Islam is represented in Civ, sort of...

[Dugrik]

Islam is a religion -- not a race, state, or civilization. It is represented by the Monotheism advance.

Someone suggested that an Atheism or Humanism advance should negate religious city improvements, but cause scientific improvements to increase happiness. This person must have been the biggest nerd in high school. Lisa Simpson would be proud.

As the influence of religious institutions have decreased, the responsibility for putting joy in our miserable little lives has been picked up by the entertainment industry. Entertainment is marginally represented by Entertainer specialist as well as Shakespeare's Theatre and J.S. Bach's Cathedral (primarily representing the influence of music).

If one insisted on implementing a Humanism advance, perhaps a local theatre or a television station could be added as a city improvement.

[gsmoove23]

I'm an atheist and I can't understand the idea of an atheism "advance". How many technological advances were made by people who were deeply religious or even just believed in God. Quite a lot. In fact I don't think the world has come to this advance yet since I believe more then 90% of the world pop believes in a God of some sort. Perhaps secularism would be more apropriate. The separation of religion from political and scientific pursuits. This certainly is a step forward for both science and religion.

[Beren]

Everything you build is government supported. I think you have to look at it this way. If you don't build a church, it doesn't mean it is not there, but it is not state supported, which could mean people are charged to go to church in some way (or pay volunteerly). Of course you don't recieve the benefits from the private church. The hapiness provided by the church should only refer to their attitude towards the leadership of the country, not to their actual daily feelings in life.

My point: secularism would not eradicate or diminish the church benefits, because people stop believing (let's say there are always people (some nut cases) who continue believing), but because people think the government shouldn't be doing those kind of things.

[gsmoove23]

Secularism doesn't necessarily mean you don't have state supported churches, for instance the Anglican church in England is still the official state religion, it simply means the changing of the roles of the church. Loosening the ties between political leadership and religious leadership and scientific thought and religious thought. In other words, nobody gets burned at the stake, hopefully.

This could mean a loss in the effectiveness of religious improvements, because church leaders might not always support your actions, they no longer have to, but a big gain in science because it is no longer constrained by theology, for the most part(opposition to gene therapy research being excepted).

[Beren]

Okay, I agree with most what you say gsmoove23.
The religious practice is no longer state supported, but the religious buildings are.

Why do people become happy from churches? Because they see that their emperor/king/consul/president/comrade does such wonderfull things for them. Would they still be happy if the government only supports the building? I don't know, maybe.

But you have an interesting point, gsmoove23. Loosening ties indeed means that religious leaders don't always agree with you and could even start a revolt. One church stabalizes the country, secularism doesn't.
So secularism destabalizes the country, reduces happiness.
No secularism will (eventually) mean less science. (Don't get me wrong: religion and science could go hand in hand for a long time, but from the evolution theory on it has become a more difficult story.)

[Heresson]

Even turkish is very similar to Arabic.

You must be kidding....
I learn both languages...
But yes, there are many common words.

[gsmoove23]

Secularism I think would come about when there is another stabilizing force to compensate for the loss of churches, like prosperity. The rise of a strong middle class. In my civs there usually is a point where I have enough luxuries and wealth that I don't have to worry about churches and I only end up building them for the culture. Of course, I usually only play at Monarch.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Dugrik
As the influence of religious institutions have decreased, the responsibility for putting joy in our miserable little lives has been picked up by the entertainment industry. Entertainment is marginally represented by Entertainer specialist as well as Shakespeare's Theatre and J.S. Bach's Cathedral (primarily representing the influence of music).

Not to mention the Coliseums.

If one insisted on implementing a Humanism advance, perhaps a local theatre or a television station could be added as a city improvement.

If you view the objects being built as flexible abstractions, those would be precisely what a Temple and Colisseum would be in Modern times.

[Bos]

Originally posted by dervish
Ancient Egyptians were polytheists to be politically correct and pagans to be unpolitically non-correct.

I just read a few of the first posts, so down here at the bottom of this page this might seem a little off-topic.

I just wanted to point out that Egypt also had a period where monotheism was attempted, making it the first culture to implement monotheism on a scale larger than a small tribe. This occurred with the father of the well-known King Tutankamen, the Pharoah Akhenaten (or Ikhnaton). He relocated the capital of Egypt and changed the official religion, but it was not heavily embraced by the populace. As a result, during Tutankamen's rule, Egypt returned to the polytheistic faith.

Just felt like pointing that out!

[bobbo008]

"Arabs to be in Civ is up there with the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians."

I don't see how India fits in with those three... (the three "nations" that have done the most for the culture and development of the human race)

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"Arabs to be in Civ is up there with the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians."

I don't see how India fits in with those three... (the three "nations" that have done the most for the culture and development of the human race)

Why not? India gave us the zero, and the Taj Mahal, and Buddhism.

And one major point:

Monotheism is not a scientific advancement. Not many of the advances are scientific. If anything, "mysticism", "music theory", and "nationalism" are cultural phenomena.

The science tree should be pruned and repruned until it contains just what it says: science. Everything else belongs elsewhere. We can have a separate religious model:

1) Around the middle of the Ancient Age, random prophets begin to appear in your cities, sowing the first seeds of organised religion. You'll find budding cults in all of your major and minor cities; and your citizens will begin to get converted. A small symbol will appear below each citizen to indicate his/her religion. Unconverted citizens are marked as "animist".

2) At this point, you may go to one of your advisors and set your stance on any of the religions, ranging from "State Support" to "Oppressive Prosecution". Your stance will affect the spreading rate of the religion in your state. Incidentally, it will also affect the hostility/friendliness of the religion to YOU, reflected in adjustments in happiness levels.

3) The catch is, if your state supports a certain religion, then any country that oppresses this religion will automatically have a worse relationship with you. On the other hand, you receive a diplomatic bonus with any state that supports the same religion as you; but incur diplomatic penalties if you betray them.

4) Religions will continue to emerge through the industrial age. They will find it increasingly difficult to survive as each state helps to spread its own favoured beliefs. Atheism emerges slowly as a religion like all others, through the middle of the Industrial Age.

5) A Despotism cannot support/oppose religions. A Monarchy can support only one religion at a time with all others set to Neutral or worse. A Theocracy receives combat bonuses against "heathen" nations (not sharing the same religion) but must set all religions except one to "Oppression". An Empire can tolerate multiple religions at a level that is one notch below state support. A Communism must support "Atheism" and set other religions to "Neutral" or worse. Republics have freedom in their stances. Democracies must set all religions to Neutral or better, and show more support for the majority religion of the people.

6) Finally, your temples/cathedrals etc will ONLY make the citizens of the appropriate religion content/happy. You can, for a small building cost, convert places of worship (a la Hagia Sophia). Initial animists (before the appearance of prophets) are appeased by generic "temples". Atheists can only be appeased by scientific and militaristic achievements.

Phew.... there you go. A religion model. Comments?

[Bos]

Great idea for a religion model, and I remember thinking the same thing about the "science" tree back when the first Civ came out; but for sake of simplicty I just ignored the blending of culture and science.

For the most part, I think your idea regarding working religion into the game is a great idea. While I cannot recall the exact details and have not checked the developers boards for quite some time, I remember thinking that the setups for the upcoming Master of Orion III had an interesting way of working various aspects of culture into the game. I believe your ideas are along the same lines as in MOO3, but again I forget what exactly their setup was.

The only thing I can think up for your idea is how various religions (or lack thereof) have often been around for a long time; but in various regions of the world they have come to be prominent at certain times. Atheism, Monotheism, and Polytheism have all existed as long as Humans have. Ancient Humans all had the same capacity of thought as we do today, and thus their thinking was nearly the same. Some cultures believed many gods controlled the world, with one god controlling each aspect of the world around them. Other cultures believed there was one god ruling all; or perhaps one god with sub-gods also ruling. There were also cultures that believed the world came as is: things just happened and there was no divine role to exist.

Such beliefs have always existed, and Civilization is not a game to teach Earth's history; it is a game to recreate your own: perhaps Moses, Muhammed, Christ, or Buddha never travelled the planet -- meaning the majority of modern religions would not exist. As such, it should definitely be a part of the Editor where you would be able to rename religions as well as add/delete them.

In my opinion, all religions should be available at the beginning of the game. However, there should be multiple routes for "scientific research" to take. You could take the route of science: as you reach the modern era, physical laws explain the universe and thus turn people toward more Atheist and scientific creeds such as Scientology. Or you could instead focus on cultural developments that would expand upon the influence of religions (this does not include Atheism).

Again, however, when religions become available should also be changeable via the Editor. I just believe that by default all religions should be available at the beginning of the game. For example, religions that worships the nuclear bomb or computers would not be around until such technology as been developed.

Religions have guided Human history for our entire existence. It is the single most dominant force within Human culture, and as such it should have a powerful effect within the game (as it currently does not have many effects outsides of happiness).

With major religions, however, Civilization would have to be cautious with assigning traits so as to remain politically correct. More cult-ish religions, however, such as a nuke-worshipping cult, could be easily stereotyped and assigned traits that reflect the creed as well as give a computer AI that might use nukes often and produce them in mass-quantity, as well as attempt to control all uranium deposits in the world. Once again, these traits and AI should definitely be editable, so that you can edit major religions to your stereotypical desires

All in all, I like the whole culture/religion idea; and with some tweaking here in there I would definitely like to see it in the next edition of Civ! ...So long as they work out bugs with changing stuff in the Editor

[ranskaldan]

Well, the civilizations themselves are existing ones, and their traits are stereotypical. While I don't agree with the concept of predetermined traits for each civilization, I do think that using real names adds to the atmosphere. Just as you play THE Genghis Khan of the Mongols, your empires and your neighbours are visited by THE Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, sowing the seeds of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. It all builds to the narrative of Civilization.

Finally, as for traits, I think that civilization traits should be chosen by the player according to the real needs of that particular civilization on that particular map. This is a much more realistic model for how civilizations really work (close to the sea? Go maritime! Much fertile land? Go agricultural!) and also avoids stereotypes, since traits for each civilization varies from game to game.

As for traits for religions, all religions are ultimately used by leaders to inflame their people. I don't really believe that any religion can have specific "traits" - Islam, after all, has been, at various points, militaristic, expansionist, cosmopolitan, tolerant, worldly, wealthy, imperial, poor, fundamentalist, secular, extremist, and even, in some cases, a terrorist motivation. As a leader in Civilization 4, you should be able to similarly bend a religion to your needs. A rich empire makes its religion into a televangelizing, charity organization; a poor nation makes its religion into a terrorist cult. That's how I think traits should work for religions - depending entirely on the actions of the leaders who choose to use them as instruments in their own ambitions.

[Heresson]

Oh, just one note; the ones that translated ancient texts to Arabic were not Muslim. Also, in the times when Muslim states were flourishing, mosts of their inhabitants were still Christian. Just a note.

[ranskaldan]

Yes.

During that time, most of the states that were Christian, top-down, were also very underdeveloped, disorganized, and poor. Especially the ones closer to the west.

Just a note.
Now... go back to the topic.