Why no religion in civ 5?

[Aussie_Lurker]

Don't want to dive into other's fight. I'm not absolutely against religion, but I need it to:
1. Work well. The religion spread in Civ 4 is quite bad.
2. Have some gameplay reason. City-state influence is quite weak, because you may not want to influence them at all - i.e. playing Songhai.

I didn't heard anything about these points.

So what's your problem with religion spread in Civ4? As I've said, the best method IMO, is to base the spread on the Culture levels *behind* that religion-either indirectly (i.e. the chance of a religion spreading randomly) or by spending culture to spread religion to a city. You could also have an Evangelism Piety setting which reduces the cost of spreading religion to cities.

As to #2, I think diplomacy/happiness should still remain the key reason for spreading religion-it just shouldn't be as set in stone as it was in Civ4. As I said, though, that was an issue with Civ4 diplomacy in general-not with religion specifically (as some people here have wrongly asserted!)

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Another thing to deal with if you try to apply Civ 4 religion with Civ 5.
In Civ 4 you was able to prevent non-state religions from spreading to your cities with Civic. Without switchable civics that mechanic will not work well.

And one more though:
Every specialist in the game provides:
- GP points.
- Something appropriate to the city (production/science, etc.)

For priests - what should they produce? Food? Or which additional bonuses should they give?

The problem with Civ4 religion was that-once a religion entered your city-you couldn't do anything to get rid of it. In the same way I suggested using culture to *spread* religion, so you should be able to spend culture to *remove* religions-again, if you have a Social Policy like Theocracy, the benefit might be a reduced cost for removing religions from your city-amongst others.

As to what a Priest provides, I'm not 100% sure. Unlike the other specialists, though, I think they should provide a mix, rather than a single yield/commerce. I'm thinking a mix of culture & gold would be good though!

 

[Lyoncet]

The problem with Civ4 religion was that-once a religion entered your city-you couldn't do anything to get rid of it. In the same way I suggested using culture to *spread* religion, so you should be able to spend culture to *remove* religions-again, if you have a Social Policy like Theocracy, the benefit might be a reduced cost for removing religions from your city-amongst others.

I do seem to recall that one of the most popular modded units was an inquisitor that could remove a non-state religion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So what's your problem with religion spread in Civ4?

They how random and destructive it is. Basing it on culture don't solve the problem. If you have multiple religions, they all will be spreading equally. Ability to remove a religion will solve the most worst cases, but it looks weird. It's like having improvements appear randomly and workers able to remove them

I think diplomacy/happiness should still remain the key reason for spreading religion-it just shouldn't be as set in stone as it was in Civ4. As I said, though, that was an issue with Civ4 diplomacy in general-not with religion specifically (as some people here have wrongly asserted!)

Happiness will work much less, because it's empire-wide now. Diplomacy will work even weaker, because it will affect city states only.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Happiness will work much less, because it's empire-wide now. Diplomacy will work even weaker, because it will affect city states only.

What, in what way will it only effect City-States? You still have diplomatic relations with major Civilizations too. As to happiness, we don't know exactly how it will work. Yes we know happiness is Global, but there is every indication that your global happiness is impacted by local factors. So unhappiness caused by overcrowding in 1 city will contribute to reduced Global Happiness. So that said, I see no reason why Happiness effects of religion-in a single city-can't work within this system. Also, part of the happiness effect I was referring to was that your treatment of other civs will impact on your happiness depending on the sharing of religion.

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

They how random and destructive it is. Basing it on culture don't solve the problem. If you have multiple religions, they all will be spreading equally. Ability to remove a religion will solve the most worst cases, but it looks weird. It's like having improvements appear randomly and workers able to remove them

Basing it on culture *would* help to solve the problem for several reasons. It would be far, far less likely for a religion to spread to a city if said city has a *higher* culture than the city the religion is already in-especially if said religion is *not* your State Religion. Of course my feeling is that random spread of religion should be a very rare thing to begin with, & mostly done via the actions of missionaries.

Aussie.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What, in what way will it only effect City-States? You still have diplomatic relations with major Civilizations too.

The whole diplomatic system of Civ 5 is built around rational leaders. They can't be bribed or otherwise unsubstantially influenced. You either trade with them or threat them. No "I'm so grateful" thing.

As to happiness, we don't know exactly how it will work. Yes we know happiness is Global, but there is every indication that your global happiness is impacted by local factors. So unhappiness caused by overcrowding in 1 city will contribute to reduced Global Happiness. So that said, I see no reason why Happiness effects of religion-in a single city-can't work within this system. Also, part of the happiness effect I was referring to was that your treatment of other civs will impact on your happiness depending on the sharing of religion.

We know almost everything about happiness. I didn't say it will not work - I said it will work less, because without individual city happiness there will be no difference at which city to have a religion, etc.

Look, I'm not against the religion at all. I just think the system you propose (in the current state) barely fit Civ 5.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The whole diplomatic system of Civ 5 is built around rational leaders. They can't be bribed or otherwise unsubstantially influenced. You either trade with them or threat them. No "I'm so grateful" thing.

I've been following the previews for this game from day 1, & I've seen no evidence for your above claim. From everything I've read, although major civs will now "play to win", that doesn't mean they've removed the ability to influence the major powers via your in-game actions (indeed, they've been bragging about how you *can* still influence the major powers via your actions). Indeed, if they *did* remove the diplomatic modifiers of Civ4 (rather than just hiding them, as they've done) I'd consider that a *massive* step backward, & reason enough not to buy Civ5.

We know almost everything about happiness. I didn't say it will not work - I said it will work less, because without individual city happiness there will be no difference at which city to have a religion, etc.

We know a lot about happiness, but we certainly don't know everything. As I've said, I've read every preview & feature to date, & I've yet to see anything that suggests local happiness factors aren't an issue in the game at all anymore. Just because happiness has a global element, doesn't mean they've removed the local element of happiness. After all, one almost certainly has to contribute to the other.

Aussie.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I've been following the previews for this game from day 1, & I've seen no evidence for your above claim. From everything I've read, although major civs will now "play to win", that doesn't mean they've removed the ability to influence the major powers via your in-game actions (indeed, they've been bragging about how you *can* still influence the major powers via your actions). Indeed, if they *did* remove the diplomatic modifiers of Civ4 (rather than just hiding them, as they've done) I'd consider that a *massive* step backward, & reason enough not to buy Civ5.

Reread what Jon Shafer said about removal of religion, he's quite clear.

Also, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Diplomatic modifiers are still here, but they are rational. If you betray your opponent, he/she will not trust you next time. If you gather your army near someone's borders, that AI will suspect you. But that's not just direct plus and minus, that's much more differential reaction - and that's a huge step forward.

Actually designer's goal was to make playing with AI as much the same as playing MP as possible, and I agree with them. I definitely don't want to see any system which is useful in SP mostly, as Civ 4 religion was.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Reread what Jon Shafer said about removal of religion, he's quite clear.

Also, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Diplomatic modifiers are still here, but they are rational. If you betray your opponent, he/she will not trust you next time. If you gather your army near someone's borders, that AI will suspect you. But that's not just direct plus and minus, that's much more differential reaction - and that's a huge step forward.

Actually designer's goal was to make playing with AI as much the same as playing MP as possible, and I agree with them. I definitely don't want to see any system which is useful in SP mostly, as Civ 4 religion was.

Again, this doesn't say that pluses & minuses aren't in the game, I think you're reading way too much into what's been said so far. As I've also stated elsewhere, the key to putting AI & humans on a similar footing-diplomacy wise-would be to have your diplomatic relations effect happiness in your empire, not by making the AI Civs play a more cut-throat game (which actually makes the game *less* immersive). This was dealt with, modestly, when attacking an empire whose state religion was the same as the religion in your city would cause unhappiness in that city. This is the system which *should* have been expanded on-a system which encourages both the human & AI to play in a more *rational* fashion!

Aussie.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As I've also stated elsewhere, the key to putting AI & humans on a similar footing-diplomacy wise-would be to have your diplomatic relations effect happiness in your empire, not by making the AI Civs play a more cut-throat game (which actually makes the game *less* immersive). This was dealt with, modestly, when attacking an empire whose state religion was the same as the religion in your city would cause unhappiness in that city. This is the system which *should* have been expanded on-a system which encourages both the human & AI to play in a more *rational* fashion!

Yes, I described the same system as "public opinion", it's not bad. However, that's not "fitting religion to existing diplomacy system", that's "building a new diplomacy system to fit religion".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes, I described the same system as "public opinion", it's not bad. However, that's not "fitting religion to existing diplomacy system", that's "building a new diplomacy system to fit religion".

You're just proving my point that what was wrong was the Diplomacy System in Civ4-*not* Religion. Public Opinion would have been a much better solution to the issues they had with Diplomacy-*not* the direction they took.

Aussie.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You're just proving my point that what was wrong was the Diplomacy System in Civ4-*not* Religion. Public Opinion would have been a much better solution to the issues they had with Diplomacy-*not* the direction they took.

Yes, that's right. And the diplomacy could be fixed in different ways. But Civ 5 have chosen a way without religions and I appreciate that - they found city states be going here. If you'll be making a mod with public-opinion based system, you'll need to rethink the city-states to keep the influence system integral.

 

[ShaqFu]

...Also, your belief is based entirely on your own personal *hatred* of Religion within the Civilization Game-a hatred which borders on the outright *irrational*!...

...Still, your mind is clearly set on this issue, so I really don't see why I'm even bothering to try & convince you. No doubt if there is a religion-specific expansion for Civ5, you'll spam this board with rants about how it can *never* work!...

I don't have a problem with a mechanic called religion - I have a problem with badly designed ones called anything.

I'm far from saying that religion can never work - I've said in this very thread that there may be a great implementation out there, but nobody's thought of it yet. If Firaxis comes up with a great religion system for an expansion, that's fantastic; I'm all for more good systems in my games. If someone mods in a great religion system, that's also fantastic; I'd probably even play it myself. I believe that there may or may not be a good model/mechanic for religion in Civ5, but if there is, I haven't seen it yet, and Firaxis is right to not include it if they're not entirely comfortable with it.

You've put forth a lot of ideas for religion, and you have a background in modding - perhaps you could put together a religion mod for Civ5?

 

[Lys]

Probably planning to release it as a pay expansion, like how BTS brought corporations. Spread out the money earning, like Starcraft 2 being in three parts.

 

[StStutter]

BTW, see the holy city state thread if you haven't already for a near perfect implementation of religion in my opinion.

 

[CivTycoon]

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.

Well, I don't understand. Upsetting muslims?? In what friggin' way?? Last time I checked Islam was a Civ IV religion...
And plus, why do people have to be scared of offending muslims but not other religious groups? Do they think they'll get blown up because of it? Don't you think this shows some kind disparity between the types of beliefs Islam attracts as opposed to other religious groups?

Anyways, one must look from the point of the view of the developers on why religion is being removed. Remember, they want to keep the series "fresh" and not keep piling stuff on top of it. However, because religion has been so central to the progression, regression, thought, and rationalism of human civilization, I would not support it's overall removal if the Civilization series wants to retain is status as a primarily historical game.

 

[Auncien]

I think they should bring it back but lower the modifier significantly, maybe just a +0.5 - +1.5 range or something like that. I like the idea proposed in another thread of religion being tied to city states as well.

 

[Oberon Blade]

I read that they removed religion as it in a way forced you to advance in a specific way early on. If you waren't the one that discovered a religion you didnt get access to it right away.

I know that when I play Civ 4 I make a beline towards the early religions, just so I dont get a tough time early on. It sounds like a good enough explanation to me. It have nothing to do with outside influence. It is just a design approach to the game. More streamlined. More routes for you as the player early on and throughout the game.

 

[craig123]

BTW, see the holy city state thread if you haven't already for a near perfect implementation of religion in my opinion.

Just in case anyone is looking for the thread and can't find it, it has been moved to the Ideas and Suggestions section of the forum.