Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[Loppan Torkel]

@rhialto: It would be a nice part in a grander religious model. Those wonders would make each religion more unique and it would be an easy way to steer the religions to some "historical correctness".

dh epic:

World religions + traits: too much variety and change in the world to model it properly

dh epic - Civ can never reflect the real world anywhere near perfect, it's about simplifying and generalising concepts. Fireaxis is probably able to model it properly just like they've modeled most other concepts in civ in a reasonable way. It's not like a reallife economic or cultural model or any other model that is in civ is easy to implement, but they've managed to make it fun and accessable for most players.
There's room for improvement in most features in civ3 but it doesn't rule out implementing religion while improving the rest.

Secularization would be a nice feature in a religious model but it would in no way be a good way to let it represent religion altogether. And I doubt we'll see it as a slider.

@Aussie Lurker: Your model seems nice and logical to me. Both advantages and disadvantages to each religion and within the concept.

 

[sir_schwick]

I would see secularization as a function of government form. It would be a box under Government(which should be split into Politics and Economy), Mobilization Status, and then Secularization. Early nations tended to able be very non-secular, so only a couple options would exist. Over time more options would develop with technology, like Seperated and Atheist.

@Aussie_Lurker
I do think those generalizations are more agreeable then other ones(especially if you count Humanism as diest where humans are the diety). HOwever we already discussed the problem with using generics. Civ always uses real labels, even if they are not accurate. I just do not see the overall benefits of including specific religions.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Not that I'm speaking for Aussie Lurker but I don't see any problem with categorizing specific religions in different abstract systems, like Monotheism or Polytheism, and giving them certain benefits or disadvantages at this higher level, while still keeping the specific religions intact, with their own unique traits, wonders, etc.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hiya Loppan,

If I understand you correctly, I think that you and I are pretty much on the same page. For me, you have General labels for religion types, but each religion type does give you a set of improvements, Small Wonders, wonders and even units which can help you better define your religion in 'real world' terms-especially if you also have cultural flavours.

For instance, monotheistic religions would have Temples, churches, mosques etc-each one with much the same benefit, but with the name being based on the culture group of the builder. Later, as you get more 'advanced' in monotheism, you will get yet more 'improvements/wonders' to build-again with culturally relevent names (or, hell, you might even be allowed to CHOOSE the name you want for it-giving you English Mosques, or Persian churches!) This combined with which Great Wonders and Small Wonders you build might help you, the player, to better define your religion in realworld terms. So, a Middle East monotheistic civ, building mosques, The Dome of the Rock, The Kabaala etc is clearly setting him/herself up as a Muslim faith. To help in this regard, the aforementioned Wonders might have a 'Middle East' culture flavour-to encourage Middle Eastern AI's to try and build it! Some Wonders could even give you a wealth/trade/reputation bonus with all civs of your culture group that are of a monotheistic faith!
Anyway, is this what you mean, Lopaan? I'd be curious to know!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Loppan,

World religions are more sensitive than governments in this respect. It's semi plausible, for example, that Fascism facilitates / subsidizes war better than a democracy. It's a gross overgeneralization, and you can find exceptions, but most people can agree with them. But does Christianity facilitate / subsidize war better than Buddhism? I know a lot of Christians who'd disagree with that -- not because they are offended or appalled, but because they'd point out many reasons why that's simply untrue.

So you're forced into abstract religions. But it seems like you've already endorsed an idea of the sort. I think abstract religions are better because you CAN make bigger generalizations across types.

The problem with Aussie's model, though, is that for all the talk of monotheism's ability to resist conversion, and an animist's ability to resist schisms (both very reasonable, plausible, and intuitive traits)... there's no model of conversion OR schism! The best we have right now is a model where you can pick your category of religion (monotheist, animist, polytheist ...) from a drop down menu.

I'd like to see someone make this work... but it seems the best we end up with is a few wonder categories / teams that you can pick from.

(Although picking the different wonders of each religion is an interesting way to do traits. Building "crusades" or "jihad" would bring out the dogmatic, hawkish wing of the religion, whereas building another wonder could bring out the tolerant and compassionate wing of the religion.)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Uummm, actually DH_Epic, I already had a model for Conversion and Schisms which I put forward EONS ago (or at least it feels that way!)

Basically, the 'flat' chance of conversion is based on your nations 'religious culture', which is generated by religious improvements and 'cleric' specialists in your city. It can be significantly boosted, BTW, if you have and use a 'Religious Great Leader'. Like normal culture, 'religious culture' will flow across relatively open borders and into foreign cities close to said border. As the culture builds up in a city, there is a chance, per turn, of it converting a set number of citizens to your faith. Of course, there is also a chance of that happening to you too! In addition to the slow, natural conversion, you also have chance to 'evangalize' a specific city-using your nations resources. The chance of this succeeding is higher than normal conversion, and is enhanced even more if you have previously established a 'cultural enclave' in the city you target.
Anyway, this FLAT chance of conversion is modified by a number of other factors. There is the natural resistance of the faith to which the target civ belongs. There is the relative 'conversion strength' of the religion to which you belong (Monotheistic Faiths are better at conversion than Non-Deists, which are better at conversion than polyethiestic faiths). Also, the degree of 'Nationalism', 'Spiritualism' and 'Libertarianism' of your society, the relationship between your two culture groups, and where your religion sits on the other civs spectrum of 'most preferred' and 'most shunned' religions!
Now, Religious schisms can occur when a significant proportion of a city's population is of a different religion to that held by the State. Clearly, a State with NO official religion is not going to suffer from Schisms (but will also not benefit as much from religious improvements, or be able to make any 'cleric' specialists!) Anyway, depending on how 'Spiritual' and 'Authoritarian' your civ is, as well as how corrupt and/or unhappy the city currently is, there is a chance of a 'religious schism'-which essentially amounts to a religious 'civil war'. It first begins with said city (or cities) going into outright revolt, demanding a change in the State religion. If this does not occur, or if you don't do something else to change things (like reducing spiritualism or increasing libertarianism) then the city will break away from your empire. Like a normal civil war, this could mean the formation of a new nation, with a state religion in line with that to which the dissenters belonged!
Now, please note that this can refer to different 'brands' of a religion, as much as it can relate to altogether different religions. For instance, Eastern European polytheism is different from its Western European counterpart. So you might have a Western European city converting to 'Monotheism (East European)'.
OK, now a few things I failed to mention before:

Your religion type will also influence how effective luxuries are in your civ. Non-Deists are the LEAST effected by increasing amounts of luxuries(both in the positive and negative sense)-as they focus predominantly on the well-being of the mind rather than the body, and seek a fairly non-materialistic path for its followers. Monotheistic faiths are next in this progression, as they do tend to focus peoples minds on 'The next Life', rather on the benefits or detriments of 'the here on now'. Polytheistic faiths are the most effected by luxuries, as they encourage their followers to enjoy this life, rather than worry overmuch about the next one.

Aside from your main 'religion type'. You could also be able to set your peoples 'sect'. The main ones I can think of now are: 'Blood Cult', 'Orthodox' and 'Reformist'. 'Blood cult' makes you less susceptible to conversion and schism, grants you access to sacrificial altars as means of increasing happiness and increasing religious culture, but is only open to civs with high 'Militarism' and low 'Libertarianism', and is also very susceptible to corruption. 'Orthodox' is also fairly resistant to conversion, but is more open to schism. It allows for improvements that can change converts back to the 'proper' faith, but is also prone to corruption. It also requires a high level of 'Spiritualism'. Lastly, 'Reformist' is more susceptible to conversions, but is more resistant to schisms. It has lower base corruption than the other two sects, but their religious buildings produce less culture, and this sect is only open to civs with a lower than average 'Spiritualism' level.

Anyway, thats how I would like it to work, pretty much !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

What you're talking about, then,is that each state has its own religion and a valuable goal is to convert every other state to your state religion. Does everyone get to invent a religion?

Or a number of states share a common religion -- monotheism -- and with worldwide monotheism as a goal?

Can't you just flip your nation's religion at a whim? Or is religious switching, and thus conversion, a gradual thing?

There is a religious victory?

 

[Tholish]

Religious competition could be whole other minigame. Once you are the first to research any given world religion tech, you can shoot for a religious victory type and thereby switch from playing a secular empire (your old empire in the secular game is everafter run by an ai) to playing that religion. The secular empires now compete between turns, and you control whole different types of units and buildings and such during the "real" religious competition game. I can only begin to guess how that game would be designed.

 

[rhialto]

Nice idea Tholish, and its a game I wouldnt might playing, but I want to buy one very good game, not two so-so games.

 

[sir_schwick]

That would be an interesting idea, the idea that you can play as non-state actors. Imagine a whole level of gaming that occurs between non-state actors such as religions. Interesting but would be better for an expansion.

----------------------------------------------------------

Religious Victory

A few turns after you win the victory, you get special armies to 'rehabilitate' enemies of the religion. Non-diests have 'improved' men to fight for them(whack stats). Monotheists get their diety and his/her minions to come and wreck havoc. Polytheists have a variety of less powerful but more diverse units to work from. Also, a few turn after the winner's religious army appears, the others would slowly recieve theirs.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, DH, I think what will ultimately determine the overall appearance of a religion would be 3 or 4-fold: The first, and most important, is the NAME of your religion group-be it Non-Deist, Polytheist or Monotheist. The next important thing would probably be your culture group, are you a North American Monotheistic religion (perhaps worship of the 'Great Spirit') or are you a Western European Polytheist religion? The next important determinant would probably be your sect (if you can have one)-are you a polytheistic blood cult or an Orthodox Non-deist religion? Last of all, your social engineering settings, and the improvements and wonders which you choose to build (and which will be limited by your state religion) will help to determine the EXACT LOOK of your religion. Shared religion AND culture types will aid in diplomacy, so two North African Monotheistic civs will share a great deal more in common than a North African and Middle Eastern Monotheistic civ. Sect will go even further in defining diplomatic relations, as Reformist civs will probably look down on Orthodox civs-of course this will only be of true importance when your spiritualism values are quite high. As you start to lower them, your relations will be based on much more 'down to Earth' factors, such as shared national identity and shared government types.
Of course a religious victory would entail converting as MANY people to your particular faith as possible and, to that end, changing religion on a whim does not really suit your purposes, as the victory will go to the civ who first pioneered the faith (IF they still follow it, of course), not any 'Johnny come latelies' ! Of course, you might get a % of the winners points towards your own for determining place holdings, with the % being dependant on how long you have been part of the faith! The other problems with changing religions on a whim is that you will lose a fair proportion of your accumulated religious culture AND those religious improvements you built will no longer function as effectively (if at all)! Worse still, there is a chance that a religion change could spark a religious schism within your nation, especially if you change to one which is not your peoples preferred religion!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I confess that the one thing I HAVEN'T given enough consideration to in my model are:

1) How many Culture groups should be in the game, and who should belong to them? I am thinking Western European (England, Scandanavia, Germany and France), Mediteranean (Spain, Portugal, Rome and Greece), Eastern Europe (Russia, Hungary, Romania and Byzantium) Middle East (Turkey, Persia, Babylon and Arabs), North Africa (Carthage, Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia), Africa (Nigeria, Kenya, Congo and Zulu), East Asia (India, China, Mongolia, Korea and Japan), South East Asia (Thailand, Java and Malay), North American (Soiux, Iroqoius and Apache) and South American (Incan, Aztec and Mayans). Now, some of these might fit into TWO culture groups-like Greeks could be Mediterranean/East European; Carthage could be Mediterranean/North African, and Mognolia could be East Asian/East European.

2) How could you model the rise of Christianity with my model? I have given this some thought and all I can think of is the following: Rome, a 'Mediterranean Polytheistic' Civ has conquered the minor power city of Jerusalem (amongst others). This minor power is a Middle Eastern/Mediterranean Monotheist nation, with a very high amount of Religious Culture. Over time, a small amount of this culture 'accumulates' in other peripheral Roman cities, causing conversion to Monotheism. After a few turns, Jerusalem produces TWO Religious great leaders in a row, which the Roman player 'sacrifices' to boost the religious culture of that city. This increases the conversion rates in Roman cities, and even starts to bleed out to some of the most distant Middle-Eastern cities of the Arabs, Persians and Babylonians. After some time, and an unsuccessful attempt to purge the cities of these 'heretics', the Roman player gives in and changes the official Religion to 'Monotheism' in order to avoid a religious schism which could break the Empire in half. This will make the Roman Empire a 'Western Mediterranean/Middle Eastern Monotheism'!
Anyway guys, how does that sound? Would that reflect a real world situation well enough, or have I got it ALL WRONG?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I really like your models Aussie, these coupled with some of the earlier suggestions in the thread would make a nice religious model, I think. Though it's hard to tell how it would play out in the civworld now when the models have got so specific, but the ideas presented seem good in theory.
One thing that we differ in however is that I would like to see the reallife persons, buildings and religions implemented rather than letting it all be abstracts.
Would your system collaps if it only was a form where specific religious leaders appeared within, culturally/historically linked or not, at semirandom chance after some prerequisite have been reached, to attempt to start new specific religions?

@dh epic
Fireaxis isn't forced to make the religions abstract just because there are some issues to deal with. If it's a too tough choice deciding whether or not "Christianity facilitate / subsidize war better than Buddhism" let it be. Make Norse mythology/religion facilitate / subsidize war better than both Christianity and Buddhism and let the last mentioned have other qualities. Or you could give Christianity a militaristic bonus during the medieval times, or you could just take a look at history and come to the conclusion that christian countries in generell have a pretty militaristic history and just label Christianity as militaristic. There are many options to solve these problems.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Loppan, I can assure you that, by the time you include Improvements, Wonders and religious great leaders (which will be culturally linked) you pretty much WILL be able to build any of the real world religions! Why I feel they should be kept generic is because then you can create religions which have NEVER existed in real life-like the Monotheistic Blood Cult I mentioned, or a Humanist Orthodox religion. If you don't allow this, then you end up with just a 'simulation' of history, without a genuine ability to REWRITE history!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

aussie lurker, your model is kind of growing on me. My only real concern over it is that I think there should be some way of restricting wonder construction. You shouldn't be able to build the Qa'aba and the Sistine Chapel. And it has just ocurred to me that we need to distinguish between built and captured wonders for the boolean construction restrictions to work properly. Not a real problem in program in I'm sure, but something to be aware of.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, the two possibilities are:

1) Make it culturally linked. Only the Middle Eatern culture groups can build the Quabba or the Dome of the Rock, and only European civs can build Sistene Chapel or Notre Dame Cathedral. This is my least preferred option, as it involves too much restriction.

2) The next option would be to put each of the Great Wonders, Small Wonders and Improvements into a SINGLE category, then saying that once you have built something from that category, you can't build anything else from that single category! If you capture a city containing a Wonder/improvement from a category that you have already built, then you gain the normal culture from it (eventually), but no other benefits to anyone except those who recognise that wonder (like a Wonder built by a Middle Eastern Civ and captured by a European civ will only give benefit to the Middle Eastern population of that city!)
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

edit.......

 

[dh_epic]

Loppan, I understand the ground you stand on and respect it. You've explained yourself well -- that you think basic generalizations are okay when it comes to a religion. That it's better to model the most expressive and maybe extreme version of a religion than that practiced by most of its constituents. I just find it unrealistic, and barely tolerable when it comes to Government choices. As silly as I think it is that Democratic cities cannot be affected by propaganda, I think I'd find it 10 times sillier to see Islam as "The War Religion". They're just too "convenient" and biased for my view.

Aussie,

I gotta say, your model is kind of growing on me, too. It may have started with picking a few "designer" traits. E.g.: a monotheistic blood cult. But I think the simple idea that really clinched it was there are enough combinations that the first person to pick a combination would be able to claim ownership of that combination.

I discover monotheism and pick the trait "orthodox". Being the first to name it and combine said brilliant traits, I get to name it. I call it "Christianity". Someone else stumbles onto monotheism and says "oh man, monotheistic is such a perfect trait for what I want". They quickly try to assemble "Monotheism" and "Orthodox" and see that it already has a name -- Christianity. "What the hell? Those jerks beat me to it!"

Suddenly they need to reconcile that they can't take ownership of this religion, so they'd forever be following in someone else's footsteps and have a harder time pursuing a religious victory. Do they go with it anyway because that combination of traits is so great? Or do they combine other religious traits in a way that's almost as profitable so they can have their own unique religion that they can more easily pursue a religious victory with?

The dilemma is between pursuing your own path and getting to claim it as your own, or pursuing an opponent's path with risk of always being upstaged by them but getting the traits you REALLY wanted.

Not to mention that later traits might be better, but it would be harder to start a new religion and still spread it that late in the game. For example, I combine "Humanistic" with "Uninstitutionalized" and call it "Marxism". Spend the rest of my life existance trying to spread it all around.

I'm afraid, though, that your model of conversion and schism is highly dependent on Civil War. Not that this is a bad thing, but it might not be reasonable to expect from Civ 4. Care to go into more detail about how religious conversion and schism work? To me this has always been the crux of the problem. Sure you can make your own religion with a few variables, or pick a religion out of a hat. But how does someone get converted? And what's to stop them from just picking another religion out of a hat, or to just stop cultivating religion altogether -- in order to prevent you from benefitting from their conversion?

 

[menwia]

Actually in Germany the drinkin age is 16 while the driving age is 18. This is because they think most people will learn how to responsibly drink before they start driving vehicles. I believe DUIs are lower in Germany, at least among natives.

You make my point exactly Sir S. - it just shows how ridiculour the USA model is on their drinking age restrictions. What - are american teenagers worse then all other teenagers around the world - that they can't be trusted to drink at 18?

 

[dh_epic]

Not to be too off topic, but there is some room for cultural difference. For example, I don't think they should ever repeal the second amendment in America, but at the same time I don't think other nations should repeal their laws on gun control. Not that certain people are born better at handling certain social phenonena, but some cultures are just more conducive to it.