Why does the ai care what your religion is?

[LordShiva]

Enough, all of you...

[John-SJ]

Ah, now there is a philosophy I have not considered, nor have I ever seen it practiced. Whenever a person says or does or writes something that I find objectionable I should not consider what the person said, but rather all of the things he could have said, but didn't?

Interesting. Just as a matter of curiousity, do you practice this philosophy your self, petermarkab?

[petermarkab]

Originally posted by amicus curiae
Why would you want the ai to play in a sub-optimal way? I would prefer if the ai tried to win the game at all costs regardless of what happened in real life. There is no gameplay advantage to what the ai does.

In a way, the ai is just mimicking mob behaviour. The problem is that there are no differences between the religions in the way that there are differences between the civics. For the AI to hate you cause your religion is different, there ought to be a negative effect caused by you and your religion on the ai and vice-versa. Something that spreads akin to culture and perhaps causes the population affected to become confused and not work as hard, or create unhappiness.

I'm sure this little gem of an idea will have its faults...

[petermarkab]

Originally posted by John-SJ
Interesting. Just as a matter of curiousity, do you practice this philosophy your self, petermarkab?

Yes, I mean no, er I don't know!

[John-SJ]

Peter, I detect a possible enhancemont for Civ V in what you say there. If it could be made to be fun, it would be very interesting.

But for Civ 4 the idea is, I believe, not to give an advantage or disadvantage, but rather to make the player choose who his friends and enemies will be in some measureable way, the measure being I share your religion or I don't (as well as I share your civic(s) or I don't). I think it's pretty cool in that I can have at least some say as to whom I will have to war against, and whom I can remain friends with.

[petermarkab]

sure - it gives you a long-arc direction if you like. But Amicus is right in suggesting the choices the AI and the player make re religion are arbitrary.

I would hope religious effects as i described could be moddable in civ 4, though not by me!

[Huck the Dog]

Maybe the AI has the shrine for its state religion. Then it would want you to adopt it as yours because it assumes that you would work to spread your state religion for your own selfish reasons, and in so doing, you increase its shrine revenue.

Related, maybe the AI is trying to get you to move to a religion that is not well aligned with your current religious infrastructure, because it knows that doing so will weaken you.

[GodSpawn]

It seems deliciously ironic to me that - although I strongly feel that the world would be a much better place with no religion whatsoever - Civ IV is BETTER for having religion.

[Rasputin]

i like the way religion just suddenl ypops into your civ whenyou discover a new tech along the tree, i like the fact that AIs will try to influence me to change, i now play my early wars agaisnt those AIs with different bleifs similar to early man kind, then my later era wars are all resource related also similar to real life.

just a good new thing to do for fun

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
It seems deliciously ironic to me that - although I strongly feel that the world would be a much better place with no religion whatsoever - Civ IV is BETTER for having religion.

great sig line quote material

[Robert]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
It seems deliciously ironic to me that - although I strongly feel that the world would be a much better place with no religion whatsoever

You clearly have no clue about what religion has done to mankind

[GodSpawn]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You clearly have no clue about what religion has done to mankind

On the contrary. It is because I can clearly see what religion has done to mankind that I come to this conclusion. Of course, I can think more rationally because I haven't been indoctrinated from an early age...

Rationality and objectivity is one of the first things that goes out the window where religion is concerned!

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!

(It's impossible to have a debate about these things - and I think it's forbidden on these forums anyway, so I assume we shall have to agree to differ on this point...)

[Robert]

We all are indoctrinated, atheists, agnosts, muslims, christians, humanists, it's not as if some people are more or less fair to both ways

- do you know that christians who practice their believe are the biggest donators to the poor? Overhere in Holland, perhaps 5% of the people is practicing their faith while they donate 60% of the money to the poor!!
- do you know that the majority of the people who're helping others, like giving aid in Africa, helping drugs addicts, etc. are christians?
- Do you know that all our medical care came originally from christianity?
- Not to mention the majority of our culture

And if we compare the deaths caused by relious zealoats, like Osama Bin Laden, The crusades, North Ireland, etc. to people who murdered not out of religious ideas, like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. then there are FAR MORE deaths on the non-religious side.

I'm sorry, but if you say things like that you 're just proving that you're misinformed. It's quiet funny to see you writing stuff like "I'm more rational and objective than you"

[Finarfin]

By definition, a non-believer is more rational and objective as they don't accept mythology to be fact.

[GodSpawn]

Like I said CyberShy - we shall have to agree to differ.

I have no desire to enter into debate, particularly when faced with a set of statistics and "facts" made up on the spot. Suffice to say that the ancient Romans, Egyptians and Greeks are somewhat important with regard to science, medicine and culture.