RELIGION (ver2.0) Hosted by Stefu

[Stefu]

Annonuncement! NotLikeTea shall take my place as thread master of this thread July 1th-July 10th. I'm going to confiramtion camp. Obey NLT in all his commands.

[Monk]

I'd just like to mention that the idea of a technology "Polytheism" or "Religion" is crap - religion has always existed.

<font size=1 color="hotpink>[This message has been edited by Monk (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

[Alexander's Horse]

How do you work in the "protestant work ethic"? Many historians claim this was one of the spurs of the industrial revolution, made America great etc. Is this religion or something else?

"The catholics sleep well. The protestants eat well." old saying

[Theben]

Monk,
I agree with that (not taking it personal are you? ), but what would you replace it with? It more or less works.

Alex's horse,
Maybe a "special project". I'm sure no one would find a problem with that, right?

[Alexander's Horse]

Maybe you could build Calvin as a wonder, Don't ask me how! or Martin Luther's 99 (?) theses. Should aid productivity, give a science bonus, maybe like Darwin's voyage....tricky - controversial.

And what about confucionism? Its claimed to have had similar beneficial effects (though not in industry - actually counterproductive in this area according to some historians because of its emphasis on order and tradition - more beneficial in government, administration and societal cohesion). Another wonder I wonder? Or a tech....You could build "The Analects of Confucious" as a wonder or research them as a tech.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 28, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

AlexH,
Actually I'm joking. I'd be a bad idea, considering all the flak I got for trying to have religious effects. But also because it's really not unique. In the early 15th century China had a powerful trading fleet that went from Korea to New Guinea to South Africa- and possibly to Australia and the west coast of America (in the last case it was assuredly a one-way voyage). China could have been the industrial giant of the world had they not been so against their merchant class- the new emperor in 1433 reigned them in, and lost their fleet. Read "When China Ruled the Seas", by Louise Levathes.

[Theben]

This ties in to some of the above suggestions. It's also been posted at RADICAL IDEAS so you may have read it:

Your people all start out as a homogeneous cultural group. There are several "diplomatic" categories: You(the ruling class) vs. other rulers, your people vs. other rulers, your people vs. you, your people vs. other peoples, their people vs. their rulers, & their people vs. you; also a religion vs. religion scale. Generally each category is on a sliding scale from, say, 1-10, 1 being insanely hateful while 10 is harmonious bliss. At 1st contact these will generally fall into the 6-7 range. Markers include daggers, bloody daggers(to represent atrocities), doves, and doves with an olive branch(represents generous gifts). These last few will affect relations far into the future, otherwise the scale tips for standard actions(wars, treaties, trade, etc.) on a turn by turn basis. Things that affect one group(their people) will not affect others(rulers) quite the same; ex. genocide rarely affects the ruling class, so although the people will be very angry with you, the rulers will not be as angry; a gift of food or medicine(tech?) will please the population more while a gift of money will more likely please the ruler.
Societies cease being homogeneous over time w/o govt. intervention. Conquest & trade are the quickest methods; warfare w/o conquest, connection by roads between peaceful empires, types of terrain between cities, etc. also affect the rate. Conquered cities are assumed to have their old culture. Whenever a city grows by a population point (assuming civ3 will be using citizens like civ1&2 in that the size of the city=# of "people") a formula will be needed to determine what the new pop's culture will be based on the above factors, plus how well the populations get along(a pop will rarely migrate to a land where they are not welcome!). The new pop will then assume all of the diplomatic categories of that culture. Governments can limit the flow of people to their lands and of their people to other lands; there should be some kind of penalty for this(perhaps a minor trade reduction?). Mixed pops may cause additional unrest in a city if the pops do not get along.
Differences in religion will be handled separately. Religion will function mainly as to how you will handle certain situations, and will be chosen by you when the pre-requisite tech is discovered(polytheism, monotheism in civII). For instance, you're a christian leader of the christian Franks. Burning a christian city of the Germans to the ground will not only upset the Germans, but every other christian leader and population, including yours. Now if you burn another city down that is pagan, muslim, etc., your people will not be as upset and if it is considered a 'hateful' culture by ANYone then it may even grant a bonus in relations to that group(with exception of a modern democratic society). In the case of a mixed city you could leave certain pops alive. Depending on how this is set up, I envision either (a) button(s) to push in the city screen or a command given to army groups to cause actions like SMAC. Some possible actions:
Forced conversions/cultural- Removes possible unrest due to differing cultures. Diplomatic penalties with other civs people, possibly minor penalty with rulers.

Forced conversion/religious- Removes possible unrest due to differing religions.
Diplomatic penalty with all civs with that religion & their rulers.

genocide- Kills off citizens of the city. Can be tailored to only kill certain
religious/cultural
groups. Severe penalties with that civ & it's rulers, penalties/bonuses with other
civs/rulers depending on their diplomatic status with the genocided civ and religion,
possible penalties/bonuses with your own pop.

Suppress population following conquest- Unrest in city decreases considerably.
Suppressed people of conquered cities do not begin to assimilate into your civ until
suppression ends. Penalties to any similar cultural/religious group. City will probably lose
1-2 pop points as refugees flee from your armies.

Treat new population well after conquest- No extra penalties vs. their people, but
penalties vs. their rulers. If you treat your people better than the newly conquered
people's are used to, and treat them as well, less unrest will result and assimilation will
be quicker, and your penalty vs. the other ruler would be greater. If your pop hates
their
pop and you treat them well after conquest, you may suffer a penalty with your own
people.

Gifts- Depending on type of gift. Food to starving population will increase diplomatic
bonuses between yourself/your people and their people considerably, and to their rulers
somewhat. If you want to make it even more complicated allow the ruler to not tell
where the food came from; then the bonus is between the ruler and subjects while
you/your people have minor penalty vs. the other ruler.

Forced conversion/genocide after modern era AND civ is democratic causes additional
penalties from demo population vs. the ruler committing the action.

[Alexander's Horse]

This raises the question of dum or anti-wonders. We could have the "China burns its fleet and turns its back on the world" anti-wonder...but with what effects?

[NotLikeTea]

Do that safer!

Ok.. safe enough.

[Theben]

That China declares war on anyone who tries to build it...

[Alexander's Horse]

yes, there is drive in human affairs, unrecognised in Civ, that when someone or a society is doing something really stupid they are desperate to ensure that noone out dums them. Example: Apple's business strategy vs. Microsoft on licensing their system....the rest is history.

[NotLikeTea]

Posting mostly to bring this thread up...

I like the ideas of Theben regarding the opinions of the public. However, the number of possible combinations is very high, and likely confusing. Perhaps it should just primarily leaders vs leaders, and people vs people.

However, the people and the leaders must interact. i tihnk that this is something that should go beyond just atrocities and gifts. If the people think you're doing a bad job, it should be a problem, regardless of atrocities or specific actions.

This is getting off the Religion topic, though, and more into diplomacy. Anyone have some ideas on how to make this more religion specific?

[Theben]

Well, part of that post talks about religion. I see religion as a value in social engineering. Naming religions is required if you want any interaction between religions or civs based on religious events, attitudes.

You're probably right that the above would be confusing if done improperly. I was thinking that the programmers would have to deal with the headache and we'd only need to deal with 2 things:
1)knowledge of what causes diplomatic/religious bonuses/penalties

2)A graph listing all major civs rulers, people on both the x & y coordinates, the intersection of different groups would give you the current relation, and a separate religion vs. religion graph.

Any neutral civs/cities wouldn't be included in the above if it was too much trouble, but ST: Birth of Federation handled it nicely. Perhaps neutral civ/cities would only have diplomatic/religious variation with human players, and against the AI are assumed to have good relations if at peace, bad at war.

[yin26]

NotLikeTea has just posted a summary for the new RELIGION 2.1 thread. Please continue there.