RELIGION 2.1 (Hosted by Stefu)

[raingoon]

"BTW Raingoon, do you recognize atheism as a worthy and full belief?"

Yes, but I didn't until I was forced to sit through the Ice Capades...

But seriously -- as Mbrazier points out, the model will suggest to Firaxis that the player be allowed to name their own religions whatever he/she wants. There are no value modifiers associated with any individual religions.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[will I]

Raingoon:

I'm sort of thinking aloud on the conversion calculation. I figure that the calculation for attack or defense would start with a relgiious conversion factor for the religion,. Leaving aside the question of whether different religions have start with factors, I would assume that a given religion's conversion factor could be increased by its adherents expenditure on missionary activities or perhaps by building a wonder or improvement. The factor might also be affected by certain technological advances.

Only a city or a religion-specific unit could generate a conversion. All cities and units would be able to defend against conversions. The number of believers in a city, whether the religion is the state religion, and perhaps the presence of certain improvements would increase the likelihood of a conversion. Here's a numerical example:

Turywenzism starts with a conversion factor of 10. Will's civ has Turywenzism as the state religion, and donates a fairly substantial amount of money to missionary work, which increases the religion's base conversion factor to 15. The city of Willgrad is in Will's civ (+.25 modifier), has a cathedral (+.10 modifier), and 4 of its citizens are Turywenzists (+.33 modifier). This gives Willgrad a Turywenzism conversion factor of 27. (It might also generate a lower conversion factor if there are citizens of another religion.)

We might then suppose that Willgrad has a religious effect on all cities within an eight-tile radius, and that the effect would lessen with distance. We could achieve this by modifying the conversion factor (for conversion of citizens) by a factor of 2 + distance divided by 10.

I would propose that conversion of units work somewhat differently. First, only units within three squares of the city would be subject to conversion. Second, it would be much harder to convert enemy units than friendly units.

A city's defense against conversion would similarly depend on the conversion factors of the non-Turywenzist religions present in the city, the presence of non-Turywenzist improvements, and the presence of non-Turywenzist clerics.

A unit's defense against conversion would depend on the base conversion factor, the unit's proximity to other believers, and whether it was stacked with a cleric.

In all of these cases, I would keep the chance of conversion low, perhaps by giving defense against conversion a high multiplier. Otherwise, conversion would be too easy.

I would also give clerics the ability to convert a citizen in another city, which might be modified nearby cities' conversion factors.

All of the above might also be modified by proximity to the holy city.

While the calculations seem complicated, they are no worse than the game's current bribery and corruption modifiers, and will take up much less time than the graphics do.

[Maniac]

Raingoon, what do you think about a seperate Religion and State Religion category?

Will, good ideas. I don't think there were any ideas how religious debate and conversion would work. Now we have.
Cathedral should give the city where it stands +1 Cult.

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

On the surface, I think state religion is better off being a "set state religion" option under religion. If a choice is forced, than "none" is a good idea to include there.

But tell me what you had in mind? I do need to go back and review what the current SE modifiers are for this model.

Will

I also like your ideas. This gives a good opportunity to discuss a number of things...

Turywenzism starts with a conversion factor of 10. Will's civ has Turywenzism as the state religion, and donates a fairly substantial amount of money to missionary work, which increases the religion's base conversion factor to 15.

1. Can we all agree that every religion starts with the same base conversion factors? If 10, as here, than all would be 10 to begin with.

2. Donation of money. I propose a rule that money can be donated for a benefit only AFTER the Holy City appears. If religion is Will's State Religion, should we say he doesn't have to donate money to get that bonus? Perhaps if a state religion, you no longer have to tithe in order to receive bonuses. Likwise, if you elect not to have a state religion, you can tithe instead.

The city of Willgrad is in Will's civ (+.25 modifier)

Explain. Is this a border rule? Can Will have a city that is NOT in Will's civ?

has a cathedral (+.10 modifier), and 4 of its citizens are Turywenzists (+.33 modifier). This gives Willgrad a Turywenzism conversion factor of 27. (It might also generate a lower conversion factor if there are citizens of another religion.)

I'm glad we're nailing this down. This would all come under "Unit to City" conversions.

1. Good church modifier. Can we agree that building a separate church for each religion isn't a good idea? Propose that whatever religion dominates gets the bonus from that city's church. OR, is it better if building a church assumes you have built one for each of your religions and they ALL get the bonus.

2. Can you tell me how it would break down assuming size 10 Willgrad had 5 Turywenzists, 3 Zoobys, and 2 Yahoos, and unit X came to convert.

a. Let's define terms. We've been saying "evangelism" for relig. attack, and "conviction" for relig. defense. We had begun to call these philosophical battles "religious debates," but maybe it's much better to just call them "conversions" as I think Will, you're doing.

b. Your suggestion of only a religion specific unit generating citizen conversions is probably better than my original idea of every unit being able to convert citizens. This underscores my original mission which was to make religion an element in the game about the size and weight of trade. Religious units are like caravans (see Mbrazier above, I believe).

c. So "Cleric." He has the ability to convert all citizens of other religions in a given city. The AI will calculate each citizen against the Cleric, one at a time. In our 10 Willgrad scenario, what evangelist/conviction ratings would the Cleric have? Does he need conviction ratings? This probably leads me to my next point...

d. I'm unclear what changes you are suggesting to the unit-to-unit model, or if indeed it would be better if military units could not convert each other at all. If these units do not convert citizens, then is there still a point to giving them conversion values? This needs to be discussed by all -- Given that only a cleric and other cities can convert a city, "What is the benefit of making non-religious units in the game have a religious affiliation?"

All of the above might also be modified by proximity to the holy city.

All the proximity suggestions here make sense to me.

While the calculations seem complicated, they are no worse than the game's current bribery and corruption modifiers, and will take up much less time than the graphics do.

This is a great point to make in the final proposal.



<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

To Raingoon and Will about Will's ideas :

"Turywenzism starts with a conversion factor of 10."

I agree.

"Will's civ has Turywenzism as the state religion, and donates a fairly substantial amount of money to missionary work, which increases the religion's base conversion factor to 15."

I disagree.
Isn't missionary covered under the Culture factor?

"Assuming our current Holy City idea, I propose a rule that money can be donated for this benefit only AFTER the Holy City appears."

What makes a holy city? Perhaps I have't searched good enough, but I don't find a concrete idea of what makes something a holy city.
I have already said it and I will say it again. The Holy City is just the city where the religion first appeared. So every religion automatically has a holy city.

"The city of Willgrad is in Will's civ (+.25 modifier)

Explain. Is this a border rule? Can Will have a city that is NOT in Will's civ?"

Well, I suppose there can also be Turywenzist cities NOT owned by Will.
Means converted cities further converting other cities deeper in the enemy's empire.

"and 4 of its citizens are Turywenzists (+.33 modifier)."

Did I miss anything? Why means 4 citizens +33%?

To Raingoon about M@ni@c's ideas :

"On the surface, I think state religion is better off being a "set state religion" option under religion. If a choice is forced, than "none" is a good idea to include there."

I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean with 'set state religion'.

Now let's repost my ideas :

The Religion category :

That category determines how your civ acts to religion.

Animism : -2 Res (penalty disappears after the discovery of Polytheism)
This belief everyone automatically has in the beginning of the game.

Worshiping : +2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Strong belief in own civ, but not trying to spread the religion.
+2 Urb : breading with zeal is encouraged
+2 Nat : strong belief
-2 Cult : not trying to convert other beliefs

Evangelism : +2 Cult, +?, -2 Dipl
Your civ is trying to spread your religion by missionary work. Only under this SE choice Clerics may be built.
+2 Cult : high conversion
+? : waiting for suggestions
-2 Dipl : other civs don't like it that you convert their people

Fundamentalism : +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Your people have a strong belief and are convinced they have to spread their religion to the entire world, if necessary by force.
+2 Mor : military
+2 Sup : military
-2 Dipl : other civs don't like having a fundamentalist neighbour.

Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Your people may have any religion they want.
+2 Hap : no oppression of faith
+1 Res : free thoughts
-2 Nat : religious freedom, so conversion is simple
-1 Cult : if you are religious freedom, you don't force other nations a certain religion.

Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap
You are by force promoting your state religion and convert, punish, kill, whatever believers of other faiths.
+2 Pol : prosecution results in increased control
+2 Cult : high conversion
-2 Hap : sometimes people are forced to have a religion they don't want; oppressive regime

State Religion :

Here you choose your state religion. Your choice has no game effect expressed in SE factors. They are all 'no pos or neg'. This choice simply determines which religion you are trying to spread.
So we can use real-world religions.

The choices in here are the religions who you encountered in the game.
If you haven't 'met' any religion the only choice is 'None'.

Perhaps when you are religious freedom, the only State Religion choices should be None and Atheism.

Quoting myself :
"How about this. In the beginning of the game all your citizens are Animist. When you discover Polytheism, somewhere in your empire an Animist becomes a Turywenzist. That city becomes a Holy City. Then that religion automatically begins spreading through your empire."

What I would include under State Religion (actually you can put as many choices in this category as you want, since they have no SE effect):

None
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism

Or perhaps a better idea that adds to the historical feeling : every civ gets his own real religion after the discovery of Poly/Monotheism.

[will I]

Raingoon:

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments. Here are my responses:

1. Evangelism: I see two general types of evangelism: citizen and cleric.

1.1. Citizen evangelism. This reflects the notion that there are frequent contacts between the citizens of cities that are near each other, and that through these contacts, conversions. Such conversions reflect the activity of our little subjects, and could occur without the active intervention of the religious hierarchy or state religious sponsors. This could also be thought of as passive evangelism.

The calculation would be done at the city level, but would reflect the informal proselytizing of each of the city's religious citizens. Each turn there would be a conversion attempt by each city on (1) every other city in its religious influence zone, which would perhaps be all the territory within an eight-square radius and (2) every unit within three squares of the city.

1.2. Clerical evangelism. This occurs when a special unit -- the cleric -- is ordered to attempt a conversion. Such conversions only occur when a cleric evangelizes a city or a stack of units. However, clerical evangelism would be much more likely of success than citizen conversion. It remains an open question as to whether a religion could create a cleric without the assistance of one of the civs.

2. Conversions. I would then see four conversion scenarios:

2.1. Citizen-to-citizen conversions. These could occur in any turn, and by any citizen of a city within the religious influence zone. I would not run the calculation for each citizens, which could get pretty cumbersome. Rather, I would run the calculation for each religious sect in a city. Thus, in Raingoon's example, the Turywenzists in Willgrad would attempt a conversion of the Zookys and Yahoos in Willgrad, as well as the Zookys, Yahoos, and Slinkies in nearby Raingoongorod. If the Zooky bloc lost the conversion, one Zooky would convert to Turywenzism in that turn. Of course, the Zookys and Yahoos would also have their chance at converting nonbelievers. To avoid endless loops, I would have each sect's conversion attempt be based on the number of believers at the start of the turn. Any growth in population would be randomly assigned to one of the existing religions, with the probabilities weighted proportionate to the sects' conversion factors in that city.

(Aside: As I think about this, such a calculation could be messy. We might want to have citizen-to-citizen conversion periodically, say, at three-turn intervals, or whenever a religion has enough money to proclaim a missionary campaign.)

2.2. Citizen-to-unit conversions. These would work similarly to the citizen-to-city conversions. (Aside: Since this does not seem as onerous as the citizen-to-citizen conversions, I would propose that they occur every turn. This has the benefit that a unit lurking outside a city could be subverted by its religions.

2.3. Cleric-to-citizen conversions. This would work like diplomatic subversion of a city. However, it would not be a sure thing. Instead, the cleric would evangelize each religious bloc, and if it defeated the bloc's conviction rating, one believer would convert. I think that allowing conversion of an entire bloc in one turn would be destabilizing.

2.4. Cleric-to-unit conversions. These would work similarly to cleric-to-citizen conversions. However, I would allow an attack on each of the units in the stack. If the stack contains a cleric of an opposing religion, there would have to be battle between them first, with the loser being "defrocked." The winner would then go on to attempt the conversion of the remaining units. There might be bonuses for more experienced clerics.

3. Unit-to-unit conversions would not be possible.

4. Funding.

4.1. Basic. Each religion would get funding based on its number of believers. The per-believer amount might be higher when the religion first appears to reflect early zealotry.

4.2. Contributions. I don't know if I would like to prevent player contributions to a religion until a holy city was designated. Without external funding, it could be too easy for players to crush any nascent religion before it got started.

5. New religions. Here's an idea -- new religions could have a very high conversion factor, to reflect their zealotry. The bonus would decrease with either time or the number of adherents. Note also that I would suggest allowing civs to fund religions that are not their state religion. I think that would make the religious element more interesting. It also reflects reality -- Martin Luther received much of his early funding from the Ottoman Empire, which hoped to destabilize Christendom.

6. Holy city. Here's another thought -- designate the holy city as soon as the prophet appears. The holy city would have a heightened conversion factor, to give the new religion a chance.

7. Use real prophet names. I see the appearance of a prophet as a random event. Since we're not ascribing any characteristics to the religions, we could assign real names to the prophets, which might increase the excitement level.

8. Religious buildings. I would require each religion to have its own religious improvements, which would affect only the evangelism and conviction factors of their own adherents. If a sect was wiped out, the victor could either destroy the building, or reconsecrate it (for a fee).

9. Bonuses to conversion factors. Under my scheme, money donated to a religion would be used first to fund that sect's religious buildings and then for missionary activity. Thus, the level of missionary funding would be a distinct bonus, separate from the question of a state religion. Declaration of a state religion would also increase the conversion factor, but only for evangelization within the borders of that civilization. Note that two civs could have the same religion as their state religion.

I'm sorry if this is somewhat disjointed, but I have to run.

[Maniac]

Will :

Again great ideas. They represent mostly how I see Religion in Civ3.

I don't agree with the following points.

2.3) You are right converting an entire bloc would be destabilizing, but I think one believer is too less. I wouldn't want to send a Cleric on a dangerous long mission just to convert one citizen.

4) I am against funding. This is represented enough by Culture (I have to find another name for it. Evangelism, Religion, Conversion?).
It would be kind of cheating to choose Worshiping(-2 Cult) and then donate funds to avoid a too low Evangelism(religious attack) rate.
That would make the Culture factor useless.
+ it would destabilize the money system.
Perhaps building maintainance and then also funds could lay a too big burden of on your economy.

8) Ok, each religion has it's own specific building.
But I get the feeling you would allow the player to build the Turywenzist building even if they are Yahoo.
No. I would only let the building of your State Religion appear.
If you change religion, you could change the building to the other religion for a small price.


Let's make a list of religions and their holy cities!

Turywenzism : Turygrad
Zooky : Zoocca
Yahoo : Yahoosalem
Slinkies : Slincow

BTW, who came up with the name Turywenzism?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

quick post

why should atheism get to be a state religion in a religious freedom setting when the others are not?

I think that none is the only choice for religious freedom and perhaps means that the se choice is religious freedom (like take out none for the choices, if you want none it is religious freedom)

what sense is haveing a state religion and it being none, or prosecuting other religions that are not none (what you are going to torture all the people who do and do not beleive in God, you have to be joking)

Jon Miller

[MBrazier]

M@ni@c:

Your Religion SE proposal is unnecessarily complex. What you want to measure here is how deeply a civ has linked itself with a religion. For that purpose I suggest the following series of steps along a continuum. I'll also rename some of the SE stats to reflect their game effects; Evangelism is your "Culture", Conviction is your "Nationalism".

1) Religious Freedom / Indifference
+2 Happiness, -2 Conviction
State Religion choice has no effect
Clerics cannot be built

2) Establishment
+2 Evangelism, -2 Taxes
State Religion choice affects citizens' happiness
Clerics available, but restricted to conversion attempts

3) Theocracy
+2 Conviction, -2 Happiness
State Religion choice strongly affects citizen's happiness
Clerics have some Spy-like abilities; gathering information, inciting riots, etc.

The Taxes penalty on Establishment is meant to represent the burden of supporting a religious hierarchy out of your treasury. The choices for Theocracy force the player to overcome a basic discontent by carefully managing his citizens' religious ties. And the Indifferent have a bonus to Happiness everywhere, but lie wide-open to subversion attempts from more committed civilizations.

Raingoon:

Just what is wrong with the suggestion that religions be given different base values for "proselytization"? (In our current terms, different base Evangelism/Conviction ratings, which get tweaked in the units by civ SE settings.) After all, some religions _are_ more intrinsically convincing than others.

Will:

Very good point on the distinctions between citizens, ordinary units, and clerical units. And I like your conversion scheme in general, but there's two adjustments I'd make in it. First, I suggest that an ordinary unit which is garrisoned inside a city be treated as one "citizen" during the intra-city conversion -- that is, it adds one unit to whatever bloc it belongs to, and is open to conversion from other blocs. Second, I think that cities connected by a trade route should be deemed within each other's conversion range.

Your ideas on funding and religions' improvements, however... I'm not very enthusiastic about them. I still prefer the simpler system of having just one set of religious improvements, which are good for your state religion and bad for all other religions -- and which you have to maintain, as with other improvements. This is better because it's more in line with the existing systems of the Civ games.

[Maniac]

Oh yea, I forgot to tell. I would add 'None' to the State Religion category to show the difference between enforced and free atheism.

[Theben]

To stick my nose in again, this post is regarding the clergy below:

I must mention that I oppose citizen specialists as they are now, because to switch them in reality takes much longer. I have another proposal.
1) Slider bars that represent the total pop of the city; with worker, merchant, scientist, and clergy as the only citizens types. Clergy replace the "elvii".
2) The structures you have in the city will both determine how many of the people can become these "specialists", as a percentage, and the rate that they will switch. These include marketplaces, banks, etc. for merchants; libraries, universities, for scientists, and temples, you get the idea. Technology may also be a factor. Writing & Literacy for scientists, FE. SE choices may also affect this. Workers are considered the standard and have no structures.
3) You move the slider bar to the percent citizen makeup you wish your "specialists" to be, up to the current limit. The level stays put for that turn. Each following turn, the % of citizens employed in that field increases, based on your buildings, tech, and SE choices.
4) Workers are exempt from the above. When increasing workers, the shift is immediate. This is because their jobs often require minimal training. You can switch back w/o penalty until you end turn. Then their new jobs are set.
5) Workers are also split into 2 types: rural & urban. Urban workers add labor to production, while rural workers are on the tiles outside the city square and bring in the food, resources, and raw trade goods (this is loosely based on the "village" idea).
6) These originally only affect their respective areas. Later techs & SEs may give them other areas of influence (like SMAC) and greater influence in their own areas. Note that rural workers may also get later benefits.
2 questions:
Should non-workers cost the city more money (IMHO no; the extra cost is paid for by the populace)?
Should more non-workers add to the city's happiness level (more well-fed well-paid middle class types. I can go either way on this one)?

And before you say it, Maniac, yes I do prefer slider bars and percentages. And for the record I oppose cleric units, like CtP, and SE's for specific or general religions. SE's for strong or weak religious choices (all religions) are okay, though.

[raingoon]

I'm seeing the discussions are really centered around two basic components:

1. The "religion virus" model itself; and
2. The SE factors that effect it.

Understanding how these two things work together and being able to clearly explain it in the proposal is probably key.

M@ni@c

Simplifying your SE factors the way Mbrazier suggests makes it easier to see how SE factors in general relate to the religion sim that's on-going. So I'm interested to see what you think of his suggestion. Also:

1. You had asked do I see religion and state relig. as separate SE categories? No. I see the latter being accessed under the former.

2. Holy Cities. These exist to allow diplomacy with that religion. When a religion gains diplomatic access to the game, it can make demands and threaten.

I think most agree that not every religion should have this power automatically, but only if they reach a certain size. For one thing, it would seem ludicrous, if not downright annoying, to have the Yahoos tapping your shoulder in 3000 B.C. demanding a holy war to wipe out all vestiges of Turywentzism half way around the world.

Preventing religions from getting Holy Cities too soon effectively muzzles the little guys. I think that's important to play balance.

b. What makes a Holy City then? I suggest when a religion can claim X percentage of the world population in worshipers, say 33%, than a Holy City is declared in the largest city dominated by that religion. Three Holy Cities per game would be fine with me.

Holy Cities should be advantagous to possess in your Civ, so part of the game would be seeing what religion seems to be catching on with your civs, and trying to encourage its growth, as well as beat others who also have a shot at it.

Alternatively, instead of the largest size city automatically becoming the Holy City, the AI could first default to where that religion's prophet first appeared.

Btw, just bought my Fodors guide to both Yahoosalem AND Slincow.

Will

1. Cities as city converters, calculated by zones of influence, the influence becoming weaker the further away you go. This is good. And allows Mbrazier's idea that trade routes effectively bring distant cities under that cities influence.

To me, this is the kind of idea that works both historically AND on the game map. I'd be interested in nailing it down very simply.

2. Clerics as city converters also makes sense, and I agree with M@ni@c, the cleric should definitely be able to convert more than one citizen for his trouble. We need a formula for this, and I think the cleric should also disappear after that, as did a diplomat or a trade caravan in Civ2.

3. So you've broken down conversions thus:

Citizen-to-citizen.
Cleric-to-citizen.
Cleric-to-unit.
Citizen-to-unit.
Unit-to-unit.

Since the game tracks religious growth in the cities (citizens), I have a new question for all -- Why do units have to have any religious affiliation at all? I think we may have weened ourselves off that idea. Looking at Will's conversion matrix above, here, which I think is pretty sound, units have no effect on the equation. They only effect each other.

Hey, if we can do without units having religions, if religions can spread sufficiently in the city to city/cleric to city model, then we've simplified things. In the case of state religions, it can be assumed that all military units represent that religion. In all other cases, it can be assumed that military units represent the government leadership.

Re Holy cities, I like your idea. See my definition earlier in this post.

Re religious buildings, wouldn't it get to be too much with so many different variations of the same building?

Bonuses to conversion factors. I agree, not all bonuses should be SE bonuses. But the funding element begins to make things too complex for me.

Mbrazier

I might not understand you. Or vice versa. I was trying to say that all religions should have the same base values to begin with. But after that, with SE modifiers, State Religions, Holy Cities, etc., all bets are off.

[Maniac]

Jon Miller :

"why should atheism get to be a state religion in a religious freedom setting when the others are not?

I think that none is the only choice for religious freedom and perhaps means that the se choice is religious freedom (like take out none for the choices, if you want none it is religious freedom)"

You're completely right.

"what you are going to torture all the people who do and do not beleive in God, you have to be joking"

You have a good description of what Prosecution is. You have mentioned the Spanish Inquisition yourself several times to Harel. They tortured people indeed. So no, I'm not kidding. It actually happened in those times.

MBrazier :

Renaming Culture to Evangelism is good.
Renaming Nationalism to Conviction is bad. That factor affects mostly your spy abilities.

You have to keep Animism. Otherwise there is no Religion choice in the beginning of the game. In the later game it probably won't be used, but it still has to be there.

Religious Freedom
There's nothing wrong with my Religious Freedom effects.
+2 Happiness, +1 Research, -2 Nationalism, -1 Evangelism

Establishment
Good idea. I would delete my 'Worshiping' and 'Evangelism' choices and replace it by this.
However I would give a small second bonus to it.
+2 Evangelism, +1(/2?) Urbanization, -2 Taxes

Fundamentalism
I already have a government type called Theocracy, so that name can't be used here. I would stick with my original idea, but replace the Support bonus by a Nationalism bonus.
+2 Nationalism, +1/2 Morale, -2 Diplomacy

I would keep Prosecution for the simple reason without it I have too little Police increasing choices in my model.

Makes 5 choices. Is that really so much? Considering you wouldn't choose Animism later on anyway, it's 4. Is that really so much and complex?

Makes :

Animism : -2 Res
Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Res, -2 Nat, -1 Eva
Establishment : +2 Eva, +1 Urb, -2 Tax
Fundamentalism : +2 Nat, +1 Mor, -2 Dipl
Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Eva, -2 Hap

To everyone :

Could somebody point me a post where the advantages of all the people having your religion are mentioned?
As far as I can tell, these are the only advantages :

1) New victory condition : unite the world under the same faith.
2) When a civ declares war at you, his citizens with your state religion become unhappier.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 11, 1999).]</font>

[Monk]

Seriously though, as long as you don't have the techs "Polytheism" or "Religion". Religion has always existed.

Find another thread master, for I will soon take Stefu's soul.

[will I]

At least for now, it seems like we're pretty well agreed on the religion-as-virus concept, although I hope we can come up with a less pejorative description (perhaps the "contagion model?). We also seem to agree that there should be two modes of spreading religion: passively through contacts (via proximity or caravan) and actively through the use of clerics. We also seem to agree that certain buildings will have some effect on believers in the city, and that having an state religion could be a good thing. I think we need to work on a few key questions:

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of having some of your citizens belong to a religion?

2. What do the religions DO?

3. How does a player interact with a religion?

4. How do religions start and grow?

I'll address them in order:

1. Effect on citizens. I think it's important that religions have both pluses and minuses. Otherwise, players will just eradicate them, and they'll become minor annoyances like barbarian incursions.

1.1. Alternate allegiance. We seem to agree that belonging to a religion makes your citizens more likely to be unhappy/revolt if you do something contrary to the religion, like refuse to conduct a crusade or destroy the holy city.

1.2. Religious improvements. We also seem to agree that belonging to a religion would allow you to build religious improvements that would enhance believers' happiness or productivity.

1.3. Happiness. It might also be reasonable to decide that a believer is, at certain levels of technological advancement, happier or more productive than a nonbeliever.

1.4. Divided loyalties. I would propose that if my civ has established Turywenzism as its religion, it would receive a bonus in subverting or attacking cities that contained Turywenzists. The bonus would be proportionate the the Turywenzists' share of the city's population. If both my civ and the civ I was attacking had made Turywenzism the state religion, there would be no bonus.

2. What religions do. Raingoon seems to see religions primarily as a negative, except perhaps as part of the end game, where a civ could win by dominating a religion and imposing it on the world. I would suggest that they be viewed as a separate AI, somewhere between the barbarians and the AI civs in complexity, that can help or hurt a civ depending on its relations with the civ. In that vein, I see religions doing the following things:

2.1. Expansion. A religion should be structured so that its first priority is to grow through proselytization. I propose that we give infant religions some distinct advantages -- otherwise civs in other religions will be able to stomp them out too quickly (see 4, below).

2.2. Declare a jihad/crusade. A religion should have the option of calling all believers to a crusade. If a civ does not respond, its citizens who adhere to that religion would perhaps lose the benefits of religion or even become more unhappy than they would otherwise be.

2.3. Engage in missionary activity. I propose that religions have the option to spontaneously generate clerics to spread the faith. Some ideas I've read in this thread make me think that sending a cleric to a city hsould work more like a caravan in civ. It would represent a link from the religion to that city. It would certain increase the flow of evangelism to that city.

2.4. Minister to the faithful. The church could do things for its believers that the state would otherwise have to do. For example, just belonging to a religion would make believers happier, and perhaps more productive. In certain stages, a believer might also generate more research. I would also propose that having a cleric posted to a city would increase the happiness or productivity levels of believers in that city.

2.5. Punish/reward favorites. A religion should also keep score. Civs that are friendly with Turywenzism or do nice things for the religion would have a better relationship with it, and, accordingly, the positive effects of Turywenzism on that civ's Turywenzist citizens would increase. Conversely, pissing off Turywenzism would result in Turywenzist citizens becoming less productive and happy, and increase the chance of the church proclaiming a crusade against the offending civ.

2.6. Declare a defender of the faith. If there are too few religions to go around, we might consider allowing religions to pick one civ as its chief patron. That civ would have its religious bonuses increased.

2.7. Budget. Funding is just my way of reflecting the fact that a church, like the civs, has limited resources. Those resources should be based both on the number of believers and the sponsorship of one or more civs. I think that having individual believers and the civs themselves make monetary contributions is the easiest way of reflecting the religion's limitations, but if someone has a better idea, I'm willing to listen. In that vein, I would think that the church should be able to solicit donations for its activities if the budget runs short.

3. Interaction. This is an area where I disagree with Raingoon. I think that religions should be able to interact with civs from the very beginning. His concern that religions would be obnoxious is well-founded, though, so we might want to make the types of things a religion can ask dependant on the number of adherents it possesses in a civ. But, in general, I think that allowing interaction only when a religion would be unrealistic and remove much of the fun of the religion concept. (Let's remember that Christians were still a small portion of the population when Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. Thus, it's obvious that even small churches can deal with big civs.)

3.1. Evangelism. I think a civ should be able to sponsor missionary activity as soon as a religion arises (see point 4, below). This could take several forms: a civ could donate to the religion's general fund, which would make believers happier, make the religion more favorably disposed to the civ, and, perhaps, result in a temporary adjustment to the conversion factor for all conversions attempted in the following turn. (On the grounds that more money equals more missionary work.)

3.2. Begging. A new religion should be able to ask for alms from any civ in which it has believers. Refusal would not be a strike against a religion. We could jigger the formula so that early patronage generates greater favor.

3.3. Declare a jihad/crusade. Turywenzism should not be able to demand that a civ go on jihad unless a majority of the civ's citizens are Turywenzists, or Turywenzism is the state religion.

3.4. Holy city. I think the holy city is an advantage that is most relevant when the religion is small and weak. However, if we want to make that a bonus for the really successful religions, we might want to set a population level. I think 33 percent is too small.

3.5. Request a mission. I think that any civ should be able to request a missionary from nearby religions. This was one of the primary ways that Christianity spread to the barbarian nations.

4. Beginning and growth. I see a religion beginning as a random event, kind of like a barbarian incursion. Thus, my Willites could be tooling around in their natural state of paganism when I get the message that "Turywenzo has begun preaching in Willgrad." Relatively quickly, I should see the number of adherents growing in Willgrad, and soon spreading to nearby Willstadt. I should have the option of fighting the new religion or joining in. Similarly, my neighbors should have the option of patronizing the religion to (a) weaken me or (b) get the advantages of having a religion. Does this sound reasonable?

I have a few other thoughts, but I'm getting hungry.