Tweet
Before we begin, I wish to say that I consider Civ4 to be the best civ game so far, so this is not meant at all as a flame thread. Still, I believe there are some aspects of the game that could have been better. Hence this thread.
To answer my initial question, for me it is how the multiple religions in a city are handled.
Sure, you can say that religions you do not control (via holy city) provide other civs with a LoS into your cities and give them money, but assuming a situation in which you have all 7 holy cities (by some luck or conquest), there is no disadvantage whatsoever of having them all in each single city.
This imo is both unhistorical and unbalanced. Throughout history, differences of religions were not only a cause for international conflicts (which are represented quite well in Civ4 imo), but also internal strife, from pogroms, to persecutions, to civil wars. Sure, I realise Firaxis wants to keep religions politically correct, but even if so, some sort of an abstracted way of showing such strife (especially under systems such as organized religion or theocracy, which are not too nice for non-state religions) should be present, if only in the form of unhappy faces for such non-state religions.
As it is now, even if you set up, say, a christian theocracy, your jewish, muslim and buddist subjects not only will be perfectly happy, but will also generate culture in their temples and research in their monasteries, oblivious to the fact that the theocracy effectively prevents them from spreading their belief around.
So this particular aspect of the game is imo sub-par, compared to the otherwise sterling standard set by Civ4.
To answer my initial question, for me it is how the multiple religions in a city are handled.
Sure, you can say that religions you do not control (via holy city) provide other civs with a LoS into your cities and give them money, but assuming a situation in which you have all 7 holy cities (by some luck or conquest), there is no disadvantage whatsoever of having them all in each single city.
This imo is both unhistorical and unbalanced. Throughout history, differences of religions were not only a cause for international conflicts (which are represented quite well in Civ4 imo), but also internal strife, from pogroms, to persecutions, to civil wars. Sure, I realise Firaxis wants to keep religions politically correct, but even if so, some sort of an abstracted way of showing such strife (especially under systems such as organized religion or theocracy, which are not too nice for non-state religions) should be present, if only in the form of unhappy faces for such non-state religions.
As it is now, even if you set up, say, a christian theocracy, your jewish, muslim and buddist subjects not only will be perfectly happy, but will also generate culture in their temples and research in their monasteries, oblivious to the fact that the theocracy effectively prevents them from spreading their belief around.
So this particular aspect of the game is imo sub-par, compared to the otherwise sterling standard set by Civ4.
Comment