Why such an uncreative approach to religion?

[uppi]

Yes, I agree. But if you don't found a religion in Civ6, the only way to really stop opponents from religious victory is through conquest.

While violence is always an option in Civ (although a bit dangerous, because conquering too much might convert yourself to the enemy's religion), it was not necessary: You could pick a third party religion of someone who was not going to win (maybe because they are dead?), and then convert your cities to that religion while driving out the religion of the player trying to win a religious victory.

Well, in addition to getting relics, you also need religion for military legacy path, which requires a bit more management to do this in sync. Other than that, yes, it's deliberately simple, but that's because it replaces previous civ "I didn't found a religion" situation.

Also, while it's not great by itself, it really messes things for players who actually try to play for religious domination, so in SP it makes AI create complications for you. And in MP this should be quite fun.

Maybe I need to attend sessions for Warmongers Anonymous, but I usually don't need religion to finish the military legacy path.

Yes, they 100% need to reduce busywork and, in perfect world, add some meaningful decisions too. I just think focus should be on less optional systems and adding more complexity to religion is not something which requires polishing right now.

Proposal time:

• Main change: You spread religion to settlements instead of converting them, meaning you do not remove the old religion. This means, there can be multiple religions in a settlement (but spread is still fully manual).
• Missionaries get more expensive, because you need fewer of them*
• Instead of a flat bonus per settlement, you get a set percentage of the yields in a settlement if your religion is present there
• This bonus gets reduced (divided?) by the number of religions there
• If you think an opponent is getting too much yields from this and have the spare influence, you can make a new sanction "Denounce Heresy" against them
  • This would disallow their missionaries to spread religion to your settlements while it is active
  • It would allow you to use missionaries to remove their religion from settlements (maybe even from 3rd party settlements?)
  • Obviously, it would come with a hefty opinion penalty
  • The opponent could spend influence of their own to reject the sanction
• Relic beliefs would stay mostly as they are, with a bit of rebalancing (the 2 relics per capital would need to be removed)
• These rules could be modified in a crisis (e.g. religious tolerance: no removal of religion allowed).

Objectives:

• Religious spread remains very simple (even removing the urban/rural distinction)
• You would not have to do anything differently if you just want to fulfill the legacy path
• But even then: Since the benefits are likely to stay (at least for the exploration age), you would care more about them and maybe convert that big city instead of a small town
• You would want to prioritize: Do I spread my religion to that city which already has multiple religions or to that town where I might be the only one
• If you invest enough in it, you might be able to make a strong religious economy, which participates in the success of others
• Counterplay is possible, but has consequences
• Whack-a-mole is eliminated, because most of the time your religion will stick around when you spread it to a settlement