Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[sir_schwick]

I think the struggle for englightenment is as much as secular question as it is a religious one. Multiple paths, and I'm no person to judge which is correct.

I think the hardest part about religion is it's a moving target in real life. And that constant movement and reshaping, recombination and assimilation of other smaller religions and ideas, is what makes religion so interesting, and what's made its impact on history so great. There are few things similar about christianity now as compared to 2000 years ago in the confines of a few underground "cults". The name is one of them.

If religion is this static entity -- something you create at a point in time, and remains dogmatically true until the end of time -- you neglect the really interesting parts of religion.

On the other hand, making religion as dynamic as it is in real life is impossible in Civ. If it's done with the approach "you are the collective spirit of your own Civ", then how do you explain how Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, lasted after it collapsed, and yet all the different nations in Europe remained seperate, even *different* in what they felt religion was? That's larger than any one collective spirit. On the other hand, just being "The State" as it passes from generation to generation, you fail to encompass the struggle between State and Religion that made its impact in history so interesting.

On a different topic, nobody has managed to give me a cool gameplay event or strategy that would become possible in Civ 4 by adding religion. (Because I look forward to explaining said scenarios as a culture group, without religion.)

Actually, that's a lie -- you can't have a religious victory with culture-groups alone. But if Jesus smacks around Vishnu, who wins? All of the Western World? Rome?

One thing that would be interesting is if they diversified the citizens, even within one civ. Even ancient cultures did have various reliigious, ethnic, and cultural identities. One way to start simulating that would be to have cities have more of a presence then just their location on a map.

I'm just getting this thought now, so expect some edits.
You civ has an overall identity and culture to it, just by virtue of having a common 'highest authority'. But Alabama does not have the same culture of Alaska, or even Arkansas. Currently each time your 'culture expands' your cultural influence rises. Now imagine each city generated unique culture to that city, for Athens it would be ucp. ucp does not affect territory size, but is a mechanism of the accumulated history and unique culture of the city and the region it influences directly around it. Once that cities regular culture gets high enough, your 'cultural influence' increases. That number is the number of ucp the city accumulates. Gaining additional levels of ucp, say once you accumulate 10 ucp, does not increase the rate of ucp. Each level would allow you to get 'city unique' bonuses. These might include making a unique version of a luxury in the city radius that could boost the affect of having the regular version of that luxury, getting a unique trait, or even a unique building would be unlocked that generated extra culture.
Ucp would also accumulate in other cities then the home city. The domestic city accumulates ucp at double rate. Any domestic cities, or any foreign civs that have a 'cultural exchange'(new deal type), would get that cities ucp at normal rate. All other cities get it at 1/2 rate. I can't think of any benefits of one city having a huge influence in other cities, but i'm sure a creative bonus could be thought of. Best part, its automatic, but you could see who your citizens idolize.
Actually one affect would be that if a bunch of cities near a major city that was not your capital had a lot more respect for their area then the current capital, that could lead to sepratism.
This might also determine feelings toward occupiers.

A similair thing could be done with religion, with different cities even having a different kind of religion. Over time the accumulation of city specific religion points woudl determine what pop points believed what. In highly theocratic religions(government-wise), being ruled by non-believers would make those citizens unhappy, like sending preists into muslim territories in MTW. Highly secular(government wise) religions would not like being ruled by highly religious rulers, especially of another religion.

The two need to be different because they express different ideas and one might be a lot stronger for you.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Religion and culture are two completely distinct ways of grouping people. Just look to the Middle East. Iran Vs. Iraq. Or compare Indonesia with Albania. Both cases of two very very different or diametrically-opposed cultures, and yet the same religion. Throughout history people have often labelled themselves more ardently with a particular religion than any nation or state. I think for anyone who has a historical background it should be obvious that culture and religion are very different things.

As far as new gameplay concepts, who can speculate what new avenues might be opened up by the introduction of religion?
Happiness issues, collecting tithes, trying to spread one's religion and sending missionaries to other territories, deciding on which religion to support and which to repress, issues within diplomacy... there are a vast collection of brand new game concepts that can be tapped that are quite different from anything that the Civ series has yet seen.

 

[Darksoul_CG]

Religion...well first of all we should remember that some religions,if aren't "generical" wouldn't accept some technologies types/government types;
for example all religions don't accept cloning;
or for example technocracy and religion are two things apart in my opinion...

surely traits should be kept into consideration...think if Europe was atheist/laic,how many scientists couldn't have forced to silence by inquisition (Galileo is just an example).

For example in the prehistory no religions allowed;then natural religions which improve contact with nature,with a bonus on resource collection but a little penality on city growth (the born of sexual taboos);then,by the age of reason materialism allowed with a bonus on science and a negation of other religion bonusses,then the evolution of atheism into a technocratic form and so on;

We should keep into consideration also religion's evolution...religion changes (well...inquisition doesn't exist now...obviously any player should decide if to keep an old religion or not...a "Sanctvm Imperivm" is cool to see...)

I think is also to keep into consideration that sometimes religious power does interfere with political power;on the base of culture,government and religion government isn't free to do everything (cloning for istance) and a religious-based riot isn't easy to handle.We 've seen in Italy a great influence by the Roman Church on political power during the middle age;this could be explicitated by a "Religious political penetration parameter",which in theocracy is base 100% (if a governator-priest goes against his own religion people would'nt be happy )in technocracy 0% base.This value can be modified by several things (modernity,technological advance,cultural influence from nearby allies,condition of life:if life isn't good people feel more need to pray).

i do apologize for my unandrstandable english i only played civ call to pow II which i didn't like 'cause i felt as incomplete...so this is why i give my ideas hoping that our suggestions are kept into consideration by civ 4 programmers...

 

[sir_schwick]

I personally do not like this model. It involves utilization of statistics that do not fit with the style of civ.

Also, religion can evolve so much from culture to culture that what a religion does and does not allow is almost never constant. If a religion model was introduced that took into account regional(city) influence, each religion which have a 'universal belief' or one or two items that citizens that believer in religion x must believe to qualify as a religion. This would make using generics a lot easier. Example would be that all Christians believer that God created the Universe, the Christian Bible is the ordained word of God, and that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Everything from there ranges greatly, but those few things are universal among Christians(I know the first two are at least).

As for more on utilization, another part of unique religion buildup in a city is when certain urp goals were reached, you could add local variations on the religion. This way you could custom taylor the needs of hte religion locally for that city. Also, this means there would be a difference between Constantinople Orthodox Christians and Anatolia Orthodox Christians. Since religion is independent of culture, the movement of each would be different.

 

[dh_epic]

Theocracy and technocracy aren't as diametrically opposed as you think.

And I just don't see why we should add a new concept (religion) when so much can be done with an old concept (culture) which hasn't been adequately expanded, I might add. Sir Schwick, provinces would do more wonders for your idea than religion ever could. Add more to culture from Civ 3 and we'd be in business.

Trip, I'm not doubting that culture and religion are two different things. But that's real life, and we all know that Civ is a far cry from that thus far. My argument isn't against religion so much as adding a new concept to a game when we might be better off revamping an old concept.

Happiness issues

We already have temples. What about culture-sensitive improvements and luxuries that only end up in the hands of those you favor? The Ottoman Empire expands into some formerly Greek areas of the world, and decides to provide benefits to its Ottoman population and oppresses its Greek population. Different from religion, but equally strategic, and with a little bit of imagination it's probably not THAT different from religion.

Collecting tithes

Sure you can tax based on culture group -- think about the example I gave above. But tithes in particular, when it comes to religion, you have to ask yourself, who does the money go to? In 11th century France, it certainly didn't go to the King, nor did it go to the people. It went to the pope. Who controls him in Civ, decides his will and such? With all the complications that religion brings in this respect -- you have to ask yourself, are taxes and tithes really going to have that different an effect on your people in Civ?

trying to spread one's religion and sending missionaries to other territories

You could still send missionaries to other places in a culture-group model. And in the modern ages, this could metamorphasize into entertainers and other leaders -- a much more flexible model. In religion, you have to ask yourself, when Germany sends missionaries into the Viking regions to convert them, do the Vikings become Germans? Not to mention that if the Romans were the ones to convert the Germans, what do the Germans benefit by converting the Vikings? With culture, the gradual overwhelming of a city with artists and intellectuals opens up all we might really care about -- conquest without war.

deciding on which religion to support and which to repress

How about which culture to support and which to repress? This certainly has more lasting effects when you look at the industrial and modern eras. A more flexible and thus useful concept than repressing by religion.

Issues within diplomacy

Grouping by culture (Europe, Near East, Far East, Africa, America, or finer divisions if you prefer) could open up large issues in diplomacy. Personally, I think government type would be a more interesting thing to open up when it comes to tense/favorable diplomacy -- since it reflects the realities of the Cold War Era and WW2. I don't think we'd have much trouble simulating the events of the middle ages with a few culture groups.


To summarize
- religion IS a realistic concept
- the world has been shaped by religious difference and religious similarities
- it's hard to determine who would control and who would benefit from the spreading of religion in Civ
- the Civ world could be equally shaped by cultural difference and cultural similarities
- cultural effects would be more flexible -- you could simulate the crusades, but you could also simulate colonialism, and even hegemony in the age of mass media
- it's much more reasonable to understand that portugal controls portugese culture, and benefits from its spreading

That's why I'd like to see culture expanded sooner than I see religion added.

 

[sir_schwick]

dh_epic, your last point is a very poignant one.....

That's why I'd like to see culture expanded sooner than I see religion added.

Really I was hoping to see both expanded, since it would create a 2D religion-culture grid rather then a 1D culture grid. Adding both, however, would increase the complexity and I would rather not deduct the points in that. A more comprehensive culture system would probably be worthwhile enough.
My point about unique religion could easily be changed to unique culture. THis simple change would make many of the Civ 4 ideas 1000 times easier to implement.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Trip, I'm not doubting that culture and religion are two different things. But that's real life, and we all know that Civ is a far cry from that thus far. My argument isn't against religion so much as adding a new concept to a game when we might be better off revamping an old concept.

Civ may be a far cry from real life, but it should be the goal to simulate it as best as possible while making the game as much fun as possible also. Religion has been one of the largest factors in all of civilization. I would rather see Religion fleshed out than culture, because in many ways it's had more of an impact. I'm not arguing culture is irrelevant, but religion is easily an important enough issue to be dealt with seperately from culture.

Happiness issues

We already have temples. What about culture-sensitive improvements and luxuries that only end up in the hands of those you favor? The Ottoman Empire expands into some formerly Greek areas of the world, and decides to provide benefits to its Ottoman population and oppresses its Greek population. Different from religion, but equally strategic, and with a little bit of imagination it's probably not THAT different from religion.

Temples should be religious to begin with, not cultural. Sperate the two concepts, and you'll have more to do with each. There's no need to merge the two, especially when "Temples" are clearly a religious concept above all else.

What's the difference between Bavaria and Pommerania? Why was the Thirty Years' War fought? Cultural differences? The Crusades?

Culture and religion may be equally strategic but their impact on civilization has been very different.

Collecting tithes

Sure you can tax based on culture group -- think about the example I gave above. But tithes in particular, when it comes to religion, you have to ask yourself, who does the money go to? In 11th century France, it certainly didn't go to the King, nor did it go to the people. It went to the pope. Who controls him in Civ, decides his will and such? With all the complications that religion brings in this respect -- you have to ask yourself, are taxes and tithes really going to have that different an effect on your people in Civ?

Okay, I think you have points with your other responses, but you're going out a bit on a limb here.

Trying to model the papacy as a civ would definitely be stretching things beyond the scope of the Civ engine. Trying to add that sort of detail without adding any sort of concept of religion would be difficult at best, impossible realistically.

And above all else, why not add religion to handle this sort of thing? It would make more sense that you're collecting money because you're in charge of the Papacy than... in charge... of... a... culture group that your neighbors... have affinity towards?

trying to spread one's religion and sending missionaries to other territories

You could still send missionaries to other places in a culture-group model. And in the modern ages, this could metamorphasize into entertainers and other leaders -- a much more flexible model. In religion, you have to ask yourself, when Germany sends missionaries into the Viking regions to convert them, do the Vikings become Germans? Not to mention that if the Romans were the ones to convert the Germans, what do the Germans benefit by converting the Vikings? With culture, the gradual overwhelming of a city with artists and intellectuals opens up all we might really care about -- conquest without war.

Another limb stretching. I've already addressed the point as to how the impact of culture and religion are quite different, and when the two are different it can cause a whole new force of dynamics.

Also another case of "why not religion?" Why would you want to lump this sort of thing into culture other than mere simplification? It's obvious nobody ever sent missionaries to convert the "culture" or "ethnicity" of a region - they did it to convert their religion.

As I said, simplification for simplification's sake.

deciding on which religion to support and which to repress

How about which culture to support and which to repress? This certainly has more lasting effects when you look at the industrial and modern eras. A more flexible and thus useful concept than repressing by religion.

Fair point, but not enough to stand on it's own, IMO. It can apply to both culture and religion though, adding a new layer of interactivity.

Issues within diplomacy

Grouping by culture (Europe, Near East, Far East, Africa, America, or finer divisions if you prefer) could open up large issues in diplomacy. Personally, I think government type would be a more interesting thing to open up when it comes to tense/favorable diplomacy -- since it reflects the realities of the Cold War Era and WW2. I don't think we'd have much trouble simulating the events of the middle ages with a few culture groups.

So expand government type and religion in this regard.

Do you really mean to say that there should be a seperate culture group for each culture and each religion combination? Do you realize what you're suggesting?

That means you'd have to model a new culture for each new relation that exists. How do you model Bosnia? It's own "Bosnian" culture? The mixing and matching of different cultures and religions would lead to an immense number of culture groups.

Additionally, it would lead to some very unintuitive gameplay - it isn't immediately obvious to all people what the relations between Bosnians, Serbians, Albanians and Macedonians should be (unless you're historically endowed). Try putting that into a gameplay environment, where they don't necessarily minmic history - how confusing would that be?

Having a "Slavic" culture and then seeing an interface where Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Islam are all present is much more intuitive, if nothing else.

To summarize
- religion IS a realistic concept
- the world has been shaped by religious difference and religious similarities

Clearly.

- it's hard to determine who would control and who would benefit from the spreading of religion in Civ

The relationship between state religion and the religion of the cities is clear enough to understand. Those who "found" a religion should also derive some sort of benefit. It seems pretty clear to me how things should function. We're simplifying things down to gameplay scale, remember.

- the Civ world could be equally shaped by cultural difference and cultural similarities

They would be affected, but not in the same way. That's my point. They're seperate concepts, keep them seperate. There's no need to simplify things so much and keep it under a single umbrella. "Different tax rates for different cultures" and "missionaries convert people to your culture/ethnicity" are clearly concepts that are religious and should remain so.

- cultural effects would be more flexible -- you could simulate the crusades, but you could also simulate colonialism, and even hegemony in the age of mass media

Okay, so you can model that in culture... why not also have religion? Is it really such a horrible thing that we should try to eliminate as its own concept?

- it's much more reasonable to understand that portugal controls portugese culture, and benefits from its spreading

What about the relation between monarch and people? What if the culture that spread is opposed to the ruler? Who benefits then?

We're working with gameplay-ified systems here, it works both ways.

That's why I'd like to see culture expanded sooner than I see religion added.

So expand culture where necessary, and add religion.

There's no need to add more religious concepts to the game under the blanket description of culture when it would be more intuitive and realistic to add a whole new facet of gameplay.

I still don't see why you're so against adding religion. How does it hurt the game to have things be more realistic and intuitive?

And the examples I gave above are just examples of some things that could be added. Religious schism, relation between religion and state through the new civics system and more are also possibilities.

There are many gameplay angles that religion can work with. Independently of culture because A) it's easier to understand, B) it's more realistic and C) it's an interesting and complicated enough concept that it deserves to be seperate.

 

[sir_schwick]

I still don't see why you're so against adding religion. How does it hurt the game to have things be more realistic and intuitive?

It hurts the game because Soren said complexity needs to stay the same. Adding two decent culture-esque concepts would require that a possibly good change be taken out and something else simplified. I would like to see two dimensions of culture/religion, but one good one would easily put the game where ahaead of where it is now.

 

[Jon Shafer]

It hurts the game because Soren said complexity needs to stay the same. Adding two decent culture-esque concepts would require that a possibly good change be taken out and something else simplified. I would like to see two dimensions of culture/religion, but one good one would easily put the game where ahaead of where it is now.

And my point is that trying to add something new to an old system simply bloats it to the point where it ends up being more complex than it has to be because you aren't seperating things out.

If you wanted to introduce a new way to control cities, would you want to have actual laborers on the map working the tiles (expanding on the already in-place unit system), or would you want something new? Which would be easier to control and keep track of?

Take my example of Bosnia - which is more simple, having Bosnian Christian, Bosnian Orthodox and Bosnian Islam culture groups among a thousand other culture groups and trying to determine how those all interact, or a single Bosnian culture group, neighboring Serbians and Macedonians and 3 religions in the city where the relation between them and the effects of such are obvious? Which is easier to understand and easier to see what's going on, especially when you're not playing on a historical world map and "Bosnian," "Serbian" and "Macedonian" culture could be anywhere?

If you want to add anything to do with religion (e.g. tithes or missionaries), you might as well add a whole new religion concept than keep adding onto culture. The only extra effort is in showing where each religion is present. That and the other concepts fit better under a new category (religion, relation between different groups). If you're going to add anything "religious" you might as well create a whole new concept because things will be better organized that way.

Besides, having culture and religion completely seperate makes it tons easier for modders such as myself.

Religion is obviously an important enough concept that it shouldn't be ignored any longer. But what do we want to do, keep adding onto an unrelated system to the point where things are more complicated and harder to understand, or do we want to create something new that's easier to keep track of and mod?

 

[sir_schwick]

But still, the current culture concept is a good start, but much too weak. Adding two of the current system will nto terribly increase good gameplay. Making the one system would be goodk, especially if they allowed mutliple 'culture-like' forces to be programmed into the engine. THis would allow modders to experiement with religion, since therhetically culture and religion should be different, but have the same utilization. You could even add in 'culture-like' forces that we have not discussed here.

 

[Jon Shafer]

But still, the current culture concept is a good start, but much too weak. Adding two of the current system will nto terribly increase good gameplay. Making the one system would be goodk, especially if they allowed mutliple 'culture-like' forces to be programmed into the engine. THis would allow modders to experiement with religion, since therhetically culture and religion should be different, but have the same utilization. You could even add in 'culture-like' forces that we have not discussed here.

Have you even read what I wrote?

Culture and religion function similiarly but have a number of important dissimilarities (again, using the examples missionaries and tithing) and also function alongside each other, not along the same route - combinining them into one system only makes things more complicated because of that. People of the same religion but different cultures have fought each other just as people of the same culture have fought over religion. How do you reflect that if there is no distinction between culture and religion?

 

[dh_epic]

Just checking in quick here,

It doesn't have to be particularly complicated. As you trade, send missionary units, even just stand near a city, that little culture meter at the top fills up. It fills up with your culture, in addition to the "natural" culture. (Ethnicity and nationality remains the same.) Beyond a certain point, say as soon as your culture fills up 2/3 of the enemy city's meter, the city swaps.

You could simulate the spread of Islam under this model without problem, let alone the spread of Christianity. You could also simulate the unification of the USA in the 18th century, or the unification of China BC -- you explain more historical phenomenon with less events. Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". I believe it's true.

And culture groups already exist in Civ 3. That's how you get culture-linked starting locations. The idea behind this is Germany and France are less different than Germany and the Ottoman Turks. This is what allows you to simulate the crusades.

Sir Schwick summarized it quite elegantly. The goal is to increase possibilities for gameplay strategy without increasing the overall complexity. You agree with this much, right? You just disagree, and think religion is the simpler solution, you'd even go so far as to say it's intuitive because of its inherent realism.

As for Bosnia, I think that would be more effectively explained with a provincial / regional system than any kind of religious split. Even Iraq is well explained in that respect. The same way you had Spaniards, Greeks, and Moroccans under Rome, you'd have Kurds, Sunni and Shiites under Iraq. Seems pretty straightforward to me -- and once again, more flexible.

 

[Darksoul_CG]

I personally do not like this model. It involves utilization of statistics that do not fit with the style of civ.

well,actually in old civs if i wanted to create a completely atheist nation i had to give up happiness bonusses,and all theocracy-based tech discoveries without any rebalancement.Doesn't this involve statistics?

Then,about the theocracy-technocracy opposition,by definition technocracy researches science ABOVE EVERYTHING;you are right to say they aren't directly opposed,but once a particular technology goes against god's teachings they become opposite...and genetic age isn't inevitable...

then,about the worldreligions or not,let's put it in other terms:
civ is an history simulation,with really existed cultures and a real world-map.

i would put a message on the game box:"If u get offended by religious names in the game,then don't buy this product".

D&D has offended lots of people that moumbled something about satanism and dark arts,diseducation...bah...

 

[Jon Shafer]

Just checking in quick here,

It doesn't have to be particularly complicated. As you trade, send missionary units, even just stand near a city, that little culture meter at the top fills up. It fills up with your culture, in addition to the "natural" culture. (Ethnicity and nationality remains the same.) Beyond a certain point, say as soon as your culture fills up 2/3 of the enemy city's meter, the city swaps.

You could simulate the spread of Islam under this model without problem, let alone the spread of Christianity. You could also simulate the unification of the USA in the 18th century, or the unification of China BC -- you explain more historical phenomenon with less events. Occam's Razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". I believe it's true.

But Occam's Razor doesn't apply to historical events which we know to be fact. We know that religion has had an impact apart from "culture."

I could twist that philosophy of yours quite far, eliminating most of the things that exist in Civ simply because they are not the simplest way of implimenting them.

The game is designed to be fun, not simplistic by nature. Simplicity is only used as a label to eliminate micromanagement. There's a difference between fun complexity and tedious micromanagement.

And culture groups already exist in Civ 3. That's how you get culture-linked starting locations. The idea behind this is Germany and France are less different than Germany and the Ottoman Turks. This is what allows you to simulate the crusades.

But that has nothing to do with religion, which was the primary factor. It's ignoring an important part of the equation in favor of simplicity. I mean really now... is the concept of religion that difficult to grasp? Is it that complicated?

Religion and culture can be quite different. Compare Islam in Indonesia with that in Albania. Don't tell me that culture links those two areas, or that things can be simplified that far. Things that impact Islam affect them both, but things that affect southeast Asian culture DO NOT impact Albania, nor does things that affect southeast European culture affect Indonesia.

Religion and culture are on two different levels, working parallel with each other. Combining them into the same thing simplifies things too much.

Sir Schwick summarized it quite elegantly. The goal is to increase possibilities for gameplay strategy without increasing the overall complexity. You agree with this much, right? You just disagree, and think religion is the simpler solution, you'd even go so far as to say it's intuitive because of its inherent realism.

There's a difference between good complexity and bad complexity. Good complexity is civ traits and UUs. Good complexity is the idea of culture to begin with. Good complexity is a variety of units that function in different roles. Good complexity adds variety to the game without adding tedium. Would religion add tedium? No it wouldn't, because it wouldn't require any extra management, it would only open up new game possibilities.

As for Bosnia, I think that would be more effectively explained with a provincial / regional system than any kind of religious split. Even Iraq is well explained in that respect. The same way you had Spaniards, Greeks, and Moroccans under Rome, you'd have Kurds, Sunni and Shiites under Iraq. Seems pretty straightforward to me -- and once again, more flexible.

Provincial/regional system? I don't quite grasp what you're suggesting.

In any case, let me repeat what I said above - there are certain things that unites people of a certain religion that does not do the same for culture.

In 1630 the Protestant Swedes fought against the Catholic Austrians in central Europe. They both share the same "culture" (since you're trying to argue that "Europe" is a culture and the "Ottoman Middle East" is a culture), and yet they fought a bitter war that was more than political in nature. Why?

This is a real historical situation. One that cannot be modelled without culture and religion being seperated.

There is a very serious and fundamental flaw in your system with regards to Sunni and Shiia Iraq - why is it that these two "cultural groups" (as you would call them) exist? And why is it that they're such bitter enemies? They belong to the same exact culture, and yet they're bitter enemies. Why? It can only be modelled with a seperate system of religion unless you want to model Sunni Iraq and Shiite Iraq as complete seperate and diametrically opposed cultures - but there are cultures much more different from these two areas in all of Europe and yet they're still one big happy family. This is where your simplified system falls apart.

The game is unable to make it so that an identical base culture (Iraqi) can diverge to produce such bitter enemies (Sunni and Shiia). Religion is the simplest and most realistic answer.

 

[dh_epic]

I doubt you'll see Albania and Indonesia in Civ 4, with the exception of custom scenarios. If the editor is flexible enough, you could change the salient culture groups that define world relations, and even give Civs membership to multiple groups in the scenario (African and Muslim, European and Christian).

Improved culture would be sufficient.

 

[Jon Shafer]

If you say so.

Anyways, Religion is in, so

.

 

[mitsho]

@dh_epic, I think this was just an example. (ever heard that word? )

In Civ-game terms, take the U.S (Or Iroquois) and compare them to the Inca (yes, same culture group, but look at their believes...)

mfG mitsho

 

[Jon Shafer]

"But with an expanded culture system they wouldn't be in the same culture group!"

Yeah yeah, and you could add anything new onto any old system and make it work. We don't want to have 80 culture groups in a single game.

 

[sir_schwick]

Would you agree that religion should use the same mechanics to be spread and quantified as culture? It seems we feel differently, because otherwise I am suggesting this be moddable for those who like good civ.

But with an expanded culture system they wouldn't be in the same culture group!"

Yeah yeah, and you could add anything new onto any old system and make it work. We don't want to have 80 culture groups in a single game.

Actually I was hoping that now culture-groups would be based on who actually started near each other, not pre-defined relationships. There would not be 80-culture groups in a game, but a lot of local variations and differences even inside a civ. Then if you wanted to, the editor would allow you to add more religion/culture forces. Personally a system with both religion and culture would model the most, but break the current development rules. By allowing it to be modded someone will make a good mod incorporating probably more than just culture and religion(ethnicity possibly or something more fantastic).

 

[dh_epic]

Well there's culture, which is just a natural extension of nationality and the Civ. German, French, Roman. The groundwork is laid in Civ 3. The pre-defined culture groups are in Civ 3 as well.

I guess my point is that the religious events people talk about have much more to do with abstract notions of similarities / differences. From the crusades, to Albania and Idonesia, you could define these similarities and differences with sort of a meta-tag. Sharing a meta-tag makes your people more sympathetic to their people.

Not to say the Inca and Iroquois would be allies. Just as much, France and Germany were bitter rivals for a very long time. But a common threat makes them see the similarity -- the people see that they share a common value (even if they don't share common values, plural) and share a fate, and unite to do what they gotta do.

I think I've established the sufficiency of culture groups. The only thing that's missing is that they're not religion. It won't explicitly say WHY the French AI went from hating you (the Germans) to being really supportive in your fight against the Ottoman turks. In the fictional "Clash of Civilizations 2010" scenario, it won't say explicitly WHY the Indonesian AI suddenly offered you (Albania) a great deal on rice, after being relatively isolated from you. But under the circumstances, you can probably guess why.

And when you introduce religion into the equation, you introduce too many questions. And ignoring some of the questions in the name of simplicity, you really end up coming back to basics of culture, instead of the rich complexities of religion.

- are England, Rome, France, Germany, even America considered Christian?
- are Rome and France Catholic, with others being Protestant?
- do you come with your religion right from the start, at 4000 BC?
- do you found religions? when, how often do you get to found religions?
- do you get to put your own spin on a religion that infiltrates your Civ?
- Can religions combine, spin off, get assimilated, or get eradicated?
- When a Civ is Christian, do we mean Christian at the time of Christ, Christian at the time of Rome, Christian at the time of the consolidation of power under the pope, or Christian at the time of break-away sects?
- what happens when the religion you founded dies out?
- what happens if the whole world becomes secularized?
- what happens if your religion spreads out, and everyone else decides "enh, let's be secular"
- do you get to issue religious commands?
- do people have to obey?
- if you're the collective spirit of your civ, and your civ is pluralistic, then why can't you just say "let's all be one religion", or "let's all be no religion"?
- if you're only the state, then who controls the religion?

Don't get me wrong. It would be great stuff to model. But it strikes me as a catch 22. Either you give answers, and make the game inappropriately complex. Or you sidestep answers, keep religion simple, and it more or less resembles nationalistic culture, minus the borders -- and then what's the point?

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, though. I'm a big fan of realism. I just happen to be taking a real minimalist approach when it comes to almost any idea on these here boards.