posted August 09, 1999 15:39            

Maniac noted all the major religns and didn't note jewdism. He also add, BECAUSE I AM JEWISH that "don't takeo offesnse, Harel, but I don't belive jewdism has enough spread to be a global religon".

Since I only born a jew, and don't approve of any religon, I replied as as JOKE ( mark the , the UBB note it quite nicely ) that I don't care about it either and he could scrap it for all i care.

posted August 09, 1999 16:02            

I do read the posts, and did read them.

What difference does it make if you were born Jewish? Did you stop to think there may be other believers in Judaeism here who do not share your beliefs?

I love how some people never want to be attacked personally, but will defend themselves with the most personal of facts. It doesn't matter what religion you are, Harel, or how many ways you "wink", it was an imprudent comment.

But the thrust of my criticism, again, which you have not addressed, was not your words or insults, but the quality of thinking you were displaying in using them. And, I would add, in defending them subsequently.

Look, I support your right to say whatever you want, as long as you believe it's the truth. Including a joke at a religion's expense (you needn't claim birthright). But if we want to be persuasive with our ideas here, that is, if you want BR and Firaxis to actually implement what we're suggesting into Civ3 (that is, after all, the point) then we can't degenerate into "SCREW YOU" epitaths and busting on certain relgions with a wink. It's lame. And a waste of everybody's time.

So do I really need to say again that it _might_ not be such a good idea to speak dismissively of a specific religion on the Civ3 religion board, in the context of a debate on what religions to include or exlude and what their value is?

posted August 09, 1999 16:39            

What does it matter I am jewish Raingoon?

I used the phrase "screw them", after certain took dis-respect toward a belief system that I, and millions other, hold dear. They claim it's not a belief: in my view point, it's just one step away from saying it has no values at all.

You however, in my eyes atleast, made a much bigger offense. You accused me of anti-semite feelings, of RACISM. Now, I don't know where you come from or what you belive in, but in my country Racism is the worst sin possible. And you blurbed it out, sent it hurtling to the air...

Do you know me? Do you know what you accuse? "Screw" might be a brainless, childish curse-word. True. But Racism is a crime, a sin. How DARE you simply accuse someone of this? What? Beacause I said "scrap jewism?" Because I am not fond of religons? I think that it's clear from my posts that i hold nothing special jewdism, just against religon as general.

One should be careful with charged words. Some people can find it amusing that you accuse a jew of anti-semite feelings. Hey, even Sienfield did an episode with it ( Jerry strange uncle, Leo which accued everyone, even a Rabi in being an anti-semtie ). But i am not amused. My Grandfather was a partizne and fought the nazi's. I KNOW what anti-semite feelings are. I fight everyday to protect my people: i don't know if you know this, but I am an officer in Israel army. I love my people because they are a part of this country: I care not for thier religon, or mine.

Heed me well: dis-approvel is not like hate. I dispprove of religon of any sort, I mock those who still search for god in the last stages of the second millenium. I think they are lost souls, alienated by technology and harsh world to seek comfort in something that isn't there.
But I don't HATE them. I don't hate Islamics, i don't hate christians, i don't hate jews. I hold my own view point and pity does who don't. All of us do the same. I have no hate for any people on this world. I only hate does who hates other simply because of who they are.
This is how I was brought. That naziasm, and any sort of racism, is an illness on this world.

My only regret that people today tend to accuse of Racism far far too swiftly. I deminish the crime, the cruelity of the hatred.

posted August 09, 1999 17:16            

quote:

---

...criticism, again, which you have not addressed, was not your words or insults, but the quality of thinking you were displaying in using them.

---

Do you know what? I wasn't wrong. I shouldn't have talked so harshly, yes. But I wasn't wrong.
Because, in all of this debate Raingoon YOU ignored the reason I got mad. I did not "bust" on any religon.
Snowfire, MBrazier and Jon miller, all took an insulting episode to cancel a belief I and many more belive in. Atheism is not a belief acording to our schoolars. But, if it's not a belief, it has no values. And then, I donth have values.
I don't belive in Monotheism. Yet, I don't deny it's right to exist in civ III. Many of us don't approve of some of the paganic ceremons. Yet we have no problem that it shell join this new game.

But why, raingoon, you who jumps to quickly to defend a religon from a joke ( which, and I don't care what you say I am more then intitled to make, birth right of no birth right ) don't stop people who want to cancel a major religon in the current world simply because they don't belive in it?
People wanted to add multiathism, the "new-age" religon. It's newer and got less members then Athiesm. Yet no one complained it was suggested.

Atheism is a unique religon which defer then any other religon. It has a long historical chain, many great philoshopers were atheists and many people are today. So, when people attack Atheism ( and not other "new and unpopuler" religons such as multiathism ) the only reasoning is that they simply don't belive in it, that's why. I can't think of a single religon model without Atheism: it's required to mentain equa-liberium.

I don't regret I lashed out. I should have. I would not agree that people would simply suggest to cancel a religon for the basical reason that they don't belive in it.
Did I ever sugest to cancel jewism? No. I was kidding. Did I sugest to cancel the entire mono-atheist religons, or just ANY religon on the face of the earth for the simply reason that I don't belive in it? No.

posted August 09, 1999 17:24            

1. Holy City: It seems like most of the commenters are treating the holy city as something that a government can proclaim when, in reality, the most prominent holy cities in our world -- Mecca, Jerusalem, Medina, Rome -- exist because of events in the life in the history of the religion unrelated to government action. I would suggest, therefore, that the holy city be the starting point of a particular religion.

2. Effect of a holy city: I would propose that the civilization that encompasses a holy city would be more susceptible to conversion by that religion. This benefit would increase if the civilization proclaimed that religion to be the state religion. If a civilization attacked or destroyed the Turywenzist holy city, Turywenzists in that civ would instantly become unhappy.

3. Diplomatic interaction: I think that requiring a holy city for players to engage in diplomatic interactaction with a religion both decreases realism and lessens the fun. True, protestantism never had a "holy city," but governments could interact with protestant churches at first by approaching influential leaders and later by dealing with the heads of particular denominations. My proposal that each religion get a holy city would eliminate this problem.

4. Atheism: It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic to make atheism a religious choice. Of course, religious improvements would have no effect on atheistic citizens.

5. Religious improvements: I suggest that each religious improvement have a particular faith attached and have two effects: Increasing the rate of conversion for that city and increasing the happiness for people of that religion. However, to avoid pointless tearing down of buildings when religions change, I also propose that a civ have the option to reconsecrate a religious improvement to another religion upon payment of a certain amount of gold.

6. Conversion: I think that the conversion proposals are somewhat flawed. I may not be able to hit all of it right now, as my time at work is drawing to a close. However, here goes:

6.1. General concept. Someone has stated that under the current proposal, religion is a virus that your civilization gets. I think a better way to look at it is that religion is a virus that your CITIZENS get. The question, then, is how citizens get the virus and under what conditions they succumb.

6.2. Conversion of tiles. I don't think this is a good idea. Civ has traditionally been a game of cities. In addition, it seems like doing a religion check on every tile every turn would take a tremendous amount of time.

6.3. Basic conversion of cities. Each religion would get a basic proselytization factor. This factor could be increased by a player (whether or not it had proclaimed a state religion) paying for missionary work. Each turn, there would be a calculation (similar to the one described for tiles) in which citizens in one city could potentially convert citizens in nearby cities. A similar factor would govern defense against conversion.

6.4. Conversion of military units. I do not like the idea of there being a religion check each time two units pass. First, this is unrealistic -- opposing armies seldom converted each other. Second, this feature would too readily result in flip-flop conversions of units. I suggest insead that unit conversion work similar to the city conversion described above -- that units be susceptible to conversion if in the vicinity of a city with citizens of another religion. Of course, their proximity to cities with citizens of their religion would be a defensive factor.

6.5. Conversion of cities by military units. I would scrap this as unrealistic. I can't think of many occasions when military units hovering outside of hostile cities achieved a religious conversion. However, if military units conquered a city, I would suggest that they have an opportunity to proselytize for each turn that they stayed in the city.

6.6. Clerics. I would suggest replacing the "missionary" unit with a "cleric." The cleric could be used to convert one or more citizens in a city, to stir up rebellion among citizens that share its religion, or, if stacked with military units, defend them against conversion by a city.

posted August 09, 1999 17:59            

I have wondered if anyone had problems with the virus model as I had first laid it out.

1. Your point about military units not being able to win (what we've short-handed to) a "religious debate" is well taken.

I suggest insead that... units be susceptible to conversion if in the vicinity of a city with citizens of another religion.

Could you elaborate on how that would work?

2. Yes, currently the thinking is that each individual population unit would have its own religious affiliation, as I think you suggest.

3.Each religion would get a basic proselytization factor.

If you mean that factor is the same for each religion, then I agree. If not, than not. Please explain?

I think in general the concept of unit conversion and city conversion needs to be simpler (than I had it, anyway). I'll think about this too. I think your city conquer idea is on to something...

Harel

If Firaxis ultimately chooses to put religions in the game (as I think we all sincerely hope! ) then I would agree that atheism should be one of them. Was it you who pointed out that in fact atheism could have an equalizing effect? I agree it would, to an extent. I also recognize there are some who would be offended by its inclusion, and so I ultimately fall back to the need to come up with a viable alternative to labeling religions.

But I remain convinced that giving bonuses or penalties to different religions, even if they are as generic as "animism", is a non-starter.

posted August 09, 1999 19:03            

A personal note -- _I_ am capable of making the same types of joking comments for which I criticized you. So if yours makes you racist, which as you've stated you are quite obviously not, then I must be that too. So let us go in peace, I meant no offense to you.

Also, sorry to hear you felt your belief in atheism attacked earlier. I did not read the posts that specifically prompted you to get angry. I only addressed the one that made me angry.

Really, I just love this idea of religion in Civ3, and I want to keep the discussion open and friendly.

In fact, what do you think of my religion virus model? (posted earlier).

posted August 09, 1999 19:10            

You appear to be mixing together two things that really ought to be kept separate: the active denial that God exists, and an attitude of indifference to the question. I personally reserve the term "atheism" to the former; the latter I call "indifference" (logically enough) or "worldliness". When you remark that "atheism" has never brought people to shed blood, and when you ask for an "atheist" choice for state religion, you really mean indifference.

Well, our tentative system already has a choice signifying indifference. It's "None of the Above" -- the choice not to establish a state religion at all. You can't get more indifferent than that. Now if a player takes that choice he can't build Clerics and gets no benefit from Temples, but that's only sensible. Can you imagine anyone standing on a street corner and preaching, with great fervor, that whether God exists is a question of no importance?

And it's true that indifference has inspired no wars -- because it has inspired nothing. It is indeed the zero of religious positions; it is an emptiness, a vacuum, a nothingness. And from nothing comes nothing. All that has ever been achieved in human history, has been achieved because somebody was _not_ indifferent.

Everyone:

On this argument about whether real religions ought to be in the game: the best feature of the system Raingoon and I are working on is that you can call the game religions anything you like. The names attached to game religions have exactly the same significance as the names attached to civilizations do -- namely, little more than convenient labels.

And now, back to the serious work of this thread. M@ni@c (BTW, do you mind if I call you Bruce?), I do agree that unhappy people are more receptive to new doctrines in the real world. But the way you've got it set up, a few aristocrats will be able to convert a large mob of the discontented. And still worse, the same aristocrats can twist an equal number of your "revolutionaries" around their little fingers. Worst of all, the conversions would raise some of those discontented and revolutionary citizens up to contentment, making it much more difficult to convert them back. Did you intend that?

My suggestion that not having a state religion give a Culture bonus makes sense only if Culture affects migration and assimilation, as you had it doing originally. As you intelligently observe, the most realistic effect of "religious freedom" is to attract immigrants and weaken religious convictions -- which can be simulated exactly in your former SE terms as a Culture bonus and Nationalism penalty. I left off the Nationalism penalty for reasons of game balance, not realism.

posted August 09, 1999 21:25            

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.

posted August 10, 1999 10:18            

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.

posted August 10, 1999 15:37            

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.

posted August 10, 1999 17:10            

"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

posted August 10, 1999 17:30            

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.

posted August 10, 1999 18:26            

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

posted August 10, 1999 18:55            

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)

posted August 10, 1999 19:37            

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.

posted August 11, 1999 02:22            

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)?

posted August 11, 1999 04:45            

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.

posted August 11, 1999 09:11            

"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 :

posted August 11, 1999 13:02            

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?

posted August 11, 1999 13:31            

Someone probaly allready suggested it, by I will try anyway.

About the "virus" idea Raingoon: it's good, really it is. But isn't it about creating generic religons? Civ is about duplicating alternative histories. We use names of civ that allready existed, and build cities that allready have been built. My point is, all civ is centered about our history, which might or might not go in the same direction of our history.

We don't have technology we havn't discovered, or cities we never have dreamt of building. My point is, as much as we can wish, we need to use real religon in history: that just how civ works.

Now, I agree that using the actual names might be a bit too touchy. But, we should stick with catagorizing real religons: mono-theist or paganism, not "worship" or "evanglist".

However, I agree to disagree that we could never, ever agree on a set of SE modifactors. Who is to say what bonus should Athiesm or Polytheism get? Every person in this room would have diffeent ideas.

So, this is what I suggest: scrap the SE options, but still keep the old catagories and give religon other benefits, not SE.
I mean, like special bonuses.

Polytheism should get +100% extra from temples.

Monotheism should get +100% from churchs.

Atheism should get no hap bonus from temples/churchs, but get a double science bonus from universties.

Religous freedom gets +25% extra from all holy buildings and wonders.

I think that on this reward system we can all agree. We still pick our religon from a menu: or atleast the "declared". I agree that you should have factions and steams: most of your cities would be what you decided, but those who are very unhappy might change thier religon to something else and get the different bonuses. Then, it could spread like the virus idea, and change other civ or yours, what ever you like.

posted August 11, 1999 14:57            

"And now, back to the serious work of this thread. M@ni@c (BTW, do you mind if I call you Bruce?)"

If that @'s are really too tough, call me Peter.

" I do agree that unhappy people are more receptive to new doctrines in the real world. But the way you've got it set up, a few aristocrats will be able to convert a large mob of the discontented. And still worse, the same aristocrats can twist an equal number of your "revolutionaries" around their little fingers. Worst of all, the conversions would raise some of those discontented and revolutionary citizens up to contentment, making it much more difficult to convert them back. Did you intend that?"

All of that is made redundant if we use the happiness indicator of Theben.

"My suggestion that not having a state religion give a Culture bonus makes sense only if Culture affects migration and assimilation, as you had it doing originally. As you intelligently observe, the most realistic effect of "religious freedom" is to attract immigrants and weaken religious convictions -- which can be simulated exactly in your former SE terms as a Culture bonus and Nationalism penalty. I left off the Nationalism penalty for reasons of game balance, not realism."

Hmm... You have a point.

To everyone : Should I rechange Culture?

Harel :

posted August 11, 1999 16:39            

Harel

Since my original post, the generic religion idea has changed to historically accurate ones. For the reason you mention.

Actually, there is an idea that the player can name or re-name the religions himself, and there is further idea that actual real-world prophets start them up... Nothing solid yet, so religion names are still on the table, but generic is out.

I like your suggested SE replacements for their simplicity. It's this or a simplified SE, something on the order of Mbrazier and M@ni@c's suggestions.

Will

Good ideas again. Leaving out what I DO agree with, here are some points I have --

2.6. Declare a defender of the faith.

This could be accomplished de facto by the appearance of a Holy City.

Funding. I think the easiest way to model this is to have religions periodically make requests/demands for lump sum donations. The player could have the choice to tithe regularly in smaller amounts. In the long run, the AI would ask for more in lump sum payments than if you tithed small amounts regularly.

Donating money to a religion should have the effect of increasing the strength of its hold on the citizenry. It should take a LOT of money, but eventually you'd notice an increased evangelist or conviction rating for that religion.

3. Interaction. How do you see Holy Cities as better when religion is small and weak? I'm thinking Vatican, etc. I still like the Holy City as a requirement for diplomatic relations, and limiting how a Holy City can emerge. You're right about the Christians and many others who were small but dealt with great civs. So what about this:

a. Diplomacy. Any religion can ask for donation (to help it grow), or defense (to prevent it from shrinking), at any time.

b. Holy Cities are required for full diplomatic relations (this represents the power of the Vatican, or the Dali Lama, etc.)

bb. Full Diplomatic relations include the ability of the religion to:

i. ask for money
ii. lend money (?)
iii.demand a jihad
iv. demand defense against a jihad
vi. demand that you cease fire/sign treaty
vii.demand missionary
viii. ask for a crusade if its Holy City is captured by a civ whose main religion is a different one.

Likewise,the player would have the ability to:

i. ask for money?
ii. ask for blessing (= happiness boost for X turns, or a boost in any morale factors)
iii. in planetary council type votes, all religions with Holy City's could have some votes and these could be bartered for.
iv. ?

posted August 11, 1999 22:23            

No, I don't really have a problem with the @ signs; I was only making a casual allusion.

"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?

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"

OK, that's workable; a clear continuum of policies, with Persecution as the step past Fundamentalism, and Animism as the unstated default, discarded as soon as there are real religions to deal with.

"Could somebody point me a post where the advantages of all the people having your religion are mentioned?"

Well, one benefit has been mentioned several times by several posters. In the terms of your SE model: religious improvements affect the local Happiness. Building a temple in a city gives +X per citizen belonging to your state religion, and -X per citizen who doesn't, within that city's boundaries. (I'm not comfortable enough with your SE system to say what X should be.) Moreover, X varies according to your Religion SE setting -- under Religious Freedom it's 0, under Establishment it's at a base value, under Fundamentalism it's double that base, under Persecution it's larger yet. Thus your citizens' religion doesn't matter at all under Religious Freedom, and the more you entangle your civ with a religion, the more important your citizens' religion gets.

Will:

Your sections 1) and 4) cover what we've been discussing so far; see what I just said to M@ni@c for my thoughts on 1), and check back for my comments on "prophets" appearing on the map for an implementation of 4).

2) and 3), though, start a new subject: religious diplomacy. All your subheads are good ideas, too; herewith thoughts on each.

SUBSIDIES, ALMS, MISSIONS: Let's say that once your civ has met a religion, you have the option of sending it some of your tax funds. The rule would be that, if you pay out X gold for each current member of the religion, the religion's Evangelism rating rises by 1. That is, it costs twice as much to help out a religion with 20 members as it does one with only 10.

BLESS THE GODLY, CURSE THE INFIDEL: There should be a "threshold number" of members that a religion must reach, in order to gain diplomatic recognition and the ability to do things of this sort. OTOH a religion should definitely _remember_ what civs did to its members before it found its voice.

For this purpose we can borrow the current diplomacy system in Civ2; religions react to your general fame as the other civs do, and also have a private opinion of you based on what you've done for/to them personally. What a religion with diplomatic facilities can offer you is, naturally, the happiness of your citizens -- that is, it can tweak the Happiness in your cities by an amount proportional to the religion's local strength. This can be used either to start "golden ages" or to throw a civ into disorder.

posted August 12, 1999 12:54            

M@ni@c, I was not saying that persecution never happened, I am saying that if you have none as the state religion you would have to persecute everybody who beleives in God and everybody who does not beleif in God

that seem pretty much like everybody to me

as everybody knows sience is the name of the game, giving atheists double science from universities is a bad thing and is not realistic either

posted August 12, 1999 04:19            

This is not the official re-post of my original, but the work in progress. So I'm trying something new. Since this is not my model anymore but all of ours, and because it makes it easier, I'm going to post this in sections so we can attack it in parts. Then when we're done, I'll put up the final post reflecting everybody's input. Summaries for the Version 2 wishlist are due in about 10 days.

Following is section I, the nifty introductory statement, and the first part of section II, concepts.

Note contents in italics.

Everything that follows is up for debate:
_________________________________________
Civ3's Religion Sim Model (version 2.0)

I. Religion in Civ3

A. Why have it?

Religion is a fundamental force driving civilizations. The effects of religion permeate the history of nations, their borders, their wars and their treaties. Your ability to direct religion's impact is likewise varied. For the first time you will be able to identify your citizens individually by their beliefs, track the rise and fall of major religions, and affect the social mechanics that make your civilization grow and evolve over the centuries.

B. Defined.

Religion is a game element comparable to trade. Where trade deals with resources, religion deals with population.

1. Religions are synonymous with citizens. Each citizen has the ability to belong to one religion.
2. Each city is recognized as belonging to the religion practiced by the majority of its citizens.
3. Each religion has a name and a corresponding color. Colors are not the same as civ colors.
4. There can be up to twice as many religions as there are civs at any given time.
5. Religions are visible in the game in three ways:
a. as a color graph in the city window (showing your city's religious makeup), and
b. as a map showing the current religious borders of the world, as determined by cities.
c. as a cleric unit representing both a specific civ and a specific religion

II. Religious Concepts

A. origins
B. religious conversion
C. diplomacy with religions
D. government and religion

A. Origins

Prophets begin to appear in the world almost immediately after the game begins. Religions will spread immediately thereafter. After that, new religions will appear through the centuries, some never growing more than a city or two, others becoming recognized world religions. Some that are irradicated will never be heard of again; others might enjoy a revival two thousand years later.

posted August 12, 1999 11:12            

Your outline looks really good so far. I have a few suggestions. To make it simple, I'm posing them as alternate language in your graph, followed by the reason for making the change.

I.B.3. Each religion shall have its own symbol -- cross for Christianity, crescent for Islam, lotus for Buddhism, T for Turywenzism, etc.

I don't think there are enough colors to give each religion a separate color. If Firaxis stays with the seven-civ model of Civ1/2, all of the primary colors and the easy blends will be claimed by civs, which will leave only various shades -- lime green, lavender, etc. -- for religions, which could be confusing.

I.B.4. At any time, there can be three more religions than there are civs. If a civ eradication of a civ leaves an excess number of religions, the smallest religion shall be eliminated and its members given to the second smallest religion.

Twice the number of civs seems a bit high if we're playing with 7 civs -- we'll quickly run out of colors/symbols.

I.B.5. Religions are visible in the game in four ways:
a. On the city screen by each member of the population holding a flag with the religious symbol on it. When the population gets too large for this to work, there will be a separate graphic showing the number of each citizen adhering to the religion.
---
d. On the main map, by the symbol of the majority religion appearing on the city flag next to the number of citizens.
I think these are self-explanatory

posted August 12, 1999 12:07            

I must admit to being intrigued with the idea of putting together a group religion proposal. Rather than just kibbitz from the sidelines, I'd be glad to construct part of it myself. How about a part III on the effect of religions, which would address how belonging to a religion would affect citizens, what a state religion would do to that effect, and how religious buildings would work?

To everyone:

In the meantime, I have some thoughts on the holy city question. I think we're working from different perspectives. You see the holy city as the capital of a religion, rather like the Vatican. Understandably, you believe that a religion would only get a capital if it were big enough to afford one. I see the holy city as simply a place revered by believers, and perhaps a center of scholarship -- more analogous to Geneva for early protestantism, Qum for Shi'ite Islam, or Mecca for all Islam. The holy need not be the center of religious government, but would, as a center of religious activity, give a boost to local missionary activity. I suppose either would work.

Also, some thoughts about the cleric unit for your consideration. I think we're evolving a conception of the cleric as being a cross between the Civ2 diplomat and a caravan. Like the diplomat, it would be able to take actions, such as converting a given number of citizens in a city. However, like a caravan, it could establish a link between cities that would represent the flow of evangelism from one to another. Once that link was established, the cleric would vanish from the board, and the city screens of the originating city and the receiving city would show the existence of the mission). For the sake of discussion, I propose that we refer to that link as a "mission." (We might also want a cleric to be able to prevent the establishment of a mission or eliminate a mission already established.)

I read your reply to my thoughts on funding. I think that regardless of the mechanism we choose for giving money to a religion, we also need to have a mechanism for determining how much money the religion needs. I would propose that the religion's monetary needs be a function of (1) the number of believers, (2) the number of clerics and missions that the religion supports, (3) whether the religion also has a holy city to support, and (4) whether the religion is currently on a jihad or crusade.

The effect of a mission would be different from a trade route, in that the closer the mission, the larger the level of evangelism. To limit the use of clerics, I would also restrict each city to sending three missions and receiving three missions. (Should we make a special rule that a holy city could send six missions and receive none?)

This concept plays into my most recent idea for religious improvements. As in Civ2, a temple or cathedral would increase the happiness level in a city (or perhaps productivity or some other stat). I propose that, in addition, if there is a mission from a religion in that city, the citizens of that religion get an added happiness or productivity boost. If one religion is the established church, citizens of other religions would not get the happiness/productivity boost from their church's mission. If one religion is the exclusive religion, citizens of other religions would suffer a happiness/productivity penalty. I think this is an elegant way of having religion-specific happiness effects without requiring a religious building for each church.

posted August 12, 1999 14:28            

Great idea to divvy up sections. In fact, what if we eliminate government and religion from Part II, and fold it into your Part III, "Effects of Religion?" This would leave the outline like this:

II. Religion Concepts
A. origins
B. conversion
C. diplomacy
III. Religion Effects

Regarding your points, I agree with them all BUT -- oh, yes, you guessed it -- Holy Cities. ALthough I acknowledge it's a valid way of looking at it, I was hoping between the other posts we had persuaded you. Hmmm... if you'll suffer me once more to propose:

1. All religions be allowed to ask for money and protection from the first moment they exist.

2. Only religions that reach a certain large percentage size be allowed full diplomatic presence in the game.
2a. Appearance of a Holy City signifies full diplomatic presence.

There, I said it.

M@ni@c and Will

Both of you made the same point about colors/color graphs. I like your solution of using symbols. M@ni@c, there could be a simple pie chart showing the percentages as well, and you wouldn't have to wait until there were too many to have it. I'm sure it would be easy...

posted August 13, 1999 10:48         

A suggestion made by several people (including myself) at the Apolyton forum is that AI player religions crop up randomly over time. A civ gets to set its attitude towards that religion, which depending on the % of cities (a city is not devided up between religions) that converts to said religion helps determine the city's happiness. The religions will have their own qualities:

Outlook on war
Militant
Neutral
Pacifistic

Evangelizm

Evangelstic
Normal
Non-Evangelstic(like Judiasm)

Tolerance (also a measure of conviction)

Open (all religions are different flavors of the same ice cream)
Tolerant (your wrong, but I won't kill you for it)
Intolerant (DIE!!)

What these religions are called in the rules.txt is irrelavent because we can all edit it, but I would favor the use of dead religions. Theocracies would be possible with the advent of the first religion, which I favor the idea that for a limited time a monarchy would be able to create a state religion with the king as god.

posted August 13, 1999 14:24            

III. Effects of religion

A. Generation of happiness

1. Using current system.
a. Each time a new religion enters a city, the least happy citizen is the first to convert. The first convert takes one upward step in happiness, that is, from unhappy to content or from content to happy. This effect continues indefinitely, so that each religion present in a city adds step to the base happiness level of the city.
b. When one religion obtains a majority in a city, the least happy adherent of that religion gets a step upward in happiness.

2. Under alternate systems. Several people have proposed systems under which happiness becomes a percentage factor for each city that affects the productivity, and is not an attribute of the citizens. Under such systems, the conversion of one citizen to a new religion would increase the overall happiness/productivity percentage. When one religion attained majority status in a city, one of that religion's citizens would gain a step in happiness.

3. Age of Faith. The effects of religion would be greater during the Age of Faith, which would last either from 0-1500 AD, or from the discovery of religion to the discovery of electronics. When one religion attained majority status in a city, two of that religion's citizens would gain a step in happiness. When all of a city's citizens belonged to the same religion, one citizen would gain a step in happiness.

B. Effect of government on religion: Each civ will have the option of taking several specific actions with regard to religion:

1. Toleration. Under this system, the benefits associated with religion are unchanged from those laid out in section A.

2. Establish a state church. Under this system, the state picks one church as its official religion, but does not disfavor other religions.

a. The state agrees to pay all expenses of the established church, which takes the form of a tithe out of annual income. (See below for quantity of tithe.)
b. In return, the church supports the government's program, which results in one unhappy citizen becoming content for every four believers in each city. If a different happiness/productivity system is adopted, proclamation of a state religion increases a city (or civilization) happiness/productivity level by a factor of 25 percent times the proportion of citizens who belong to the state religion.
c. The established church's conversion factor increases by 10 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of that civ.
d. Any positive effects that other religions have on happiness are eliminated.
e. Deestablishing the church. A civ may deestablish a church at any time. However, deestablishment shall result in a period of civil disorder for two turns.

3. Persecution. Under this system, belonging to the persecuted religion is illegal. A government may persecute one or all religions.
a. A persecuted religion's conversion factor is reduced by 25 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of the persecuting civ.
b. The civ's overall research output declines by 25 percent.
c. In each city that contains members of the persecuted religion, 1.5 content citizens become unhappy for each member of the persecuted religion, reflecting the unhappiness of the persecutees and their friends. (Under a revised happiness/productivity system, persecution results in a decrease in a city or civitlization happiness/productivity level by 25 percent times the proportion of citizens who are subject to persecution.) The city's the research output decreases by 25 percent to reflect the effect of intolerance.
d. Persecution has no positive effect other than those that result from the increase in the number of adherents to the state religion.
e. If a civ that persecutes a religion, its reputation with any civ that has chosen that religion as its state religion will worsen.

4. Multiple civs with the same state church.
a. A civ may establish a religion as its state church even if another civ has already made that religion its state church. In such cases, the religion will not take any action against either of the civs, and will remain neutral in any conflict between them.
b. Any civ that has established a church may call for a Church Council. Each civ with citizens who belong to the religion shall have a base number of votes equal to the number of citizens who are members of the religion, regardless of whether it is a state religion. A civ that has made the religion its state church shall have extra votes. The church hierarchy shall also have extra votes, which will be cast in favor of the civ that has the best reputation with that religion. The Church Council may expel a civ from the religion with the support of 75 percent of the votes. It may also name a Defender of the Faith with 75 percent of the votes.
c. A civ that is expelled from a religion may adopt any other extant religion as its state religion without penalty. 75 percent of the citizens of the old church will convert to the new church, while 25 percent will remain faithful to the old church. In any civ voting for expulsion, 25 percent of the members of the old religion will convert to the new religion. The remainder will stay faithful.
d. A civ that loses an election for defender of the faith may declare a Schism. It will then become a separate religion or, if there is no open religion spot, merge with any one of the established religions. The penalties will be the same as in the case of an expulsion.

C. Religious improvements.

1. Types. The types of religious improvements remain the same as in Civ1/2 and may be built by any civ that has obtained the necessary technologies. If the current system is maintained, the effects shall be the same.

2. Effect of missions. In addition, a mission in a city with a religious improvement will increase the happiness level of the believers. Under the traditional system, in a city with a temple, the least happy citizen will get a one-step boost in happiness for each religion that is hosting a mission and has more than three believers. (Hosting a mission means that the religion has sent a cleric to that city and established a mission.) In a city with a cathedral, each religion that is hosting a mission and has more than three believers will result in a one-step boost in the happiness of the least happy citizen. For each religion that has a mission and six believers, the two least happy citizens will both have a one-step boost in happiness. Under an alternate system, temples and cathedrals will result in an increase in the happiness/productivity levels of the city in which they are located.

3. Effect of state religion. Proclamation of a state religion will double the effect of temples and cathedrals for citizens who adhere to the state religion and eliminate the effect of temples and cathedrals for all other religions.

posted August 13, 1999 14:41            

On the Holy City issue: I don't think that our ideas of Holy Cities are incompatible. I can see your point that it makes sense that when a religion hits the big time, there be some change in its status to represent its greater presence as a global player and a location for it to conduct business. However, it would also make sense that before that time, certain cities associated with the religion's history be considered especially sacred, and that these cities would also have a role in the spread of the religion. Think, for example, of the fact that while Rome is the Holy City of Catholicism, Guadalupe and Compostela are in some ways equally important as centers of devotion. Geneva played a similar role in the spread of Calvinism.

Perhaps before a holy city is proclaimed, the city where the religion began can be considered the Central Shrine, and have some effect on conversion.

posted August 14, 1999 05:26            

Re "holy cities", that works for me generally. There could be some sort of "pilgrim" rule -- like, "Turywenzo born, worshippers make pilgrimage to Orleans" and for the next 20 turns either the prophet rule is in effect for Orleans, or the city itself can have a further reaching radius, or both.

This makes me think it would be simpler not to have the prophet appear as a unit on the map moving around, but go back to the idea of him/her being a citizen temporarily converted but staying inside the city, and increase the reach of that city for 20 turns.

Victory Condition -- yes, world domination has been discussed, and suggested that it should be very hard to accomplish but is still very possible.

Some first reactions to your Effects of Religion section...

1.a. Each time a new religion enters a city, the least happy citizen is the first to convert.

I would sub-title(1) just "Happiness" (and for the sake of simplicity, leave out the alternative models -- people can substitute and still see how it would work.

But question -- how can we know who is the least happy citizen? Think I need to understand that before commenting further here.

3. Age of Faith. The effects of religion would be greater during the Age of Faith, which would last either from 0-1500 AD, or from the discovery of religion to the discovery of electronics.

A good idea... I like the discovery of religion to electronics better than the years. Although does it make sense that the discovery of religion can come AFTER a prophet appears? Perhaps a prophet cannot come before 1000 BC AND not before the discovery of religion.

When one religion attained majority status in a city, two of that religion's citizens would gain a step in happiness. During that period, a city that had a majority of its citizens belonging to the same religion would have one citizen gain a step in happiness.

Is this every turn? Just once? I don't know if I understand "during that period"?

2. Establish a state church. Under this system, the state picks one church as its official religion, but does not disfavor other religions.

I agree with all your bullets here. Just wondering if Mbrazier had anything to add from his earlier posts...

Also -- are these choices exclusive? It seems you're saying one can choose a state religion and also repress at the same time. Which makes sense...

3 a. A persecuted religion's conversion factor is reduced by 10 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of the persecuting civ.

Is 10 percent enough considering the cost of doing this? Since it's affecting the conversion values, not the citizens directly, maybe 25% would be better? It seems repression is a tool to help you have one religion in your civ, which by state religion rules would of course be desirable.

So basically the three things you can do toward religion in the game is encourage its growth (state religion), make it shrink (repression) or "laize faire" (toleration). And the thrust of religion in terms of playing the game is choosing which one will be your state religion and trying to maximize the benefit of that.

4. Deestablishing the church. A civ may deestablish a church at any time. However, deestablishment shall result in a period of civil disorder for two turns.

This refers to state religions, I assume? I.e., "a civ may de-establish their state religion..." In which case, it might be a better sub-point under state religions.

5b. Any civ that has established a church may call for a Church Council.

Regarding church councils, this is a new idea. Will it compete with any "U.N/ planetary type council"? Couldn't this be done better with the "Holy City"(capitol)? Essentially, if you want to get another civ to de-establish their state religion, you could negotiate with that religion to get them to decree that. Possessing that Holy City AND running a state religion would give you a diplomatic edge in this, obviously.

2. Effect of missions.

Glad to see this getting clarified...

Good stuff here. Let's see what others are saying. I've already incorporated the changes made to section I. I'll get the rest of II up this weekend.

posted August 14, 1999 18:11            

Tell me if I get this completely wrong.

Introduction

"a. Each time a new religion enters a city, the least happy citizen is the first to convert. The first convert takes one upward step in happiness, that is, from unhappy to content or from content to happy. This effect continues indefinitely, so that each religion present in a city adds step to the base happiness level of the city."

So if I get this right, every different relgion makes one unhappy person content?
So the more different religions in a city, the happier?
Then I totally loose the point of letting your citizens have the same religion.

"3. Age of Faith. The effects of religion would be greater during the Age of Faith, which would last either from 0-1500 AD, or from the discovery of religion to the discovery of electronics. When one religion attained majority status in a city, two of that religion's citizens would gain a step in happiness. During that period, a city that had a majority of its citizens belonging to the same religion would have one citizen gain a step in happiness. When all of a city's citizens belonged to the same religion, one citizen would gain a step in happiness."

No, there shouldn't be an Age of Faith.
It's not because the Muslims have electronics, that they should believe less.

If you want to simulate the loss of importance of religions, become Religious Freedom (don't have a State Religion) or become Atheism(Religion option please?).

Established

"a. The state agrees to pay all expenses of the established church, which takes the form of a tithe out of annual income. (See below for quantity of tithe.)
"

I know Will you are against my SE Religion Category, but the loss of money by Established Church can simply be represented as -2 Taxes in my SE system.

"b. In return, the church supports the government's program, which results in one unhappy citizen becoming content for every four believers in each city."

No there are already enough unhappiness squelching city improvements in civ.
I suggest one extra Happy citizen per four citizens.
There is a lack of happiness creating things in civ.

Repression

Have you got something against the name Prosecution?
(BTW Cartagia, I checked in the dictionary. It is PROsecution. Perhaps some difference between British and American English?)

"b. The civ's overall research output declines by 25 percent.
"

Can again be represented by my Research SE factor.

"1.5 content citizens become unhappy for each member of the persecuted religion, reflecting the unhappiness of the persecutees and their friends. "

Don't make it too hard.
Just say every prosecuted citizen gets one level lower happiness rate.

So that means that prosecuted citizens that already were unhappy now become very unhappy.
= Revolutionaries.

"d. Persecution has no positive effect other than those that result from the increase in the number of adherents to the state religion.
"

I would give it +2 Police = the manner the government tries to suppress all that prosecuted people.

"The Church Council may expel a civ from the religion with the support of 75 percent of the votes.
"

Give me one example of a religious leader forbidding people to follow his religion.

Now, what is more realistic is an Excommunication option in the council.
Then all the citizens of that religion would become unhappier.

Another option FOR YOU, not the Church Council, could be Schisma and form a new religion.
Then 75% of the old believers should follow you in the newly created religion.
25% you have to convert, prosecute or whatever.

That way Protestantism can be simulated.

Schisma could be nice if the Church becomes too annoying.
Schisma is handy if a large part of your population already has the same religion and you don't want to waste centuries converting them to another State Religion.
Just Schisma and 75% of your old State Religion believers is instantly converted.

You don't seem to have foreign conversion modifiers. Only a positive for your Established State Religion and a negative for the prosecuted religions.
But that is only in your civ.

posted August 14, 1999 21:22            

I like your schism idea.

posted August 15, 1999 06:04            

(Under Section I)
B. Defined.

Religion is a game element comparable to trade. Where trade deals with resources, religion deals with population.

1. Religions are synonymous with citizens. Each citizen has the ability to belong to one religion.
2. Each city is recognized as belonging to the religion practiced by the majority of its citizens.
3. Each religion shall have its own symbol.
4. No religion has greater or less numerical values than any other.
5. Religion names can be edited by the player, thus the AI can default to historical religions, including defunct religions.
6. At any time, there can be up to three more religions than there are civs. If there are ever four more than X civs, the smallest religion shall be eliminated and its members given to the second smallest religion.
7. Religions are visible in the game in three ways:
a. in the city screen by each member of the population holding a flag with its religious symbol on it. When the population gets too large for this to work, there will be a separate graphic showing the number of each citizen adhering to the religion.
b. as a map showing the current religious borders of the world, as determined by cities.
c. as a cleric unit representing both a specific civ and a specific religion.
d. on the main map, by the symbol of the majority religion appearing on the city flag next to the number of citizens.

II. Religious Concepts

A. Origins

Prophets begin to appear in the world almost immediately after the game begins. Religions will spread immediately thereafter. After that, new religions will appear through the centuries, some never growing more than a city or two, others becoming recognized world religions. Some that are eradicated will never be heard of again; others might enjoy a revival two thousand years later.

1. Prophets
a. all civs begin pagan and will experience the emergence of at least one prophet beginning with the second millenium of the game.
b. prophets are expert cleric units (see below) that are not assigned to a civ, like barbarian generals in Civ2.
c. prophets die 20 turns after their appearance.
d. prophets can appear at any time during the game.
e. Turywenzism begins with the announcement: "Turywenzo has begun preaching in London."
f. prophets can appear in any city.
g. upon appearing, prophets instantly convert one citizen; after that, conversion proceeds under the normal rules.
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. a religion can re-appear with a new prophet only after its religion has previously been eradicated.

B. Conversion

Each religion is incompatible with all others. Whenever two religions overlap "zones of influence," each will seek to dominate the other. The AI will handle the calculations, and keep track of the results. New conversions are noted in the population window of the appropriate city.

1. Evangelism & Conviction
a. Evangelism is the "attack" value of a religion.

• all religions begin with the same base value, 10.
  
• citizen units and clerics all have evangelism ratings.

b. Conviction is the "defense" value of a religion.

• all religions begin with the same conviction value, 15.
  
• citizen units and clerics all have conviction ratings.
  
• all things being equal, citizens should successfully defend against conversion attempts about 66% of the time.

2. Adjusting Conversion Ratings
a. You can increase (or in some cases decrease) your citizens' and clerics' conversion ratings by:

• donating money to a specific religion
  
• declaring a state religion
  
• hosting a holy city
  
• building a city improvement
  
• building a Wonder
  
• discovering a technological advance
  
• setting "Religion SE" factors; choices follow (leaving out the non-religious effects of same):

quote:

---

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

---

• 4 like believers in one city increases each of their values

• calculations are made by "stacking" citizens together by religion and calculating once per turn.
  
• sample turn, citizen to citizen within a city:

quote:

---

Turywenzists in London start with an evangelist factor of 10. England has Turywenzism as the state religion, and tithes a set amount of money to that religion each turn, both of which increase the religion's base conversion factor to 15. The city of London has a cathedral (+.10 modifier), and 4 of its citizens are Turywenzists (+.33 modifier). This gives each Turywenzist in London an evangelist factor of 22. Each turn this factor is calculated against the conviction ratings of the 2 Londoners who are Yahoos who receive none of the modifiers, but whose higher base conviction ratings nevertheless prevent them from capitulating in one turn. Likewise, there is a much smaller chance they will convert a Turywenzist when the calculation is reversed.

---

b. "city to city"

• a city's dominant religion becomes its official religion for the purposes of city to city conversion.
  
• minority religions do not participate in converting, but do defend themselves when being converted.
  
• cities have a religious influence on all cities within an eight-tile radius.
  
• after inner city conversions are calculated, city to city is calculated.
  
• the dominant religion's effect lessens with distance, modifying the evangelist factor by a factor of 2 + distance divided by 10.
  
• all conversions outside the city are then calculated as if they were within the city.
  
• the effect is further weakened when the other city is an enemy civ.

4. Active Conversion
a. "missions"

• cleric units establish missions as caravans in Civ2 established trade routes.
  
• clerics represent the dominant religion of the city they were built in.
  
• clerics have very high evangelist/conviction ratings, roughly equal to a 5 stack of citizens.
  
• a cleric unit successfully establishing a mission brings that city into its home city's zone of influence; the new city is treated as if it resided on the furthest tile away from the home city.
  
• clerics disappear after they have attempted to establish a mission.
  
• mission success is calculated as a conversion between the cleric and the "stack" of all opposing religions in the city.
  
• clerics cannot establish missions within their city's zone of influence.

• 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.

posted August 15, 1999 13:21            

Solution :

An independent religion screen where there’s a list of all the religions existing in your empire.
You have 3 opinions for every religion :
Established Church/State Religion
Tolerance
Persecution/Repression

Established Church : (+2 Eva), -2 Tax
You can have only one State Religion at a time.
Your State Religion gets +20% Evangelism only in your own empire.
For every 4 citizens belonging to your state religion you get an extra happy citizen.

Tolerance : no positives or negatives
That will probably the most common choice.

Repression : (+2 Police)
All citizens belonging to the persecuted religion get one lower happpiness rate.
Means happy becomes content, content unhappy and unhappy revolutionary.
The prosecuted religion gets –20% Evangelism and –20% Conviction (some people convert to avoid eg torture).
Worse relationship with civs having the prosecuted religion as state religion.
If your police rate is –2 Pol or higher, you get a +2 Pol against all prosecuted citizens. –3 Pol doesn’t get a bonus. Two reasons for that.

1) To difficult and unrealistic. With that I mean, if your police rate is –3 (= every unit beyond the first out of your or your allies’ territory causes one unhappy citizen) it would be too silly to make sure they get -1 Pol and don’t get that pacifism penalty of –3 Pol.

posted August 15, 1999 17:06            

Couple things --

Under repression -- "Worse relationship with civs having the prosecuted religion as state religion."

Didn't understand -- Why would anyone declare a state religion and then persecute them?

Also, in my "Conversion" post for the religion model, I included a sample of SE choices from your discussions with Mbrazier to show how SE choices would effect conversion modifiers. But the more I look at it and your recent post, I think setting a state religion and choosing establishment under the SE menu seems redundant. Meaning, what does it mean to choose, "establishment" as my SE model? Is that a prerequisite for declaring a state religion? If so, that would make sense. Can you choose establishment and NOT select a state religion? Also, you seem to be able to choose "repression" and likewise maintain a state religion, which also makes sense, but there goes the establishment/prerequisite rule.

posted August 15, 1999 18:14            

No, you understood me wrong. If you want to persecute Turywenzism (while you of course have another state religion, persecuting and state religion are two distinct options, you can’t choose them both for the same religion), you will get bad diplomatic relationships with OTHER civilizations who did choose Turywenzism as their state religions.

Concerning the second part of your post, I think I explained it too shortly.
The Religion category disappears in the SE screen. Instead there comes an other new Religion screen with the things I explained in my previous post.

BTW, what is that establishment/prerequisite rule?

posted August 15, 1999 19:58            

Prerequisite/establishment rule is not a rule. It was me speculating on what you meant. But clearly you do not mean one must first choose "establishment" as their religious attitude, THEN select a state religion. These are different options. But you see the similarity between the concepts? It's confusing. Maybe you were discussing this a while back and I didn't understand yet. Why can't state religion be a separate pop-up you get when you choose "establishment", one that lists the religions in your civ and asks you, "What religion would you like to establish as your state religion?" Am I missing why this can't be that simple?

posted August 15, 1999 21:10            

So there's no option of Establishment anymore in the SE screen.

Instead now there's an independent screen concerning every religion.

Now you can set a different attitude towards each specific religion.

You can only give one religion the state religion option.
All others can get a tolerated or a persecuted status.

posted August 16, 1999 11:27            

Raingoon:

A.1.a. I would sub-title(1) just "Happiness" (and for the sake of simplicity, leave out the alternative models -- people can substitute and still see how it would work.) I'd like to keep it this way in response to BR's request that we be specific as to what we'd change in the current system.

But question -- how can we know who is the least happy citizen? Think I need to understand that before commenting further here. By "least happy citizen," I mean an unhappy citizen if there is one and a content citizen if there are no unhappy citizens.

A.3. Is this every turn? Just once? I don't know if I understand "during that period"? Sorry -- that was a typo.

B.2. are these choices exclusive? It seems you're saying one can choose a state religion and also repress at the same time. Which makes sense... Yes. Countries with established religions occasionally tolerate, or at least do not persecute, other religions. I think our religion proposal should reflect this. (Aside: My dictionary indicates that "persecute" is the only proper term to use for state-directed religious oppression. "Prosecute" refers to the state's legal attacks on people who have violated its laws.)

B.3 a. A persecuted religion's conversion factor is reduced by 10 percent for all conversion activities within the borders of the persecuting civ. Is 10 percent enough considering the cost of doing this? I guess it all depends on how often we have passive conversion. If we run passive conversion every year, 10 percent is a tremendous advantage. You've proposed that passive conversion be calculated every five years, in which case, a 25 percent bonus is probably appropriate. I've made the change.

The thrust of religion in terms of playing the game is choosing which one will be your state religion and trying to maximize the benefit of that. I tried to strike a balance between religious conformity and toleration, with some benefits to each. As M@ni@c pointed out, since each new religion causes one citizen to get a happiness boost, there's also a big advantage to having multiple religions, so it's not necessarily true that a state religion is always a good thing.

B.4 "a civ may de-establish their state religion..." In which case, it might be a better sub-point under state religions. Good point.

B.5.b. Regarding church councils, this is a new idea. Will it compete with any "U.N/ planetary type council"? Couldn't this be done better with the "Holy City" (capitol)? The Church Council idea evolved from my thoughts about what to do if two unfriendly civs had the same religion. If anyone else has ideas of how to resolve such problems, I'm ready to listen. As currently proposed, I think the Church Council would not conflict with a planetary council. The Church Council handles affairs solely for the religion, and would not have overlapping authority with a planetary council.

M@ni@c:

So if I get this right, every different relgion makes one unhappy person content? So the more different religions in a city, the happier? Then I totally loose the point of letting your citizens have the same religion. Clerics affect only citizens of their religion and would, in my thinking, cost money to maintain. Therefore, if there are multiple citizens of the same religion in a city, a cleric posted to that city would have a greater effect in increasing happiness. Also, establishing a state religion has a fairly large positive effect, and is only practical if there are multiple citizens of the same religion in each city.

o, there shouldn't be an Age of Faith. It's not because the Muslims have electronics, that they should believe less. If you want to simulate the loss of importance of religions, become Religious Freedom (don't have a State Religion) or become Atheism(Religion option please?). One of the things I liked about Civ2 was that the effects of city improvements could change over time so that there was never any one "right" way to build a city. I think have an Age of Faith would have the same effect. It would also reflect the historical truth that religion had a much greater effect on society in the past than it has in recent history.

I know Will you are against my SE Religion Category, but the loss of money by Established Church can simply be represented as -2 Taxes in my SE system. I think your religion SE category was a good start at handling religion, but that we've come up with a better system here. Therefore, I think that having a religion SE category would be pointlessly duplicative and complex.

No there are already enough unhappiness squelching city improvements in civ. I suggest one extra Happy citizen per four citizens. There is a lack of happiness creating things in civ. I considered this option, but worried that it would make it too easy to have "We love the ..." days early in the game. I'll keep it as is pending other comments.

1.5 content citizens become unhappy for each member of the persecuted religion, reflecting the unhappiness of the persecutees and their friends. " Don't make it too hard. Just say every prosecuted citizen gets one level lower happiness rate. Persecution potentially offers a big boost to any civ. I don't want to make it too easy. Also, I think that in reality, persecution usually caused unhappiness to citizens outside of the persecuted faith.

"The Church Council may expel a civ from the religion with the support of 75 percent of the votes." Give me one example of a religious leader forbidding people to follow his religion. Another option FOR YOU, not the Church Council, could be Schisma and form a new religion. I suppose we could call the option excommunication rather than expulsion. I agree with you that Schism should be an option, as long as there is an open religion slot. (Note that at any time, there is a limited number of religions.) I had hoped that the Church Council would allow such an action, and will revise it to do so.

I hope Clerics are not the only way to convert other civ's citizens. See Raingoon's post of 15 August.

posted August 16, 1999 12:55            

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: