What Do We Think of Religion in Civ VI?

[Zaarin]

Disable it, bro. I do.

So do I, but this does not affect AI behavior.

 

[King of Prussia]

Overall i like how useful and powerful religions are in Civ 6.

I do not like the spamming of 398438 units to convert cities. It is the most tedious of the victory types. I agree with others, i wish there was more ways to passively spread it.

I think one of the biggest faults the religion system is that you do not care about religion unless you found it or trying to stop someone from achieving victory. There is a missed opportunity in breaking off and forming a new one, and doing your own reforming.


The pacing of religion isn't great either. You race to get one and a pantheon, but then you have to wait a long time to build up the faith you need to actively proceed in spreading or enhancing it. The pacing of the game overall does not help in this regard. You can fly through the first 2-3 eras in no time, leaving you little time to build many HS if you want to build a few other cities and a district or 2 in them.

 

[Myomoto]

Already a lot of my personal key points have been addressed: Prophets should have uses besides founding religions, allow converted civs to form a reform/schism of the religion to join the religious game, allow more passive spread (especially via trade routes).

I think my other main problem is the charge system on missionaries and apostles, it naturally causes crazy unit spam.

I would also like to see the religious victory changed to something else besides having the dominant faith in all other civs, so it doesn't become a net negative to make the choice of adopting someone else's religion.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

it's an interesting concept at its core, but I think the idea of needing to move religious units around is very dull.

Did anyone ever play Deus Ex Human Revolution and its sequel? In the game you hack computers, where you connect the dots to the goal, except the enemy will try and catch you by moving between those dots too, so you would have to block the enemy's movement and what not. I wish religion in Civ was more like that. Where religion simply moved along paths between cities which you would have to attack through or fortify from attack. "Religious pressure" seems to do this, but both in Civ 5 and 6, this is a very hidden mechanic and not very apparent on the surface.

 

[Vargas1]

Many of my thoughts have been covered already. I think my chief issue is that passive spread should be much stronger, and it would be nice to have it affected by infrastructure, buildings, etc. - like your cities spread religion more strongly if you build up your holy sites, etc.

I do like the benefits of religion, although I think they could use a little balancing so that (i) there are greater incentives to take different beliefs, and (ii) the non-follower beliefs are a bit strong by comparison. I really like the idea of the beliefs that give culture/science/gold for number of followers (founder beliefs), but I find they tend to be more of a minor bonus than something truly noteworthy as part of your game.

I would also love to see "non-religion" implemented as a game mechanic - that is, a civ actively choosing to try to keep religion out, rather than a civ without a founded religion just sort of passively watching religion play out. You could have some sort of tradeoff like a bonus to science but a greater need for amenities - the people are more focused on logic and research but may need something additional to keep them content.

 

[Zaarin]

You could have some sort of tradeoff like a bonus to science but a greater need for amenities - the people are more focused on logic and research but may need something additional to keep them content.

Considering that religion has frequently been very active in advancing the sciences and that the idea that science and religion are enemies was mostly a holdover from Victorian melodrama, I would not be thrilled to see this particular myth perpetuated. However, I agree that some kind of secularism mechanic in the late game would make sense.

 

[Gradac]

I would like religion to be specific for each civilization in Civ7. Same like a leader unique ability. It’s ok to be connected with some kind of religious district, but any building inside of the district or at least main one should be that particular civilization’s religious specific.

Also I would prefer that religions are more historically accurate and that it can be switched from one to another (English to found Christianity, then Catholicism and have the option to switch to Anglican or something else present in England latter, if they want).

So, although, it would be more than one catholic religious civs, each would have something specific and latter would have opportunity to switch to off branch of Christianity.

The same would apply for all other religions (Islam, Buddhism etc.) and civs connected to them.

This fight of religious units and converting, as it works now in CivVI is not to my liking..

 

[Zaarin]

Also I would prefer that religions are more historically accurate and that it can be switched from one to another (English to found Christianity, then Catholicism and have the option to switch to Anglican or something else present in England latter, if they want).

I wouldn't care for this. Part of the fun of Civ is in the alternate history or even absurdist elements, and if the player wants a Buddhist England that should be an option.

 

[Gradac]

No offense, everyone to theirs own. I just expressed what I would like. Opposite of what you wrote, I like everything to be as close historically as possible, and yet enough different and unique to be fun to play. Confucian Germany for example annoying me.

However, I'm pretty sure it will go in direction you like it. So I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Zaarin]

No offense, everyone to theirs own. I just expressed what I would like. Opposite of what you wrote, I like everything to be as close historically as possible, and yet enough different and unique to be fun to play. Confucian Germany for example annoying me.

However, I'm pretty sure it will go in direction you like it. So I wouldn't worry about it.

I'd prefer a system that supports both ways. Sometimes I do enjoy things being historical, but sometimes I want to convert the entire world to Aztec Zoroastrianism. It's nice to have the option either way.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd prefer a system that supports both ways. Sometimes I do enjoy things being historical, but sometimes I want to convert the entire world to Aztec Zoroastrianism. It's nice to have the option either way.

Especially in a game where half the leaders prefer to found Catholicism you need the other options.

 

[The Civs 6]

I would slap a "religion" coat of paint on secret societies and just replace it. The whole idea of faith points just doesn't work for me.

 

[anonxanemone]

Considering that religion has frequently been very active in advancing the sciences and that the idea that science and religion are enemies was mostly a holdover from Victorian melodrama, I would not be thrilled to see this particular myth perpetuated. However, I agree that some kind of secularism mechanic in the late game would make sense.

For those wondering, examples include Father of Genetics Gregory Mendel, an Augustine friar; math genius Ramanujan, a devout Hindu; and Hildegard of Bingen, a Great Person already in the game. Jesuit Education is also a mechanic in the game and Cross Cultural dialogue is reminiscent of the Islamic science golden age. The false dichotomy some atheists hold on this subject gets a little annoying at times.

 

[enKage]

Sincerely, I don't like the way religion works.

Basically it is better not to found any, because it often makes your start slower, without giving much benefit. It is better to wait for AI to spread their religion to you and manage it depending what you need at the moment, especially that you keep your pantheon.

All because 2 strongest aspects of religion - follower belief and building - are not founder exclusive, while founder beliefs are extremely weak comparing to effort you want to put into religion spreading.

Of course you may want that fantastic +3 gold per city following your religion, but when you compare it to how much faith you have to spend, it starts to look very scary. Especially if you can use those faith for different purposes.

The whole system needs rework, binding strongly religion and diplomacy, and adding strong benefits to the founder from converting whole civilisations and city states, while removing any benefits from non-founder, as long as it does not own holy city.

After years still the best system was in civ4, where very actually religion did what it should do - gave huge diplo boost or penalty and happiness in follower cities. Bring back declaring state religion please

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It sounds like most people are in agreement that religion as a victory condition needs to either go or be reworked. I personally don't mind the way it's implemented, of course I don't have as much experience in how it worked in the past, and would hate to see it completely go.

I am open to the idea of combining religion and diplomacy into a single victory type if it makes room for a possible "aggressive" economic win condition. At least I like the idea of domination victory not being the only aggressive way to win.

Maybe the idea of a world congress can start out in the medieval era with religious councils, which then expands from there.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Generate or find more relics.

Allow/make every Civ find religion if choosing to play that victory. Yes, I know there is a mod for that.

Get rid of the spamming cultists blocking pawns from hell. Or allow an opposing unit to destroy them...I loved the idea made earlier in the thread of a vampire unit dyng at the hands of a priest.

Give Prophets, apostles, missionaries, and gurus added tasks or abilities. Tie these added abilities into diplomacy, government, commercial (beer!) or explore even military matters directly (like the Monk units). Obtaining special/unique divine or papal like casus belli or control over city-states would be a nice mechanic.

Conversions of barbs, creation of city-states, enclaves, etc should be all on the table.

I LOVE and enjoy the battles and maneuvering between religious units...a great game within a game I think. But the two games need to be linked better to truly engage the player.

 

[Shadowstrike]

The religious mechanics just aren't all that deep, and they don't connect super-well with the rest of the game's systems. Religions are basically down to 1 district (holy sites), 1 resource (faith) and 3 units (missionaries, apostles, gurus), and they operate on an entirely different playing field than the rest of the game's systems. If you can make religion a more integral and more sophisticated part of the game, then things might feel different.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Religion in Civ 4 was great historically speaking, but kind of dull mechanically speaking. It was founded randomly by your techs, and all were absolutely identical. I remembered that, in the Civilopedia of yore, they justified it because they didn't wanted to offend other religions (like christians who might be triggered that their bonuses are, finally, less cool or potent that muslim ones). Which resulted in just culture and happiness bonuses, which were... great but nothing more.

But one thing I loved in Civ 4 was that you could have religious policies. Basically, I loved the Government system of Civ 4, and while Civ 6 system is way better in that way that Civ 5 social policies, I'd love something more akin to that. Policy Cards are great but, in a sense, to versatile. Going on and off Collectivism every 7 turns (or less with gold) is just completely unrealistic (and frankly it's not discussed enough on this forum). But what I really miss is having a "stance" about religion(s) in my empire. Am I a theocracy where my religion is the most important, do I organize my religion to support my empire, am I a tolerant pacifist that accept everyone or do I go the path of secularism and don't care what my people think or pray? For now, the game is too binary in it: either I founded a religion and I have no control over my religious diplomacy, or I didn't found one and then I'm at the mercy of other. Religion was one of the main friver of diplomacy in Europe and around Mediterranea for so long that having it reduced to what it is now is kind of a bummer.

Religious Victory is, for me, a mistake. I see it as the "Mid-Game Victory": if you haven't win by the Industrial Era, then it's no bother to pursue it anymore, and you should focus on other victories. It's tedious, it's monotonous, and it's no fun.

On the other hand, what I really love about religion in Civ 6 is the personalization part. Sure, a religion founded by an empire is ahistorical, but frankly pretty much everything is (like you have to learn how to use a bow before riding a horse somehow, and no mystics ever existed before they began trading with foreigners...), but, from a "roleplay" perspective, I really love shaping my empire through religion. Especially Pantheons (the fact that you retain your pantheons even if you change religion is a great plus from Civ 5). I really feel unique and personalized this way.

And one thing I really love with religion in Civ 6 is how it's a support mechanism for the rest. Before Civ 6 (and perhaps civ 5), you had basically three main yields: Science that gives you victory, Production that drive your empire, and Gold that support everything else. Now, it's more complex: Science and Culture are quite equals, and Faith is now on the same level as Gold. I love how the "secularisation" of the world appear by your civilization not necessarily using the faith to worship or for religious purpose, but they transmit their faith into something else. Cultural victory is difficult without Faith (naturalists and rock bands), you can recruit Great People with Faith and Gold, and now with Heroes... Founding a religion (and thus generally pumping your faith output) is like getting more gold.

TL;DR: religions are a mess historically speaking, and they should need to rework it so you can interact with them in a more meaningful way (internally and diplomatically), but the personalization and the multiple usages of religions is something good that we definitely should not loose in future iterations. Oh, and Religious Victory sucks.

 

[criZp]

I just pretend that religion isn't in the game. It's that unfun of a mechanic.

 

[Oldlamehand]

I just pretend that religion isn't in the game. It's that unfun of a mechanic.

If you do not turn off a religious victory, you can only pretend until the AI lands 10 religious units in your territory in one round and seeks an aggressive religious victory. I experienced games where I was forced to declare war just so I could use the military to eliminate religious units.