religion characteristics

[aracuan_76]

Hello,

i would like to say-ask something.
i have played the game very much,try all religions,but so far i havent seen any major or even minor differences between them.my opinion is that every religion,that a civilization chooses to have,or use,should grant the civilization some certain characteristics.for example islam religion,should have an attack bonus-since there is the only religion which(i m not certain for that however)that can be used to declare the so called"holy war"even nowdays.of course and the crusades was something similar,but this isnt happening now.another characteristic should be the increased science or culture,etc.
cooments most welcome.

[proviisori]

It's good that the religions are pretty much the same.
This way no-one gets upset.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Flamer(fin)
It's good that the religions are pretty much the same.
This way no-one gets upset.

Amen (so to speak) to that.

There's a thread around about how the game is being censored for China (no Forbidden City, etc) and a lot of talk about how Hitler isn't included in the expansion as well. Those are contentious issues, but there's nothing that people like to fight about more than religion. You're bound to offend someone if you give each religion their own advantages.

I might add that even in the 9 lines of the original post, there was enough material to start an OT argument that would last for months.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


Amen (so to speak) to that.

There's a thread around about how the game is being censored for China (no Forbidden City, etc) and a lot of talk about how Hitler isn't included in the expansion as well... ...You're bound to offend someone if you give each religion their own advantages.

Or their own dissadvantages...

[Nugog]

There is even debate as to whether all the "religions" in the game actually count as religions, and as to if they should be in the game or not!


Sheesh..........

[steeplerot]

I do not see why not, Europa Univerallis II has religion advantages and disadvantages and noone is raising a stink.
Catholicism: +2 diplomats/year +1 missionary every 2 years. Bonus in Stability and Production Efficiency.

Counter-Reformed Catholicism: +2 diplomats/year +1 missionary/year Bonus in Stability, lowers Tax Value. Ability to convert countries by force into Catholicism.
Protestantism: +1 diplomat/year +1 colonist/year Lower Stability. Bonus in Production Efficiency and Tax Value.

Reformist: +1 diplomat/year +2 colonist/year +1 level of Morale for army and navy. Bonus to profits of merchants. Lower Stability and Tax Value.

Orthodox: +1 colonist every 2 years. Bonus in Stability. Not affected diplomatically by change in religion.

Shia Moslem: +1 level of Morale for army and navy. Bonus in Stability. Lower Tax Value.

Suni Moslem: Bonus in Stability.

Confucianism: Bonus in Stability. Lower Tax Value. Lower Trade Efficiency.

Hinduism: Bonus for morale in army and navy. Lower Stability.

Buddhism: +1 Missionary every 2 years. Lower Tax Value. Bonus in Stability.


You get the point.

[Fosse]

Setting aside the argument about political correctness (about which I do not care), from a game balance perspective it makes a lot of sense to have all religions be equal, save for the enabling technology.

Because of the role that religion plays in diplomacy, culture, happiness and civics each religion will have various pros and cons as your civ's state religion at any given point in any game. These factors will include other civs' state religions and the geopolitical situation in the game, how many of your cities, and which particular cities, have which religion in them, and which civics you want to run.

To add additional attributes to the religions muddies the waters and robs players of a certain flexibility in making their religious choices, because certain religions would invariably prove the right choice for particular goals. Keeping all of the religions identical and having religion impact other elements of the game is what keeps it from being simply another Civics choice, which is what it would wind up amounting to otherwise. Also, balance can go out the window if religions are unique because the particular religion you want (say, the one that comes with a combat bonus) might not have spread to your cities in the current game. That's a much different situation than it is now with generic religions, as it could lead to very unstable situations in a game, for instance if one continent manages to found all 7 religions and another has zero.

Having never played EU 2, I can only imagine that religions were implemented in a way that's considerably different than Civ IV, and that said implementation makes a lot of sense and is well balanced in that game.

[aracuan_76]

steepler wrote:

I do not see why not, Europa Univerallis II has religion advantages and disadvantages and noone is raising a stink.
Catholicism: +2 diplomats/year +1 missionary every 2 years. Bonus in Stability and Production Efficiency.

Counter-Reformed Catholicism: +2 diplomats/year +1 missionary/year Bonus in Stability, lowers Tax Value. Ability to convert countries by force into Catholicism.
Protestantism: +1 diplomat/year +1 colonist/year Lower Stability. Bonus in Production Efficiency and Tax Value.

Reformist: +1 diplomat/year +2 colonist/year +1 level of Morale for army and navy. Bonus to profits of merchants. Lower Stability and Tax Value.

Orthodox: +1 colonist every 2 years. Bonus in Stability. Not affected diplomatically by change in religion.

Shia Moslem: +1 level of Morale for army and navy. Bonus in Stability. Lower Tax Value.

Suni Moslem: Bonus in Stability.

Confucianism: Bonus in Stability. Lower Tax Value. Lower Trade Efficiency.

Hinduism: Bonus for morale in army and navy. Lower Stability.

Buddhism: +1 Missionary every 2 years. Lower Tax Value. Bonus in Stability.


You get the point.



thank you my friend.
i m glad that at least one got the point.yes,why not having thier own characteristics?
i dont see the reason for not.this is a reality,a fact,its not our opinion.i have of course no reason and no intension to offense no one.
everyone i feel we are happy people.and everyone i want to beleive have good will to co operate in every step,despite our religion diferences.for example,i m an orthodox,but i can talk and live in peace and armony with everyone that does respect and dont bothers me.

i think that this is something that relies on good will in soul,not in religion.

[proviisori]

Originally posted by aracuan_76


i think that this is something that relies on good will in soul,not in religion.

But as an atheist, I don't believe in soul.
I'm not against different bonuses but I understand why they did not make the religions different. The safe solution would be name the religions with fictional names and give the bonuses.

[aracuan_76]

you dont believe in God,or,in a power greater than you flamer?

[proviisori]

Well... I would say that i.e. a hurricane is a greater power tham me. but seriously, no.. I don't believe in supernatural beings. My outlook on life is scientific one.

IMO gods and such don't just make any sense.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by aracuan_76
you dont believe in God,or,in a power greater than you flamer?

Good grief.

[aracuan_76]

well,

i m 30 years old.and i have seen many things in my life which i cant give them or say that occured by a game of luck.i think that they happened for a reason.and that reason might be directed from the skies.
all these people,that wrote the holy books,saint peter,saint john,etc.cant lie about these miracles that took place.if you seen the "jesus from nazareth"i m certain that put you in very serious thoughts.
although i m bored and i dont go in church,i believe in the immortality of the soul,and in a supernatural power that relies on religion.
of course,i respect everyone s choices and never press or try to convince him for my ideas.

[drsparnum]

I personally couldn't care less about the political correctness of the issue, and wish the religons had different but relatively balanced effects, like civics. If they were different but well balanced I think it would increase the strategy of the game.

You might make a b-line for Buddhism extra hard if you wanted it's "civic-like" effect. Alternatively, you may not like Buddhism or Polytheism's civic like effect so you may not bother getting a religion until Judiasm, even though your civ starts with mysticism, because you want its civic-like effect. Yes, it's true that you don't always control what religion creeps into your cities, unless you found it, but I think that would just increase the variablility of the game. Having some elements out of the players control forces them to adapt and makes each game different. When you don't have copper nearby, you adapt. When you have stone nearby you adapt and say "maybe I'll build those pyramids." Something like that. When you want to be peaceful, but the peaceful religion would make a lot of your neighbors mad at you (because they're something else) and drive you to war then you've got a strategic gamble to make.

However.....I understand Firaxis' business decision of making all religions equal and I'm just glad they're in there at all now (you could argue they're the most important "techs" in human history, so their absence was notable). I'm probably indifferent to the political correctness because I've become faithless, although even when I was faithful I think I could have dealt with some variability in the religions if there was some historical basis for it. (although I do still have strong faith in hitting the space bar after a period aracuan, so much faith I do it twice in fact j/k ) I'm American but it's not like I get mad that the game didn't decide to make American's creative or something.

What surprises me most of all is that no one made a mod that makes the religions different that I know about. In the Total Realism mod they made Judiasm a little different but I'm surprised there isn't a mod that gives each religion a small and decently balanced tweak.



As for the Hitler thing, I can see it from both sides, and I would not include him as a possible German leader if I was Firaxis. I think it is still too recent, since there are people alive that have living memories of WW2. I do think Rommel should be included as one of the Great Generals you can get in the expansion, and that shouldn't be nearly as offensive to people who'd be offended about the inclusion of Hitler.

[AshenPlanet]

.

I do not see why not, Europa Univerallis II has religion advantages and disadvantages and noone is
raising a stink.

Maybe not many people play europa...

Seriously, I could argue for hours about 9 out of those 10 religious modifiers and how they are a ridiculous representation of what those religions' modifiers should actually be...
I really think the best options if you wanted different modifiers would have been to let each civ have their own religion, or make up new religions.

Having existing religions give different modifiers is a bad bad idea...

I'm an avowed athiest as well, but I'd be offended like others would be, if I percieved an insulting objectification of the religion of my ancestors...

.

[steeplerot]

Originally posted by AshenPlanet
.



Maybe not many people play europa...


.

Not in America it seems, a shame too. I always thought Paradox did a fair job with sensitive subjects like ethnic cleansings (gone after EU1 -and it was never a feature but an exploit) and religions/cultures.

I have loved Civ since the early 90s but I always wind up going back to EU2 or HOI for the added depth.

They both have their merits I guess, Civ is a bit more politically correct and less complicated though.

But real life civilizations were very un-PC.


Speaking of which remember in CTP how you captured rival civs people with slavers early on for a added worker pop that needed no food in your cities? *net comes down on wall-less city* "HA! YOUR MINE!"

The AI always slaved my people and drove me nuts wanting to conquer them for doing such a terrible thing, needless to say I stopped playing.

I have yet to see anything like that in a Paradox game.

[DrSpike]

This thread is a good indication of why the Civ4 religions are generic in their effects.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by DrSpike
This thread is a good indication of why the Civ4 religions are generic in their effects.

That's really funny because it's so true!

[DrSpike]

/me bows.

[Virtual Alex]

I don't see how religion attribute are different than civ specific attributes. Escpecially if they made all the different attribute only positive. I suppose it's possible that someone could find it insulting that thier "home" civ is classified as milituristic but I haven't found one yet. Having a religion that gives a bonus to attacking units, or a happniness bonus doesn't seem too offensive.

The discussion about religion bonuses should be about weather or not they help, balance, or add variety to the game. Or on the other hand, unbalance, or make a combo that is far too powerful to overlook. (Civ2: fundamentalism+max tax and Spy could buy the entire world and was a legitimate strategy.) Perhapse they felt the game had enough variety or gov't bonuses in conjunction with soem civi specific and religious bonuses might couse some brutal combos that are too powerful.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Virtual Alex
doesn't seem too offensive.

That's the problem though - what doesn't seem offensive to some people regarding religion, is highly offensive to others.

[Yosho]

Yeah. For one example, the Europa game seems to have embrased the old idea some historians used to follow that Protestant countries are somehow inherently more productive and have a stronger economy then Catholic countries, (which according to those old historical theories was part of the reason teh industrial revolution happened in Britian). Very few modern historians follow the "industrial revolution needed the "Protestant work ethic" to succeed, because Protestant countries just do better economically" logic anymore; frankly, the whole theory is offensive, and pretty clearly untrue. While I'm not thin skinned, other Catholics could find that part of the game offensive if they wanted to.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I think that if you want to give each religion a bonus, you should also grant a +50% beaker bonus for not founding a religion at all

[proviisori]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I think that if you want to give each religion a bonus, you should also grant a +50% beaker bonus for not founding a religion at all

Yep, I agree. obviously..

[Virtual Alex]

Totally.

[padillah]

The single problem I have with granting bonuses to religions is the basis for them. How has a religion made it's members any better/worse/indifferent?

I've been Presby, Mormon, atheist, and agnostic and I'm just one person. What part of me did the Mormonism make? Which religion made me smart?

There's just no basis for a religion, in and of itself, making it's members different than any other belief system.

Tom P.

BTW I'm currently athi-nostic, I'm not quite sure there isn't a God.

[drsparnum]

Does being American make you more organized and better with money? Does being Spanish make you more spiritual? Yes, you can change your religion and you can't change your nationality, but most people usually just are what their parents were.

Most people feel the game is richer because each Civ has different attributes. I feel the game would be richer if each religion had different attributes. I understand that people are often even more emotional about religion than their national heritage, and that is probably why Firaxis made all the religions equal. I just think that if there hadn't been a fear of a backlash against it, Firaxis would have given the religions in game effects to distinguish them from one another. They didn't, but I just don't understand why no one's made the religion "mod."

(I'd do it myself, but I'm too lazy and too stupid)

[PaganPaulwhisky]

People are just too easily offended. It would not take too much effort for Firaxis to come up with some fairly non-offensive and balanced religious effects. The bottom line is not realism or accuracy, but whether they add depth and playability to the game. So what if some people get offended, its just a video game. Adding different religious effects would only make the game more fun to play IMO and I highly doubt it would draw much criticism from civ fans.

[AshenPlanet]

.

It would draw a great deal of criticism from me as well as others who've written in this thread alone!

I don't even have a religion, and I still dissagree with what that stupid game listed as adjustments for 9 out of 10 of those religions.

If different modifiers are desired, then tie those religions to the civ - let each civ have it's own religion.

After all, American christianity is not the same as Nigerian christianity.
Even in America, New York christianity is different from Texas christianity which does not equal Kansas or Utah christianity...

So, if in civ, you have an american religion, an aztec religion, a japanese religion, etc. then different modifiers would be fine.

.

[drsparnum]

If you tie the religion to the civ you're reducing the options. If the Americans get any religion and then adopt the trait of American religious (as opposed to American secular) it isn't nearly as dynamic as American then being modified by one of seven different possible adjustments. You could almost just assign a third trait to the civ and get the same effect. THe only difference here is the on/off switch (I presume secular American is on prior to religion discovery and after adoption of free religion). That's only two more options instead of 7.

Anyway, it isn't about realism. Just like New York jewish isn't Texas jewish, New York American isn't Texas American. I can accept that religion modifiers are not in because it could be too controversial. I'm surprised however, and disagree with, the idea that well balanced religious modifiers would hurt the actual game play. To me it is like saying that adding 7 more well balanced units, or 7 new well balanced civ traits, or 7 new well balanced city improvements would somehow hurt the game. If implimented poorly, or one was just too good, then yes it would need to be corrected. But, if it was done correctly I think it would only make the actual game component of the game, a better game.

AshenPlanet, what are you refering to when you talk about this 9/10 religion adjustments?