religion characteristics

[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?