Unrealistic Religion system

[The Boz]

Dear people that use the "not supposed to be realistic" argument:
Why can't my arabs use dual Uzi Commandos in 500 BC? They don't have to be overpowered, their stats could be perfectly in line with the Archer...

 

[Gucumatz]

The Boz, you aren't making any sense with this thread...

Religion has offered both benefits and negatives in history. Such as holy wars (which are going to be included) and science prospering via madrassas, monasteries, etc. Again, there are some negative things still such as Holy Wars but this is a game and for most part everything about Religion has sounded fine. Do you have any specific concerns that we know about already, otherwise your argument is moot.

 

[cccv]

you could replace the word "religion" with "social policies" for the first two of those items and come up with the same thing.

1. Social policies are always good and always gives bonuses.
What an outrage! There's never a drawback, no negative consequences for, say, communism or theocracy. This is unrealistic!
2. SPs are under control of the ruler of the civilization.
The people have no influence, the ruler just says "we're a theocracy now" and everyone says "ok!"

 

[The Boz]

you could replace the word "religion" with "social policies" for the first two of those items and come up with the same thing.

1. Social policies are always good and always gives bonuses.
What an outrage! There's never a drawback, no negative consequences for, say, communism or theocracy. This is unrealistic!
2. SPs are under control of the ruler of the civilization.
The people have no influence, the ruler just says "we're a theocracy now" and everyone says "ok!"

Freedom and Liberty, bro.

 

[Josephias]

and none of the tabs are labeled "GOD IS DEAD" or anything of the sort.

But name is editable, so it is just a matter of choosing symbol (Confucianism or Tengriism, maybe: a chinese character or a bird do not require/imply real relationship with religion) and label it "Atheism" or "GOD IS DEAD" or "Communism". Because atheism, as you approach it in the OP, is a belief system: a religion.

And if you want to be secular... just forget your faith points and the benefits they can give, and do not start a religion yourself, and just leave your cities adopting the religion they (or the other Civs) want. As said: if you want to preventing your cities from getting a religion it will be the same as founding an "Atheism" religion.

Not to say many of your "historic" points have been already taken down by others.

 

[The Boz]

What historic points? What has been taken down?
Oh, you mean anecdotes? Yeah, I once totally used anecdotal evidence in an argument, and it worked!
Like I said before, you can find examples of the contrary, but they are far from the norm.

 

[Gamewizard]

It's a game, bro. Games are meant to be fun. They are just trying to make this game more fun. Is it really THAT complicated?

 

[GRM7584]

Dear people that use the "not supposed to be realistic" argument:
Why can't my arabs use dual Uzi Commandos in 500 BC? They don't have to be overpowered, their stats could be perfectly in line with the Archer...

That is not marketable. The average user would experience a pretty big disconnect with that scenario, even if they wouldn't flinch when, say, the Colossus is built in 2000 BCE or someone still has a galleon sitting around in 1900 CE. Civ is a historically themed game, and historical accuracy is a concern, its just a very low one. Going out of their way to be grossly inaccurate when it offers no benefits to marketability/fun/balance would be pointless.

Freedom and Liberty, bro.

I don't even know what you mean, here. You're saying that since it is an option to force freedom and liberty down the throats of your people, that somehow nullifies cccv's response?

What historic points? What has been taken down?
Oh, you mean anecdotes? Yeah, I once totally used anecdotal evidence in an argument, and it worked!
Like I said before, you can find examples of the contrary, but they are far from the norm.

I think what he's saying, is that your points have all been pretty thoroughly refuted, and you aren't really responding using rational arguments.
EDIT: I am not saying this to be confrontational. I'd ask that you not take it that way, I just think maybe you should step back and re-evaluate your position.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well I'm going to weigh in on this one too. As much as I enjoy realism in my Civ Games, I can understand why the developers go for gameplay over realism. As each religion can only have a limited number of Founder/Follower Traits, it could be argued that the cost in shaping your religion is an opportunity cost-is your religion going to be pacifistic *or* war-mongering, that kind of thing? As to your claim about the religion being controlled by government-actually that *isn't* true, because the player doesn't simply represent the government of a Civ-(s)he represents more of the Civilization's Gestalt-or do you think governments also control where all their workers are situated & what buildings they construct? In some ways, the Civ5 religion system is a bigger departure from the "Government controls Religion" meme than was the case in Civ1 to Civ4-for the simple reason that building cathedrals & Missionaries will cost *faith*, not *hammers*. Also, I really like the fact that they've been brave enough to move beyond the bland, vanilla religions of Civ4, & have relied on using prophets-rather than techs-for the foundation of religions. *Yes* its not perfectly realistic, but its far more realistic than your "Dual Uzi Commando" unit in 500BC-which is a totally rubbish example!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That said, though, I do wish they'd bring back semi-random events-because though you represent the Civilization Gestalt, I still feel you should have to deal with factors *within* your civilization that are somewhat outside your control-like having a small band of religious zealots demanding you expand the faith-with failure to do so causing a minor uprising in the city in question (with the extent determined by the faith output of the city). Same with your choice of Social Policies/Techs resulting in events that add flavor to the game, by giving you challenging choices to make.

Aussie.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

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

Haha very funny, that gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Buccaneer]

This is a Strategy Game, not a historical simulation.

Yep*

apart from forcing a simulation the historical Renaissance

 

[kurtkage]

I love realism in civ games. I have played since civ1 and own Every title. I am an atheist. BUT I often role-play my games. I use my imagination and or mods to supplement that role-play. When the knight fireballs my fighter it annoys me sure, but I move on and pretend that 1 plane had an engine failure for the 1HP. When I take on a religion in cIV I pretend that I am the hand of god. etc

Even being anti superstition, and being very Pro-realism for civ games, I still am looking forward to the G&K religious system for so many gameplay and roleplay reasons and do not see the OP arguments specific to religion as needing a change.

The broader questions like "Are there not enough choices of consequence" or "Why is everyone a winner and last place still gets A trophy even if it is not the best trophy" those I do find valid but it is tough to balance those types of systems.

Make more things mutually exclusive with religion and SP perhaps... you cannot have X follower with Y Founder or Y founder with X SP.
Why patch to allow liberty with any other SP for example? overpowering it, need moderate fixes sometimes to not be so drastic. So I do agree with the sentiments there only because I don't want the game to be too easy.

But otherwise... just pretend man and look to mods

 

[dexters]

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

Civ3 had temples AND cathedrals which also gave culture. People forget overtly religious buildings existing before Civ4 and their use in Civ3 was culture, which was a new thing back in 2001.

Civ5 is very much like Civ3 in that way and from a precedent standpoint, those buildings existing long before religion was introduced and if God and Kings had no religion, then religion would have been a one off experiment for 4.

Frame of reference matters

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

there needs to be a counter balance to the religion.

I sort of like the idea they were originally going with pity where it gave a huge boost to happiness but disallowed the rationalism tree.

Maybe not as clean cut as picking one or the other but definitely something similar to it.

 

[Sestey]

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.

I feel compelled to give my two cents, since I am a history teacher...while that is not saying much, I am uneasy about the lack of truth to these points. The only point that is valid is point 1.

2: Religion is under control of the civilization in real life, it has been since the founding of said religion. The part that differs is that different religions have been implemented differently. Since Rome converted to Christianity, Rome has governed it's religion, and still does today. I do not count Protestantism, and the Orthodox as inclusive, because they fundamentally believe different concepts.
Religion is still very much under control of the ruler of civilizations today. Look at the whole middle-east for example. There still is theocracy in today's world.

3: If that was true, I would absolutely agree with you, however, it seems that it has been designed as just the opposite 'bro.'

4: The wealthiest organization on the face of the planet is the Catholic Church-bar none. Religion DOES give civilizations gold.

5: Secular stances did not exist until the Enlightenment period. Until then, either the Churches and governments worked cohesively to maintain order and stability, or there was a theocracy in which the church WAS the government (or civilization in this case). This is why once the Renaissance period has begun, there is natural waning of the impact of religion, which is historically accurate. You're living in today's world, with today's views 'bro.' If you were thinking these thoughts even 200 years ago in most parts of the world, you would be burned at the stake. If you do not believe me research the inquisitions 'bro.'

 

[Sestey]

This is a Strategy Game, not a historical simulation.

INCORRECT!!!!! It is both. If it was JUST a strategy game, there would not be so much historical information in Civilopedia. The UU's, UI's, and UA's are implemented to mimic to a certain extent, a historically fun way to reenact the history of civilization. The strategy and history are intertwined in a web woven by the developers.

When this is done poorly, there is outrage. For instance: England in civ 5. The significance of Britain's impact in society is NOT because their ships could go a little further than other ships haha.

 

[Sestey]

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)

Deists are not agnostic whatsoever. Agnostics do not know whether or not there is a God, and their belief is why then worry about it?

Deists believe there is absolutely a higher power. The part that they differ from other beliefs is the fundamental belief as to the description and desires of God. Deists basically believe that the second Man tries to wrap his mind around who and what God is, God looses his greatness. Man cannot understand God, but deists most certainly believe in him, whatever it may be.

 

[glaivemaster]

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.

My experiences with war in this game show it to be completely at odds with history.
1. War has no downsides and you always get good stuff.
2. The military is completely under the control of the ruler of the civilization.
3. War does not interfere with my city management, science, diplomacy or economy.
4. War gives gold, science and culture directly to the civilization.
5. War so far does not allow pacifism or any of the various non-violent stances.

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

Having been brought up a pacifist, I really dislike the idea of war, and I don't understand why the CiV developers would implement it in the game in this way.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Civ3 had temples AND cathedrals which also gave culture. People forget overtly religious buildings existing before Civ4 and their use in Civ3 was culture, which was a new thing back in 2001.

To be fair, they were also used for happiness dating back to Civ1. Civ5 is actually unique in that it made religious buildings culture alone instead of happiness.