The Decline of Islam

[Dis]

yeah, it would give me more incentive to build temples. I admit, this is a weak part of my game. I never seem to have time to build temples until later.

And it makes sense. If the people have no temple to go to, surely they'd lose interest in the religion or move away.

[LzPrst]

also, having more than one religion in a city should cause trouble. and they should attempt to outcompete eachother. most cities shouldnt have more than 2-3 religions. at least until the development of liberalism or whatever.

make the zealots fight. make early religions more regional, make newer more aggressive.

[SirIlya]

Originally posted by LzPrst
also, having more than one religion in a city should cause trouble. and they should attempt to outcompete eachother. most cities shouldnt have more than 2-3 religions. at least until the development of liberalism or whatever.

make the zealots fight. make early religions more regional, make newer more aggressive.

Perhaps the answer is to have each city have the chance to have a *dominant* religion by having, say, 55% or more of the population converted.

Then the happiness bonuses could be increased if the state religion and the city's dominant religion were the same but decreased if they differed. Cities where no single religion dominated would be treated as they are today.

This could play in diplomatically as well. You could increase the "under the sway" penalty if you ran a state religion counter to them and also had a city dominated by their state religion.

[TheArsenal]

Have a look at this craziness. Two religions with zero spread and in a Barb conquered city, and one religion with a one percent spread. Islam, however, is doing just fine.

Edit: screen shot taken in 1862 on Marathon, huge map.

[MikeH]

I think it'd be nice if new religions could spread randomly to cities that already have different established religions. But the current system works fine from a gaming point of view.

If you only found a late religion you know it's not going to spread randomly so you have to put your energies into missionaries, so it's another strategic choice to think about. Personally I like to let somene else spread the religion, build the holy building and then just capture the holy city from them.

[LzPrst]

MikeH the wicked

or do like I did in my current huge map game. get one religion spread it everywhere (I have 4 cities on a huge map and have the top score, on monarch) and then go all out culture, 100%, I am now taking over resources, land and cities from my neighbours. they are chanceless against my cultural superiority and they dont want to declare war on me cause they love me so much

ahahahahaaaa!!! soon the taoist holy city will fall to my cultural expansions. and then I just might burn it

[MikeH]

Only 4 cities? Doesn't that mean you can't build Oxford University or Wall Street? And you can only build 1 Cathedral equivalent per 3 temples?

So, I'd keep the taoist holy city and go for 6 cities. Or preferably 9 so you can get Cathedrals +50% culture in all your three cultural victory cities for every religion you can find

[Blaupanzer]

4 cities? Must be pretty boring most of the turns.

[LDiCesare]

One reason why Islamoften does badly is there is zero incentive for the player to go after it: Either you founded another religion or you capture a holy city. Both are more efficient than researching Divine Right, which is the worst tech in the game: It offers you:
- a chance to found Islam (not sure)
- a chance to build the Spiral Minaret (not sure)
- a chance to build Versailles (not sure).
And nothing else, so it's always a gambit to research it, knowing that it's very expensive and you're probably not going to need any of its benefits. So players won't go after Divine Right most of the time, which means only ai's will go after this tech, and they probably already founded a religion or got a state religion at this stage.

[dregor]

Versaille and Spiral Minaret are two very nice wonders..

[MasterDave]

Another idea I have not seen here: Sliding scale Missionary costs. Buddhist and Hindu Missionaries cost the most (say 60 hammers), Jewish Missionaries slightly less (55), Christian and Confuscian Missionaries would be 45, Taoists 35, and Muslims 30. If you could pump out missionaries at half the cost, perhaps there would be more incentive to adopt and spread Islam.

My favorite idea here is still to randomize religion's founding though. It is a way to add variety to games without changing any core game mechanics (which can have unintended results).

[Will9]

I think you should chose the name and the symbol of the religion whenever you get a religion founding tech. That way I could always found Christianity. AIs would always use the names of real religions and its matching symbol. Like the Missionary idea, but I prefer the idea where you begin with more on later religions.



500 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USA!

[AmericanCitizen]

In my games, Islam usually becomes a significant power. The only religions that really tend to be bad in my games are Taoism and Christianity - they get founded early, but it's usually pre-contact and by the time the others have been founded, they've spread.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by TheArsenal
Have a look at this craziness. Two religions with zero spread and in a Barb conquered city, and one religion with a one percent spread. Islam, however, is doing just fine.

Edit: screen shot taken in 1862 on Marathon, huge map.

Tell me are the Islamic Americains fighting the infidel Jewish Arabs and their Indian allies?

By the way I've newer seen confucianism get zero before and islam getting more than 10% in any of my games.

[Solver]

Interesting screenshot there. In my games, I usually have two major religious blocs - one being Buddhist or Hindu, the other being Confucian. I have only once had Taoism be an important religion in my game - and it took me over a year of playing. And I've certainly never seen Hinduism be that unpopular.