religion" option. This is a step back.

Every system in the game is unrealistic. Why does it take like 500 years to build a wall? How lazy are those ancients anyhow?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It brings more gameplay elements, this is a good thing.

Besides, i don't remember reading in my history books that Polynesia won the space race and America turned communist.

 

[dexters]

culture as a feature has existed since Civ3, long before religion was even considered as a Civ feature.

There was no abstraction of religion into culture AFAIK in Civ5.

As for your general comments about only positives coming from religion, I sort of agree on some level, but I like how the religion being promised us is customizable, and you could conceivably end up getting 2nd or 3rd choice buffs if other civs beat you to the good ones you want.

And the fact that religion doesn't stay important for the entire game is an interesting gameplay decision.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:
1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

All five points are at odds with historic facts and events. Sure, you can find examples where religion is good, was under control of the nation, did not interfere etc., but these are far from the norm.

I loved the way CiV solved the religion issue by dimping all the art, literature, religion and other "intangibles" into Culture. Even with all the failings of CIV, it at least had the "no religion" option. This is a step back.

Aside from a handful of beliefs, we know virtully nothing about the religion system. There very well could be beliefs that gimp science, and boost military or culture. It's a bit early to dismiss the whole sistem.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

culture as a feature has existed since Civ3, long before religion was even considered as a Civ feature.

There was no abstraction of religion into culture AFAIK in Civ5.

Except that Temples and Monestaries grant culture. As well as all the "religious" wonders that grant culture. (Sistine Chapel, Notre Dame, Cristo Redentor)

 

[guczy]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:
1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

All five points are at odds with historic facts and events. Sure, you can find examples where religion is good, was under control of the nation, did not interfere etc., but these are far from the norm.

I loved the way CiV solved the religion issue by dimping all the art, literature, religion and other "intangibles" into Culture. Even with all the failings of CIV, it at least had the "no religion" option. This is a step back.

1. If it would be bad / useless no one would want / use it and you would whine about how useless it is
2. That is not exactly something that's rare. Also if you couldn't control it, it would be random and we really don't need too much randomness in a strategy game
3. As it will give diplo modifiers it does affect diplo. Also we don't really have a whole lot of info what it will affect
4. How is that a problem? Also: have you heard about something called "the crusades"?
5. You don't know that. Also i don't really understand what you mean with "various secular stances"

 

[That nerdy kid]

1. If it would be bad / useless no one would want / use it and you would whine about how useless it is
2. That is not exactly something that's rare. Also if you couldn't control it, it would be random and we really don't need too much randomness in a strategy game
3. As it will give diplo modifiers it does affect diplo. Also we don't really have a whole lot of info what it will affect
4. How is that a problem? Also: have you heard about something called "the crusades"?
5. You don't know that. Also i don't really understand what you mean with "various secular stances"

1. that is the way it works in real life

5. Various secular stances means from agnostic believers, such as deists, to gnostic Atheists, with agnostic atheists and humanists in between.

I do think that it would be stupid for them not to include secularism/humanism as a "religion" because many European nations are largely atheistic/ non-religious (including the Dutch, who are coming in as a Civ)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

1. that is the way it works in real life

5. Various secular stances means from agnostic believers, such as deists, to gnostic Atheists, with agnostic atheists and humanists in between.

I do think that it would be stupid for them not to include secularism/humanism as a "religion" because many European nations are largely atheistic/ non-religious (including the Dutch, who are coming in as a Civ)

They are since the renaissance, which is kind of exactly what religion represents in this game by tapering out then.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

I would think the best way to do it would be a rework of one of the Rationalism policies, that grants bonuses for existing religions, similar to the Free Religion civic in Civ4.

 

[The Boz]

Aside from a handful of beliefs, we know virtully nothing about the religion system. There very well could be beliefs that gimp science, and boost military or culture. It's a bit early to dismiss the whole sistem.

From the screenshots so far, all beliefs offer only bonuses, no penalties, and there is a tab for each of the 11 religions, and none of the tabs are labeled "GOD IS DEAD" or anything of the sort.

Except that Temples and Monestaries grant culture. As well as all the "religious" wonders that grant culture. (Sistine Chapel, Notre Dame, Cristo Redentor)

Exactly that.

1. If it would be bad / useless no one would want / use it and you would whine about how useless it is
2. That is not exactly something that's rare. Also if you couldn't control it, it would be random and we really don't need too much randomness in a strategy game
3. As it will give diplo modifiers it does affect diplo. Also we don't really have a whole lot of info what it will affect
4. How is that a problem? Also: have you heard about something called "the crusades"?
5. You don't know that. Also i don't really understand what you mean with "various secular stances"

1. There is such a thing as a sidegrade.
2. Actually, it is. See: History. Protestantism. The Crusades. Yes, I've heard about them.
3. Affect != Interfere
4. It's a problem because that is not at all how it works in the real world.
5. That's why I added the "so far". See: Secularism. State atheism.

 

[SuperWaffle247]

I would say the only one of those concerns that is legitimate is the last one. And even then I'm okay with it. Keep in mind we don't know everything yet.

 

[bcaiko]

1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.

-Incorrect! Religion can (and almost certainly will) hamper diplomacy. Before the Renaissance, differing religions will be a negative modifier.

2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.

-Incorrect! Religion will spread to cities within and outside of your empire via faith and geography; elements you can pursuade but not "control." Though you can create Missionaries, ect., to hard convert a city to the religion of your choice. (That doesn't seem that much different that real life, though.)

3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.

-Incorrect! See response to No. 1, re: diplomacy. We don't know enough to say how Religion will effect the others.

4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.

-Incorrect! A Religious belief, Tithing, will grant gold to the civilization. Only one Religion in the game will be able to adopt this Belief.

5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

-Incorrect! The Devs have specifically said you don't have to use the Religion function if you don't want to. (Why you would choose not to do so is beyond me, though).

While many on this board may have strong feelings about religion in general (clearly negative ones in case of the OP), the system of Religion in the game so far seems smart and well thought out.

 

[GenjiKhan]

5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

It's very possible that Religion system won't stop players to choose Rationalism branch and I bet that Rationalism finisher will stifle the percentage of religious in your cities .

 

[nokmirt]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:

3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.

Ed Beach did say it will play a role in diplomacy during the medieval era in the recent video interview that was posted. That was the best news yet. He said it plays a role but goes by the wayside during the Renaissance. The reason he said they wanted religion to play a role in diplomacy during that time, is because he wanted it to feel like you were actually leading a civ through that time period in history. He stated that in so many words.

One of the main complaints about the game has been diplomacy. Thats why they are approaching it in a different way with Gods and Kings.

 

[MoonFlare]

Unrealistic? O, RLY? You are talking about a game where medieval knights can shoot fireballs at modern jet fighters.

 

[chazzycat]

regarding point 3, religion will surely effect city city management, science, etc. Assuming there are new faith buildings, they would need to be prioritized against the other buildings. And some of the "beliefs" will surely effect this too. For instance the "goddess of the hunt" which gives +1 food to camps would raise the priority of researching trapping, and the priority for your workers to build camps first. That's just one example, hopefully there will be all sorts of new & interesting decisions.

 

[turingmachine]

1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

1, This isn't a fault of the religion mechanic. They've stated before that they didn't want to put negative factors into their gameplay mechanics. There's no reason for you to single out religion except to make a point when this is a factor of the entire game.

2 There are some historical precedents, and it is not completely under your control. It spreads on its own, you can have someone else's religion, follower beliefs.

3. Religion has been stated to interfere with diplomacy, how to have it interfere in other areas without violating rule 1 is difficult (and not religion's fault) but can be argued in the trade offs you make in choosing one belief over the other (happy or culture or gold), which simulates it interfering with your overall management.

4. Well depending on how you argue it, there is nothing wrong with this. Yes, no religion has made gold magically appear, but to say religion is not allowed to contribute to a state gaining wealth is just wrong. From donations, to religious tithe, to the role religion has played in commerce, art, and trade, etc. The game Civilization starts in 4000 BCE, not the 21st century. Stop thinking of religion as only modern religion interacting with the modern state.

5. Not really an issue. It is historically inaccurate to argue for atheistic states and peoples prior to the early modern area (note, I'm talking about collective groups, not individuals). Secondly, the game mimics the approach of atheism, agnosticism, etc. by making Religion's influence and impact wane in modern times starting with the Renaissance. So, actually, the religion system does incorporate your complaint. Can also choose not to follow a religion.

 

[GRM7584]

First off, a rough sketch of the pecking order for putting things into Civ games, imho:

Marketability > Fun > Balance > Logical Consistency > Accuracy/Realism

-Religion as a negative force is not marketable when a majority of the end users are going to be, to some degree, religious.
-Religion out of the player's control is not fun (to most players), and Religion that acts independently based on the RNG only has the potential to cause more imbalances.
-Trying to make a religion system that is logically consistent without violating public appeal, fun, or balance, is probably not possible.

In all previous civilization games, religion has matched all of your points to a tee. The concept of religion providing culture, which is itself uniformly good for a civilization, should be just as repugnant to you as the new implementation.

I might go so far as to say that unrealistic representation of Religion is a core tenet of the civilization series, which is good news; it is indicative that the XP is on track and in line with the civ pedigree we're used to.

I think your chief issue is with the pecking order I listed, which really isn't negotiable when it comes to civ. Its a critically renowned series with almost universal praise that outsells just about every other PC TBS out there, and it has used the same priorities I listed from the very first game. Since it is still a highly successful model for a game: I wouldn't count on them changing it.

But....if only there were an enormous, prolific community of mod-makers and mod-supporting infrastructure that you could turn to that would address your concerns...Hmm.
Seriously, though, you can probably count on a half dozen religion-altering or removing mods popping up within weeks of the release.

PS First post in like 4 years

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history. The things we know about Religion in G&K so far are:
1. Religion is always good and always gives bonuses.
2. Religion is under control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. Religion does not interfere in city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization.
5. Religion system so far does not allow atheism, agnosticism or any of the various secular stances.

All five points are at odds with historic facts and events. Sure, you can find examples where religion is good, was under control of the nation, did not interfere etc., but these are far from the norm.

I loved the way CiV solved the religion issue by dimping all the art, literature, religion and other "intangibles" into Culture. Even with all the failings of CIV, it at least had the "no religion" option. This is a step back.

 

[Monthar]

All the info I've read so far regarding the religions seems to be at odds with history.

This is a Strategy Game, not a historical simulation.