What do you think of exploration age as an age

[ehecatzin]

Yeah I get that they were trying to streamline the system to avoid the repetition in the endgame, but I can deal with the old system if it's just 1 era. This one is just so boring.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I think religion could use some of the existing systems and tweak them as to avoid just missionary spamming everywhere. First, we need some form of religion defense, a single missionary just obliterating your holy city seems, anti climatic, and second...maybe missionaries should work like marchants? in that they setup a continual religious pressure into a settlement (instead of just a faith bomb), maybe aided by beliefs, civics, relics and wonders?

• Town specialization or religious infraestructure for either spreading or shielding against religon.
• bring back great prophets, they could have the the faith bombs or set up pilgrimages.
• make it so that having a "holy city" means something beside where a religions starts.

Not sure, I just feel like, for example, if I play the trading game, It's fun building the markets, sending merchants and actually building a network of trade, it feels more earned. Religion, doesn't do that it's just spam.

I agree, that I like playing the trading game. I think about which neighbors have the resources I need; which ones might declare on me, so sending them a trade route might not last; considering whether I emphasize peace (and trade) or not. Conserving some influence for the "Improve Trade Relations" endeavour is also a consideration. This game exists in ALL the ages, not just Exploration. Trade can be especially important in pursuing the Economic legacy path in Modern.

On the other hand, if we lean into the difference in mechanics in different Ages, we can have a religion game that matters only in Exploration. I really enjoyed many of the Civ4 mechanics for religion and its impacts on other aspects of the game. The player (human or AI) could choose whether to adopt a state religion or not. Both active spread (thru missionaries) and passive spread happened. One could build temples for *more than one* religion in a city. Yes, the cities weren't unpacked like they are in Civ6 or Civ7, but syncretism happened. Which state religion a player chose influenced diplomacy; choosing "no state religion" was also possible and had an affect.
Some of these aspects don't translate into Civ7 as well as others. Civ4 didn't support as much customization of beliefs as Civ6 and Civ7 do. I'm holding it up as an example of better integration between different game mechanics. One could also begin to think about which parts could carry over into Modern or a hypothetical 4th age.

 

[Crashdummy]

Religion being in only one Age doesnt make sense either

Religion was part of Civlizations from the start and keep being one

 

[Leucarum]

Religion has never been good in Civ. So at least in 7 it has the virtue of being over quickly...

 

[Krikkit1]

In Civ1 we even had diplomats as units and our diplomacy worked on them

There are 2 main reasons. First is from gamedesign standpoint it's good to have everything happening on the same layer, that's why unstacking units and cities was welcome. Thus playing religion on general map instead of separate screens. Second is that civ games try to solve imbalance between peaceful and aggressive playstyles in the amount of gameplay attached. Civ6 even has religious combat, which doesn't bring fan of regular combat, but tries to do so. Archeology and in Civ6 musicians try to do so as well.

I think the big question is that religion doesn't represent anything needed for civilization gameplay. Instead of being an answer ("We'll solve gameplay problem X with religion") it's a question ("How can we implement a religion?"). And that's the problem.

Religion could share some functions with espionage, culture, ideology or loyalty, but it's hard to find a specific niche for it. What you describe is more a form of espionage.

What I'd like to see for religion

1. Religion acting as a "bloc" factor
2. No "Founders" of Religion only Followers (Followers get benefits and can modify the Religion
3. Being able to split off a religion (so the "bloc" factor eventually disappears)

So... as a modification to the current system.
Each Continent has one starting unnamed religion
When you build your first Temple, that settlement starts following that unnamed religion...
As a civ you can choose a religion to follow if one or more of your settlements follows it
If you are a Human player you get to Name and Label the first unnamed religion you follow...once all Human players are following a named religion, all other religions are named by the AIs.
Being the first follower of a religion to complete various "religious tasks" lets you add beliefs to the religion you follow (first to follow, first to research Theology, etc.)
Following the same religion gives a small Relationship bonus, different religions gives a medium relationship penalty

Settlements are never converted passively only actively (so there is player agency and Relics )... either with Missionaries OR Diplomatic Endeavor/Espionage

However, there is a passive religious pressure on settlements that determines how difficult it will be to convert a settlement (I like the Urban Rural Split)
This means a missionary will not just have to use a charge but also to pay some influence (or other currency if enabled by belief/civic/ability/etc.)

If you are the follower to convert a particular settlement, you can get some "converter" benefits (equivalent to Founder benefits)
There maybe a Holy city, but it should probably be an IP

At a certain point you can "branch" or "schism" a religion and spread your new version (more easily over followers of the old version)...Eventually every civ has a religion that they created and the "bloc" aspect falls apart.

A bit of "color"
Since Relics are produced by a certain civ and a certain religion and at a particular location..... they should be Labeled as such
Christian Religions give St. _____ of ______ (bone of St. Roca of Loundon... produced by Christian Inca empire converting the settlement of Loundon).
Jewish ones give Rabbi ____ of ________
etc.
(with some Generics as well)

Relics could also be worth 2 if they are of the religion you follow and 1 if they are of one you do not (anymore... although if you branched you would still count the old ones as yours)

Also your first Relic (for following your first Religion) should have a bonus connected to your Pantheon.

 

[untitledjuan]

It should have been split into two, there's a weird overlap of medieval and early modern civilizations, mechanics and technologies that really doesn't make sense. The era system, regardless of whether we have civ switching or not, worked much better in previous versions of the game than it does in Civ7

 

[Setis]

Even if you don't want all of that with religion, I think going away from missionaries entirely, and having religion almost play more into diplomatic rather than culture, could make a lot of sense. I think either you could set it up as a sort of sanctions/endeavor system, where you convert settlements (can run once per civ).

There is actually an Espionage action to convert a city to your religion that takes 8 turns. I believe it unlocks with Reformation if I'm not mistaken. I always get "discovered" doing it, but it doesn't give any influence penalty like other espionage actions and has never seemed to negatively impact my relations.

 

[Crashdummy]

Religion has never been good in Civ. So at least in 7 it has the virtue of being over quickly...

Yeah, but its worse in Civ 7 than it was on previous games, specially 6

In 6 it wasnt terrible, at least you had a chance to defend yourself. Religion in 7 is just atrocious

I agree it was never a high point of the series

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, but its worse in Civ 7 than it was on previous games, specially 6

In 6 it wasnt terrible, at least you had a chance to defend yourself. Religion in 7 is just atrocious

I agree it was never a high point of the series

Really? I dunno man, the micromanagement in 6 was a nightmare. I prefer 7 and the fact that you can do everything you ever need to do with religion in <20 clicks then pretend it never existed.

 

[Crashdummy]

Really? I dunno man, the micromanagement in 6 was a nightmare. I prefer 7 and the fact that you can do everything you ever need to do with religion in <20 clicks then pretend it never existed.

You have to do more micromanagement in Civ 7 if you intend to keep your Civs following your religion and someone else is attempting to conver them

You will have to every single turn work on converting buth urban and rural parts with your religion, without being able to do anything about the enemy Missionary right beside you that is converting them back to their religion

The only way to deal with Religion in Civ 7 with less than 20 clicks is if you ignore it and dont care about it or if all the other Civs ignore it

To be clear, i am not saying Religion was great in Civ 6, but it was definitely better than in Civ 7

 

[Leucarum]

The only way to deal with Religion in Civ 7 with less than 20 clicks is if you ignore it and dont care about it or if all the other Civs ignore it

That is exactly how I play it. And whole honestly, that's not exactly how I want religion to be... I prefer it over Civ 6.

If Firaxis can make an engaging mechanic for religion I'm all for it. If they want us to play whack-a-mole... Ugh...

 

[Crashdummy]

If Firaxis can make an engaging mechanic for religion I'm all for it. If they want us to play whack-a-mole... Ugh...

But Civ 6 wasnt whack-a-mole, Civ 7 is

Again, i would also prefer a better Religion system than Civ 6, but saying Civ 7 whack-a-mole is better than Civ 6 one, i cant agree on that

 

[Leucarum]

But Civ 6 wasnt whack-a-mole, Civ 7 is

Again, i would also prefer a better Religion system than Civ 6, but saying Civ 7 whack-a-mole is better than Civ 6 one, i cant agree on that

Interesting how perceptions are diffferent. I found Civ6 way more a game of whack-a-mole than 7.

But we're arguing about how much poop is in our turd sandwich here. I don't think there are any winners.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

But Civ 6 wasnt whack-a-mole, Civ 7 is

Again, i would also prefer a better Religion system than Civ 6, but saying Civ 7 whack-a-mole is better than Civ 6 one, i cant agree on that

It wasn't??? At least in seven all you really need is the first conversion. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for either--but at least in 7 there's less of it.

 

[Crashdummy]

It wasn't??? At least in seven all you really need is the first conversion. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for either--but at least in 7 there's less of it.

What do you mean first conversion? The enemy missionary will keep converting your urban and rural areas and you will have to keep converting them back, no "first conversion"

In Civ 6, you could kick the enemy Missionaries out of your territory and be done with it

Interesting how perceptions are diffferent. I found Civ6 way more a game of whack-a-mole than 7.

But we're arguing about how much poop is in our turd sandwich here. I don't think there are any winners.

Yeah, none of them is good, but in Civ 6 you had agency. You had a way to deal with the enemy religious units, get them out of your territory and not have to whack a mole anything

In Civ 7 you cant do anything about it except having a Missionary of your own whack a moleing the same thing the enemy Missionary is whack a moleing. 0 agency, nothing you can do about it

 

[stealth_nsk]

What do you mean first conversion? The enemy missionary will keep converting your urban and rural areas and you will have to keep converting them back, no "first conversion"

You play Civ7 as if it's Civ6. You shouldn't care if other civs convert your settlements, unless you play in maximum mode.

In general, Civ7 has 3 modes of play:

1. Minimal and default. Use religion to fulfill religion and military legacy paths. Ignore other civilizations' missionaries.
2. Medium. In addition to minimum, select belief to maximize number of relics. Get as many relics as possible and use them to boost culture in modern. Still ignore other civilizations' missionaries.
3. Maximum. In addition to minimal, select belief which brings valuable yields, i.e. Influence. Convert as many settlements as possible to maximize this output (which usually means converting other civs has higher priority), potentially unlocking additional beliefs. Use all this for cultural golden age in modern, floating in the target yields (I did it with influence once and had 100+ at the start of Modern)

Now, while maximum mode is tedious, it's completely optional and you really shouldn't root out enemy religions in normal games (unless they stand between you and military legacy path).

 

[Crashdummy]

You play Civ7 as if it's Civ6. You shouldn't care if other civs convert your settlements, unless you play in maximum mode.

In general, Civ7 has 3 modes of play:

1. Minimal and default. Use religion to fulfill religion and military legacy paths. Ignore other civilizations' missionaries.
2. Medium. In addition to minimum, select belief to maximize number of relics. Get as many relics as possible and use them to boost culture in modern. Still ignore other civilizations' missionaries.
3. Maximum. In addition to minimal, select belief which brings valuable yields, i.e. Influence. Convert as many settlements as possible to maximize this output (which usually means converting other civs has higher priority), potentially unlocking additional beliefs. Use all this for cultural golden age in modern, floating in the target yields (I did it with influence once and had 100+ at the start of Modern)

Now, while maximum mode is tedious, it's completely optional and you really shouldn't root out enemy religions in normal games (unless they stand between you and military legacy path).

So your solution is to ignore religion completely? You understand how wrong that is, right?

I am managing a Civilization, one that founded a religion, i want my Cities to follow the Religion i founded. Some things go beyond what is efficient to do in order to win the game... and the solution to actually have a Religion in the game shouldnt be to whack a mole your cities after the enemy whack a mole them

And whats the point of Religion if we should ignore it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So your solution is to ignore religion completely? You understand how wrong that is, right?

1. For something to be a solution, there should be a problem in the first place
2. None of those 3 modes are ignoring religion
3. All of those 3 modes are playing religion as intended in Civ7

My idea (not solution) is that to get maximum fun from the game it should be played by its rules, not by the rules of some other game.

I am managing a Civilization, one that founded a religion, i want my Cities to follow the Religion i founded. Some things go beyond what is efficient to do in order to win the game... and the solution to actually have a Religion in the game shouldnt be to whack a mole your cities after the enemy whack a mole them

In terms of Civ7, that's your personal roleplaying goal, which you set for yourself and it has little to do with the game mechanics. That's cool. Some players want to build longest great wall, some want to convert all their settleemnts to their religion, totally fun idea. But the game shouldn't be responsible if you find tedious reaching the goal which you set for yourself.

Although, I surely understand that a lot of players come to Civ7 with previous civ game baggage and you clearly not the only one who have the same issue. So, I'd say Civ7 has problem with communicating intended playstyle.

And whats the point of Religion if we should ignore it?

As I said, none of this is ignoring religion.

 

[UWHabs]

Depending on the game and my mood, I vary between all 3 modes. I know I had a couple games earlier where I just constantly spammed missionaries and got up to like 97% coverage of the globe. I forget what beliefs I had, but basically I was bored and just tried to see if I could chase everything down. Other games my goal is to just get as many relics as I can and not worry about the rest. A couple times I've played to not care as much about the relics (just get the 12 and be done), but wanted to keep some settlements converted for the yields. I know once I had the wonder bonus in, and Isabella next to me had a settlement with like 10 wonders in it. I think like 20% of my science/culture that era was from keeping that one city converted for me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Depending on the game and my mood, I vary between all 3 modes. I know I had a couple games earlier where I just constantly spammed missionaries and got up to like 97% coverage of the globe. I forget what beliefs I had, but basically I was bored and just tried to see if I could chase everything down. Other games my goal is to just get as many relics as I can and not worry about the rest. A couple times I've played to not care as much about the relics (just get the 12 and be done), but wanted to keep some settlements converted for the yields. I know once I had the wonder bonus in, and Isabella next to me had a settlement with like 10 wonders in it. I think like 20% of my science/culture that era was from keeping that one city converted for me.

Me too. I never went full rampage, but more having more than half of the world under control is good, especially once you turn it into cultural golden age.

Sure, there are ways to improve the game. I'd really want a way for missionaries to convert whole settlement in one action in exchange for some investment if you play all in. Also, more clear ways to get additional believes would also be good.