Why no religion in civ 5?

[Fife]

while looking things up about civ 5, I found out the religion system is not included in Civ5

 

[Ahriman]

They've stated that religion a la Civ4 will not be in the game, because they didn't like how it made diplomacy very random and abitrary, depending on which religions spread where.

They've said there will be an entirely new diplomacy system, and that religion will still be in the game but not in the same form.

My guess is the other thing they're trying to remove is specific real-world religions, which gave odd-feeling results (Viking Jews, Aztec Hindus), and instead tie various religious flavors (Evangelism, Theocracy, Free Religion, State Church, etc.) into the "Social Policies", which are the replacement for civics.

 

[nuxil]

It would be good if the religion system is kept.
I don't follow this forum often but it won't be bad if we could decide to which ear to play ( to not play until future era) but to be able to stop on let's say ww2

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, though I concur on the problems of arbitrary diplomacy arising from religions, I don't agree that "weird-feeling results" is a good enough reason to remove real-world religion names from the game. After all, this game is about *rewriting* history, not simulating it. To me, Jewish Vikings & Muslim Aztecs are no more "weird-feeling" than the Great Wall of England, the Oracle of Tenochtitlan Or the Great Pyramids of Germany. Its all just part of rewriting history. My fear, though, is that they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater-& returned 'religion'-such as it was-to the pointlessness of Civ2 & Civ3 (you know "Polytheism"= Build temple; "Monotheism"= Build Cathedral, & that's it ). If it was up to me, I would have retained real world religion names (& associated buildings)-or at least the ability to give a religion a name you wanted-& retained the generic effects from having a state religion; but stripped away at least 90% of the diplomatic benefits/penalties derived purely from having the same/different religions as another Empire. I would then have refocused all my efforts on deepening both the domestic & international impacts of differing approaches to your State & Non-State religions-as well as significantly altering the way in which religions get founded!

Aussie.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Well for one thing, in Civ4 a religion strongly influenced their feelings toward you. But, what are you going to care. It leads toward the computer weighing more factors than the player.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

It's acually a GOOD thing that religion is being taken out of civ for many reasons. One, is that civs like Izzy, will hate you, and invade you CONSTENTLY, and only use religion as an excuse. Another reason is that the religion system is just screwed up. You only have 7 religions (which, in reality, there were thousands), and not even some big minor religions (Prodestent, Reformed, ect...).

 

[Disgustipated]

removing religion is a huge mistake and a step backwards for the franchise. Yes it had the problems mentioned above, but those can be fixed. I suspect maybe pressure from the publisher made them remove religion (because of pressure from religious groups), people are too scared of upsetting muslims right now. If that's the case, I understand.

I'm not saying civ5 can't be a good game without religion, but it is worrisome to me. It worries me they are removing complexity to make the game more accessible to the console market. I hate having games dumbed down because they intend the game to be ported for consoles.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Religion has so few to see with real politics that it is a good thing they scraped it.

 

[Ahriman]

I suspect maybe pressure from the publisher made them remove religion (because of pressure from religious groups), people are too scared of upsetting muslims

I am continually amazed at peoples' ability to jump to conclusions based on total lack of evidence.

They said they changed the religion system because they didn't like how it made diplomacy work.
You can disagree with their conclusion, but why is it so hard to accept this as a genuine belief on their part?

 

[BobDole]

removing religion is a huge mistake and a step backwards for the franchise. Yes it had the problems mentioned above, but those can be fixed. I suspect maybe pressure from the publisher made them remove religion (because of pressure from religious groups), people are too scared of upsetting muslims right now. If that's the case, I understand.

I'm not saying civ5 can't be a good game without religion, but it is worrisome to me. It worries me they are removing complexity to make the game more accessible to the console market. I hate having games dumbed down because they intend the game to be ported for consoles.

Eh, the problem is that religion was never really that complex. It either helped your diplomatic relations somewhat or hurt them somewhat, and gave you some helpful bonuses like happiness, that's it basically. (A few extra benefits as well, and some Civs cared about religion more than others). It never really felt that important, especially as the game progressed. I would've been fine with seeing it stay in some revised form, but I won't mourn its loss too much.

 

[mica8911]

Religion was the cause for more invasions and wars than anything in history. So if civ would like to continue to be historically accurate, religion would be in the game and be the sole reason for for wars (in some cases). I'm glad they are changing it though. I think that's the point, we all know how each AI will act so it's time for a surprise and much debate to be taken place on this forum.

 

[Mercade]

Congrats with your first post, Fife.

I'm mostly in line with Aussie. The religion does have a strong random effect on diplomatic relations, especially since the distribution of religions is regional and doesn't easily spread to the other side of teh globe. The Jewish Vikings don't bother me at all, indeed quite similar to the Great Wall of England (and I don't mean Hadrianus' version of it). However, I'd prefer to keep it in some form or another. It's just a name. Not like the Hindu fraction has a -3 extra penalty for going to war. Of course we do lack the sun God cultus requiring regular sacrifice of a citizen for the good cause

 

[Rusty Edge]

They've stated that religion a la Civ4 will not be in the game, because they didn't like how it made diplomacy very random and abitrary, depending on which religions spread where.

They've said there will be an entirely new diplomacy system, and that religion will still be in the game but not in the same form.

My guess is the other thing they're trying to remove is specific real-world religions, which gave odd-feeling results (Viking Jews, Aztec Hindus), and instead tie various religious flavors (Evangelism, Theocracy, Free Religion, State Church, etc.) into the "Social Policies", which are the replacement for civics.

I'd like to take my first opportunity this week to agree with Ahriman.

 

[radioplug]

Eh, the problem is that religion was never really that complex. It either helped your diplomatic relations somewhat or hurt them somewhat, and gave you some helpful bonuses like happiness, that's it basically. (A few extra benefits as well, and some Civs cared about religion more than others). It never really felt that important, especially as the game progressed. I would've been fine with seeing it stay in some revised form, but I won't mourn its loss too much.

And for that reason, I basically neglected it unless I decided to focus on it (trying to pull of the Gandhi 1 city diplo victory.)

 

[Fife]

Thanks guys!

 

[Fife]

I thought that it would be useful to have an excommication system. The leader of your faith will assign you a crusade for you to complete. If you do, you gain a diplo bonus. If you do not, you will suffer a diplo penaltie. You can only gain the diplo bonus this way. After refusing many crusades, the leader will excommunicate you. You will no longer be able to contact the leader for a number of turns and suffer massive penalties.

 

[Malkaviel]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356645

 

[Fife]

Yeah I remember seening that thread after I posted this one...

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Religion was the EXCUSE for some wars prior to the 1700s ie. the crusades, the various jihads, and many conflicts during the renaissance.

I want religion to either be more complex OR to be put into the background.

I suspect that they have chosen to add a better religious system in an xpack.

 

[Fife]

Religion is also used as an excuse for terorism... I once read a thread that talked about adding terorism... I thought it would be awesome! More realistic.