Some religions founded too late?

[wodan11]

Good point, el hefe. In my current game, there are 3 main land masses. In one, I started 3 religions and assimilated my only neighbor. In the bigger continent, they split 3 other religions with 2 of them divided equally among 3 civs each, and one oddball 7th civ having the 3rd religion. In the last continent, they had nada until I got Astronomy. Only Ashoka and Isabella there. Before I could blink Ashoka had Taoism in all his cities (he probably had just one city that got it first, and then he spread it the rest of the way himself), and Izzy had Judaism in all her cities (same deal). Literally, it was a bare couple of turns. They must have both whipped a monastery and missionaries.

The 7th religion (for those who were counting) was founded by Izzy after all the madness. Pretty much a non-factor.

Wodan

[LDiCesare]

latter three religions; delayed contact.

The only times where you will see the first three religions

Mmmm. We're talking of the 4 first vs 3 last I believe?

I don't play Pangaea. Most of the times, if a continent doesn't grab any early religion, it won't grab the later ones because the unhappiness will make it less productive than the other continents. These other continents already had a tech lead to found the religions first, so usually the problem remains later in the game. The result is Islam is mostly a minor religion in almost every game because it is founded last, even on maps with lots of water and landmasses.

[joncnunn]

I agree with the proposal that Islam get a Free Shrine in addition to the free Missonary.

[VonSharma]

The later religions should get extra missionaries. They should also be able to produce holy warriors/crusaders. Islam spread by the sword over areas of established religions. Christianity spread in the new world by the sword as well and inquisitions to eliminate other religions in its own backyard (something that could add a lot of fun to Civ... starting religious wars by persecuting minority religions in your civ)
This might be to controversial but this is how history unfolded. Seems like it could be a crapload of fun as well.

[Unimatrix11]

Religion got introduced into civ not before civ IV - so it is only normal and no shame at all that one should admit, that it´s model could use some refinement.

One example: I have introduced Civ IV to two of my friends, both not historians, but i guess i could say, well educated and with a realistic view on things. And they both shared my initial astonishment upon realizing, that in Civ IV it is beneficial to have multiple religions spread within your empire. Thats certainly a point which would startle a lot of northern indians or irish people as well. Or Germans ("Holy roman empirians") of the 15th to 17th century for that matter. Under certain civics, like free religion, that might make sense - but under theocracy ? Multiple religions should not only be useless, but damaging under that civic IMHO - yes, i would even condone (is that a / the right word ?) complete split offs of cities with the "wrong" religion in that case. Religious wars are not exclusevely a matter between different civilizations/nations, but religious diversity within one empire can, and does, and did, spark a lot of internal tension and unrest. Some game mechanics should reflect that, at least under certain civics and then elimination of certain religions inside your borders would make sense, too.

Another idea i am just having now, is about culture. It should not only be tied to a nation, but also partial at least to religion. Religion in a way "colors" a civilization´s culture. Should be the same in civ. So each city should produce culture with a color reflecting what generates it (the faith of the temples and such, or just libraries / uni). For example: non-relious buildings could brighten up the culture-color, while each religion has a color attached to it, that "paints" the culture of any given city. If islam is green, and i have a city with a library, a uni and a muslim temple and monastary, then the resulting culture-color would be a bright green. No libraries / uni -> dark green, no muslim buildings -> white. Now when a city is conquered it´s culture color would be compared to the conqueror´s empire´s overall culture color (or the one of it´s closest city maybe) and based on that would be the duration of revolt and it´s likelihood to flip back to the original owner later on. I think this would also had flavor to the game, has the "bright greens" would hate the "dark reds" for example (each of which could be represented by more than just one civ, obviously)...

[Unimatrix11]

WOW - even better, but somewhat ambitious and not so much for gameplay, but just atmosphere: based on what generates the empire´s culture and any given time, a tone (sound) could be generated every, say, 50 turns the sequence of which would add up over time to something like a national "anthem"...

EDIT: Try to make it the "imperial march" from Star Wars for example

[jnh140]

When I play through the game, once I found a religion I spread it relentlessly to the other cities. The same way that emancipation causes unhappiness to people those without the civic, religion should foment unhappiness as well. Personally, I would like to have the capacity to ethnically cleanse cities of rival religions to starve their holy-city shrine and remove aforementioned unhappiness, but this would be completely innapropriate in a mainstream and very popular game like civilization.

Of course, I suppose the ability does exist. Its called 'razing'

Changing your empire's religion should also be a much more serious matter than a turn or two of anarchy; especially in the late game.

Have you SEEN the news lately? Theres folks out there who freak out if they have to see a manorah hung in their local temple (wal-mart)

[realpolitic]

Islam started almost a millenium before Divine Right became big: Wikipedia says

Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the early Stuart reigns in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I and Charles I and II. The English textbooks of the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98

"Divine Right of Kings" IMHO is a reaction to the "Question Authority" ideas of the Protestant Reformation, an attempt by kings, and believers in aristocracy to create a philosophy that keeps power in the hands of the king.

A Moslem friend told me that followers believe that they are fairly rigidly sticking to the ideas of Mohammad, that they needed a fatwah to bow into a mat instead of the hot desert sand when praying. I don't think Moslems believe a king can say anything he wants, those who do believe they are following the Caiphate.

IMHO, Louis XIV "I am the state", if it's a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, belongs after Printing Press.

Islam means "obdience to God", and rituals like flagellation remind me of the stories of the Christian martyrs being thrown to the lions rather than renounce their beliefs, and therefore belong after Christianity.