RELIGION 2.1 (Hosted by Stefu)

[Maniac]

Will :

Same to you as to Raingoon. You seem to consider yourself as the only one to get with his ideas in the summary.

"although I disagree with your impression that their are too many options to eliminate unhappiness"

OK, let's say 4 religions.
= 4 content
One religion has a majority.
= +1 content
You have a Temple, Cathedral and Colosseum.
= +9 content
And I haven't got your post before me right now, but I thought that the state religion doubled the Cathedral effect for it's followers.
= +3 content
But since, if you have a state religion, all the benefits of other religions are scrapped, and in my example there are also 3 other religions, I'll not take in account this +3.
But that still is 17 people made content. And I didn't consider that you have one less unhappy per 4 believers in your state religion.
Let's say a city of 19 with a majority, so at least +2 content.
Means you can keep a city content to 19 without any luxuries.
And since you get free entertainers from the size 21, you don't need luxuries at all...

So your system is very unbalancing.

"However, I think you've missed the point on toleration and persecution. My goal was to give each option strengths and weaknesses so that reasonable players could choose any of them and still prosper. "

Your system is very inaccurate. You could only be Established, Tolerated or Persecuted for all religions.
In my ideas of a religion screen, you can have a different attitude towards each religion.
In your system, State Religion was too weak compared to Tolerated for reasons I already have stated.
And BTW, what do you mean "Toleration unfavorable"? If you are Religious Freedom(=your Tolerance status), you get +1 Res and +1 Hap.
And what do you mean "Persecution favorable"? I think you don't realize how bad Revolutionaries are. They are like Civ2 very unhappy people. They have to be made unhappy first and only then they can be turned content.
And isn't a -25% Research penalty for your entire empire a bit exaggerated? I don't think the Celts in Northern France cared about the persecution of Jezus.
I am willing to give Persecuted -2 research if there are persecuted citizens in the city.
Then in the Jezus example Jerusalem would get a penalty, but Lutetia not.

"I also don't like the idea of describing the effects of religion in terms of the SE factors at this time. Those are still in flux, with about three or four contenting plans that I've seen, so I'd prefer not to make religion dependant on them."

There were three different systems of which two are being melted right now. And BTW, Harel used my factors, so you can't actually call that an entirely different plan. And about the slider guys, they still must have something that the sliders affect.
My SE model perhaps not yet, but my factors are well excepted.

"I'll think about your points on atheism. However, given that we've decided that there will be no religion-specific effects, I don't really see the need to have a special category for lack of religion."

What!?! The lack of religion is a very important part of the world. Do I have to throw all the arguements of Harel to your head? Raingoon probably wouldn't like that.
And BTW, I am talking about ENFORCED ATHEISM, like USSR, not the free atheism where Harel and me believe in.
The free atheism should be a religion just like the others eg Turywenzism, Yahoo, Zooky... not a religion screen or SE choice.
BTW, for the sake of fun, that religion should only begin to be preached in the modern age. Or something earlier, from the Renaissance (scientists don't believe in a god).

"All right. Some examples. Organized religion in the form of Buddhism had a much greater effect in China before and during the T'ang then later. Buddhism in Japan was much more influential during the Heian era than afterward. Islam had a greater effect in almost all of the Islamic countries during the various caliphates -- when primary religious and political power were held by the same individual -- than in contemporary times. It seems to me that in almost all societies there were ages of faith that were terminated by other political ideas, and that it would be realistic to reflect this in the game.
"

Have these countries you called religious freedom or not? If so, it proves my point again. Religious Freedom made religion less important.
And about Islam. You're joking right? Islam losing it's importance in the society... You don't actually believe that, I hope.

"I will also point out that your post of 15 August 1999, at 17:00 contains a heading on "religious," and has categries for "high priest," "theocracy," "fundamentalism," etc. Therefore, I think my impression that your SE system still contains a fairly sizable, and in my mind, redundant religious element is justified. Please let me know if there is a subtlety here that I'm missing."

That were Government choices, not Religion choices.

"I will also point out that almost all marginalized people in Spain, and not just the formal targets of investigation, were demoralized by the Inquisition, and that much of England was made unhappy by the persecution of Protestants under Queen Mary."

I don't know if it's true what you say about Spain, but what you say about England is obvious. THEY WERE THE PERSECUTED!
Before her, the state religion was changed to Anglicanism-Protestantism.
Of course were people unhappy after Mary changed back to Roman Christianity.

"During the Great Schism, all of the fragments of the Catholic Church expelled all of the adherents of the other fragments.
During the Reformation, Luther and all of his adherents (who wanted to change the church from within) were expelled.
In the modern era, the orthodox rabbinate of Israel has disenfranchised American Reform Judaism."

As I recall, it was the Byzantine Emperor that did the Schism. What the Catholic Church did to the adherents after it isn't important to allow expulsion, cause they belonged to another religion then.
I didn't know you counted Luther as a civilization. It's a prophet.
About Judaism, you say it yourslef, it was already reformed. No expulsion.
About that Buddhism, I don't know them.

[Maniac]

Will :

Regarding your post of 17:09.
I don't know what you are trying to prove. Showing that my system is bad and yours good?
The same things count for my system.
+1 Hap means you can rule more cities without getting extra unhappy people.
And what you said about your state religion is also true for my state religion.

And now you said you are perfectionist, it's obvious that you make the game easier for you perfectionist. I even forgot the Clerics. With them you don't even need the buildings to keep large cities content(see 18:05 post for prove).

BTW, what do you think that is the best for hordes of big cities(I expand a lot but not on the ICS manner, so I get big cities), my tactic?

[raingoon]

To All:

I am not the threadmaster for this thread. Stefu, to my knowledge, is the threadmaster. Accordingly, I am not planning on posting any summaries of this entire thread unless I am asked to, and considering how much I've invested of my own point of view, I don't know if I am the best candidate for the job.

M@ni@c, you raise some good points. First of all, and this is for Will too, I only meant to say that I would "paste" Will's section onto mine when all 3 were done to everyone's satisfaction. I won't change a word without his approval. While I'm trying to do a summary of this particular model only, it isn't "mine." I hope we are all working on it.

Ironically, I think my attempts at posting as-I-go so everyone can change and critique it, may have raised my profile as some kind of "author." My apologies. I'm really trying to synthesize everyone's suggestions, because they're all pretty well-founded, seems to me. For one, Will, I lean toward M@ni@c's suggestion we all go back to the prophet being a converted citizen, and not a separate unit. I know Mbrazier also supports that idea (unless he's changed his mind). It just makes things simpler.

And btw, Harel's point of view is always welcome and appreciated here by me.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 16, 1999).]</font>

[will I]

Raingoon: Great job! Here are my comments on the new stuff.

II.A.1.h. if a prophet is killed within the first ten turns, all non-aligned citizens within 15 squares immediately convert to the religion (martyrdom). I would say within 8 or 10 squares, since a 15-square radius encompasses about something on the order of 950 tiles, which is a lot of territory. We might want to specify that a prophet could only be assassinated by another cleric or by a spy.

II.B.1.b. Conviction is the "defense" value of a religion. All religions begin with the same conviction value, 15. I like this -- I think you've developed a good balance between old and new religions.

II.B.2.a. Adjustments to conversion factors. I like your approach better than the percentage approach I used in my sections III.B.2.c. and 3.a. I would, however, propose some clarifications:

Toleration: no effect (just because I think that the null option should be something other than animism).

Establishment: +2 evangelism within the borders of the civ with the religion. (I don't think citizens in other civs would be impressed by the fact that the religion had been endorsed by a foreign government. There's even a good case that evangelism in other countries would be hurt by a state religion.)

Fundamentalism: +2 conviction throughout the world, but can only be declared by a church council. Each believer would generate 25 percent less research. (Since fundamentalism seems like a doctrinal issue that would affect all believers, it seems like it should be decided by the entire faith. I also like the idea that a player could use fundamentalism to make an opponent's citizens stupider.)

Persecution: -2 conviction for adherents to the persecuted religion, and only within the borders of the persecuting state. The persecuting state would have research production go down by 25 percent. (I see persecution as more of a hindrance for the persecuted religion than a benefit for the persecuters.)

Religious freedom: -2 conviction, -1 evangelism for citizens of the civ. Research goes up by 25 percent. (We need to give freedom some advantage, or no one will use it.)

II.B.4.a. clerics represent the dominant religion of the city they were built in. I'm concerned that this rule would make new religions dependant on obtaining state sponsorship. I would suggest that, in addition, each religion may build a cleric, which can start in any city where the religion has a believer. The cost of a cleric would be equal to the gold value of the shields that a civ would use to make the cleric. Building a cleric would be an option of the religion's AI at the beginning. When the religion became large, a civ could also pay the religion to create a cleric and send it on a specific mission.

II.B.4.b. cleric to citizen conversions. A cleric can be garrisoned in any friendly city, including its own. A garrisoned cleric attempts conversions once per turn, for 5 turns, then disappears. I don't know if this gives clerics enough of a role in domestic religions. I saw domestic clerics as having an additional role in increasing happiness and conviction in friendly cities. So here's my idea for an expanded domestic role for clerics:

II.B.4.b. ministry. A cleric built by a civ may establish a ministry in any city within the boundaries of that civ. A ministry lasts until it is terminated. A ministry increases the conviction factor for citizens of that religion by 50 percent, and has the effects on happiness detailed in section III. When first established, the ministry attempts conversions once per turn. This ceases after five turns.

[will I]

To all:

I echo Raingoon's point. I have tried to be careful to characterize my system as a "proposal." Raingoon and I have many ideas in common, and are trying to work up a common "proposal." I hope we agree and achieve a common system that will spark some debate. I occasionally reference other people whose ideas I agree with or who have expressed agreement with my own ideas. However, I do not purport to speak for anyone other than myself and certainly not for all of the posters.

[will I]

Sorry for the length of this post, but you have all raised good gameplay issues, and there were a few factual issues that I just couldn't resist.

Raingoon:

Congrats on reaching the coveted "Civer" level. And I hope you continue the post-as-you-go approach, which I think has focused our debate. Now, for substantive points.

If others prefer that the "prophet" be represented by the first convert in the first city where a religion appears, that's fine with me. I think we then get ack to the problem of how a young religion expands. If the new religion gets only a single citizen, it will not be the majority religion and, therefore, will not generate passive conversion outside of its birth city. Within its birth city, other religions will be more numerous -- much more numerous later in the game, which means that the prophet will be unlikely to convert anyone, and may be converted him/herself. To overcome this, we'll need to give new religions pretty substantial evangelism and conviction bonuses that would decrease as they grew, or allow them to have their own clerics from the start.

M@ni@c:

I think your point about having a geographic limit to the effects of persecution is valid, and will add it to my proposal. Your historical analogy, however, is incorrect. During the worst of the persecutions (under Decius), Christianity had converts throughout the empire. Some of your Celts in northern Gaul would have either been Christians and known Christians, and been somewhat upset by the savage repression.

Atheism -- if you accept that "free atheism" is equivalent to religion under the current proposal, a view with which I agree, then "enforced atheism" is functionally equivalent to the establishment of atheism as state religion and persecution of all other religions. Since the model accommodates this option, there is no need for a separate category for atheism.

In my ideas of a religion screen, you can have a different attitude towards each religion. This is an interesting idea. Your 16 August, 15:12 lists only state religion, toleration, persecution, and enforced atheism as attitudes. As I noted in the preceding paragraph, I believe this is functionally equivalent to my system. If you'd like to propose other attitudes, I'm willing to listen.

But that still is 17 people made content [by your system]. . . . So your system is very unbalancing. I think your math is incorrect, but your point is well taken. I was striving to give civs a reason to allow or encourage their citizens to become religion, but apparently made it too much of a good thing. I'd like to make the proposal fit with a variety of options, and have accordingly described it in terms of two different systems, where necessary: (1) the Civ2 unhappy/content/happy citizens model (as Firaxis has requested), and (2) various proposals to use percentages of happiness and productivity, both as a matter of a SMAC-type SE system or something more akin to MOO2. To respond to your complaint, I would propose that if religion were added to the Civ2 model, each religion in a city pay a tithe of 1 gold (i.e., a city of 8 with 3 religions would tithe 3 gold), which would come out of total trade for the city. Further, to keep religion from getting out of hand, I propose that under toleration, religion can only affect a number of citizens equal to 1/4 the total population (i.e. 1 in cities of 1-4, 2 in cities of 5-8, etc.).

My SE model perhaps not yet, but my factors are well excepted. As you have seen from the SE posts, I agree with much of your model, but not all. I totally disagree with the slider guys. I've also seen proposals that there be no city-specific production adjustments or happiness. Firaxis may choose something else entirely. Since I believe religion would work with just about any systems, I'm trying to keep my proposal for religion under a new system very general.

As I recall, it was the Byzantine Emperor that did the Schism. What the Catholic Church did to the adherents after it isn't important to allow expulsion, cause they belonged to another religion then. I didn't know you counted Luther as a civilization. It's a prophet. About Judaism, you say it yourslef, it was already reformed. No expulsion. About that Buddhism, I don't know them.
The Great Schism was the split of the Catholic Church between a French-supported branch in Avignon and another branch in Rome in 1378. Both branches professed to be the true Catholic faith, and ended up expelling each other from their respective religions. (They were later reunited.) Similarly, the parties in the earlier Roman/Orthodox schism both believed themselves to be the true universal apostolic faith, and ended up expelling each other. In both of these instances, the Roman church took believers who professed themselves to be true Catholics, and expelled them from the church based primarily on their political allegiance. Therefore, I reject your argument that expulsion of a group of believers has never occurred.

And about Islam. You're joking right? Islam losing it's importance in the society... You don't actually believe that, I hope. It is popular in the West to view Islam as universally fundamentalist and unusually domineering of society. It is also incorrect. During its earliest period, there was no separation between the religious and governmental spheres. The caliph was the head of the state and the successor to the prophet. Religious laws were the laws of society. That is no longer true in most Islamic countries. In Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Indonesia, for example, secular governments administer civil laws that are quite distinct from religious laws. Fundamentalists are either disapproved or subject to repression. Only in Iran and Afghanistan is their a joinder of religious and governmental power that can approach the level that was prevalent earlier. In most other Islamic countries, religion is substantially less important now than it was previously. Ergo, my view that an Age of Faith is an accurate reflection of history.

[Maniac]

Will :

"I think your point about having a geographic limit to the effects of persecution is valid, and will add it to my proposal. Your historical analogy, however, is incorrect. During the worst of the persecutions (under Decius), Christianity had converts throughout the empire. Some of your Celts in northern Gaul would have either been Christians and known Christians, and been somewhat upset by the savage repression."

In that historical analogy I was talking about 33 AD. Then the Gaulians probably didn't even know Jezus. I believe you when you say they did become unhappy under Decius, but that's more then two centuries later.
So, we agree?
Only the city where someone is persecuted gets the research penalty.
In 33, it would only be Jerusalem, but in 250 it would be almost the entire Empire.

"Atheism -- if you accept that "free atheism" is equivalent to religion under the current proposal, a view with which I agree, then "enforced atheism" is functionally equivalent to the establishment of atheism as state religion and persecution of all other religions. Since the model accommodates this option, there is no need for a separate category for atheism."

'Free' Atheism is a religion.
'Enforced' atheism is an attitude.
So to take the example of the USSR, it couldn't have a state religion, even not atheism. Under Enforced atheism you persecute every religion.
As an added realistic thing, someone said that now Russia is the breeding nest of many religions right now.
Well, that is represented perfectly.
When the enforced atheism is repealed, all citizens are assumed 'animist', just as in the beginning of the game and can be easily converted. So then religions could be spread very easily.

"In my ideas of a religion screen, you can have a different attitude towards each religion. This is an interesting idea. Your 16 August, 15:12 lists only state religion, toleration, persecution, and enforced atheism as attitudes. As I noted in the preceding paragraph, I believe this is functionally equivalent to my system. If you'd like to propose other attitudes, I'm willing to listen."

No no, we don't understand each other.
I don't mean new attitudes.
In your system there are three options.
Established : one is state religion and others all tolerated.
Tolerated : all are tolerated
Persecution : last time I checked your post, it said that you could persecute one or all religions.

With my manner, you can do more fine tuning.

A vertical list of all religions and right to them the three choices State Religion, Tolerated, Persecuted.
You can pick an attitude for every religion, not like in your system 'one persecuted or all persecuted' or 'all tolerated'.

In my system you can pick one state religion and for every other religion tolerated or persecuted. So you can also persecute two religions. Before you say, "too much micromanagement", consider the default option always tolerated, so you should only have to go to the religion screen to set your state religion and to persecute religions (or to declare schism, religious freedom or enforced atheism).

So a list could look like this :

Turywenzism :.................................Persecuted
Apolyton :.State Religion
Zooky :...........................Tolerated
Slinkies :..........................Tolerated
Microsoft :........................................Persecute d
Yahoo :.............................Tolerated

On the left you have all the religions in your empire and to the right the attitude towards it.
I think this is more better than a religious attitude towards ALL religions as your system does.

"I think your math is incorrect,"

Sorry, I don't know your system that well. Perhaps you could give your version of the numbers, so I can comprehend your ideas better.

"To respond to your complaint, I would propose that if religion were added to the Civ2 model, each religion in a city pay a tithe of 1 gold (i.e., a city of 8 with 3 religions would tithe 3 gold), which would come out of total trade for the city."

Now you're giving it more drawbacks. That's not what I want. I'm saying religion has too many advantages. You don't even need Colloseums and Temples to keep large cities happy if a majority has the same religion.
Therefore I suggest to give Religious Freedom (you call it tolerance) a simple +1 Hap or even +2 Hap instead of "one less unhappy citizen per religion".
That would keep the civ2 unhappiness suppression balance and keep keeping cities happy an uneasy business.

"As you have seen from the SE posts, I agree with much of your model, but not all."

?? You seemed against my factors.

"The Great Schism was the split of the Catholic Church between a French-supported branch in Avignon and another branch in Rome in 1378."
I was talking about the _real_ Eastern Schism, not that one of Avignon.

As I recall about the Western Schism the French king had a candidate for popeship, but Italy didn't agree.
Or do you mean the pope's exile in Avignon?

About Indonesia you're right I think.
In Morocco is the king also the leader of the Islam in his country.
In Algeria and Egypt there are a many terrorists. That comes in the news a lot.
And in Turkey there is a fundamentalist partey that had many votes. But it was declared illegal cause religious parties are forbidden in Turkey.
What I'm trying to say is that now there are secular governments in most Islamitic countries, but the fundamentalist movements are gaining support.
BTW, I thought also Iran was kind of religious controlled but Harel (and he should know it) says that the ayatollah hasn't got much to say to the democratically elected president.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 17, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 17, 1999).]</font>

[raingoon]

Staying on top of notes, whatnot...

The problem with the holy city... is that it does not provide a means to resolve a dispute when two enemy civs belong to the same religion.

Hmm... I think the answer lies within the problem in this case. Will, tell me if the issue is more complex than I'm remembering, but to me, the holy city is a trump card. First of all, any leader can declare a state religion for their civ at any time. But the one who owns the holy city wins any disputes -- he is considered to "have the Pope's ear", so to speak. This creates a challenge for the other interested party to find a way to possess that holy city.

I still don't favor the church council, for simplicity reasons -- but I like all the ideas for what the church council can do. I think that any expulsions or any religion action that the player participates in, should be a part of religious diplomacy, which in turn should be handled only through holy cities. Excommunication and schisms should also happen without the player's participation. I'm waiting to see definitive definitions of excommunication and schism.

Btw, re holy cities, synthesizing past differing viewpoints I'm now thinking:
a. holy cities are founded when a religion can claim 25% of the world population. Is this the best way to determine this? and
b. holy cities are founded back in the city where the religion first began (as opposed to the largest city currently dominated by that religion). Any thoughts on which is better?
c. Should it be called a holy city or holy capitol? or religious capitol?

Concerning: How much money a religion needs, what it needs it for, and where it will get that money.

Here is one suggestion:

A religion needs money to expand on its own. However this works should also solve Will's problem with enabling small religions to grow. I propose that, in addition to the normal passive spread of religion, we do a gold model for religion similar to the food model for population growth in Civ 1&2. If we modify Will's tithing suggestion a little, so that each city tithes 1 gold per every religion residing in that city, eventually the coffers will begin to grow. Of course, you can still tithe above and beyond that, out of the government coffers. But when the coffers of Turywenzism reach an amount (X+1, where X = total # of faithful), a ministry is automatically established in the city with the fewest number of Turywenzists.

Comments? Numbers wrong? Whew. I hope tithing in general is the right. My gut says it is, but it also says "Keep it Simple Stupid" or else it won't be in Civ3.

3. Ministries... other options for terminating a ministry: attack by an enemy cleric or disbanding of the cleric by the civ that built it.

Will, keeping with my suggestion above, what if all ministries were created by the AI, and all missions were done by the player? Iow, domestic ministries cannot be player controled. Players can only send out clerics to establish missions in foreign lands.

Simpler? Anyway, to answer your question, I'm not crazy about attack by enemy clerics. Imagine getting a cleric to the other side of the world and establishing a mission, only to have another cleric come by and de-establish it. I'm not even sure foreign states should have the power, except as its given in the ability to persecute, etc.

Comments? I'll try to get diplomacy happenin' here...

oh -- before I forget:
1) I like M@ni@c's religion "fine-tuning" window.
2) I wish there was some way we can keep Will's "martyrdom" concept. Perhaps when a prophet ceases to exist, there would be a 10% chance that he was martyred, keeping the current rule for martyrdom.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 17, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Raingoon :

"Btw, re holy cities, synthesizing past differing viewpoints I'm now supposing:"

I think that "b. holy cities are founded back in the city where the religion first began " is best and simpliest.

"Concerning: How much money a religion needs, what it needs it for, and where it will get that money."

The 20% Tax you loose by having a state religion should end in that religion's treasury.

"I wish there was a way to keep Will's martyrdom rule. Perhaps there is a 10% chance that, when the prophet stops preaching, he is assumed to be martyred and the same rules apply?"

About that 10%. Then there will be cheaters reloading there previous turn to avoid martyrship.
I don't know if this is good, but...
If you persecute a new religion the first X turns it exists, it is assumed martyrship.
What should be the X?
That would make the survival of new religions more likely.
And within that first X turns it should have also increased Evangelism and Conviction.

[MBrazier]

I've been too busy to post much the past few days, and good heavens there's been a lot of material while I was gone...

Will: yes, I'm still in favor of starting religions by spontaneously converting one citizen -- at least, in the initial stages when a religion is competing only against the default "animism". As you point out, this works less well when a new religion has to convert citizens of an old religion that retains its strength. One idea that would fix this is to make a religion's Conviction rating decline as time passes. This would mean that the first generation of converts are extremely fervent, but as the years pass and the original inspiration is forgotten, the members become open to new ideas. IOW, a new prophet will typically face citizens who are ready to be converted.

I also heartily endorse the idea of atheistic religions; "religion" here means what the citizens are loyal to, not a specifically theist body of doctrine. The Soviet Union's religious policy could be accurately termed establishment of Communism as a state "religion".

M@ni@c: to tell you the truth, I like your new model a good deal more than the old one. I don't see why a player would want to persecute _all_ the religions, as the effect would be unhappy and rioting citizens with no counter-balancing happy ones. But there's nothing wrong with letting a player shoot himself in the foot.

A suggestion for the interface, though. As the state religion must be unique, it still makes sense to put the control for it on the main SE screen. You can then have a sub-screen opening from SE, which lists all the known religions (except your state religion, if you have one) and has a flag by each for "persecute/tolerate".

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

The 20% Tax you loose by having
a state religion should end in that religion's treasury.

Good idea. But do you mean in addition to the tithing suggestion just made -- in other words a sum of money would be constantly flowing from believers into their religions' coffers, regardless of government attitude. But when a state religion was formed, this 20% tax would be in addition?

If you persecute a new religion the first X turns it exists, it is assumed martyrship... And within that first X turns it should have also increased Evangelism and Conviction.

Absolutely right about the cheaters temptation. Prophets currently exist for 20 turns as veteran units, or experts. Lets say experts are 15 evangelism, 20 conviction (where normal clerics and all base citizen units are 10/15). So for 20 turns they convert at that higher rate and you can't touch them; and if you persecute their religion under your state religion during those 20 turns, they're martyred, and all non-aligned units with 8 squares in any direction are instantly converted.

Since the prophet is dead after 20 turns, obviously he can't be considered to be martyred after that. But should the citizens who now carry on his religion retain the prophet's inflated veteran numbers for another 10 or 20 turns, before reverting back to their base citizen values?

[raingoon]

Can somebody please correct the language in these two statements? Thanks...

a. all citizens begin pagan...

I also see "animism"...

gg. setting “Religion SE” factors; choices follow (leaving out the non-religious effects of same):

Animism : (start up) does not effect conversion
Religious Freedom : -2 conviction, -1 evangelism
Establishment : +2 evangelism
Fundamentalism : +2 conviction
Persecution : +2 Evangelism

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 18, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 18, 1999).]</font>

[EnochF]

I assume you mean "Persecution."

------------------
"Harel didn't replay. He just stood there, with his friend, transfixed by the brown balls."

[Maniac]

MBrazier :

"A suggestion for the interface, though. As the state religion must be unique, it still makes sense to put the control for it on the main SE screen. You can then have a sub-screen opening from SE, which lists all the known religions (except your state religion, if you have one) and has a flag by each for "persecute/tolerate"."

So then you only determine tolerate/persecute in the Religion window and determine your state religion in the SE window? What advantages has that?

Raingoon :

It would be an addition to the normal tithes.
But I have a question about Will's tithing system.
In your system every citizen gives one gold piece to his/her religion, so tax income = # believers.
But does that 1 gold appears out of thin air, or does the player has to pay it?
I hope it's thin air, cause if the player has to pay it, the burden to your economy and tax income would be too big.

"But should the citizens who now carry on his religion retain the prophet's inflated veteran numbers for another 10 or 20 turns, before reverting back to their base citizen values?"

I think that depends on how easy conversion is. Playtesting is needed.

[will I]

It seems like we're coming together on most of the outstanding issues, although I'm sure the devil will be in the details.

M@ni@c: I think that we're actually in complete agreement on establishing religious attitudes. My original proposal states that "Under this system, belonging to the persecuted religion is illegal. A government may persecute one or all religions." I intended this to mean that a player can persecute one, two, or as many religions as s/he wants. Do you think it would be clearer if I revised the model to state that "A government may persecute one, several, or all religions?"

The effect of religion. I think we increase our likelihood of being heard if we describe religion both in terms of the Civ2 system (in which concepts like +2 or +1 Hap are meaningless) and generally in terms of the main alternate systems. In that case, I think we need a well-thought proposal for how religion would interact with the existing happiness system and religious improvements. Perhaps we should propose that the temple have no effect by itself, but is necessary for religions to affect happiness, and that a cathedral can be built only by a religion that has a state church. Any thoughts?

Religion screen. This should be the vehicle for both establishing religious policy and conducting religious diplomacy. It would have a button for "establish state religion" that would trigger a drop-down box indicating all available options (including "none") and a window indicating the answer. There would be another button for "proclaim religious freedom." Finally, there would be a button for "persecute," which would trigger a drop-down box indicating the available options. The screen would show all religions subject to persecution.

Funding. I like your funding suggestion. Using the Civ2 system, each believer would take tithes from the trade stream and deliver them to the religion. Each time the total value of tithes reached a certain point, which would vary with the size of the religion, there would be an additional passive conversion calculation. I would propose that, in addition, there be a subtraction from tithes for each active cleric and for the holy city, which would reflect the cost of maintaining a religious infrastructure.

Martyrdom. I like M@ni@c's suggestion, but would amend it so that there is a sliding scale -- the martyrdom effect would decrease with the passage of time. That way, there's no fixed cut-off point where the civs can begin to persecute an infant religion with impunity.

Holy City. Now I begin to see why we've had some disagreement over this. If the holy city is the trump card, why don't we allow the civ that has the greatest number of believers in that religion to designate the holy city when the religion passes the percentage threshold. That way, possession of the holy city isn't determined by dumb luck. Since the difficulty of reaching any threshold would depend on the number of religions in competition, I wouldn't make the threshold a fixed number. Instead, I would set it at a percentage of the population equal to one divided by the maximum number of religions. I like this approach because it gives the civs another reason to sponsor religions.