Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
dh_epic said:
This is where I disagree - the right to bear arms I personally don't think should be consititunal right - rather it should be a privallege for those who show that one it is a neccersity or two need it for a sport or somethin.
No one should automatically have the right to bear arms. I don't consider that fundemental human right - as you will see no human rights groups in all the world have ever complained about the a person being discrimated against because they weren't allowed to own a AK47 or a revolver.
I don't think it belongs in the consitution - however, a person who wants a firearm for protection incase he is assaulted in his home is reasonable, I'm not against people owning guns - just against the notion of it being a fundemental right which is incased in the Constitution.
But back to topic.
let me give you the MENWIA Doctrine - or was that Bush Doctine. Anyway -here is the Doctrin.
Now, I've read all the postings, and the first thing i'd like to say is that I applaud everyone's effort at trying to find somekind of resolution. And I understand your motive's - But, I think we just got to complicated on the issue.
We got to keep things Clear and Simple. All these different sects and everything - come on guys - way too complicated- way way too many choices. It just won't work - now i'm against these generic traits things - give over lads - if we gonna have religions its got to be world religions - and none of this generic stuff - there's just no point.
Saying all that - some very good points were made. But lets get back to the basics.
You have three or four Religous Classes.
YOu have three or four specific Religions within each Class.
Depending on Static or Dynamic model, you can switch religions instantly or have to gradually change over.
Each Specif Religous Group and Specific Religon can build certain buildings,units and wonders.
There is a Sahred Religous Wonder across a Relgious Class.
Let me address Dh's main argument against world religions. So far you agree with the model, but the main thing that you ain't happy about is that one must be able to give each religion characteristics which are true and secondly not to have different relgions in name but not in substance. I agree.
How can we handle the accusation that one will make one religion a war religoin and make another a peace religion. The way I propose - is two fold, one look at the history of the religions - after all that is one reason why we want them. And two look at the broad belief consensus of the religions. This will become clear how I handle this as i relay y other points.
Wonders - you can only build wonders which are specific to your religion. If you convert the wonders you have already build will become Tourist Attrattions unless you are in a Democratic government system. Wonder you capture, if they are not your state religion will just become Tourist attractions.
Relgions/War and Peace. Each religion will be able to declare Holy War - the effects it will have on your population will first depend on the government system you are and second on what religion/etc the other civ is.
Wonders that you build will enable you to produce units and also have differing effects. Certain wonders will enable you to declare Holy War and also build Holy War units and will also reduce the WW in your Civ when you do go to war. There wonders should be history specific and like the Crusades, will become obsolute when a certain tech is discovered like the Great Libary. Ohter wonders will give you increased converstion power - ect ect - the effects are endless, and I would love to employed by firaxis in working out the details.
Finally - I think that if you discover a religoin -then you should be able to have a religous victroy as mentioned before. However, lets say I discover Christianty second - I can challange the first player as a Heretic and go a Holy War against him to superseed his position and therefore put myself in the option of winning a religous victory if I want. To take that pole position so to speak - you have either destroy his civ - or make him agree in your peace treaty that you are the Legitamte leader of the faith.
P.S. I think this option should only be availabe to you after you have built somekind of small wonder or if your Culture points/religous points - howeever you want to look at it, is greater then the pole position Civ.
Last comment - Aussie, Rhialto - don't go too complicated guys, it don't work, we need some basic models where everyone can follow, not go off into hundreds and hundreds of religons. And you should be able to build any wonder specific to that religon no matter what Civ you are. Otherwise only the Eygptians should build Pyramids and only the Chinnesse should build the Great Wall - you get my point.
I think we have a working model here - there's only a few details which need to worked out, but just the main questin left is - that i see it is - should we have a dynamic or static model. I'm in favour of dynamic but would sette for a static one - FOR NOW . . .
let me give you the MENWIA Doctrine - or was that Bush Doctine. Anyway -here is the Doctrin.
Now, I've read all the postings, and the first thing i'd like to say is that I applaud everyone's effort at trying to find somekind of resolution. And I understand your motive's - But, I think we just got to complicated on the issue.
We got to keep things Clear and Simple. All these different sects and everything - come on guys - way too complicated- way way too many choices. It just won't work - now i'm against these generic traits things - give over lads - if we gonna have religions its got to be world religions - and none of this generic stuff - there's just no point.
Saying all that - some very good points were made. But lets get back to the basics.
You have three or four Religous Classes.
YOu have three or four specific Religions within each Class.
Depending on Static or Dynamic model, you can switch religions instantly or have to gradually change over.
Each Specif Religous Group and Specific Religon can build certain buildings,units and wonders.
There is a Sahred Religous Wonder across a Relgious Class.
Let me address Dh's main argument against world religions. So far you agree with the model, but the main thing that you ain't happy about is that one must be able to give each religion characteristics which are true and secondly not to have different relgions in name but not in substance. I agree.
How can we handle the accusation that one will make one religion a war religoin and make another a peace religion. The way I propose - is two fold, one look at the history of the religions - after all that is one reason why we want them. And two look at the broad belief consensus of the religions. This will become clear how I handle this as i relay y other points.
Wonders - you can only build wonders which are specific to your religion. If you convert the wonders you have already build will become Tourist Attrattions unless you are in a Democratic government system. Wonder you capture, if they are not your state religion will just become Tourist attractions.
Relgions/War and Peace. Each religion will be able to declare Holy War - the effects it will have on your population will first depend on the government system you are and second on what religion/etc the other civ is.
Wonders that you build will enable you to produce units and also have differing effects. Certain wonders will enable you to declare Holy War and also build Holy War units and will also reduce the WW in your Civ when you do go to war. There wonders should be history specific and like the Crusades, will become obsolute when a certain tech is discovered like the Great Libary. Ohter wonders will give you increased converstion power - ect ect - the effects are endless, and I would love to employed by firaxis in working out the details.
Finally - I think that if you discover a religoin -then you should be able to have a religous victroy as mentioned before. However, lets say I discover Christianty second - I can challange the first player as a Heretic and go a Holy War against him to superseed his position and therefore put myself in the option of winning a religous victory if I want. To take that pole position so to speak - you have either destroy his civ - or make him agree in your peace treaty that you are the Legitamte leader of the faith.
P.S. I think this option should only be availabe to you after you have built somekind of small wonder or if your Culture points/religous points - howeever you want to look at it, is greater then the pole position Civ.
Last comment - Aussie, Rhialto - don't go too complicated guys, it don't work, we need some basic models where everyone can follow, not go off into hundreds and hundreds of religons. And you should be able to build any wonder specific to that religon no matter what Civ you are. Otherwise only the Eygptians should build Pyramids and only the Chinnesse should build the Great Wall - you get my point.
I think we have a working model here - there's only a few details which need to worked out, but just the main questin left is - that i see it is - should we have a dynamic or static model. I'm in favour of dynamic but would sette for a static one - FOR NOW . . .
P.S.
I like the idea about how some religons are more prone to converstion then other whilst others are more prone to Schisms.
Excelent idea - it can be incorporated into the model i stated above. Its these kinds of things which will give the basic structure above meat and flavour and get us a fully - working and true to nature religous model.
LIke I said - strengths and weaknesses - each religous has them, each society has them. Just cause some don't like to admit it - doesn't mean its not true.
I like the idea about how some religons are more prone to converstion then other whilst others are more prone to Schisms.
Excelent idea - it can be incorporated into the model i stated above. Its these kinds of things which will give the basic structure above meat and flavour and get us a fully - working and true to nature religous model.
LIke I said - strengths and weaknesses - each religous has them, each society has them. Just cause some don't like to admit it - doesn't mean its not true.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
My problem is simple: there is no consensus. There's not even a general consensus. We're not talking about making a decision that ignores a 5% minority, we're talking about making a decision that ignores a 49% minority.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
It depends on what the traits are, I suppose. But I think that the basic features in Civ that you might look at to think about the effects of, say, government -- like happiness, war weariness, money, culture, movement speed, unit maintainence, productivity, corruption, research. None of those aspects describe the intuitive differences I have about religions.
(Although they might be used in describing Rush Limbaugh's warped and ignorant view of the world. "All ____ are very business-savvy." "These _____ only want to kill us, and we must strike back at them ten times as hard." "____ are the most rational of all religious peoples." Thanks but no thanks, these just don't describe the real-life differences between religions, not even close.)
Talking about the secularization, though, you can make very intuitive judgements about a theorcratic society and its effect on happiness and war weariness. Or a secular society's effect on science and money. You can come up with the kinds of judgements that most people wouldn't argue with. Ones that actually make sense.
(Although they might be used in describing Rush Limbaugh's warped and ignorant view of the world. "All ____ are very business-savvy." "These _____ only want to kill us, and we must strike back at them ten times as hard." "____ are the most rational of all religious peoples." Thanks but no thanks, these just don't describe the real-life differences between religions, not even close.)
Talking about the secularization, though, you can make very intuitive judgements about a theorcratic society and its effect on happiness and war weariness. Or a secular society's effect on science and money. You can come up with the kinds of judgements that most people wouldn't argue with. Ones that actually make sense.
I'm kinda confused here dh - I'm with you - there's no real way we can simulate religon in civ perfectly - but in civ all we have are war weariness, corruption, trade, science, ect ect.
If there's a new factor - or mechanism which you think might better improve the game or the realism of the religous model - by all means.
As you can ssee by the model. You ahve a choice. I didn't state this earlier, but a player should have the choice of decalring War normally as is the case now, or the added option of Holy War. That way, when you delcare Holy War the religous factors kick in.
Its just a thought dh, tell me what you think on it. When you declare a Holy War you either have to accomplish your objective (the reason you went on a war) or the other civ is destroyed or accepts to convert to your religion. Once you declare a Holy War you can only make peace if you convert over to the other civs religion or untiil your empire breaks down from civil unrest and a revolutin occures. Just some thoughts - brain storming here.
But getting back to the other matter. You're not ignoring the Christians or Muslims or any other ones who don't want to declare Holy War. They have a choice, just the same way you can't make some people declare Holy War, you shouldn't stop others from doing it. After all it is a fact, but you don't have to follow histroy if you dont want to. Just because there were crusades don't mean that in your game you have to have them - they might not be advantagous to you in that game, or you just don't want. In the end, the choice is yours, and your chioces will have their effects.
I see your point on the secularizim thing, but to be honest - I just don't think its gonna that much fun . . .I might be wrong, but I think have world religions is more fun - and remeber, that's the main reason anyone plays games - is to have fun. Being the Religous leader of Christainty and bringing the world under the banner of the CRoss from your Crusades is alot more fun . . . more heroc in a sense - gives that myth and epic feeling. Vice versa for other religions as well . . .
or if you want, you could go around converting the whole world through peaceful ways. The choice is yours, peace or war . . . in other words - more fun.
P.S. there will be an option in the game for those players who don't want religous effects in their civ - eg, to have full control, it can be done when a certain tech is achieved. It could be communisim or could be secularism or atheist - or what ever you think is appropiate, but the effect will the same. And all the religous wonders built will become tourist attractions and all relgious buildings will become obsolet - all your temples and such could be sold.
If there's a new factor - or mechanism which you think might better improve the game or the realism of the religous model - by all means.
As you can ssee by the model. You ahve a choice. I didn't state this earlier, but a player should have the choice of decalring War normally as is the case now, or the added option of Holy War. That way, when you delcare Holy War the religous factors kick in.
Its just a thought dh, tell me what you think on it. When you declare a Holy War you either have to accomplish your objective (the reason you went on a war) or the other civ is destroyed or accepts to convert to your religion. Once you declare a Holy War you can only make peace if you convert over to the other civs religion or untiil your empire breaks down from civil unrest and a revolutin occures. Just some thoughts - brain storming here.
But getting back to the other matter. You're not ignoring the Christians or Muslims or any other ones who don't want to declare Holy War. They have a choice, just the same way you can't make some people declare Holy War, you shouldn't stop others from doing it. After all it is a fact, but you don't have to follow histroy if you dont want to. Just because there were crusades don't mean that in your game you have to have them - they might not be advantagous to you in that game, or you just don't want. In the end, the choice is yours, and your chioces will have their effects.
I see your point on the secularizim thing, but to be honest - I just don't think its gonna that much fun . . .I might be wrong, but I think have world religions is more fun - and remeber, that's the main reason anyone plays games - is to have fun. Being the Religous leader of Christainty and bringing the world under the banner of the CRoss from your Crusades is alot more fun . . . more heroc in a sense - gives that myth and epic feeling. Vice versa for other religions as well . . .
or if you want, you could go around converting the whole world through peaceful ways. The choice is yours, peace or war . . . in other words - more fun.
P.S. there will be an option in the game for those players who don't want religous effects in their civ - eg, to have full control, it can be done when a certain tech is achieved. It could be communisim or could be secularism or atheist - or what ever you think is appropiate, but the effect will the same. And all the religous wonders built will become tourist attractions and all relgious buildings will become obsolet - all your temples and such could be sold.
Just one thing i'm against guys - is having Relgious Leaders appear and then a player using them or controlling, or sacrificing them - ect.
I dont think having Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed or Budda appear as units and you being able to control them is acceptable. That would be blasphamy in my opinion and it would offend alot of people 100%.
Its best not to actually refer to these figures in name or such. It might be acceptable to have a little clip or something where is announces that for example Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Budda or Zeus appeared in the world for example and showed people the light, or have a picture of them like you do the Pyramids.
That could be an option - but it would have to be done sensatively. However, them appearing as actual units is a big NO NO.
I dont think having Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed or Budda appear as units and you being able to control them is acceptable. That would be blasphamy in my opinion and it would offend alot of people 100%.
Its best not to actually refer to these figures in name or such. It might be acceptable to have a little clip or something where is announces that for example Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Budda or Zeus appeared in the world for example and showed people the light, or have a picture of them like you do the Pyramids.
That could be an option - but it would have to be done sensatively. However, them appearing as actual units is a big NO NO.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
If offensiveness were the issue, you could just as easily have "Augustine" or "Luther" appear. Despite what people believe, it's seldom the "original" man who defines a religion, but all the different stakeholders from different sides who define and redefine a religion.
Menwia, what you're talking about is a model whereby you declare holy war. This is a whole other discussion. I was more asking you how you'd describe the differences between actual religions.
Too specific and you end up being inaccurate -- "How does Buddhism result in 50% more food production anyway?"
Too vague, and you have no real differences except in label, under which you can fight wars. Team Christian versus Team Islam is no different from Team Blue versus Team Red. The only reason we're talking about letting people pick religions instead of picking team colors is because somehow putting a few labels in the game and calling it "religion" somehow makes it more historical.
I'm still looking for an adequate model of conversion. Right now, war is about taking someone else's cities, and I can't imagine there's really that much of a difference between a holy war and a regular war. Adding conversion is a neat little twist -- that you can win a holy war by converting the enemy instead of just conquering them. But nobody has given an accurate description of what conversion would be.
If you convert me, why wouldn't I just flip my religion again, undermining everything you've done to convert me? Why wouldn't I just stop producing religious units and converting other people around the world, thus making converting people more and more futile? And if you're trying to convert me, why wouldn't you just conquer me and kill me instead? What's the difference?
This whole discussion is pretty repetitive, from where I sit. People are throwing out ideas that are either too simple to have any gameplay (or realism) benefit, or ideas that assume underlying complexities in the game that are *not* self-explanatory.
Menwia, what you're talking about is a model whereby you declare holy war. This is a whole other discussion. I was more asking you how you'd describe the differences between actual religions.
Too specific and you end up being inaccurate -- "How does Buddhism result in 50% more food production anyway?"
Too vague, and you have no real differences except in label, under which you can fight wars. Team Christian versus Team Islam is no different from Team Blue versus Team Red. The only reason we're talking about letting people pick religions instead of picking team colors is because somehow putting a few labels in the game and calling it "religion" somehow makes it more historical.
I'm still looking for an adequate model of conversion. Right now, war is about taking someone else's cities, and I can't imagine there's really that much of a difference between a holy war and a regular war. Adding conversion is a neat little twist -- that you can win a holy war by converting the enemy instead of just conquering them. But nobody has given an accurate description of what conversion would be.
If you convert me, why wouldn't I just flip my religion again, undermining everything you've done to convert me? Why wouldn't I just stop producing religious units and converting other people around the world, thus making converting people more and more futile? And if you're trying to convert me, why wouldn't you just conquer me and kill me instead? What's the difference?
This whole discussion is pretty repetitive, from where I sit. People are throwing out ideas that are either too simple to have any gameplay (or realism) benefit, or ideas that assume underlying complexities in the game that are *not* self-explanatory.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I admit that my model depends on civil war. However, if that wasn't in the game, then you could make a religious schism a simple 'Religious Revolt', where 'hereritical cities' fail to produce anything for you economy, and are more prone to cultural conversion by neighbouring states-especially if said states are of the same religion as the 'heretics'. There is really nothing to stop a nation reducing 'Spiritualism' to reduce susceptibility to conversion and schism-the only problem is that ANY religious improvements you have become MUCH less effective when you do this. Changing religions is risky, as I have mentioned above, and may seem to be 'chopping off the nose to spite the face'! It might be easier just to accept that this new religion is becoming very popular, and either change your state religion accordingly-or at the very least grant them religion freedom!
Anyway, hope this clarifies things a little better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Anyway, hope this clarifies things a little better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I have mixed feelings about including specific world religions. After all, there are an insane number of world religions out there. You would have to include at least a dozen to two dozen religions to really include "most people." Also, you would then have to include atheism as a religion, as IRL there are more of us than there are in many well known religions.
Second, most modern countries do not follow one religion solely. With immigration and modern communication, how would Civ4 deal with such issues? I'm all for adding more content to Civ4, but this is one topic that seems too complicated.
On the other hand, I do believe that a country, regardless of its major and minor religion(s), does share a certain sense of commonality. For example, Christianity, though based on the same source material and faith, is extremely different in the US compared to the UK. This leads me to believe that a well built trait system for generic religions could be an exciting addition to Civ4.
Second, most modern countries do not follow one religion solely. With immigration and modern communication, how would Civ4 deal with such issues? I'm all for adding more content to Civ4, but this is one topic that seems too complicated.
On the other hand, I do believe that a country, regardless of its major and minor religion(s), does share a certain sense of commonality. For example, Christianity, though based on the same source material and faith, is extremely different in the US compared to the UK. This leads me to believe that a well built trait system for generic religions could be an exciting addition to Civ4.
Kniteflux, if you want a real world religions model, you wouldnt need to include dozens. Between the big 4 (secular, christian, hindu, muslim), you can account for maybe 70% of the world. And in any case, I'd only suggest including those religions that have interesting wonders to build, which cuts out most of the new age stuff.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
What about variants of Buddhism, there are a ton of them that could be easily coupled under Buddhism for gameplay sakes.
First all very good points dh - and I'm with you on them - they have to answered. I'll come back to them later.
To begin with NO - you don't have to include every single dimoniation under the sun of each religion to be accurate. What you do is you put in Christianty to represent every domination of Christianty under the sun - same with Islam, Buddism, Hinduism - you name it. Therefore - you end up only having three or four main religions in each Relgious Class.
You ask - how are you going to reflect the differences in all these dinominations. Simple. You reflect the historical and belief sytem choices of each religion according to the base characteristics - and from there you give the Player CHOICES to some extent to reflect what kind of Christianty he followes.
Exmaple - Just because some people think That Christianty is all about peace does not detract from the fact that historically the Crusades occorded - and the religion was geared as one of the fundemental driving forces behind it - example is the Knight Templar or Knights Hospitlar, dedicated Christian warriors who belived in protecting Pilgrims and such. Same goes for all religons. If in their history there is a case of a HOly War which was used and happened what you do is this.
The player must build a small wonder - which will give him the choice of Holy War. For Christianty it could be King Richard's Crusade which will give him the option of declaring Holy War and also build Crusader units - this is just a rough example to illustrate the concept.
Vice versa lets say a player wanted Christianty to be really peaceful - and convert people through peace and such. You could build a Small Wonder whichi will decrease other civ's willingless to go war with you - cause they know you are preaching a peaceful approach. And any civ who declares a Normal War with you loses double reputation - and any Civ who declares Holy War with you loses X4 Reputation.
You can also build a small wonder which can help you convert people more. There are other options where you can help define your Religion by the Choices you make - but it will unmistakenaly be World Religon's as all example will come from the real world and from History. They are not Generic, and not really just Traits.
HOly War I don't think should automatically be included in a civ's option unless they have built a small wonder - or maybe if that wonder is built - have accumlated a certain number of Culture Points/Relgous Points.
Another idea I have is - lets say I build the King Richards Crusade and then declare Holy WAr against the Germans who are following a different religion then me - I can ask other nations of the same Religion to join me in a Holy War. They can decline or accept and face the consequences of their choices what ever they might be.
So you see - we dont' need to have hundreds of religions to give a good representations of World Religions.
You can have multipule faiths in the same civ depending on what government system is available. I have already mapped out a way where different gov systems effect religion. I will post again if you wish.
Right dh -the method of converstaion will be same mechanism as when a city converts over to you through culture. You have two methods - the first being a dynmaic one which means the citizens slowly convert over to the new religion - or a static one, where you empire jumps from one religion to the next, and the cities' you convert - just like culture jump over to your faith and become part of your empire. This is regardless of the Regular Culture model - you will have special units that have converstation functions, so instead of spies you have clerics for example.
that rate of your conversion or the power of your conversion will first depend on what goverment system you are - secondly what type of culture points you have, what goverment systems the othe civ is, what type of religion you are, what type fo religons the other civ is and finally what Small wonders you have. Therefore - in some cases it might be easier for you to convert a city using a cleric then using a spy to incite revolt. On the other hand it might be easier for you to use a spy in some cases to revolt that city rather then a cleric. It all depends on each specific situation and game.
Next question. What are the reasons I declare HOly War - rather then just normal War? Good question. Lets say for arguements sake you are Christain and have deciede to build the King Richards Crusade Wonder - now you have the option of declaring Holy War. YOu ask yourself - what's the reason I should declare a HOly War?
I haven't thought this out but i'll try my best,
First Reason - You where the first one to discover Christianty and you want to win a Relgious Victory -therefore, you must convert as many people as possible to achieve that. (You've just deciede to use War to convert rather then peaceful methods).
Second Reason - Lets say you where the second one to discover Christianty, and then you build a small wonder or have a enough culture/Relgious points and you annouce the pole postions Christain player is a heretic. You want to be reconzied as the legetamet Relgious Leader so you can win a Religous Victory.
Third Reason - Another civ with the same Religion as you is involved in a Holy War - and asks for your aid. In order to ally yourself you must also declare a Holy War - and not a normal war.
Four Reason - (This is open for your own interpreation) A certain Event occurs or maybe lets say a Holy city is Captured by onother Civ. You can then decide to declare a Holy War to achieve that objective. (If you succed ou get a massive boost to your culture points or religious points and all other civs with same religon will look on you more favorable. The Effects and Events are numoures.
Now - next question. Lets say you've won a Holy War and the enemy Civ agrees to convert to your religion. What's stopping it from just switching back? Firstly if its the dynamic model it will take a little longer - it can't just switch back on a whim. Secondly - if its a static model - it can just change over in an instant. Good Question? Let me get back to you on this one - very good question - but this is really good, cause we're coming up with a really good model this way.
I hope dh - that the above to some degree shows that you just don't have labels of red team and green team - but are a bit more then that and also that all religons broad concepts and history are covered and reflected to good degree. Its not perfect - but I hope you think its a decent representation. Also - to an extent - the Relgion/s you are can be defined by your Choices as a Player - but always those choices are linked to the religions history and basic characteristics.
I hope that we are not going round and round in circle - please tell me if we are, if I'm still missing the point so to speak?
P.S. there should be a certain tech you can discover which will give a player the optoin of Athesit. That way no relgous effects will be felt - however, it could also be communisim instead - but osmeone pointed out to me the China is communist and they allow religion, its was only reall the Soviet Union which didn't - fair enough, so lets say then you have to discover a certain tech - call it Atheism for example - the exact detail on the tech is open.
To begin with NO - you don't have to include every single dimoniation under the sun of each religion to be accurate. What you do is you put in Christianty to represent every domination of Christianty under the sun - same with Islam, Buddism, Hinduism - you name it. Therefore - you end up only having three or four main religions in each Relgious Class.
You ask - how are you going to reflect the differences in all these dinominations. Simple. You reflect the historical and belief sytem choices of each religion according to the base characteristics - and from there you give the Player CHOICES to some extent to reflect what kind of Christianty he followes.
Exmaple - Just because some people think That Christianty is all about peace does not detract from the fact that historically the Crusades occorded - and the religion was geared as one of the fundemental driving forces behind it - example is the Knight Templar or Knights Hospitlar, dedicated Christian warriors who belived in protecting Pilgrims and such. Same goes for all religons. If in their history there is a case of a HOly War which was used and happened what you do is this.
The player must build a small wonder - which will give him the choice of Holy War. For Christianty it could be King Richard's Crusade which will give him the option of declaring Holy War and also build Crusader units - this is just a rough example to illustrate the concept.
Vice versa lets say a player wanted Christianty to be really peaceful - and convert people through peace and such. You could build a Small Wonder whichi will decrease other civ's willingless to go war with you - cause they know you are preaching a peaceful approach. And any civ who declares a Normal War with you loses double reputation - and any Civ who declares Holy War with you loses X4 Reputation.
You can also build a small wonder which can help you convert people more. There are other options where you can help define your Religion by the Choices you make - but it will unmistakenaly be World Religon's as all example will come from the real world and from History. They are not Generic, and not really just Traits.
HOly War I don't think should automatically be included in a civ's option unless they have built a small wonder - or maybe if that wonder is built - have accumlated a certain number of Culture Points/Relgous Points.
Another idea I have is - lets say I build the King Richards Crusade and then declare Holy WAr against the Germans who are following a different religion then me - I can ask other nations of the same Religion to join me in a Holy War. They can decline or accept and face the consequences of their choices what ever they might be.
So you see - we dont' need to have hundreds of religions to give a good representations of World Religions.
You can have multipule faiths in the same civ depending on what government system is available. I have already mapped out a way where different gov systems effect religion. I will post again if you wish.
Right dh -the method of converstaion will be same mechanism as when a city converts over to you through culture. You have two methods - the first being a dynmaic one which means the citizens slowly convert over to the new religion - or a static one, where you empire jumps from one religion to the next, and the cities' you convert - just like culture jump over to your faith and become part of your empire. This is regardless of the Regular Culture model - you will have special units that have converstation functions, so instead of spies you have clerics for example.
that rate of your conversion or the power of your conversion will first depend on what goverment system you are - secondly what type of culture points you have, what goverment systems the othe civ is, what type of religion you are, what type fo religons the other civ is and finally what Small wonders you have. Therefore - in some cases it might be easier for you to convert a city using a cleric then using a spy to incite revolt. On the other hand it might be easier for you to use a spy in some cases to revolt that city rather then a cleric. It all depends on each specific situation and game.
Next question. What are the reasons I declare HOly War - rather then just normal War? Good question. Lets say for arguements sake you are Christain and have deciede to build the King Richards Crusade Wonder - now you have the option of declaring Holy War. YOu ask yourself - what's the reason I should declare a HOly War?
I haven't thought this out but i'll try my best,
First Reason - You where the first one to discover Christianty and you want to win a Relgious Victory -therefore, you must convert as many people as possible to achieve that. (You've just deciede to use War to convert rather then peaceful methods).
Second Reason - Lets say you where the second one to discover Christianty, and then you build a small wonder or have a enough culture/Relgious points and you annouce the pole postions Christain player is a heretic. You want to be reconzied as the legetamet Relgious Leader so you can win a Religous Victory.
Third Reason - Another civ with the same Religion as you is involved in a Holy War - and asks for your aid. In order to ally yourself you must also declare a Holy War - and not a normal war.
Four Reason - (This is open for your own interpreation) A certain Event occurs or maybe lets say a Holy city is Captured by onother Civ. You can then decide to declare a Holy War to achieve that objective. (If you succed ou get a massive boost to your culture points or religious points and all other civs with same religon will look on you more favorable. The Effects and Events are numoures.
Now - next question. Lets say you've won a Holy War and the enemy Civ agrees to convert to your religion. What's stopping it from just switching back? Firstly if its the dynamic model it will take a little longer - it can't just switch back on a whim. Secondly - if its a static model - it can just change over in an instant. Good Question? Let me get back to you on this one - very good question - but this is really good, cause we're coming up with a really good model this way.
I hope dh - that the above to some degree shows that you just don't have labels of red team and green team - but are a bit more then that and also that all religons broad concepts and history are covered and reflected to good degree. Its not perfect - but I hope you think its a decent representation. Also - to an extent - the Relgion/s you are can be defined by your Choices as a Player - but always those choices are linked to the religions history and basic characteristics.
I hope that we are not going round and round in circle - please tell me if we are, if I'm still missing the point so to speak?
P.S. there should be a certain tech you can discover which will give a player the optoin of Athesit. That way no relgous effects will be felt - however, it could also be communisim instead - but osmeone pointed out to me the China is communist and they allow religion, its was only reall the Soviet Union which didn't - fair enough, so lets say then you have to discover a certain tech - call it Atheism for example - the exact detail on the tech is open.
Just one say after reading my post I really like the peaceful small wonder bit.
For example another civ deciedes to declare war on you - a little caption box pops up:
:sir - are you sure you want to declare war on them, They are renown for their peaceful ways and will cause terrable damage to our repuation (X4 reputation loss)."
The problem is the other civ is faced with a dileama, go to war and have a terrable hit agaisnt its repuation - or do nothing and watch as I slowly convert the world through peaceful ways and gain a Relgious Victory, or at the very least - get a whole lot of cities coming over to me.
I really like this - opens up so much scope of strategy - also another thought is, maybe instead of it costing you gold when you use a cleric to convert - we could use something else - or maybe it don't cost you gold but rather each cleric unit can only be used once - if they fail they disappear as they are killed by the citizens of the city - if they succed they remain and maybe slowly reach elite status. I can envisage a player having like 40 or 50 cleric units going throughout the world converting - therefore - the other civ's have to declare war or see the empire's vanish before there eyes.
That brings a completly new dimenstion to the game. YOu could do more damage as a peace lover then a war monger - lol.
For example another civ deciedes to declare war on you - a little caption box pops up:
:sir - are you sure you want to declare war on them, They are renown for their peaceful ways and will cause terrable damage to our repuation (X4 reputation loss)."
The problem is the other civ is faced with a dileama, go to war and have a terrable hit agaisnt its repuation - or do nothing and watch as I slowly convert the world through peaceful ways and gain a Relgious Victory, or at the very least - get a whole lot of cities coming over to me.
I really like this - opens up so much scope of strategy - also another thought is, maybe instead of it costing you gold when you use a cleric to convert - we could use something else - or maybe it don't cost you gold but rather each cleric unit can only be used once - if they fail they disappear as they are killed by the citizens of the city - if they succed they remain and maybe slowly reach elite status. I can envisage a player having like 40 or 50 cleric units going throughout the world converting - therefore - the other civ's have to declare war or see the empire's vanish before there eyes.
That brings a completly new dimenstion to the game. YOu could do more damage as a peace lover then a war monger - lol.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Hey Menwia, I think you have a decent idea of how to illustrate the differences within religions by permitting various wonders, sometimes even diametrically opposed wonders. It's how Christianity can be either warlike, peaceful, or (strangely) BOTH.
You talked about religious conversion working a lot the same way as culture conversion. But you haven't explained how it works, still. Is there a "religiousness" point tracking system? And when you flip a city's religion, what do you accomplish if you don't actually flip the city to your borders, keeping them under someone else's empire?
And I'm not sure you've really addressed the question of why to start holy war instead of regular war? In a regular war, you get to actually have someone else's cities. In holy war, you can only do equal to this, or less than this -- to convert someone else's religion without conquering them. The reason why you'd want to change someone else's religion without conquering them still hasn't been addressed. To me this is the most important question.
Along with answering how and why you actually go about converting someone.
- How do the units work -- the ones that convert but do not conquer?
- What are some general numbers involved in conversion (like culture points)?
- What happens when they are finally converted?
- Are there any added benefits of converting that are better than conquering?
- How does the opposing nation fight conversion?
- At what point is the opposing nation incapable of stopping the conversion?
- Once a nation has been converted, what's its incentive to not just shrug off the religion and start all over again, under a new religion, or as agnostic?
You talked about religious conversion working a lot the same way as culture conversion. But you haven't explained how it works, still. Is there a "religiousness" point tracking system? And when you flip a city's religion, what do you accomplish if you don't actually flip the city to your borders, keeping them under someone else's empire?
And I'm not sure you've really addressed the question of why to start holy war instead of regular war? In a regular war, you get to actually have someone else's cities. In holy war, you can only do equal to this, or less than this -- to convert someone else's religion without conquering them. The reason why you'd want to change someone else's religion without conquering them still hasn't been addressed. To me this is the most important question.
Along with answering how and why you actually go about converting someone.
- How do the units work -- the ones that convert but do not conquer?
- What are some general numbers involved in conversion (like culture points)?
- What happens when they are finally converted?
- Are there any added benefits of converting that are better than conquering?
- How does the opposing nation fight conversion?
- At what point is the opposing nation incapable of stopping the conversion?
- Once a nation has been converted, what's its incentive to not just shrug off the religion and start all over again, under a new religion, or as agnostic?
okay, i"ll try answer soem of them.
If anothe civs agrees to convert to your religon - and you are the first to discover that religion -then you are one step closer to achieving a Relgious Victory. Its True - the cities don't go over to you - but you are one step closer to a Relgious Victory.
Seconldy - lets say you have converstion units as oppossed to conquering units. If you convert a city with a cleric unit, that city will go over to you. The advantage to converting a city rather then conquering it is two fold -or manybe even three fold. Lets say you ddidnt get to build the King Richard Crusdas, but rather the Peaceful one, therefore delcaring Holy War is not an optin at the moment - also, any one who attacks you will get bad repuation damage - so you deciede to convert cities. Firstly when you convert a city, it comes over to you wth all of its citizens (static mode) or alot of its citizens (dynamic mode0 the same religion as you - and therefore no or hardly any civil unrest. IF you conquered it by military miight you would have civil unrest and such, tand the citizens of that city would be unahppy untiil you stopped fighting their home Civ. Finally, you just gain a city - with out using any gold as well as not having to go to war or risk your reputation or risk losing any off your own cities.
(Just EDITED) furthermore - when you convert a city with a cleric unit that city come to you intact - no builidngs destroyed, nothing burned, no civil unrest, no risk of going to war, no cost of gold to you, no risk losing repuation, and no risk of you losing cities as well as gaining a city and being one step closer to a religous victory if you were the first person to discover that religion.
how the converstion numbers would actually work -I'll be honest with you on that dh - I'm not that great in that area - I'll leave the maths to others who are better talented then me. But i'm sure it could be worked out.
You're last point -which is a really good one, darn - I even like it alot - what is to stop a civ who just converted to your relgion after it made peace with you in your Holy War? I don't have the full answer yet - but I know there is one, part of the answer is - maybe the civ you where fighting when it agrees to convert to your religion - automatically sells all of its religous buildings - therefore if it converts back, it will have none of the advantages it had before. But it might do it just to stop you from having a Religous Victory - I know that's what i would do if I had to, I would convert just to give me some breathing space, and then when I was ready - to stop you having a RElkgous Victory I would change my religion.
It's a real good question. There is an answer for it - and when we find it, it will kinda of click everything together.
P.S. - how does opposing nation fight converstion. One option could be to place its own cleric units in each city on guard duty - like counter converstion mode, making it harder to get converted. Also, by increasing your own culture points and building loads of religous buildings and such, it wil make it more difficult for your people to get converted. Also, as with goverment types - certain types will make it harder or easier for your people to get converted. Final option is to declare war - when you declare war I don't think the other civ your at war with should be able to convert your cities.
When you win a Holy War - you can get a tremendous Reputation or Religous Points/ culture points boost, it also brings you closer to a Relgious Victory.
If anothe civs agrees to convert to your religon - and you are the first to discover that religion -then you are one step closer to achieving a Relgious Victory. Its True - the cities don't go over to you - but you are one step closer to a Relgious Victory.
Seconldy - lets say you have converstion units as oppossed to conquering units. If you convert a city with a cleric unit, that city will go over to you. The advantage to converting a city rather then conquering it is two fold -or manybe even three fold. Lets say you ddidnt get to build the King Richard Crusdas, but rather the Peaceful one, therefore delcaring Holy War is not an optin at the moment - also, any one who attacks you will get bad repuation damage - so you deciede to convert cities. Firstly when you convert a city, it comes over to you wth all of its citizens (static mode) or alot of its citizens (dynamic mode0 the same religion as you - and therefore no or hardly any civil unrest. IF you conquered it by military miight you would have civil unrest and such, tand the citizens of that city would be unahppy untiil you stopped fighting their home Civ. Finally, you just gain a city - with out using any gold as well as not having to go to war or risk your reputation or risk losing any off your own cities.
(Just EDITED) furthermore - when you convert a city with a cleric unit that city come to you intact - no builidngs destroyed, nothing burned, no civil unrest, no risk of going to war, no cost of gold to you, no risk losing repuation, and no risk of you losing cities as well as gaining a city and being one step closer to a religous victory if you were the first person to discover that religion.
how the converstion numbers would actually work -I'll be honest with you on that dh - I'm not that great in that area - I'll leave the maths to others who are better talented then me. But i'm sure it could be worked out.
You're last point -which is a really good one, darn - I even like it alot - what is to stop a civ who just converted to your relgion after it made peace with you in your Holy War? I don't have the full answer yet - but I know there is one, part of the answer is - maybe the civ you where fighting when it agrees to convert to your religion - automatically sells all of its religous buildings - therefore if it converts back, it will have none of the advantages it had before. But it might do it just to stop you from having a Religous Victory - I know that's what i would do if I had to, I would convert just to give me some breathing space, and then when I was ready - to stop you having a RElkgous Victory I would change my religion.
It's a real good question. There is an answer for it - and when we find it, it will kinda of click everything together.
P.S. - how does opposing nation fight converstion. One option could be to place its own cleric units in each city on guard duty - like counter converstion mode, making it harder to get converted. Also, by increasing your own culture points and building loads of religous buildings and such, it wil make it more difficult for your people to get converted. Also, as with goverment types - certain types will make it harder or easier for your people to get converted. Final option is to declare war - when you declare war I don't think the other civ your at war with should be able to convert your cities.
When you win a Holy War - you can get a tremendous Reputation or Religous Points/ culture points boost, it also brings you closer to a Relgious Victory.
dh - I think I got it.
The main reasons for declaring Holy War - apart from all the rest i've mentioned is - one - you declare a Holy War against a civ of the same religion who is in Polie Postions - who discovered the religion first - you announce him a heritic and thus you stop him from winining a Relgious Victory if you win and put yourself in postion to win a Religious Victory.
Secondly. If a Civ agrees to convert to your religion after a Holy War - it can never have the option of winning a RElgious Victory anymore. NO matter what it does, it can no longer win a Relgious Victory. So this can be a tool to stop other civ of other religons winning a Religous Victory. Of course there's all the added bonuse of increased Repuation and culture which would make it easier for you to convert and harder for others to convert you.
Just an idea - after a holy war Victory you're civ could go into a Golden Age or something smiliar - this way you can have numerous Golden Ages with each HOly War Victory. Just an idea . . .
Its not i think the whole answer - but its coming together slowly.
Furthe more - lets say a civ converts to your religon after you go on a Holy War, but then quickly changes to anothe religion. what could happen is it would trigger another Holy War with you - and this time the enemy Civ will run the risk of its empire spliting from it and coming over to you. It all depends how powerful you are and how much culture points you have and vice versa - but if a civ agrees to convert to the religion you want I presume that you are in a stronger position - so there might be a good chance of its empire spliting and going over to you. Those who split will convert back to your religion and you won't have too much trouble with civil unrest or War Weariness.
Of course this means we have to take another look at Government systems and RElgions within them. I"m gonna maybe repost it so we can have a look at it and maybe refine it as well.
The main reasons for declaring Holy War - apart from all the rest i've mentioned is - one - you declare a Holy War against a civ of the same religion who is in Polie Postions - who discovered the religion first - you announce him a heritic and thus you stop him from winining a Relgious Victory if you win and put yourself in postion to win a Religious Victory.
Secondly. If a Civ agrees to convert to your religion after a Holy War - it can never have the option of winning a RElgious Victory anymore. NO matter what it does, it can no longer win a Relgious Victory. So this can be a tool to stop other civ of other religons winning a Religous Victory. Of course there's all the added bonuse of increased Repuation and culture which would make it easier for you to convert and harder for others to convert you.
Just an idea - after a holy war Victory you're civ could go into a Golden Age or something smiliar - this way you can have numerous Golden Ages with each HOly War Victory. Just an idea . . .
Its not i think the whole answer - but its coming together slowly.
Furthe more - lets say a civ converts to your religon after you go on a Holy War, but then quickly changes to anothe religion. what could happen is it would trigger another Holy War with you - and this time the enemy Civ will run the risk of its empire spliting from it and coming over to you. It all depends how powerful you are and how much culture points you have and vice versa - but if a civ agrees to convert to the religion you want I presume that you are in a stronger position - so there might be a good chance of its empire spliting and going over to you. Those who split will convert back to your religion and you won't have too much trouble with civil unrest or War Weariness.
Of course this means we have to take another look at Government systems and RElgions within them. I"m gonna maybe repost it so we can have a look at it and maybe refine it as well.
