Unrealistic Religion system

[bonafide11]

My only concern is that, having religion provide so many more bonuses to the game, it will greatly affect the balance of the game and might take a while for them to restore the balance via patches.

 

[dexters]

My only concern is that, having religion provide so many more bonuses to the game, it will greatly affect the balance of the game and might take a while for them to restore the balance via patches.

Pretty sure it was stated you could ignore religion if you wanted - as in not found your own and not actively participate in spreading it. Now, if you're a dogmatic atheist and want to stamp it out, it might be detrimental and that would have some basis on reality in terms of religious persecution having a negative effect on the economy.

I think religion will add a baseline of food/production/gold bonuses that will be necessary for all the new things we have to build.

Civ games have generally scaled up production/gold perturn and city sizes with expansions to accomodate for new things. Besides, I still feel production is still a bit skewed in the early game in favour of certain ideal starts (horse,cows,sheep) or a start with lots of stone/marble give a lot of production plus happiness. I am Hoping the Pantheon bonuses will allow for more adjustable starts . Maybe free production from coastal starts without having to spend a whole lot of shields building a seaport and harbour with perhaps a bonus happiness per sea resource tied to lighthouses with God of the Sea Pantheon.

 

[The Boz]

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.

You are being intentionally dense Moderator Action: Such flaming is not allowed here. . Also, completely wrong on all counts.

 

[The Boz]

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.'

2. You are mistaking the two meanings of civilization. One is "nation", the civilization in CiV, the other is the human civilization. Had you actually invested some thought into my post, you'd understand this simple difference. Or were you intentionally trolling?

3. [citation needed]

4. It's not the wealthiest, but it's certainly well off. However, the fact that you wrote this and don't understand how completely at odds it is with your argument is beyond me.

5. I'd think a history teacher would know about several cultures from history (as in, not the past 200 years alone) that were decidedly void of any state religion. I'd be wrong, it seems.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I guess what I don't understand is why you are so against this new addition when you apparently have no problem with the other "unrealistic" mechanics and concepts in the franchise (all of them, for example).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I can name cultures devoid of state religion, but I can't name any that had no religious peoples. Where have you read that you are required to adopt a state religion?

 

[GRM7584]

It's already been pointed out several times that civilizations in this series are not nations, they are intentionally vague social/cultural abstractions.

And, did you just say he needed to cite a source, and then go on to make a bold claim (several irreligious cultures existed before the enlightenment) without citing any sort of example, let alone a source?

You're making it very hard to take you seriously. I suspect you'll ignore this post, like my other two refutations of your arguments (and I feel generous for calling them that).

2. You are mistaking the two meanings of civilization. One is "nation", the civilization in CiV, the other is the human civilization. Had you actually invested some thought into my post, you'd understand this simple difference. Or were you intentionally trolling?

3. [citation needed]

4. It's not the wealthiest, but it's certainly well off. However, the fact that you wrote this and don't understand how completely at odds it is with your argument is beyond me.

5. I'd think a history teacher would know about several cultures from history (as in, not the past 200 years alone) that were decidedly void of any state religion. I'd be wrong, it seems.

 

[The Boz]

Sorry if you feel left out, GRM, it's kind of hard to respond to a million posts, especially since a million new ones appear by the time I respond to one.

 

[GRM7584]

There are less than 50 posts in this thread, at least 8 of which are yours. And you have completely failed to respond to any of my points.

Sorry if you feel left out, GRM, it's kind of hard to respond to a million posts, especially since a million new ones appear by the time I respond to one.

 

[The Boz]

I guess what I don't understand is why you are so against this new addition when you apparently have no problem with the other "unrealistic" mechanics and concepts in the franchise (all of them, for example).

I'm not against the new addition, nor am I against religion being in the game. I just dislike the way they placed it.
If I was doing it, only City-States could found a religion, and the ones that do will become very similar to the Vatican. They could give out multiple missions, demand crusades, tithes and adherence in exchange for great amounts of happiness, culture, diplomatic influence with other adherent factions etc. In any case, the religious organization would be a tangible in-game entity by itself, and it would spread its religion through proximity, diplomatic dealings and missions.

 

[The Boz]

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

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

I agree, and do not dispute that. However, there is still way to make a more realistic system without endangering the points with more priority.

-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.

It is possible, there are several games that did it right. Sid even had a hand in some of those, such as Alpha Centauri.

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.

Why should it be repugnant? Do you guys take me for some militant athesit on a crusade for equal rights or something?
Culture works. In real life, even if you ignore all the religion, organization and influence of the church, the simple fact remains: the Pieta or the Sistine Chapel is as culturally significant and artistically brilliant as the Mona Lisa. Am I supposed to hate them because they represent something you claim is repugnant to me?

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.

And I shall probably be using them, if they are any good. However, there is only so much that a mod can do without access to the game core, as evidenced by the game so far.

PS First post in like 4 years

Whee, I made someone come out and play!

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.

I just posted a first minute idea kind of thing about how religion could work in the game, and I do not believe it would cause a disconnect from either the user or major historic trends.

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?

I'm saying that the Freedom and Liberty policy trees are as close to a "no policy" legalitarian approach as can be, and that there appears to be nothing similar to it in the religion system. The only option is to not pursue anything and ignore it completely. When's the last time you played a no-policy game?

 

[dexters]

I agree, and do not dispute that. However, there is still way to make a more realistic system without endangering the points with more priority.



It is possible, there are several games that did it right. Sid even had a hand in some of those, such as Alpha Centauri.

These are increadibly vague statements. How do you propose they make it more realistic without trading off the other elements.

Granted you haven't even played Gods and Kings yet and I doubt you can objectively evaluate how religion will fit into the game and how it 'feels' in a game you're playing.

So I think you're 1) jumping to conclusions 2) making a whole bunch of assumptions to back up your reaction

The reason you've gotten flak is the increadibly arrogant and flippant way you're going about criticizing features. The OP you posted with the jump to conclusions thread title is also increadibly disingenous. I'm glad the other posters managed to salvage your flame bait of a thread into something that's actually discussing religion, instead of trying to figure out how you arrived at the conclusions with your arbitrary metrics.

 

[The Boz]

These are increadibly vague statements. How do you propose they make it more realistic without trading off the other elements?

If I was doing it, only City-States could found a religion, and the ones that do will become very similar to the Vatican. They could give out multiple missions, demand crusades, tithes and adherence in exchange for great amounts of happiness, culture, diplomatic influence with other adherent factions etc. In any case, the religious organization would be a tangible in-game entity by itself, and it would spread its religion through proximity, diplomatic dealings and missions.

Furthermore, there might be specific events (similar to Opportunities in the VEM) where religion comes into play. There is just so much that can be done with it to have it both be interesting gameplay and make sense.

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I'm only using the information available so far. I've examined the things other posters mentioned and, other than the "does not interfere with diplomacy" thing, I still think 4 of the 5 points in the OP still stand.

 

[leif erikson]

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I'm only using the information available so far. I've examined the things other posters mentioned and, other than the "does not interfere with diplomacy" thing, I still think 4 of the 5 points in the OP still stand.

Moderator Action: This thread is becoming all about your opinions and speculation instead about how the religion system, which we do not yet understand, can be improved. Speculating on how religion might work and trying to tie together what is known to what we think the mechanics may be is OK. If you want to discuss the history of religion in societies, that is a topic for the history forums. If this thread gets out of control, and it is on the edge, it will be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dexters]

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I'm only using the information available so far. I've examined the things other posters mentioned and, other than the "does not interfere with diplomacy" thing, I still think 4 of the 5 points in the OP still stand.

Well, the problem is, the issues /conclusions you raised in your OP were debunked as false or are very speculative glass half empty outlook - and this is a generous interpretation to your position.

You just ignored that post of course. And trust me, at 2 pages, there's not a million posts to sift through and this is one of the slower moving threads here. The excuse you made earlier that the thread is moving to fast to a poster noting you were strategically ignoring posts underscores the view here that you are insincere.

Just a refresher on what you skipped on page 1; responding to your 5 objections to religion being 'unrealistic'

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.

 

[Buccaneer]

As dexters brought up, do we need even more production and gold in the early game? It's fun to make the choicing in trying to get 1 extra of each. With the inclusion of extra stuff, what would be the counterbalance?

 

[The Boz]

Sorry, I couldn't bring myself to see that post as being serious, not with all the bold exclamation marks. You will find that, if you a few posts above this one, I have replied to the "ignored" forumer in detail.
1. As I said, this one can stand.
2. You misunderstood the point. The founding, development and specialization of religion is completely within the hands of the player, as far as we've seen so far. It can spread naturally, but it can also be spread through direct player intervention.
3. I still can't find a single post, picture or feature that would suggest any negative effect from religion in any area other than diplomacy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization. The point being, the religion does not funnel gold out of the civilization and into the religious organization. And you are also incorrect in stating that there is only one belief that gives gold, since I can name three (Tithing, Church Property and Initiation Rites off the top of my head right now), and that is all just from one screenshot of one religion screen.
5. You can ignore religion as much as you can ignore social policies in CiV or civics in CIV... Sure, you can do it. Does it make sense? Nope.

Also, some of us have colleges, jobs, social lives, and really can't be bothered to respond to every single post in real time.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

3. I still can't find a single post, picture or feature that would suggest any negative effect from religion in any area other than diplomacy.
4. Religion gives gold to the civilization. The point being, the religion does not funnel gold out of the civilization and into the religious organization. And you are also incorrect in stating that there is only one belief that gives gold, since I can name three (Tithing, Church Property and Initiation Rites off the top of my head right now), and that is all just from one screenshot of one religion screen.

The simple fact that focusing on producing Faith reduces your output of Science or other resources is a downside to religion. It's a pretty basic game concept that has been around forever. The downside of doing X is you get less Y.

And you are arguing about the realism of a game economy that is entirely based around how much "gold per turn" you make. Obviously there are going to be liberties to make the game feel like a game and not something you need an MBA to understand.

The key thing to remember here is Civ5 is first and foremost a game. One can't always be completely historically accurate and still have meaningful gameplay.

 

[dexters]

As dexters brought up, do we need even more production and gold in the early game? It's fun to make the choicing in trying to get 1 extra of each. With the inclusion of extra stuff, what would be the counterbalance?

Since the pantheons seem tailored to geography, they can simply buff up the starts that are considered weaker.

with stoneworks/stables/circus, a start with horses/cattle/sheep/marble/stone is just increadibly nice. you get production/happiness from very cheap buildings.

An analog coastal or forested start (unless you are Iroquois) is much more difficult.

I noted for example it takes a ton of hammers to fully exploit the sea resources. You need to build a nonusable workboat, then a lighthouse, then a harbour and later a seaport. And you don't even get extra happiness from sea resources like you do from stones, or horses or marble getting 1 extra and from stoneworks. And an inland start can easily have 1-2 stone, a marble, and a horse in the capital. Huge advantage over the coastal start with a cattle, 1-2 fish and maybe a pearl or whale resource.


As for increasing production/gold/food overall, the early pantheons are supposed to be fairly weak, but i expect them to give certain geogrpahical starts a buff. (just my feeling) so I expect the later beliefs will add extra buffs that make buildings things less painful.

Do we need it? I'm sure arguable, but the tradition is to add more production and gold in the expansion. To support new improvements, new buildings etc.

 

[The Boz]

The simple fact that focusing on producing Faith reduces your output of Science or other resources is a downside to religion. It's a pretty basic game concept that has been around forever. The downside of doing X is you get less Y.

And you are arguing about the realism of a game economy that is entirely based around how much "gold per turn" you make. Obviously there are going to be liberties to make the game feel like a game and not something you need an MBA to understand.

The key thing to remember here is Civ5 is first and foremost a game. One can't always be completely historically accurate and still have meaningful gameplay.

Policy is balanced the same way, producing it is at the expense of science, production or wealth. However, you will always have SOME culture for A FEW policies.
It's a fair bet that a civilinationwhatchamacallit WILL end up with Faith points, maybe even stumble onto founding a Religion by accident, or you just can't bring yourself to play a non-religious society when faced with all the bonuses that a religious society may reap (point debatable as we don't yet know the concrete costs and benefits in detail). As it looks to me right now, you can't play a civ without a religion and expect to still be competitive with others.
The other point you're referring to... Your point is, basically, "Your argument is invalid and your abstraction ideas are inferior to other abstraction ideas because this is just a game and they can do whatever"?