Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[phorvath2110]

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.

I'm curious if you saw my suggestion earlier about religion being a social engineering choice with non-specific religions but religion "types" (ie monotheistic, polytheistic, etc...) This would have a similar effect when it comes to different groups liking or disliking each other.

Monotheistic French would be mighty ticked off at polytheistic Hittitites. Secular countries would have a lower regard for more religious societies.

This model does not allow though for religious minorities in country unless they also happen to be part of a different ethnic group.

The interesting question that poses is : would then the mother country influence the minority's religion? Hmmm...

 

[Jon Shafer]

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.

No. Right now culture doesn't even spread.

Culture isn't spread by Missionaries, to start. Religion can be spread directly, culture cannot (I don't see anyone proposing sending out "artisans" to try and convert other cities to your culture ).

That having been said, having a base set of mechanics to govern both (or other future moddable systems) would be nice. I still think they should be seperate though, even if they spread in similar ways simply because they've had a very different effect on societies, and rarely worked hand-in-hand.

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).

I do think having more things available to mod would be great.

My point was that if you want to model all the different kinds of relationships within an area like Bosnia you need more than 1 all-encompassing system. There is a variety of ethnicities (cultures) along with a variety of religions. Instead of having "Serb Islam" and "Serb Orthodox" and "Turkish Islam" and "Slovene Catholicism" you could simply have Serbs, Turks and Slovenes in the city and then each of the three religions. It's much cleaner than having all 6+ cultures present in a single city!

 

[Jon Shafer]

I'm curious if you saw my suggestion earlier about religion being a social engineering choice with non-specific religions but religion "types" (ie monotheistic, polytheistic, etc...) This would have a similar effect when it comes to different groups liking or disliking each other.

Monotheistic French would be mighty ticked off at polytheistic Hittitites. Secular countries would have a lower regard for more religious societies.

This model does not allow though for religious minorities in country unless they also happen to be part of a different ethnic group.

The interesting question that poses is : would then the mother country influence the minority's religion? Hmmm...

It would be nice to be able to model the dynamic between different types of religion, as well as the relation between the state religion and minorities (as you pointed out). After all, many of the great religious issues of the past have been Christianity vs. Islam, or something similar, and not so much simply "Monotheism" vs. "Polytheism" or such. I do think having religious options linked into the new civics system would be great also.

 

[sir_schwick]

Culture isn't spread by Missionaries, to start. Religion can be spread directly, culture cannot (I don't see anyone proposing sending out "artisans" to try and convert other cities to your culture ).

Actually I did not put it here, but I have developed a system so cultures unique to cities bleach over into other cities. Culture powerful cities might attract admirers in other cultures. Here is the thread. Originally it was written about provinces, but I think you will see the point. It would also explain how religion could be spread. Of cousre the concept could also be simplified to the civ level and still have effect.

 

[Jon Shafer]

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.

But why the meta-tag to begin with?

Again, simplicity for simplicity's sake. Not because we're trying to get rid of annoying micromanagement, but just because we don't want to add anything.

And again, the reason they ally or fight together is not because they're part of some massive cultural group, but religion.

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.

Common values has nothing to do with culture groups.

In 1853 Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire all allied together to defeat Russia. Why? Not because they were culturally similar, but because they had a shared interest in defeating Russia. Having similar interests has nothing to do with culture.

You're simplifying in some areas that don't belong and in doing so you're making much larger assumptions than I ever did.

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.

Yeah, and there's 20 other things that can be done with religion also.

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.

Do you not think things can be simplified enough to be playable without all of these minute details? Is there a case of any questions detailed as these that already exist in Civ? No? Is there any reason why we have to address them for CIV? Does that automatically make it no different from culture? I thought I already gave enough examples as to what this isn't true.

I already gave the examples of religious schism, tithing and missionaries as three simple ones. There are other examples. Yes, they can be lumped in with culture, but along the same lines, cultural concepts could be all combined under the tag "religion" also!

You have to admit those are more religious concepts than cultural ones. And by combining them with culture you're admitting that something that should be under a different classification has been added wrongly.

Religions spread for reasons besides culture. Would you consider Orthodox Greek culture the same as Japanese Christian culture? No? Well there are similarities there that you're overlooking. Religion touches places that culture never goes. Religion fosters loyalty that culture never could.

There are differences. Yes, you can simplify and ignore them, but why? It's not something that's tedious or annoying or pointless. It's flavor. It's unique. That's why culture was added in Civ 3. That's why religion is being added in CIV. Who knows what will be added in Civ V?

 

[dh_epic]

I think you confound the terminology to make your idea seem more simple than it is, and make culture seem both more limited and more complex than it is -- which is a paradox, funny enough.

"Culture" isn't your borders or your nationality. Culture is literally something that spreads. Cultural victory would be something defined not just by the culture accumulated within your borders, but how well you transmit it abroad.

Trade or culture-units (missionaries, artists) to Japan makes Japan bigger supporters of American culture. There is actual American culture -- shared ideas and values, by most dictionary definitions -- floating around in Japan. In Civ, this is measured purely as a few points of American culture in a Japanese city. The city will never turn, because there are ten times as much Japanese culture there as American culture. But what this means is when America is under attack, Japanese citizens are more likely to say "hey, that's not very nice".

Extrapolate backwards. France is sending missionaries to Germany in the middle ages -- strictly in the name of promoting cultural victory, maybe being lucky enough to turn one German city. They even fight with Germany now and then, in spite of the fact that there is some French culture in Germany. Suddenly the Turks are on the scene. Since they share less culture with Germany than France shares with Germany, France interprets an attack on Germany as an attack on some of their values and ideas -- culture.

You don't need 60 different types of culture. You literally need culture as it's known in Civ 3, plus the ability for culture to spread between civs. For a city with 80 culture to also have 10 extra culture points from another Civ meddling. Europe will experience a lot of shared culture, having traded with one another, and even tried to raise their own cultural value by sending artisans to each other's cities. A piece of the Near East could spread all the way to Islam.

And when a conflict arises, the amount of culture that countries share is taken into account. France may not have always gotten along with Germany, but in some ways, France is 10% German, and Germany is 10% France, and both are 15% Roman. Not a big deal when they deal with one another, but a big deal when they deal with the Turks.

And, to complement the idea, culture groups would literally be hardwired notions of similarity, if one wanted to turn them on / off.

All religion is culture -- ideas and values -- by every definition. (But not all culture is religion.)

Religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
Culture: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=culture

 

[Jon Shafer]

And all culture is civilization.

Anyways, that is quite a good model, I agree. What I disagree on is the effects of religion and what can be done with different religions. In any case, we're not making any progress so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[sir_schwick]

What about this compromise: First, I am going to define religion and culture as different types of 'societal forces'. Second, lets just say that you can include all the functions you would possibly want in the engine for either. Also, you could mod many many different 'societal forces' each with different ways and utilizations(the differences between what religion can do and culture can do). This way all of us can get exactly what we want, and Soren can keep the initial release simple.

 

[brianshapiro]

dhepic , no i think although cultures do effect each other and things from different cultures are imported into each other, and modern cultures are in some way due to communication being more homogenized. a culture by its nature is something distinct to a group of people, otherwise there couldnt be two cultures; its not a set of enumerable ideas and values, that just have happened to have been invented in one place and not another, but the personality and spirit of the society, which is shaped by history, and which gave rise to those ideas. (this was the basis of nationalism, but conceding this point doesnt mean you agree with everything about nationalism)

religion, art, philosophy, and other things like that are not culture, but cultural products. and they contain certain values, so can lead cultures to grow closer to each other , the depth of which depending on the cultures themselves and their readiness to change (and certain types of products are more influential than others). europeans knew about asian culture for centuries but it didnt really become a popular influence until the late 19th century when the european mindset was changing. trading different cultural products isnt the main or only vehicle for a culture to develop, so it would be a shame if it was made the main vehicle in civ4.

and things like philosophy, and art, spread to different areas just as much as religion. especially with efforts like colonization, but it also has spread in other ways in history.

im not sure it would be a good game mechanic for civ4 to just have culture points spread to foreign cities. it seems to me it would be a mess and better handled in a more less direct way...

as an example, a lot of what you do in the game in civ3 can be said to be cultural because of how the game is made. what your government is what you decide to research or what to trade and how you act in declaring peace or war on other civs would be in real life part of the culture; and in so far as the game goes, they have some effect on how the progress of each society continues.

in fact this really points to why its so hard to add culture to civilization as a game; certain actions are under the god like powers of the player--culture is really trying to account for aspects left out of the game mechanic because they couldnt put everything in it. in civ3 that addressed things that happen outside of the main conflict between different civilizations--things for instance that happen internally, such as a city abandoning you for someone else---because of issues of cohesion of your empire

as far as adding cultural elements or products to the game like religion, it might be able to be done but it has to be very subtle and not breaking the basic game mechanic and purpose of culture as in civ3. and i would want other cultural products like art and philosophy to play as much a role

 

[sir_schwick]

In my recent posts I suggested that the enigne would allow you to mod as many 'societal forces' and 'identities' as you wish. So it would not break game developement rules at Firaxis, only one of them would be utilized for the first release of Civ 4. Plenty of mods will follow. Philosophy, products, etc. could easily be simulated.

 

[dh_epic]

Not all culture is civilization -- though SOME is. There's Greek culture -- more or less a civilization. And there's pop culture, punk culture, christian culture, each of which you'd be hard pressed to call civilization unless you were trying to make some kind of poetic point.

Religion is a form a culture. They both have in common the ability to cross borders without actually tearing them down. They can both be trasmitted through relics and tokens -- whether we're talking about a priest's robe or Hugh Hefner's robe, a golden grail or a golden watch. They both have leaders and thinkers who influence the rest of the world -- whether we're talking about Saint Paul the Apostle or Paul McCartney. Culture and religion exist in the beliefs of people -- that the Pharoah himself is God and good is what he likes, or that romantic love is the best feeling in the world, or that art is an expression of the author's soul. They change over time, even split -- from Judaeism to Christianity, and rock to punk, the gradual change from worshipping your own God to believing yours is the only real God. Culture and religion are celebrated in institutions -- from temples to concert halls, from schools to shopping malls.

I appreciate the differentiation, brianshaprio. It's true, there is culture, and then there are cultural products -- I'd like to consider these the vehicles of transmission. Winning a cultural victory would still be won in a traditional way, by having wonderful temples and libraries that stand as cultural meccas for the world to admire. But adding to the system the power of people and products (as opposed to just buildings) would be a huge aspect of building up your cultural value. If everyone wants your silk, your CDs, your sculptures, then you're much more of a cultural powerhouse. If you pump out more missionaries, philosophers, and rock stars than swords, spears, and guns, you might have the world's most powerful culture.

Now there are a few aspects of religion that are peculiar. The main peculiarity that it centers around spirit. And when something begins to take on that much of a spiritual base, that's when people will kill for it, dogmatically follow leaders, leverage it as a power over other prominent institutions. But one can say the same thing about Marxism -- with its own mythology and spiritual teaching. These are just the most powerful cultures in the world when they can drive people that far.

Which is why it might be better just to model religion as a really extreme, powerful form of culture. For that window from 200 BC to 1700 AD (just beyond the stretches of the middle ages), you can transmit religion as an extremely powerful form of culture. You can build Great Wonders that increase the cultural output of your temples. You can create religious artifacts that are worth more culture than any compact disc. You can send missionaries who make supporters salivate at the mouth more than Elvis. That window of history is the power of religious-cultural warfare, the time just before religious attitudes have crystallized.

I'd rather have something that makes sense for the entire game (culture) instead of something that only makes sense for half the game (religion), you know? When we think of religion's impact on history, we don't think about before 200 BC, or even so much after 1700 AD. And when we do think about religion in these eras, the effects are very different.

 

[sir_schwick]

Tying this down to date would limit the 'what-if' portion of the game. Developmental goals could be a candidate, but religion still plays a major role in today's world. If you had multiple 'identifying vectors'(because culture, after all, is just a way of categorizing others for study) you could include things such as 'ethnicity','religion','mythology','popular products','knowledge base','language', etc. Of course that system, which holds multiple facets of culture, would involve probably a dozen vectors or so. Most players would find this system to complicated, especially if you use my culture spreading system from above wiht modifications so it all adds up. Modding this in would be great though.

 

[dh_epic]

I think those kinds of things would be neat for scenarios.

An ancient scenario where you model language as a distinguishing factor of civilizations, and the focus is on promoting your language and getting a shared vocabulary across borders. All of the sudden Babylonians are using Egyptian words, and become united under their banner.

A church reform scenario, where various sects of Christianity emerge, and the focus is on promoting your version across borders. The Germans form their own sect of Christianity and try to sway France and Poland and Austria.

But in order to get something that works from 4000 BC to 2050 AD, I think the emphasis should stick with culture, in abstract. Some of these other aspects of culture are just too time sensitive. Language is totally crystal now -- a few words added here and there compared to the way it was thousands of years ago. And religion is pretty crystal, with the exception of scientology and crap like that. There was probably an era where those changed as much as popular music has in the past 60 years.

 

[mitsho]

@dh_epic, you really think that religion isn't important now? What about Bush? He IS a Fanatic (that's how I understand what he says to the public, I don't know how he thinks, perhaps he's only that way to please people to be reelected, perhaps) and his enemies are fanatics. Next example. Ancient Egypt? There weren't religious wars? You know that first, each city had it's own god (or godess) and Egypt was unified by the Pharaos who introduced the state religion of every god is a god.... That's not culture.

@topic Firstly, Religion has to be totally free of historical chronological realism. Meaning, we have the Islam. But Mohammed could have been born in the 18th century in the U.S. .
Therefore it would be easy to have a certain amount of religion in a box (not ranked or traited, etc) that appear with a certain religious leader being born (a unit like military or scientific leaders). Examples:
Judaism: Moses
Christianity: Jesus
Isis-Culte: ?
Buddhism: Buddha
You get the idea. But all of those religions are totally the same besides the naming. For Gameplay reasons, there might be more than one founder name (=unit) per religion.

That's the basics. The next things are just a few thoughts, not elaborated.

These leaders could do various things:

-Create State religion: -> leading to religious victory. You start your conquest of the world with this button. With some things ('culture', wars, 'deeds of your leader' (next point),....) you make your religion more popular around the world. Allows doing of 'missionary' and 'Holy War'. positives state religion: allows religious victory, makes you more immune to other religions (-> NO losing money through tourism AND having to fight a (holy) war you don't want), negatives: malus on political freedom (civics, governments) and immigration (they don't want to go to your state because they want to follow their religion even though they want to get away of their home state).
LEADER DOES NOT DISSAPEAR.

-missionary You're leader tries to missionary a certain region. (press button -> select nation/region -> After x turns, you get the message if he has succeded) LEADER CAN DO THIS ONLY y TIMES (depending on gameplay issues). After y times, the button dissapears. If he/she does this, all the other buttons dissapear.

-Holy war Incites a holy war against one or two enemies. Effects: your troops are a bit more effective, rushing costs less, nations with a bit of you're religion (look 'state religion') are easier to get into the war*. It lasts n turns and can be done o times before the button dissapears.
*If a human player plays this civ, that's not a good solution. So it would cause (massive?) unhappines if you don't agree in the war.

-Holy site Creates a Holy site. it generates culture and tourism (=gold). And IF state religion is in power, it also helps to the religious victory (How? don't know). RL CAN DO THIS z TIMES, after that the button dissapears.

These leaders appear not by chance, but some religious things (Each temple/etc. built gives a chance of t % per turn to generate one leader, religious techs (theology, philosphy?, ...) have a chance of s % to generate one leader, ... .
At the beginning, each civ has the religion of Animism which has no malus to the other Religions, but has no leader and therefore religion plays no role...

This system would be simple. BUT it also let's some things away that are important. And I don't know if this cruel Simplification appeals to everyone.

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

I never said religion didn't have an impact before 200 BC or after 1700 AD. Just that its impact is different. I think that's the problem, if you have a static model of religion in Civ, you end up with HUGE anachronisms. You have Christianity existing right from the start, at 4000 BC, let alone Protestant and Anglican sects. Another anachronism -- you either have atheists and agnostics existing right in 4000 BC, or you have your religion staying perfectly in tact right up until 2050.

In which case, you need a dynamic model. And a dynamic model is ten times more complicated, since the rules have to change. E.g.: once you discover monotheism, THEN you can found Christianity. But you can't spin off that religion into the Anglican Church until the advent of the Printing Press, so before that you have to listen to the pope and only afterwards can you call the shots. And after you discover the Atomic Theory you can't found any new state religion because people would see right through you. Religion then becomes too complcated for Civ 4 (even if it's not too complicated for fans like us).

Religion is a moving target. Culture isn't, and you can accomplish so many of the same things:

Cultural Conservatism: like xenophobia under Fascism, you unify your country and have less problems with your people supporting other cultures (e.g.: your people want you to end a war, or help out another civilization because they feel a lot in common culturally), but you also experience problems from infringing on your people's freedom.

Missionary: spending enough gold (and/or other resources and tokens) to build a missionary will allow you to transmit your culture. At the worst case, you'll increase your cultural value in the world and put yourself on the path to cultural victory. You'll probably have some supporters in that city since you share some of the same culture (religious values, philosophical values, anything). Best case, that city might become so much culturally similar to you that they join your nation.

Holy War: if you declare war on someone with a similar culture to you (who has been infiltrated by some of your missionaries or products, or vice versa), it's a pretty constrained struggle. But if you declare war with someone who has not experienced this crossover, either because they've killed or rejected your missionaries or they're particularly far away, then people culturally similar to them feel threatened as well. If the church is particularly powerful in your civilization, this will be called "Holy War" -- which will become less likely if you become a postmodern, multicultural, secular society... but doesn't mean that the war will be any less brutal. "Westernization" is threatening in the same way that "Christianization" is.

Holy Site: creating buildings, small wonders, and great wonders is quite relevant in Civ 3 and so it should be in Civ 4. If you want to make a city into a Mecca or a Jerusalem or a Vatican City, you only have to be culturally prosperous enough and have the relevent technology to permit it. Generates culture and tourism, and contributes to cultural victory.

I think your model works, but only to a point. In reality, nobody's founding state religions anymore, and many nations would be hard pressed to declare holy war (even though many still will). So in that respect, your model is too flexible to model the consolidation of religion in the modern era. On the other hand, what about religions that belong to a state outside your own, or religions that are tied to no state or were founded by a non-state entity? In that respect, your model is inflexible. But your model is simple, and I think it's better for implementation than a lot of models I've seen.

You sidestep it all if you stick with cultural transmission, and let a lot of religious changes throughout history be a part of the user's imagination.

 

[mitsho]

Ok, for the first point I misunderstood you, sorry. And I have to write it clear again. I know that my model is full of mistakes, but it is simplified and could work! that's one thing I miss on other models...

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

Hey no problem.

I just think that religion is complex enough to be its own GAME, you know? Simplifying it would be the only way to make it work, that's true. But for me, because it would be so historically incorrect at that point, I'd rather call it something else but give it the same effects.

 

[sir_schwick]

The engine should support multiple identifying groups(religion, etc.) but only include culture for the first release. Modding should be simple enough that you can add as comprehensive a system as you want. This way religion and culture are combined for simplicities sake, but can be seperated for those who prefer depth.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Well, maybe we should move on to other topics... like how religion should be implimented, because it's already been confirmed that it'll be in the game...

 

[dh_epic]

Not necessarily. I mean, I'm not about to put money down on it, but that document was drawn up a while ago and presented at GDC as an example of what to do with a franchise -- e.g.: the importance of new killer features. I imagine that the designers are pursuing religion, but if they see enough pitfalls in it, or enough benefits to something else, they could change their mind. (Although like I said, I'm not about to put money down that they WILL change their mind.)

Until there's another big announcement from the devs, I'm gonna stick with my "enhancing culture over adding religion" stance.