religion in alt civs

[tishco]

use it, see the list 2.0 in civ general forum.

someone use it, firaxis probly wont.

in short it would be like governments crossed wiht cultre, iwht the state faith affecting diplomacy and wars i they are the smae or similar or not.

citizens could be rebel religions, especially if your a backwards religion, and emigrate if you are hasrh on them, or hcange the entire city

there would be a worldwide pool of religion, which is like culture points which affects the diplomacy and citiznes

certain imnprovements depend on religion

[Miznia]

Hmm

Myself, I haven't been able to understand why religion should be incorporated. Wouldn't it just limit your options? Restrict your diplomatic choices?

Is the appeal, that you think it would be fun to wage non-conventional wars, to fight over citizens, and try to get them to convert to your religion?

I understand that religion would be more realistic, etc., but not what would be fun about it.

What do you think?

[tishco]

well someone said 'cuture sux, why does church increase it' and i said maybe it shud be religion.

in worked in shogun well,eg, become christian and get guns.

if not relgion why culture

[Dale]

My game History of Empires will have religion in it.

[dexter4dxm]

IMO, religion has its place in all Civ games, it's just hard to put in without either messing up the game or pissing people off. However, if someone would get it right, it would be great because religion is the sole reason behing many many many wars and disputes. Relgion has seriously shaped this world more than anything else (whether that's a good thing or not is up for question).

[Miznia]

The way I'm seeing it right now, is that religion would mainly make it easier for you to be friendly with certain civs, and not so easy with others.

Doesn't Civ3 already have something like this? I think there are five regional groups (American, European, Rome-Greece-Egypt, Bab-Per-Zulus, and eastern Asia), and it's supposed to be easier to deal with civs in the same group.

I'm not sure I like even this idea. Although, I think dividing the civs into religious groups would be even less interesting!

in worked in shogun well,eg, become christian and get guns.

if not relgion why culture

Hmm. Haven't played Shogun, but it sounds to me like you could simulate "become Christian and get guns" by allying with a civ with gunpowder.

I'm not sure culture is a good idea (haven't played Civ3), but I would prefer it to religion because it includes religion, as well as other things, like literature.

However, if someone would get it right, it would be great because religion is the sole reason behing many many many wars and disputes.

It would be "great" for realism, but I wouldn't think it very fun if I felt like I was being forced to be enemies with certain civs. It could make international relations and world wars predictable, I think.

Just thinking.

[dexter4dxm]

Originally posted by Miznia
It would be "great" for realism, but I wouldn't think it very fun if I felt like I was being forced to be enemies with certain civs. It could make international relations and world wars predictable, I think.

true, but that's how the world is. i guess it's up to the game developer to decide whether the added realism is worth it in gameplay terms. i still think it could be pulled off correctly, but it would be hard. let's say you raise an empire full of christians and your neighbors are purely muslims, then it would be like you were a democracy and they were communists, it's the same idea. one group liking or disliking another group. yes, it's more things for the player to have to deal with, but if presented right, it could make the game more interesting

[Caesar2760]

Of course, you could always have a discovery, building, or Wonder called "Separation of Church and State," which would make it easier for you to be friendly with those of other religions and let you contain cities with majority populations of other religions. Also, you could have a discovery, building, or Wonder called "Crusades," allowing you to war with other religions without others of the same religion being allowed to declare war on you, or something like that.

[tishco]

but an idea someone had was not having a state religion. different citizens were different. and you could change the religion of your country to match an allies, maybe as a deal, 'cos wiht a religion strenght number growwing benifits of being the leading one come, but you lose benfits of individuality.

[dexter4dxm]

you can institute a state religion, but you'll have to persecute all the people of other religions who live in your country. this could be represented as the need to send ground troops to cities where religious leaders are converting the citizens. i say having a unified state religion should have its benifits to your economy or culture or whatever, but the downside is that countries with opposing religions will hate you more