The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
It would seem difficult to find a scheme of implementating negative tendencies toward specific religions.
Why? The easiest to implement is the negative diplomacy effect. If you are in different religions, the other civ has lower regard/less likely to trust you.
Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
It would seem difficult to find a scheme of implementating negative tendencies toward specific religions.
Why? The easiest to implement is the negative diplomacy effect. If you are in different religions, the other civ has lower regard/less likely to trust you.
I mean from the sense of there being real world religions in the game. There could be the same negative bonus to all religions that aren't the same but wouldn't not receiving the same-religion bonus in the first place be a negative? My point is I don't see how it could be implemented, both trying to be politically and historically correct, for different religions to have varying degree of negative bonuses on one another.
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
Originally posted by Solver
Just down with political corectness .
I agree completely but how historical accurracy be balanced? I could see Christianity not 'liking' Islam and vice versa. Hinduism not 'liking' Islam and again vice versa. Who doesn't like the Buddhists historically? Maybe there's more to know about the different oppositions than I think. It would be nice to see varying degrees of negative and positive bonuses nonetheless if it could be balanced evenly.
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
Originally posted by TechWins
I agree completely but how historical accurracy be balanced? I could see Christianity not 'liking' Islam and vice versa. Hinduism not 'liking' Islam and again vice versa. Who doesn't like the Buddhists historically? Maybe there's more to know about the different oppositions than I think. It would be nice to see varying degrees of negative and positive bonuses nonetheless if it could be balanced evenly.
Ponder for a moment what those religions have in common: they're all close to each other geographically. Christians and Muslims never got along for the same reason the French and English, the Chinese and Japanese, the Khoisan and Bantu never got along: they were both vying for the same territory, the same resources, the same people. Had Buddhists rather than Muslims conquered the Middle East in the 7th century, Christians would dislike them just as much.
So there's no more need to model that kind of disliking than there is to model English-French-German dislike towards each other, or Japanese-Chinese-Mongol, etc. If you want to model anything, you should model the more generic tendency of competition...
You see, though, what has been discussed here is EXACTLY why a Generic approach should be taken towards religions (Firaxis? its not too late guys !) This way, you avoid ANY chances of upsetting anyone-out of the box-with preconcieved ideas of how real world religions SHOULD behave. With a decent naming option, though, you would still have the power to create real world religions in the game. To me, that seems like a Win-Win scenario. I say leave it as a simple 'Polytheism', 'Animism', 'Monotheism' and 'Non-Deist' (each with associated Culture Group), and then leave it to the player to name their Mediterranean Monotheism 'Christianity'-if they so choose. More power to the player that way, IMHO!
Which reminds me, are culture groups still going to be in the game? That was one of the better changes between civ2 and civ3.
Originally posted by Locutus
Ponder for a moment what those religions have in common: they're all close to each other geographically. Christians and Muslims never got along for the same reason the French and English, the Chinese and Japanese, the Khoisan and Bantu never got along: they were both vying for the same territory, the same resources, the same people. Had Buddhists rather than Muslims conquered the Middle East in the 7th century, Christians would dislike them just as much.
So there's no more need to model that kind of disliking than there is to model English-French-German dislike towards each other, or Japanese-Chinese-Mongol, etc. If you want to model anything, you should model the more generic tendency of competition...
I've never heard of any religious in regards to Hinduism and Buddhism or Buddhism and Islam. Using your geographical spectrum Hindus and Buddhists ought to have a negative effect against one another. Christianity churches seem to have typically had a negative outlook on any other religion or curch that wasn't their own... I still don't see there being an equally valid model for negative influences with different religions. Christians love Christians but hate everyone else? Buddhists love Buddhists and are neutral toward everyone else? Animism has essentially only come in to contact with Christianity. From what I know, there just is not an equal setting to model negative influences after.
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
Originally posted by MeteorPunch
We don't know exacly how religion will work so it's too early to say one will be "better" than another.
Based on the preview, each religion type will be equally effective and include a positive bonus in diplomacy towards a nation of the same religion. It is a matter of whether negative diplomatic effects will be in place for nations of different religions...
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
One thing which might be done with religions is to declare crusades/holy wars against other religions. But then you should also be able to declare that your neighbour is a heretic... Or each figure of population has a religion and can be made happy only if they have religious buildings of the corresponding religion? Who knows?
Clash of Civilization team member
(a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
You see, though, what has been discussed here is EXACTLY why a Generic approach should be taken towards religions (Firaxis? its not too late guys !) This way, you avoid ANY chances of upsetting anyone-out of the box-with preconcieved ideas of how real world religions SHOULD behave.
That's exactly why relgions should NOT be generic. If you use that attitude, you should get rid of real civs as well and use generic ones instead ('Germanic', 'Mediterranean', 'Mesopotamian', etc): currently the civs in the game don't behave like they 'should' based on real history either.
Why should Christianity NOT be able to get along with Islam (it has happened often enough IRL), or Buddhists to declare a holy war on Confucianists?
That's the whole point of Civilization: it's about recreating history, not about reenacting it...
Originally posted by TechWins
I've never heard of any religious in regards to Hinduism and Buddhism or Buddhism and Islam.
Remember the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues by the Taliban regime back in 2000? And I'm sure you've heard of the conflict between the (Hindu) Tamils and the (Buddhist) Sinhalese on Sri Lanka. The fact that Buddhists regard people all casts as equal whereas Hindu's don't has led to quite a few tensions over the centuries. Not as extreme as between some other religions perhaps, but that can largely be contributed to the unusually large number of enlightened rulers India has had over the centuries (which was plain necessary to avoid total self-destruction in a region with so many religions and branches of religions).
But again, the same idea applies: in real history not ALL neighbours were bitter enemies, sometimes they got along pretty well. For most of their history, the US and Canada did, as did Belgium and the Netherlands, Romans and Greeks, various German and Indian states with each other, Prussia and Russia, etc. Good relationships between religions are just as possible as good relationships between civilizations. That doesn't mean they should be hardcoded -- I refer to my earlier point: the idea of Civilization is that it's about recreating history, not about reenacting it.
OK, Locutus, I confess that one of my key issues with Real World religions is one of flexibility. For instance, if I adopt a monotheistic faith like Christianity, then will I be able to model it like a Blood Cult, with human sacrifice and the like? Or have Islam pursue the Noble Eightfold Path? I just feel like seven real world religions does NOT allow for the maximum amount of flexibility IMHO. Of course, if there was room for a whole lot of sects to spring up WITHIN these religions (like Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Asceticism etc) then much of my flexibility issues would all but disappear. Lets just say, though, that I want to hear a LOT more about religion, and how it will work in game, before I make a final judgement.
.
Tweet
Comment