Change the Religion Dynamics

[TriMiro]

I know religion is a sensitive subject for many people, however, I do not like the way religion works in the game. A city has been practicing religion A for many centuries, then suddenly a single missionary comes and successfully converts all half the population to religion B and then you get the war against brothers in faith unhappiness. Someone wants to win an AP victory and you don't have enough votes to vote against that. Except for those issues, the religion is made way too positive. More religion always equals more bonuses in terms of both culture and happiness, that is unreasonable. If we look at history, pretty much every time there were too many people of different religions on the same spot, problems started.

Religion in a city should work in way similar to the culture ans the bar showing the proportions of different nations living in the city. A city with no religion would be considered 100% pagan, then when the first missionary comes the city would be converted to a large percent of that religion and over the next couple of turns, it would become 100% religion A. Then another missionary comes form religion B, that missionary would not convert half the population, but only say 10%. Then the city would be 90% A and 10% B. The ratio should be preserved as time goes on, however, it could be modified by buildings. If there is a temple and cathedral for religion A, then over time more people would shift towards that religion. There could be "we demand a temple of our own religion" unhappiness, if religion B reaches high enough proportion.

All bonuses from temples and Organized Religion should be scaled accordingly. If only 10% of the people in the city are form religion B, then a temple and cathedral would only make those 10% happy (i.e. the temple and cathedral would be only 10% efficient).

Defying AP resolution would cause unhappiness accordingly. You would not +5 unhappy, if only 10% of the people are from the AP religion.

The initial 10% bonus to religion could be modified by religious wonders and/or civics. Holy City Shrine for example would make all the missionaries more effective. Also Spiral Minaret, University of Sankor, the AP and so on.

AP should not vote for religious victory when all the nations have the AP religion. AP should vote for religious victory only when the AP religion is the dominant religion, i.e. 70% of the world population, similar to the domination victory.

Foreign influence on religion should be increased. If 40% of the people are from religion A, you are running religion B and there is a Theocratic religion A state near by, then those 40% of people should become unhappy (we wish to join our brothers and sisters in faith, and not live among non-believers).

If all the nations with religion A as state religion are running certain civic, then people from religion A would demand that civic (think socialist/catholic Poland and the Pope during the Cold War). We demand Free Market economy.

Depending on how people play the game, two religions could become enemy religions. If two nations fight over a period of time, and they have different religions, then a factor similar to war awareness should accumulate. That could be modified, by how many nations share those religions and are at peace. People from enemy religions would not like it if they were living together.

Free Religion would decrease some of the negative effects, but would not remove them. After certain tech (Sci Method, Liberalism or something) a new group of people would appear: Atheists. People that simply don't care enough about religion to cause trouble. The percentage of Atheists would be unaffected by any and all religious modifiers. There could be new civic, State Enforced Atheism. SEA would increase the proportion of Atheists, but it would cause unhappiness among all religious people. Over time the bad effects of religion could be completely negated by SEA.

That would leave open the possibility for religious oppression. Religious oppressions would be a way to decrease the percentage of people from non-state religions. RO would be a way to fight foreign religious influence in the middle ages, i.e. create "holy inquisition" and use inquisitors to cleanse the world from the infidels.

There are many other possibilities. I do not know if this could be moded for civ 4 (it probably could), however, it is something to consider for civ 5. What do you guys think?

[Heraclitus]

An unreleased early build of Civ4 had religions in cities in the same way it has ethnicites. I don't know why they changed that.

[davypi]

Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by TriMiro
A city has been practicing religion A for many centuries, then suddenly a single missionary comes and successfully converts all half the population to religion B and then you get the war against brothers in faith unhappiness. Someone wants to win an AP victory and you don't have enough votes to vote against that. Except for those issues, the religion is made way too positive. More religion always equals more bonuses in terms of both culture and happiness, that is unreasonable. If we look at history, pretty much every time there were too many people of different religions on the same spot, problems started.

I would have to disagree with you on this and you're about to get a laundry list of counterexamples thrown in your face.

If you look at the development of religion in ancient Egypt, each city was originally monotheistic. As cities formed alliances with each other (or were conquered), religions were "merged" together. Each city was allowed to retain their original God as their patron god (i.e. main god of worship) but they were also introduced to the ideas of the neighbor's gods. Because each city saw their god "needed" their god to do different things for them, what eventually developed was a system where you prayed to a different God depending on what you wanted. When you planted your crops, you prayed to Hapi for a good yeild, but when somebody died you prayed to Thoth that he let them into the afterlife. So basically many different religions in the same spot developed into a "super religion", not a conflict as you claim above. The same thing can more or less be said of the Greek pantheon - it is an amalgamation of smaller religions that was put together by a larger empire.

But wait! There's more! Roman mythology is more or less a copy of the Greek mythology, the names have just been changed to protect the innocent. So working in the complete opposite direction of your claim, we have a case where conflict led to the growth of the religion practiced by the losing side. The same thing happens again when Rome conquers Egypt -- Isis was just so cool that the Romans had to have her too. Temples devoted to her have been found on the northern coast of Germany and as far West as Spain.

But here we are focusing too much on western history. The idea the religion generates conflict no doubt comes from commonly known conflcits such as the Crusades and Islamic Jihads. However, in the east, things did not operate the same way. Taoism and Confusianism were developed around the same time - Loazi is beleived to be the teach of Confucius. Yet both religions were allowed to spread freely throughout Asia. Buddhism similarly enjoyed a certain amout of freedom in its ability to spread across the contient. Certainly there was an amount of friction between their respective beleivers, but I have never heard of an instance where a war was started over by any of these three religions. In fact, at one point you see the emergence of Neo-Confucianism which tried to unite the religions - quite the opposite of "creating problems." Conflicts in Asia almost always come back to arguments over land/resources or differences in culture.

Religion in a city should work in way similar to the culture.

I think the problem here is how do you properly scale the effects of a temple? Lets say I have a size 30 city with 90% religion A and 10% Religion B. Under current mechanics Temple A is one happy and Temple B is another happy, making two happies. How much is Temple B worth in your system? You don't want to say its worth 10% of the population because now your giving me three happies for pleasing the minority, not to mention that giving me a whopping 27 happies for building Temple A completely offsets the balance of the game. Also, what you have done is you have made the happy value of building change from a fixed value to a variable value dependent upon population, but you have to remember that religion isn't the only source of happies in the game. If we use a scaling system like the one you propose, how many happies is a Colloseum worth relative to temple? Why should the happy value of a temple change with the population but not for a broadcast tower? (I mean, really, how many people don't watch TV or listen to the radio?) How do you value the happies from spices or gems relative to a temple? I would agree that the system you propose is more relevant to real world mechanics, but would require a severe overhaul to game play mechanics.

It also introduces a new gameplay strategy - sabotage by religion. If I send a missionary into a foreign city that is 100% Religion A, I've suddenly reduced the happiness value of Temple A in that city. So again, is this realistic - to certain degree yes. Would it make the game more fun? I tend to think not.

[Supr49er]

Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by davypi


I would have to disagree with you on this and you're about to get a laundry list of counterexamples thrown in your face ...

In the nicest possible way, of course.

[Heraclitus]

Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by davypi

If you look at the development of religion in ancient Egypt, each city was originally monotheistic.

Bzzz, wrong. They were Henotheistic at that point.

[Heraclitus]

Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by davypi
The same thing can more or less be said of the Greek pantheon - it is an amalgamation of smaller religions that was put together by a larger empire.

Ok, which larger empire are you refering to? The Greek pantheon was well formed by the time of Alexander (and even he didn't control all the Greek states).

There was no such thing as a proper Greek emprie untill much much later when Christianity had become dominant.

[Heraclitus]

Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by davypi

But here we are focusing too much on western history. The idea the religion generates conflict no doubt comes from commonly known conflcits such as the Crusades and Islamic Jihads. However, in the east, things did not operate the same way. Taoism and Confusianism were developed around the same time - Loazi is beleived to be the teach of Confucius. Yet both religions were allowed to spread freely throughout Asia. Buddhism similarly enjoyed a certain amout of freedom in its ability to spread across the contient. Certainly there was an amount of friction between their respective beleivers, but I have never heard of an instance where a war was started over by any of these three religions. In fact, at one point you see the emergence of Neo-Confucianism which tried to unite the religions - quite the opposite of "creating problems." Conflicts in Asia almost always come back to arguments over land/resources or differences in culture.

You are ignoring the fact that there was friction. Not all religions were accepted and some were downright suppresed. Book burnings, discrimination and rebelions in connection to religion all have their place in "the East" (which is a silly construct in any case).

[davypi]

Re: Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Bzzz, wrong. They were Henotheistic at that point.

Granted, but I think you're splitting hairs over something that doesn't change the essence of my arguement.

Originally posted by Heraclitus Ok, which larger empire are you refering to? The Greek pantheon was well formed by the time of Alexander

Again, I think you're quibbling over details that don't really undermine the overall point. The body of work that we now refer to as The Greek Myths comes from Minoan, Mycanean, and Trojan influences. Personally, I couldn't point to a specific point in time and say when the Greek panetheon became a cohesive whole, but again the overriding point is that the intermixing of different religious beleifs led to a larger religion rather than leading to conflict. It was land, power, and resources that motivated those who conquered; it wasn't ever an issue of "my God is better than your God."

Originally posted by Heraclitus You are ignoring the fact that there was friction. Not all religions were accepted and some were downright suppresed. Book burnings, discrimination and rebelions in connection to religion all have their place in "the East"

I have not heard of such conflicts, but I will admit that my knowledge of Asian history is quite lacking. I do know that the Qin Dynasty heavily suppressed Confusianism, but in that instance we are talking about a case of the state suppressing a beleif system in order to maintain control, which is not the same thing as one religion trying to suppress the other. Granted Buddhism, Taoism, and Confisiansim didn't live in blissful harmony, but I'm not aware of any instances in where one of them actively campaigned to destroy the other.

[davypi]

Re: Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by Supr49er

In the nicest possible way, of course.

Certainly, yes. You have my apologizes for making it sound antagonistic.

[Heraclitus]

You are leaving out Shinto.

If not anything else the second Sino-Japanese War was considered a holy war by the Japanese.

Originally posted by davypi

I have not heard of such conflicts, but I will admit that my knowledge of Asian history is quite lacking. I do know that the Qin Dynasty heavily suppressed Confusianism, but in that instance we are talking about a case of the state suppressing a beleif system in order to maintain control, which is not the same thing as one religion trying to suppress the other. Granted Buddhism, Taoism, and Confisiansim didn't live in blissful harmony, but I'm not aware of any instances in where one of them actively campaigned to destroy the other.

I hate to point something so obvious out, but the state always suppresed minor religions to maintain control. This can be said of religius conflicts as well since even the Crusades or the Jihads were started for very secular reasons, with religion just providing a casus beli.


Also a example of persecution was Tokugawa Ieyasu's outlawing of Chatolicism in Japan.

[Supr49er]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chnage the Religion Dynamics

Originally posted by davypi


Certainly, yes. You have my apologizes for making it sound antagonistic.

No need for apologies, I knew exactly what you meant.

[davypi]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I hate to point something so obvious out, but the state always suppresed minor religions to maintain control. This can be said of religius conflicts as well since even the Crusades or the Jihads were started for very earthy reasons, wit religion just providing a casus beli.

Regarding the state suppresion issues, yes, history is rife with examples of this, but there are also times in history where religion controlled the state. So you then get into the messy question is the state suppressing religion (like Russia under communism) or is one religion suppressing the other via the state (Like the Catholic church did in Europe during the middle ages)?

As for religious conflicts, my understanding of the Crusades was that it was, in fact, a religious war. The Christians wanted to reclaim Jerusalem as their own because it was considered the holy land. I am unaware of any direct economic benefit (ie land/resources) that the church would have gained by capturing Jerusalem. It seemed like something that was done purely for the prestige of the church. If there is another theory about an underlying motive, I would certainly be glad to heard it.

Admittedly, it has been a long time since I have read any of the holy books so I can't cite passages, but there are lines in both the Quran and the Old Testament provide for the extermination of those who follow other religions. I'm certainly not going to say that every war was started for ideological reasons - as you've correctly pointed out, there is usually an underlying secular motive. Nonetheless, I tend to think it incredulous that some fanatical leader hasn't managed to get a war started purely for the sake of religious purification.

But getting back to what was supposed to be the point of this thread, if you want a more realistic mechanic for religion, how do you reflect all of this in the game? If my state religion is A, why should I even be obligated to build a temple for religion B. If I have free religion, shouldn't the people be spontaneously building temples so I don't have to? Would the game fun if the religious leader of my state religion forced me to start a crusade? (Probably not.) Culture and Religion and Nationality have a way intertwining and reacting in ways that are just plain nasty from a logistics point of view. Maybe there is a better way to simulate it, but in terms of keeping the game simple and fun, I think the Firaxis team did a good job.

[Vampgelus]

I'd like to have an option to play a game without religions sometimes because some games are far too influenced by religion (especially with AP and spiritual leaders).

Anyway, regarding the topic, i'd just like to have an inquisitor unit that can remove a religion from a city, even with heavy consequences on short term. The gods of the old mod may be a god start to get inspired.

[TriMiro]

In the system that I propose, not all religions would necessarily shun each other. Two religions would become enemies if they fight a war for period of time (similar to war awareness). Arabia and the Byzantine Empire fought many war for purely economical influence over the middle east, and one can argue that it spread as "hatred" among Christians and Muslims. In east Asia, they never fought each other to accumulate enough awareness.

Early Egyptian religion was a pagan religion, which in the game is not considered a religion at all. One can also argue that the unification of all the different deities was simply the process of creating a religion.

The issue of balancing how much happiness should a coliseum give vs how much happiness a temple gives is already in the game. I just think that religion is "too good", meaning that the more you have the better off you are. There should be some penalty for having too much religions and running the risk of at least some of the negative effects the religions occur.

The demand for we want temple of our own religion, would not occur at 10%, but at say 40%. That means that someone has been working hard to spread that religion to your city.

I know that what I am proposing opens an entire universe of problems, but it also opens the game to more possibilities and more strategic choices.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
I'd like to have an option to play a game without religions sometimes because some games are far too influenced by religion (especially with AP and spiritual leaders).

Go into worldbuilder and create a barbarian city. Edit that city so it is the holy city for every religion. Next, delete the city, exit world builder and begin playing.