Why no religion in civ 5?

[King Jason]

What effects of the Civ IV religion system is missing from Civ V? The religious civics are still in - see Piety; religious buildings are still in - temple has been confirmed; Diplomacy modifiers are out but that mechanic was wonky anyway. Have I missed anything?

Well you did miss one ~ The precursor concept that became corporations.

*I have founded a religion
*I have spread my religion to my cities
*I have gained benefits and gold from having religion in my cities
*Other civilizations have my religion, they gain benefits too, but I gain gold

Having said that, if either advanced system were to return, I'd take corporations over religion in a heart-beat anyway. Further, I'd have them much earlier in the game. At the least Renaissance. East-India Trading Company for the win.

Other than being weak corporations, the only other relevant part of religion was it's diplomatic effects which quite simply turned any single player game into a randomly rediculous puppet show. You could exploit the diplomatic effects of religion to obscene degrees and, aside from this, If you couldn't affect the religious condition upon the world, you had to deal with whatever random blocs formed.

... and people whined about random events.

"Hey look, that continent of 5 civs Hates me, and loves eachother, and thus is essentially united against me" is equally as random and annoying as "Hey look, 6 barbarians just showed up at my door @ 3000 BC"

 

[Thyrwyn]

You're right, I did forget the most unbalancing effect of Civ IV religion - gold from the Holy Shrines. Which even in the early game could mean the difference between a 50% Science rate and a 100% Science rate.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Religion the way it was represented in the game was very badly implemented. I mean basically it affected all our diplomacy. You would adopt the strongest religion in world leval and that would allow you a leg up in the Diplo victory. The way I see it thank glad there removing it and reworking on it to reintroduce it at a latter date. Though for those who still miss Religion I am pretty sure some of our best modders will add it back to the game.

 

[Earthling]

... and people whined about random events.

"Hey look, that continent of 5 civs Hates me, and loves eachother, and thus is essentially united against me" is equally as random and annoying as "Hey look, 6 barbarians just showed up at my door @ 3000 BC"

The AI puts a lot of specific effort into sending missionaries and spreading the faith. It could be said that some AI prioritize religion too much, but it is anything but random like barbarian events are. About the only problem I see this causing is:

"I can't declare war on anyone at any time to try to kill them and do what I want, because then some of their friends might want revenge."

If you're proposing more comprehensive limitations on player actions and things that diplomacy can account for, that's ok. But if the above is your reason, I don't consider that a good reason for getting rid of religion or any diplomatic feature, really.

One of my biggest problems with Civ III was how random "diplomacy" was - civs would go in/out of war and gang up for no real reason at all (except maybe pitifully small bribes).

They say they want more "unhonest, backstabber, harder" diplomacy game.

I would agree there is large contingent of people who want about the sole decision making process of the AI/their rivals to be "going to war in an attempt to become the largest and most powerful, and win the game." A lot of these people probably play exclusively that way too - they don't want realism, and anything the AI does that makes the AI weaker at ruthlessly going to war, is bad. I don't agree with that in a civilization game, it's not what makes the game great, and so many other franchises are already designed around such gameplay and warfare.

WHY CAN NO ONE SEE THIS?
Religion is still in the game but it's ridiculous effect on diplomacy has been removed. Religious buildings to represent a civs religions, and Piety to represent particularly religious civs.

What you've quoted and said here is what is actually missing the point. The whole point of having religion in the game was so that civilizations could share religions, it could influence diplomacy, and so on. In effect, that's the only important thing about the religion system and the only thing that was removed. Religion is effectively NOT in the game anymore, that is it. Earlier civ games before civ4 had "temples" and "cathedrals" anyway - the point of having religion in the game as religions was for the purpose of interacting with others through religion.

 

[Xen]

A casus belli system utilizing religion would work great with how happiness in managed;

Starting a war with no casus belli (reason for war) will cause unhappiness in the empire right off the bat, and any city annexations will cause unhappiness - however, WITH a casus belli, starting a war will result in far less unhappiness right off the bat, as well a reduction in the unhappiness caused by city annexation from the enemy.

And given history, different religions offers an excellent casus belli.

Like wise, starting wars on countries of the same religion (with out a separate casus belli independent of religion) multiples the unhappiness caused by starting the war, and city annexation.

Espionage could also be brought back under this system, as one potential use for it could be to 'manufacture' a casus belli by, for example, giving you a legitimate claim on a rival civs city, or some area of its territory, or some other reason or diplomatic faux pas.

 

[Altaria87]

The problem of religion as I see it is that in real life, yes it caused countless wars and detahs (and that is why I, presonally, despise religion), but almost all of the wars, with a few exceptions, were basically minor scuffles in the scheme of things between border countries, they didn't create huge blocs of countries that loved each other for 4000 years and never warred with each other for any reason, as happens in Civ.

 

[Xen]

No, but id did make going to war in Catholic Europe between two Catholic factions much more troublesome, unless the Pope decided to weigh on on one side or another. Similarly, Islamic factionalism worked along similar lines.

 

[ShaqFu]

How did you decide to remove religion, for instance?

JS: The main reason is that we wanted to go a different direction with diplomacy. Instead of having specific modifiers and numbers on the screen that affected relations between different players, we wanted a little more mystery and even more rationality behind the AI players. Religion was something that we think didn't really fit with that, because you could just send your missionary somewhere, convert somebody, and then they would be your ally forever.

We wanted you to have tools to affect diplomacy, but not so directly. It was just a completely mechanical system. We wanted something that was a little bit more mysterious. That was the main reason.

We didn't just say, "Okay. We're going to remove religion now." We evaluated ways of keeping it around and seeing if we could make something of it. But it was so tied to the diplomatic model that having that separated just meant that it wasn't going to stand up on its own.

We decided that we can focus on other areas of the game and make it better. It didn't fit within what our goals were for diplomacy, which is a pretty big part of Civ V.

(http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5966/building_civilization_v.php)

Either religion or the new diplomacy model had to go. Religion lost.

 

[Reginleif]

As someone who liked to make maps I found religion to constrictive and am glad it was removed. Whenever I wanted to make a map I had to somehow accomedate religions that were out of place. Modding was an option, but I found it time consuming and would have to have been done inividually for other maps too, which was unrealistic. Community mods helped solve this problem, but they too had to be cut perfectly to match every map I produced.

 

[Txurce]

What you've quoted and said here is what is actually missing the point. The whole point of having religion in the game was so that civilizations could share religions, it could influence diplomacy, and so on. In effect, that's the only important thing about the religion system and the only thing that was removed. Religion is effectively NOT in the game anymore, that is it. Earlier civ games before civ4 had "temples" and "cathedrals" anyway - the point of having religion in the game as religions was for the purpose of interacting with others through religion.

Religion was very unrealistic, since it historically didn't stop Protestants, Catholics or Muslims from fighting their own brethren, let alone coming to their support.

King Jason pointed out that Religion made for rigid bedfellows - the opposite of fluidity.

Jon Shafer pointed out that Religion was removed to make diplomacy more complex. The AI responds more mysteriously, and less mechanically, as a result.

I'll take the new version - Religion in away that doesn't warp the game and make it more unrealistic - in a heartbeat.

 

[Earthling]

Either religion or the new diplomacy model had to go. Religion lost

I agree you are spot on about why they did this - what they are aiming for after all, so I guess it's just more straightforward to say the new diplomacy model had better be immaculate or everything they've abandoned for it was not worth it. That really addresses most of the discussion here, though I'm not sure how people see the lack of inclusion of religion (as with other factors) as realism.

I'm sure it will be playable, but realistically I would safely predict there will be tons of complaints from many people about diplomacy from the get-go. They may not all be fair, but I don't expect anything astounding out of the new diplomacy model. Hidden modifiers and decisions being the very worst, of course.

 

[Txurce]

That really addresses most of the discussion here, though I'm not sure how people see the lack of inclusion of religion (as with other factors) as realism.

There is still "religion," in terms of improvements like temples and social policies like Piety. What no longer exists is a modifier that fosters alliances and antipathies in an overly deterministic way. Historically, nations used religion as an excuse for war, but often had other underlying, more mercenary reasons for it (for example, the First Crusade). More to the point, they rarely behaved in a consistently loyal manner to co-religionists. Quick examples include the Muslims in Spain, the Catholics in Italy, and the Protestants in Germany.

 

[anycent]

I'm just freaking flabbergasted that tehy removed it, also I hate that people are being mean to me becaus eof my penmenship.

 

[Earthling]

There is still "religion," in terms of improvements like temples and social policies like Piety.

I don't think it's fair to even call that "religion" anymore. If everything about religions was removed in civ4, except you could still build some temples/monasteries/cathedrals for the happiness/culture, and you could run the religious civics (without any particular religion) would we really call that religion? It isn't perfectly realistic, but some attempt at all to have religion in the game surely goes for more realism. Various scenarios and mods representing specific historical periods and events could not exist without using the religion system.

What no longer exists is a modifier that fosters alliances and antipathies in an overly deterministic way.

As for this part - I'd like anyone, whether you fully liked or fully hated civ4's religion system, to explain how it really was so deterministic and shackling. For one, the human player has almost zero requirement to ever use or care about the system if he/she does not want to. You can (and I often have) go entire games without adopting religions, or really caring too much about it in making war and allies. And at a moment's notice you can switch religions, declare war, or whatever you want for your own civ in any game.

So I really, really don't see it, especially at a level of play where a player might not just be abusing AI (if you play really low level and just convert everyone to your friend, sure, you win, but I don't think it's fair to criticize the whole system based on that). As tons of players will tell you (TMIT ) the AI is nowhere close to deterministic, religion is just one factor that might not even make enough of a difference for a large number of AI. And the system still fundamentally rewards efforts and decision making, it's not entirely random - AI themselves spam and fret over religion constantly, and a player who invests into it can have decent results.

I do know there are intentions for major changes in diplomacy, I'm just not convinced they will work out well. In my opinion, the very, very, very worst diplomatic events in civ4 were AI demands about "give us this resource" or "stop trading with so-so." I don't see how civ5 is not becoming more like this, removing religion, civic, and other obvious factors, and a few new "silly complaints" like "don't settle near us." I even think a majority of players would say this is the most annoying behavior of all from the AI, and hiding true feelings/intentions could just be worse.

I can say for sure - if we look at civ3 or previous versions, diplomacy was far and away a much worse pain than in civ4. Civ4 was by no means perfect, but it was definitely an improvement, and it was clear factors like religion and civics that helped. The major diplomatic features that players could understand and respond to = good. So I hope civ5 doesn't go entirely random and mysterious on us again. (Or the other problem being incredibly predictable AI, if the personalities are too extreme and always the same)




Also, anycent, I can't speak for anyone else and did not in fact see that on the other page before, but sorry people were being mean to you, I agree those posts were harsh, and hopefully you still find the forums a welcoming place with lots of great information and discussion.

 

[Txurce]

I don't think it's fair to even call that "religion" anymore... It isn't perfectly realistic, but some attempt at all to have religion in the game surely goes for more realism.

I think this is a subjective issue. I can call it religion within a cultural framework, and argue that no historical civ would have been primarily "religious" at the time that they were successful (including the Arabs). But you may believe differently. And it's certainly not nearly as defined as Civ 4's Religion, so for what it's worth, that option has been replaced (by social policy, which influences city states).

I'd like anyone, whether you fully liked or fully hated civ4's religion system, to explain how it really was so deterministic and shackling.

For me the point isn't whether or not one used Religion, but its purpose and effect when one did. The ability to switch religions just to go to war made it not just unrealistic, but more deterministic than I would prefer, for the very reasons that one would consider switching prior to going to war.

I do know there are intentions for major changes in diplomacy, I'm just not convinced they will work out well... I hope civ5 doesn't go entirely random and mysterious on us again. (Or the other problem being incredibly predictable AI, if the personalities are too extreme and always the same).

"Mysterious" is what the lead designer promises, so we better hope it works out well!
I read that term as the opposite of predictable, rather than as "random." Since civs will now quickly evolve a grand strategy, I expect that their leaders may be unpredictable, but not random.

 

[johny smith]

Well religion never really seemed to be negative except in diplomacy in the original game. You just brought in the gold from religion if you had the holy shrine and poured on the happy faces. It was as you could control the religion so much as the leader that it was just a helpful tool for you to abuse.

I would like to see many things in the game that are not in the complete control of the player if it was me. The more positive gain from anything should come with either more risk or some negative form in return.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As someone who-overall-liked Religion in Civ4, I see that there were 3 major issues with its implementation. These were:

1) Founding of religions was *much* too random!

2) The diplomatic Benefits/Penalties for religion were too arbitrary & too permanent.

3) Aside from diplomatic penalties, there were *no negatives* to having multiple religions in your cities.

What bugs me though, is that *all* of these problems were solvable with a little bit of thinking-but instead they took the easy option of removing religion altogether. So how could the above issues be solved?

1) Well this is one I'm working on myself for Civ4. Make the founding of religions a conscious decision-involving strategy. This will work even better in a system where you have to *buy* your piety with Culture-rather than via acquisition of technologies. So, in order to found a religion, you'd need to acquire Piety & build early religious buildings in order to get a Great Prophet with which you can found a religion.

2) The simple solution to this problem is to make bonuses & penalties change according to in-game actions. So whilst you might earn a very small bonus/penalty for having the same/different religion, but have it "decay"/"grow" based on your actions. For example, say you gain a +1 diplomacy bonus from switching to another Civ's faith, if you fail to do anything to spread the religion (or, worse still, actively *thwart* the spread of the religion) then this bonus will decay &, eventually, even turn into a penalty. Similarly, a Civ that has a different religion, but which does its best to spread the religion through its cities can overcome the small -1 diplomatic penalty that it might originally get.

3) The solution to this is have certain religious policies actually give *penalties* to cities which have more than 1 religion within them. Similarly, if cities have only a limited number of slots for new religions, then a player might be less inclined to spam multiple religions in all their cities-especially if "larger" versions of each religion gives increasing benefits/penalties. So, for example, a city sized 8 might only have a slot for 4 levels of religions-so do you work on making your state religion a level 4 (with sizable benefits), or do you have a level 2 & a level 2 of a non-state religion (because of future benefits from later Piety/Rationalism settings, or due to relations with neighbouring civs)?

So you see that, with just a few relatively minor tweaks, Civ4 style religion could have been made an interesting component of Civ5!

Aussie.

 

[ShaqFu]

Keep in mind that Civ4-esque religion would completely break the city-state system. Instead of carefully balancing requests and trying to keep your alliance stable, you could send in a Missionary, convert, and enjoy 3000 years of an alliance without doing much else. It would really take a lot of the fun out of the new system.

 

[Altaria87]

2) The simple solution to this problem is to make bonuses & penalties change according to in-game actions. So whilst you might earn a very small bonus/penalty for having the same/different religion, but have it "decay"/"grow" based on your actions. For example, say you gain a +1 diplomacy bonus from switching to another Civ's faith, if you fail to do anything to spread the religion (or, worse still, actively *thwart* the spread of the religion) then this bonus will decay &, eventually, even turn into a penalty. Similarly, a Civ that has a different religion, but which does its best to spread the religion through its cities can overcome the small -1 diplomatic penalty that it might originally get.

However, this would still thwart the attmepts ot make the AI behave like a human, because human players still wouldn't care if an AI was the same Religion as them or not.

 

[Calouste]

However, this would still thwart the attmepts ot make the AI behave like a human, because human players still wouldn't care if an AI was the same Religion as them or not.

This.

The only way to get a good, non-exploitable AI is to not impose any restrictions on it that the human doesn't have. And if that means that it uses mechanisms that are annoying for human gameplay (worker stealing, early rushes) you have to remove those mechanisms from the game or make them very risky or expensive.