posted July 08, 1999 13:20            

(The thread hasn’t hit the 50-post mark yet, but my time as manager is almost up, and I want to have accomplished something… Not too many changes… a few additions, and some cleaning up of spelling/grammar)

Summary of the thread Religion

The thread Religion was meant to be channel for ideas concerning religion, or whether that feature should even be in. As you will notice, there is one central idea. Please not about some terms I'm using- if use the term "Some say" or anything like that, that doesn't necessarily mean that this suggestion would be popular, in fact it might be only supported my one person- it's just my way of speaking.

It is also generally considered that "Religion" refers more to "Belief", since some thought that atheism is excluded by the "Religion" title.

Anyway.

1) RELIGIONS AS INDEPENDENT AI PLAYERS

Central part of this idea is that religion in Civ3 born independently and grow (mostly) independently. They are born as some prophet begins preaching his dogma in one of cities. Government can set its status to be persecuted, tolerated, encouraged or fundamentally worshipped: These choices affect the happiness and growth of particular religions. There are, of course, multiple religions, and there can even be multiple religions born in one civ. Religions have political power. Their growth can be encouraged by money. AI religions could control your own citizens, and could be interacted with, even if they did not have their own innate bonuses and penalties. An AI religion may declare one of your cities to be a Holy site, and you would have to deal with the bonuses, and the problems of such a designation. AI religions could call a crusade against another nation, or against you.

2) HOLY CITIES & CRUSADES

In this idea, city where religion pops out has got holy shrine, which could increase happiness/ decrease unhappiness.

3) DOUBLE POLITICAL CENTERS?

You would have to build some kind of religious center (Hagia Sophia, St Peters, Kamakura Buddha) in capital or different political center would arise around religion.

4) CRUSADES

If Holy City is taken, religion could ask for a crusade to take it back. Religion could also declare crusade whether government likes it or not.

5) GOVERMENT TYPE SETS WHICH TOLERATION LEVELS CAN BE USED

For instance, in SMAC terms this means that pacifist (-3 Police) nations wouldn't be able to persecute, while Fundamentalist Government nations would have to fundamentally worship one religion. In Civ terms, Democracies and Republics couldn't persecute, while communists couldn't fundamentally worship (alternate: cannot set higher that Tolerated level)

6) NOT DENY, JUST MAKE IT HARDER

Some say that government types shouldn't deny religious choices, just make it harder. Communism should have harder rate of religions spreading, democracy should have hard time persecuting and so on, but it should still be possible, with effort.

7) ANIMISM / MONOLITHS

In this model all civs start out with Animism, and can build Megaliths to increase chances of more advanced religions to develop. When religion pops out, ruler can either accept or reject it, with risk of schism.

8) TOLERANCE LEVEL OF RELIGIONS

Religions would have Tolerance level, which would set how religion gets along with other religions.

9) CLERICS/MISSIONARIES

Some think that if you fundamentally worship one religion you could spread it by means of Clerics/Missionaries. Maybe for monetary and definitely for political gain. If there would be flock of converts in some city, the population would go to your side more easily and would get unhappy in situation of war (Like in C:CTP)

10) VICTORY CONDITION: UNITE THE WORLD IN SAME FAITH

In this victory you would have to unite entire world to faith you are using.

11) NOT MISSIONARIES, BUT PROPAGANDISTS

In this model instead of Missionaries there would be Propagandists, spreading their agendas (religion being one) to cities. This model also includes some cities being more eager to adopt Fascism, for instance, than other cities, and being more easily bribed by Fascist nations.

12) TEMPLES DEPENDANT ON WHETHER YOU HAVE A RELIGION

Some think that you should only be able to build religious structures if you have at least one supported religion, and that only followers of that religion would get some good about that.

13) EFFECTS OF TEMPLES DEPEND ON RELIGION

Some have said that effectiveness of temples would vary depending on your religion, for instance Buddhist would have less use of Cathedral (or any kind of other big religious structure) than pagan who wishes to honor his gods.

14) HOW IS RELIGION BORN?

Things that could affect the birth of religion could be war, three nasty events in a row, random event (new prophet) and such.

15) PERSECUTION, THE BIG ATROCITY

Some want that Persecution should be big atrocity, especially in modern times. Also, persecution would have other drawbacks, such as revolts and loss of population. Persecuted religion could also "win" and have whole strategy backfire. There could be some moral and such bonuses for unifying the country religiously and driving out all that have alien beliefs.

16) DEVOTION/GROWTH

Each religion would have Devotion/Growth level, which would decide how does it fare in competition against other religions. In time, high rate devotion religions should replace low/rate devotion ones. If religion has been long around, it should have bigger rate of devotion.

17) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

There should be bonuses for religious freedom in form of immigration and science. However, diversity would also create friction and possibly happiness penalties.

18) UNHAPPINESS

Unhappy people should be more willing to convert to new religions.

19) NO "BEHIND THE SCENES"

Some say that religion shouldn't work behind the scenes as model 1 proposes. They say that would make really frustrating game.

20) ETHNICS?

There has been asks for Ethnic factor as well as Religious

21) REAL RELIGIONS

Some people hold that real religions should be used. This side has had serious opposition, especially if they propose bonuses and minuses depending on these religions. People ask who would decide the bonuses and minuses? An example of a bonus would be the "protestant work ethic"

22) DEAD RELIGIONS

In this model, all religions would be those already dead to avoid legal and other problems.

23) REAL "CLASS" RELIGIONS

Others like that real religions shouldn't be used, but religion classes should be in. (like polytheism, monotheism and animism). There could be several religions that belong to same class. This is maybe the most popular idea, but there are people who hold that this could also offend people, especially with pluses and minuses.

24) SAME CLASS, DIFFERING RELIGION

For instance Russian Paganism would be different from Babylonian Paganism. They would have same benefits, but could still be hostile towards each other’s.

25) RANDOM, FICTIONAL RELIGIONS

Some like that religions should be entirely fictional. This side usually likes that if there are pluses and minuses, they should be random too. Others ask would this ruin the atmosphere. Turywenzism is a popular choice J

26) RELIGION DEFINED BY ITS FACTORS

For instance, is it Pacifist/Militant, Proselytizing or not, and does it support your government or not? There have been suggestions in this area by all camps in real or not discussion.

27) NO RELIGION

Some won't want Religion at all. Primary reason would be that you cannot do it without offending someone.

28) RELIGIONS LIKE SOCIAL ENGINEERING

In this model religions can be customized like Social Engineering in SMAC. You could decide primary structure like Monotheism, Polytheism or Mysticism, important aspects such as afterlife and status of priests and TENETS such as Ascetic, Maltheism or Monastic. In order to enact changes, you need DOGMA, which you could get from priests (city profession) or religious wonders. Dogma then slowly changes your religion. Religion master screen would show the percentages of religions in game, you could also edit religions or set their STATE ACCEPTANCE. Religions also have FERVOR status, which shows how highly religion is held; high FERVOR multiplies the effects. DOGMA can be spent to increase FERVOR. Another suggestion is to have sliding scales, from Secularism to Fundamentalism

29) RELIGIONS LIKE SOCIAL ENGINEERING, MODEL 2

This isn't as complex as other ideas - it sets that Religious models would be chosen from Social Engineering. Suggested models are Animism, Polytheism, Philosophical, Monotheism, Reformed, Fundamentalism, Deism and Atheism. There would be Theocracy Government choice instead of Fundamentalist, but it could be only made with religious choices 2,4,and 6. There would be bonuses if civ is both Fundamentalist and Theocracy. And finally, like in SMAC, civs with differing religious choices would be likely to be hostile towards each other. (There has been suggestion that only first four choices are truly needed.)

30) PHILOSOPHY SOCIAL ENGINEERING

This idea sticks to same social engineering idea, but replaces Religion with Philosophy. Philosophical choices would affect diplomatic relations, government types available, speed of research, happiness level of citizens, and productivity of citizens. Idea of replacing religion with philosophy would be that it would step around all legal problems while effectively having the effects of religion.

31) "EVIL" RELIGIONS

Some suggest that there should be evil religions just to cause harm to civilizations, other warns to steer clear of them. One suggested name is Diabolism.

32) BONUSES AND MINUSES

This has been discussion about should differing religions have bonuses and minuses. This has been usually with real or not discussions.

33) THE TYPE OF GOD SETS BONUSES/MINUSES

In this idea, the religions pop out in random as in idea 1. They have different bonuses and minuses, depending on what kind of god they worship. If religion is pantheistic, it gains small bonuses in several areas, but has increased inefficiency and upkeep costs. If it is monotheistic, it gains bonuses depending on what kind of god their worshipped one is, for instance is he clockmaker, judge or executioner?

34) INDIRECT BONUSES

In this model no religion automatically gains bonuses or minuses, but it may be possible to direct people by way of religion so they, in time, would gain bonuses.

35) NOT RELIGION, JUST ITS EFFECTS

Some think that religion itself should be modeled, just its effects: i.e. wouldn’t care what religion you worship, but how do you deal with it - do you tolerate it, persecute it or what?

36) RELIGION AS TRANSCENDING FACTOR

For instance, if half of Greeks are in you religion they would be unlikely to like war against you.

37) SLIDING SCALES

Each religion would have three ratings - Evangelism, Conviction and Tolerance. These figures would be hidden from player. Evangelism decides how well does the religion convert the others, Conviction how resistant they are to conversion. Tolerance decides how actively will the religion try to be state religion, low-tolerance ones wish to be from all their heart while high-tolerance don't want to be.

38) RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS IN MODEL 9

Each populated tile would have its religion, and in end of turns each would try to convert others. These conversions use the Civ battle method, with Evangelism representing attack and Conviction defense. These fight should happen on background, player seeing what happened at end of turn. Missionary units would try to convert tiles they are walking on. For every N (N being parameter set at config file) tiles converted to state religion one citizen would become content, and temples and cathedrals would lower N locally. On the other hand, for every N tiles unconverted one citizen becomes unhappy. If Civ doesn't have state religion, then all religions with -1(lowest) tolerance would create unhappiness, while others wouldn't have effect. Outlawing a religion would make its followers unhappy, but would lower its evangelism rating inside civs borders. Religions would also affect diplomacy.

39). ATHEISM

Some claim that Atheism should be very good religious choice, with Religion expiring by Birth Control and temples under Atheism replaced by Sex Shops or something. Popular suggestion for effects of atheism would be science bonus but also unhappiness because life lacks structures.

40). RELIGIONS IN SCENARIOS

Some want that in process of scenario building there should be ability to design own religions and place them any way you like, or to disable religions from scenario altogether.

41). APPEARANCE OF RELIGIONS IN REAL YEARS

Christianity would appear 33 AD, Islam 500 AD and so on. Then you could switch to it

42) CUSTOM DEISM

This is in option where religious minority can create its own religion.

43) SAME ADVANTAGES WITH ALL RELIGIONS

Some suggest that if there are different religions, then at least they should all have same advantages. I.e. J.S Bach's cathedral should make as many people happy as Big Mosque. Of Mecca (or Mixed Public Baths for atheist)

44) BIRTH CONTROL MAKES RELIGIONS OBSOLETE

Well… the main trend of this idea is in big letters above. This would also mean that emptied churches would be sold like old barracks in Civ1/2.

45) MORE VARIETY TO RELIGIOUS WONDERS

Current wonders are very western-based. There are only cathedrals, not synagogues or mosques or like.

46) SOME RELIGIONS WORK BETTER IN SOME ENVIROMENTS THAN OTHERS

This is a suggestion of some also. If you live in a desert near water, your god will seem more giving than if you lived in the desert with no water.

47) TEMPLES DIFFERING FROM STADIUMS

In this idea Temples and other religious improvements make members of some religion happy (depending on popularity of religion) while stadiums and other non-religious improvements would make fixed numbers of citizens happy.

48) SCIENCE TEACHERS AS ATHEIST MISSIONARIES

Reason for this would be that people scientifically taught would be more suspicious of miracles and existence of god in general. Also different missionaries would have different strengths (animist 1, monotheist 2 and science teacher 4…)

49) NONVIOLENT ACTION

A poster says that Gandhi was kind of missionary and then ponders about possibilities of incorporating general strikes and such to game. Maybe with kind of supermissionary unit which can start long national strikes? Could this fall under #11, Propagandists?

50) RANDOM ONE TRUE RELIGION

In this suggestion, the One True Religion would be randomly chosen in start of game, and it would be up for player to discover which one it is.

51) CENRALIZATION

Centralization would be another factor determining the religion, i.e. it could be High (like Catholic church) with one central body controlling the faith, moderate (like in Middle east) or low (like in Lutheran church) which would preach priesthood for all believers. Centralization would say how much religion will "act" for instance how much it would start crusades without your support. (Thread Master Note: Maybe it would decide also how likely schisms would be?)

52) TURYWENZISM

For some odious reason Turywenzism seems to be favored name for one fictional religion. It has been suggested that Turywenzism be the barbarian religion. (Hurrah for Turywenzism! Maybe with the Internet wonder we’d get Kibology? – NLT)

53) DISLOYALTY

I.e. Religion system without religion. For instance, city of Carthage could like Greeks and Romans, be indifferent for Indians and hate the Chinese for historical reasons.

54) SIMPLE AI MODEL

Instead of preset models, religions would act depending civs unhappiness level, technological level, etc…

55) CRUSADES, THE MODEL 2

In this model, church can ask for a crusade, and if you refuse, certain percentage of your population (and army) would disappear and reappear near the infidel nation, to battle them. Also, members of crusading religion in that other nation would have chance of rising up.

56) RELIGIONS CHANGING

If religions have preset attributes, then they could chance. For instance, Protestantism of Reformation was more positive on science than it is now. Also in start Christianity was more pacifist than today, etc.

57) NO MINUSES FOR ANY RELIGION

I.e. Real (or class) religions, which would have only bonuses, no minuses for any. Another suggestion to make it less offensive. Bonuses would of course be about equal.

58) NAMING

Religions would be named after civilization they sprung from and also from their class, for instance Chinese Monotheism would be different from Babylonian monotheism. Although similar they could still declare wars against each other.

59) SPREADING

It would happen through road system, trade routes, and if you sponsor one religion, with state-run Missionaries.

60) RELIGIONS DON'T DIE THAT EASILY

For instance, if Arabic Paganism has strong hold in Russia, and Arabs are conquered by Aztecs, religion wouldn't die out. Its head would move to Russian lands like Patriarch of Orthodox Church moved from Constantinople to Russia (Thread Master Note: Actually not correct) and maybe the religion would later start regaining its position in invading lands.

61) TITLES

Like in idea 58, but certain systems would have titles like government titles in Civ2. For instance, Arabic Monotheism would be Islam, while Chinese Philosophical would be Confucianism. To avoid offending people, this could be under the control of the player.

62) DIFFERENT RELIGIONS IN ONE CITY

For instance, in city of 10 there are 60% peoples Christian, 30% Atheist and 10% Muslim. Then city would get 60% Christian bonuses and penalties, 30% Atheist bonuses and penalties and 10% Muslim bonuses and penalties.

63) LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY

In religion terms, if you choose in start of game to have simple religion would have one religion/civ, while complex setting would be micromanagement nightmare.

64) UNDER COMMUNISM

In this model, in Communistic governments all religion bonuses would become penalties (i.e. +2 industry becomes -2) While atheism would have extra bonuses.

65) ZONES

In beginning of game you'd have option to start from zone influenced of certain religion, for instance you could choose Muslim influenced zone, Christian influenced zone or Buddhism influenced zone. This would probably mean that Christian religion would spread better in Christian zone than Muslim Zone…

66) RAELISM

E.g. Belief that civilization was created by extraterrestrial beings.

67) TECHNOLOGY TREE

Religion should be divorced from the technology tree. Is there any reason why we must first "research" polytheism to get to monotheism? Religion should be spontaneous and evolve, but not be under the control of your research.

68) RELIGION WONDERS

Other than temples and the like. Calvin would be an example, as would monotheism.

69) EVOLUTION OF GROUPS

A society starts out as an homogenous group, which gradually develops opinions. The people vs. you, the people vs. other people, your religion vs. other religions, your people vs. other religions, and so forth. Many chances for gifts, fancy politics, and genocide. (Theben wrote a long and thorough post about this in the 2.0 thread. It’s easier to read it than try to summarize it - NLT)

70) DIVERSE BONUSES

If a city is made up of 30% religion A and 70% religion B, it should gain 30% of the A bonuses/penalties and 70% of the B bonuses/penalties.

LIST OF POSTERS

posted July 08, 1999 20:56            

It is always difficult to discuss something that does not exist - in this case how to implement religion into a future Civ game. The first great issue is what religion should be; the two most popular ideas seem to be

posted July 29, 1999 23:03            

Going with my ideas before, what if each 'class' of religions start out with some base abilities, which would be all posative(by which I mean, no religion would take things AWAY, but would just add differant posatives on to the empire.

Anyway, as time goes on, these would change. Paganism which might get, at first, +25 percent food production, +0 percent science, -10 percent corruption, and a 50 percent reduction of war unhappiness(unhappiness coming from the fact that your warrios keep getting slaughtered). Howe,ver over time, the Paganism in question might turn so that it ends up like this: +0 percent food production, +25 percent scientific research, +10 percent happiness and a 25 percent reduction of war unhappiness.

For these reasons, changing religions would not be, so much, upgrading, as it would be changing to something better suiting your nation. If your a war like civilization, at first PAganism might be grea,t allowing your population to grow quickly, and to turn out lots of units which could get killed with no bad affects. Over time, however, the religion might change to that favored by a more scientific, peaceful land, and Philosophical might suddenly change to something your war like nation would need.

posted August 02, 1999 05:28            

Here's my idea for implementing religion into Civ III in a way that answers most of the issues people have raised on these boards, and also on the Firaxis boards. That is to say, with the benefit of reading every post that's come before, and incorporating/shamelessly stealing something from almost every other idea, I humbly offer the following synthesized solution... (posted in another form over on the Firaxis Social Engineering board).

I. Religion as Game Concept

1. Religion should be a game concept approximately the size and weight of Civ II's taxation and trade combined. It should not simply be one of many categories under the heading of "social engineering" for the player to fiddle with, plus or minus, as they try to manipulate their population. Rather, religion and population would be effectively synonymous.

2) Its main reasons for existing in the game are

a) to finally, once and for all, model the *huge* effect religion has had in shaping real world civilization within Civ III; and,

b) to add a level of strategy to gameplay that makes Civ III more authentic and fun and not just more of the same, slightly different.

Much has been said about how to incorporate religion, and let me just pause and say if I really had exactly the answer, I wouldn't bother putting it up here for discussion. Well, maybe I would. What I'm suggesting now is a simple, but fundamental core idea that I think can make many of the other ideas work and I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

II. How it Would Look in the Game

1. There would be three religions.

2. These religions would have real world names. Taking the cue from earlier discussions, made-up names would probably add unwanted comedy to Civ III. On the other hand, choosing one sect may be too controversial for some, so I agree by default with those who have advocated the concept of beliefs. Monotheism, polytheism, animism, agnosticism -- names like these have been suggested. Personally, I would still prefer Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Budhist (which worships at shrine and temple, for the person who asked). But I don't want to get into that debate. In the end it just isn't important to gameplay. So for now, we'll call them religions and think of them as beliefs.

3. Each religion would have a corresponding color. These colors would NOT be confused with Civ colors, and would only be seen if you opened up a city and saw it's religious makeup (some type of bar graph/pie chart), or filtered for it on the game map (e.g., hit the F1 key). In the field of Human Geography, it's really fascinating to compare real world political boundaries with religious boundaries -- Likewise, in the game, it would tell you a lot to be able to hit the F1 key and see that where your political border stops, religion X happens to encompass a large part of both your population and your neighbor's.

III. How Religion Would Spread

1. Each religon would behave like a virus. It would spread via unit to unit, or unit to city. Some have said they would want to have direct control over what religion their population chose. But the only reason to do that is because one religion had a bonus value greater than another, and again, that'll never fly. Actually, it would be more fun to try and shape the religious make-up of your society using the many tools at your disposal -- war, diplomacy, city improvements, Social Engineering modifiers, wonders, or scientific advances. By experimenting with certain inhibitors and enablers, religion would, in effect, be a mini-sim within the game.

2. Each religion would be incompatible with the others. Whenever two religions "met on the road," each would seek to dominate the other.

3. Each unit in the game would have its own religious affiliation. You would not need to know what it was, the AI would track it. As others have suggested, whenever two units with differing beliefs came into contact for whatever reason, a conflict would resolve immediately, based on each unit's evangelical/conviction ratings. The base values would be the same for all units. Again, religious affiliation would NOT modify these values in any way. However, the player could create a government type that improved one value or the other, and all units in that player's civ would then benefit. Its very simple, really. Basically, whenever two units came into contact a mini philosophical debate would be immediately resolved.

4. Units would also come into religious conflict when coming into contact with a city. Alright, this isn't *totally* worked out, but basically whenever a unit entered a city, that unit's belief would immediately be challenged by that portion of the population which held differing beliefs, each population unit belonging to one religion.

a. Population units would be about 1/5 the strength of a game unit, so that a city size five would be about an even match philosophically for a single unit.

b. Any population units with the same belief as the unit entering would lend their values to that unit. Every opposing religion in the city would then have its chance at converting the unit, or be converted.

c. Obviously the affects would be cumulative, and I'd be lying if I told you I knew how it would all work in practice, but I believe if you were playing the game, all social modifiers being equal, it would not be uncommon to see a small city experience dramatic and sudden shifts in beliefs, while larger established cities would change much more slowly.

d. ALL THE ABOVE IS HANDLED BY THE AI. You only see the results as the city's religion graph changes over time.

e. City's would not convert wholesale without a crusade (military conquest by units of like faith). Perhaps units in crusade could be immune to philosophical challenges along the way.

f. Any hypothetical missionary unit would simply have much larger evangelical and conviction values.

g. A city's beliefs would grow and change over time, and would be affected by the presence of certain city improvements, etc. For instance, building a shrine, a mosque, or a church might strengthen that religion you wanted to strengthen -- or have an even more dramatic effect.

h. Barring extreme measures (laws enacted) by the player, the population would be capable of sustaining all three religions in each city.

IV. Fodor's Guide to Your City's Religion

1. City's are the first places you'd notice religion in the game.

2. In the city window, a player would see that each population unit in a city subscribes to one of the three religions. Again, a city could have one, two or all three religions represented.

3. Each city can have only one religious identity. No matter how many religions are represented in a given city, the majority religion would always rule. In other words, if London was 35% Budhist, 33% Judeo-Christian, and 32% Islamic, then London would be considered a Budhist city.

4. While a player should be making decisions about which religions to promote and discourage, they would not receive any advantages if their population subscribed to X over Y. Rather, the bonus would come by managing to create a homogenized society consisting of all X religion, or a harmonious society consisting of X, Y and Z religions together -- a true feat -- or from the stability achieved with your neighbors by arranging compatible religious regions along your borders, in some combination of all three. The possibilities for penalties and bonuses are endless...

5. ?

V. Religious Regions

1. Using these rules, it's easy to see how over time, cities in close proximity to each other will eventually be dominated by the same religions. These would then form religious regions within your borders.

2. Larger civs are more likely to consist of more than one religious region. Smaller civs are more likely to be homogenous.

a. Depending on your strategy this could be good or bad. On the one hand, you may be Serbia -- clearly not socially engineered to hold differing regions together peacefully. On the other hand, regions like Kosovo would inevitably appear that tend to match up with the religion in its neighboring civ across the border, and thus add strategically to your military stability. And it might also increase the likelihood that Kosovo will split and join with its like-minded neighbor. Likewise, you might achieve a profound social structure and be the sudden beneficiary of an unstable neighbor, inheriting a like-minded religious region -- and a war with its former owner. All this would depend on new diplomacy rules concerning when two neighboring civs share the same beliefs.

3. On the game map, filtering would reveal religion by region in yours and others' civs.

4. ?

VI. Origin of Religions

1. I propose seeding the map with specific religion tiles at the beginning of the game. Your first non-aligned units will pass over one and adapt that religion as its own, taking it "from nature", as it were. It'll then proceed to spread that religion until it discovers one it deems superior (i.e., loses a religious challenge).

VII. Miscelaneous

1. What religion is given to newly created units? I guess they would subscribe to the dominant belief of the city in which they were created.

2. In the case of new units of population, the percentage they would be born believing in religion X, Y, or Z would be exactly equal to the percantage that religion X, Y, or Z was represented within that city.

3. ?

Well, there you have it. I hope I haven't offended anyone by incorporating an idea into this that they originated. I read everybody's post, but I didn't learn names. I only hope there is enough merit and fun in this idea for putting religion into Civ III that others (you guys) will comment on it, help me bang it out, or even incorporate some or all of it into your own.

-- C. Brooks

posted August 02, 1999 18:09            

1) Why limit the number of in-game religions to three? I think one religion per civ, plus or minus a bit, would be a more appropriate number -- a hard limit of three strikes me as too low for an Earth-size world.

2) The advantage of religious homogeneity is, obviously, civic peace; but what advantage would you give to your "harmonious" situation, with several religions present and none with a plurality? Real societies like that are definitely _not_ noted for civic peace.

I think what you're shooting for here is something similar to the "state religion" suggestion that, ahem, I made some time back. The player could pick one religion as his official state cult, in which case his best interests lay in spreading that religion and suppressing all others. Or he could opt out of the religious game by having no state religion -- a course you'd pick, probably, if your civilization already was split into several religious blocs, and bringing one to dominance would be too costly and time-consuming.

posted August 02, 1999 21:17            

What do you think about city to city? In my post, I actually had included -- then deleted -- a "city to city" model for spreading religion, because I couldn't see concretely how it would work. As you suggested, perhaps like trade routes? Should there by cleric units that trade in a certain religion exactly the way caravans trade in a certain commodity in Civ II? Mbrazier has an idea for "prophet" units with high conversion abilities, although for a slightly different purpose.

Here, it would be a direct way you could try to stem the tide of one religion where the AI was having it spring up in a city where you didn't want it. But if the AI is to handle city to city religion "creep", then I'm pretty much out of my depth trying to guess how that would work. Any ideas? The "caravan" concept I do get -- it's simple, seems realistic, and would give the player that much more control.

posted August 02, 1999 22:25            

1) Why limit the number of in-game religions to three?

I'm open to a good argument for more. I offered some explanation in my original post, but here's another reason or two why I think three. First, it's that magic number -- think luxury/tax/science. In a closed system (like a city) you can't up one without dramatically lessening at least one of the other two. I'm theorizing here, but my guess is more than three would require very long games to homogenize the game map of an Earth-sized world. I'm sure religious conformity would become a new strategy and victory condition.

2) The advantage of religious homogeneity is, obviously, civic peace; but what advantage would you give to your "harmonious" situation, with several religions present and none with a plurality?

Of course modern American society has engineered itself socially to allow religious beliefs to live in harmony that in other parts of the world, they don't. But you make a good point for the game. Modern Jerusalem or Croatia are better examples of what the average civ would have to contend with. I guess the norm would be "civil unrest" unless laws were passed making citizens content -- instead of JS Bach's Wonder, now any civ could get the effect for accomplishing this. That's not a bonus, per se, but just the absence of a penalty that existed. In other words, it would just make things harder to have multiple religious regions in your civ, and be an incentive to homogenize.

I think what you're shooting for here is something similar to the "state religion" suggestion that, ahem, I made some time back.

The credit is all yours -- Although I'm not sure I agree that's what I'm shooting for.

The player could pick one religion as his official state cult, in which case his best interests lay in spreading that religion and suppressing all others. Or he could opt out of the religious game by having no state religion -- a course you'd pick, probably, if your civilization already was split into several religious blocs, and bringing one to dominance would be too costly and time-consuming.

Let me see what you think of this. Suppose each religion has a Holy City. This would be determined at some point in the game, a la the discovery of Philosophy in Civ II, where a world announcement is made declaring the largest city in each religion to be the Holy City for that religion. Now you can point and say "That is a religious state" residing within my borders." Is this your original "state religion" idea? I apologize if so, but humor me -- Now you have a negotiation situation. Because the head of each religion is now able to make demands, and the demand is always the same: "Go forth and spread the word, or else!" Or else those cities within your civ who belong to that religion will destablize until you do something. So now you're dealing with a "state religion" that is not synomymous with YOUR state. That's the main point I'd stress you don't want. CormacMacArt made this point on the Firaxis thread, I believe. Your negotiation would go like this:

a) Word comes out of Holy City insisting you increase their ranks via war or missionary zeal, ASAP or else. You do. Or...

b) You turn your back on the church's demands, Holy City then calls for a crusade against you to liberate it. Rival civs take arms where the religion exists (unfortunately for you these civs are naturally usually right next door). OR...

c) You pacify your Holy City and go on with your other strategy. Important that what you get out of this Holy City business, is that owning the Holy City would be a BIG happiness reward. Probably be what replaces JS Bach's cathedral. Of course, you can launch your own crusade to capture a Holy City from another civ.

[i]3) The notion of religious tiles as origin points doesn't quite fit with the rest of your system, based as it is on the meetings of units and cities.[\i]

Yes -- I like your way. Your way would ensure that religions would be spread equally in the beginning, allowing each religion a chance to catch on.

posted August 03, 1999 18:48            

1) The luxury/tax/science triple is something the player controls, so having only three options simplifies play. Religions, in this model, are mostly computer-controlled, which means keeping play simple isn't a concern.

Religious uniformity as a victory condition is certainly interesting, but I suggest that it _should_ be extremely difficult. After all, here on Earth we have four major religious bodies (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) plus several small pockets of other religions -- and that's after 6,000 years of contention!

2) "Let me see what you think of this. Suppose each religion has a Holy City. This would be determined at some point in the game, a la the discovery of Philosophy in Civ II, where a world announcement is made declaring the largest city in each religion to be the Holy City for that religion. Now you can point and say 'That is a religious state" residing within my borders.' Is this your original 'state religion' idea?"

No, it isn't, though it's a good idea -- in essence, the religions would appear as diplomatic players, equal to the civilization heads. Before explaining what I had in mind, let me add that historically the heads of religions have had many concerns beyond spreading the Word; they might, for example, try to make a peace between warring states.

What I had in mind, however, was the kind of church-state relations between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire, or those between the Church of England and the English Crown in the 16th and 17th centuries. In short, an official state policy favoring one religion at the expense of all others; what the US Constitution calls an "establishment of religion".

Why would a Civ player want to do this? Well, in my original suggestion, picking a state religion made a small number of that religion's devotees content, _and_ created unrest in the other religions' devotees in the same proportion. A "religious" city improvement then multiplied both those effects. Under this system, as you can see, the more homogeneous your civilization was, the better -- if you had a state religion.

On the other hand, if you didn't pick a state religion, the religious beliefs of your citizens ceased to matter. You would quell unrest by the bread-and-circuses method -- high luxury rates, entertainers, Colosseum and Welfare Office improvements, etc.

Obviously all this is open to improvement (though this is where your own ideas are foggiest, I think?)

3) There's another advantage to the "prophet" idea you haven't considered: it can be used at any time of the game, so that new religions can pop up, or old ones suddenly revive, all throughout history.

posted August 03, 1999 20:54            

1. Well, you've convinced me -- more than three religions wouldn't necessarily make the game too complex, but would definitely be more convincing historically. I was just concerned that religion not "take off" as this whole new game within a game suddenly. But you've addressed that. So true, it should be very hard to fully dominate a world religiously. It also implies you must officially represent that religion, which would underscore the need for a Holy City. Imagine getting near to dominating religiously, then someone captures your Holy City, declares state religion to finish converting their own cities and wins the game!

2. Also agree about the concept that religion is an AI diplomatic issue -- that is, just to reiterate, a religion is NOT a civ. It's a virus your civ catches and at some point you will have to deal with its needs. Very simple. Very true to history.

3. State Religions -- So this would show up as a social engineering choice, "Declare". Question, Do you have to have a Holy City to declare? Or can any civ declare a "state religion" so long as it's represented within its population sufficiently to warrant doing so?

4. But back to basics -- What does it take to suddenly find yourself negotiating with a religion? I suggested the emergence of a Holy City. You said declare a state religion.

Ah -- wait: Holy Cities are requisites for declaring a state religion. Maybe you intended that. So now, given there can be only one Holy City for each religion, then only one civ can have an official "state religion" of that type. So, say you achieve a Budhist Holy City and declare state religion. Now suddenly everybody in the game with large Budhist populations are in a more tenuous position. If you keep yourself in the church's good graces, you can get the church to make real demands on your enemies since the church would hold some sway over all Budhist population happiness in the game.

That just clicked for me, anyway.

posted August 04, 1999 17:10            

I have a question for you all.
Over at the SE/Government v2.1 thread we're having a large discussion about which effects the Religion Atheism should have.

I want it to have +2 Research, +2 Corruption, -2 Happiness.

Means faster research, less corruption and unhappier people.
This is also what was suggested in The List v1.
So I think most people agree with me, but now there are two others saying that Atheism should have a research penalty, -2 Research.

posted August 04, 1999 18:32            

Since, we're obviously on much the same wavelength, I'll just address the points of disagreement; if I don't mention something, you can assume I like it.

I don't think it makes sense to turn "Holy Cities" into the prerequisite for religious establishment; if there are devotees of religion X within your borders, you can choose X as the state religion. But it _does_ make sense to use "holy cities" as the prerequisite for diplomatic interaction. That is, if a religion has chosen a capital city, it can then build embassies in the civilization capitals, have ambassadors requesting an audience, ask you for aid, threaten you with interdict, and anything else that the designers dream up. But if a religion has no capital (many real ones don't!) you can't deal with it through diplomacy.

One nice idea has just come to me, regarding "Holy Cities". Let's say that the Turywenzists' holy city is within your borders. If you decide to establish Turywenzism as your state religion, you are offered a new government option, Theocracy (you don't get this option if the Turywenzist holy city is outside your borders.) If you turn Theocrat, the holy city acts as a second capital, and all the "state religion" effects are doubled.

M@ni@c:

EEK! Giving real-world religions SE bonuses and penalties is a Very Bad Idea -- page back to the 1.x Religion threads for details, it was hashed out at length back then. In a nutshell, rating real religions in SE terms is equivalent to passing judgement on the actions and thoughts of those who belong to those religions; and that's just asking for trouble.

posted August 04, 1999 19:00            

"EEK! Giving real-world religions SE bonuses and penalties is a Very Bad Idea"

I know that and I agree a 100% with that. But let me ask you this question. Since when is Atheism a real-world religion? These are the Religion SE choices I presented in the SE thread :

Animism : -2 Research
->Loose Polytheism : no positives and negatives
Strict Polytheism : +2 Support, +2 Urbanization
Loose Monotheism : +2 Culture, +1 Research, -2 Diplomacy
Strict Monotheism/Fundamentalism/Fascism : +2 Nationalism, +2 Morale, -2 Diplomacy
Multitheism/Religious Freedom : +2 Diplomacy, +1 Happiness, -2 Nationalism
Atheism : +2 Research, +2 Corruption, -2 Happiness

If you want to understand better the SE factors I used, I direct you to the SE thread.

As you can see there are no real-world religions in it at all. So starting racial wars etc is impossible.

BTW that -> means that Animism becomes obsolete after Loose Polytheism becomes available.

So, wonna give some thought about it?

posted August 04, 1999 22:09            

Don't wanna bore you, but, uh... agreed. Again, simpler's better. Just have a rule that a state religion can be declared at any time, so long as that religion is repped. Holy Cities as capitals, etc.

Pretty soon it'll be a good idea to go back and revise the original post to show the model in its revised state. Do you (and anyone else reading here) agree this is not too complicated? Everything I've read from Brian Reynolds, et al, underscores the obvious, which is no changes will be made in Civ III that upset the balance of what's already good about the game.

I think the most extreme element in terms of complexity is the concept of religion spreading on the game map on its own. It has a very "Civ" feel to it, I must say. I need to keep poking at that idea to see if it holds up for simplicity. Other opinions would sure help...

M@ni@c

I did as you said. I have now read all the SE 2.1 thread posts. Quite a lot of discussion. You and the others have really put in some thought. If I think of anything to add, I will...

As Mbrazier has said, we're hashing out a way to model religion in Civ III. It's not what you're suggesting. I invite you to take the time to read what's been posted here. For one, you'll find out why we are discussing religion apart from social engineering in the first place.

Since when is Atheism a real-world religion?

Trust me, you'll find many who argue with the values you want to ascribe to this and all beliefs. Apparently, you've found two already .

Check what's here. The current model (as it's been modified) shows how real-world religions *can* exist in the game, which everyone seems to want. I even went back into the archives and found this post from a long time ago:

There should be... different religions that can be chosen as national religion, and also things like Budisme and Taoisme(sic).

All these past posts tell me the majority of Civ players will like this way of implementing religion into the game. To paraphrase Brian Reynolds' own words, it's clearly taking a cool, historical concept and clearly showing how it could effect game play. Again, I'd like to see from others if my hunch is right.

posted August 05, 1999 10:36            

"2)If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture. Cities converted to your culture get your city stile. If two civs already have the same city stile, I don't know yet what should represent the conversion. If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate."

So, I think my Culture SE factor can also be used to simulate the spread of religions. A high Culture rate would mean you have a strong religion and as a consequence the closest cities of other civs become converted.

"5) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ."

So, if you have a high Culture (=strong religion), the citizens of the conquered city assimilate faster.
But if you have a low Culture, they never assimilate (= they keep their own religion).

BTW, just rename my Religion names to the way the civ interacts with a religion, and religion can still be SE.

Animism stays the same.
Loose Monotheism -> Evangelism
Strict Polytheism -> Worshiping/State Religion
Strict Monotheism -> Fundamentalism
Multitheism -> Religious Freedom
Atheism -> Prosecution

posted August 05, 1999 21:02            

"Don't wanna bore you, but, uh... agreed. Again, simpler's better. Just have a rule that a state religion can be declared at any time, so long as that religion is repped. Holy Cities as capitals, etc."

But that was what I _disagreed_ with! I don't want the "state religion" option to be linked up with the "Holy City" idea. Just consider, for instance, that linking them deprives the player of the opportunity to find a religion without such a city, declare is his state religion, and then _give_ it a central authority himself.

More fundamentally, you're confusing two rather different concepts here. The Holy City of a religion is meant for something like the Vatican for Catholics; it's where the head of the church resides, the center of church government, a "capital" for the religion. Now the whole point of such an institution, for a religion, is to maintain a spokesperson for the religion, and permit its members to make their opinions heard on the international stage. IOW it exists to conduct diplomacy -- so we say that a religion without a Holy City cannot conduct diplomacy.

But these religious "capitals" have nothing whatever to do with religious establishments. During the Protestant Reformation, several European states made Lutheranism or Calvinism their state religion, at a time when Lutherans and Calvinists didn't have any central authority of their own. (In fact not having a Holy City was half the point of being a Protestant...)

"Pretty soon it'll be a good idea to go back and revise the original post to show the model in its revised state."

I'd rather you put the revision in a new post, just to preserve the history of the discussion. But if you prefer revising in place, go right ahead; it's your posting.

M@ni@c:

Two problems with your "Culture SE" idea as you've stated it here --

1) It looks like "one religion for each civilization", which is just plain _too_ simple. There are such things as stateless religions, after all.

2) More basically, it's only half the story. A high Culture stat seems to represent how attractive your civilization is to outsiders; but where is the obvious counterpart, the stat representing resistance to another civilization's blandishments? The modern United States has an extremely powerful culture, intensely attractive to people all over the world -- and is itself attracted to all things foreign, more so than any other country in the world. Would the USA have a high Culture stat, or a low one?

"If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture."

One part of our current system implements that, in effect: each unit tries to pass its religion on to any other unit it meets. ("Unit" here means both the units you build and the city populations.) I happen to think it's neater to have cities converting their trade partners, not their geographical neighbors -- and certainly less trouble to implement.

posted August 05, 1999 21:38            

1. To clarify: in my mind, Holy Cities appear on their own, when certain requirements have been met, and are the sole means for opening up diplomatic relations with that religion. No Holy City, no diplomatic relations.

2. Please explain, what is the game benefit of being a religion's "central authority?"

3. When two civs declare the same state religion, who would be the "central authority?" Am I reading more into your word choice than you intended?

Re the Post, yes, I actually meant that I will write a revised post for the religion model some time next week and re-post as the latest post down here.

For the version 2 model, tell me what you think:

4. "Prophets are random events. A prophet signals the emergence or re-emergence of a religion. One may appear anywhere and at any time, except...

"a. one prophet may not be followed by another in that religion for 1000 years, and unless that religion is totally irradicated.

"b. A non-aligned city where a prophet emerges is immediately 100% a believer in that religion.

"c. Any city that already has at least one religion represented, and a prophet emerges there, immediately alots 33% of its population to that religion. The remaining religions shrink in size, proportionate to their previous percentages.

"5. Unit to Unit Conversion. Units that 'rub shoulders' via occupying adjacent squares _for whatever reason_ automatically resolve ONE religious conflict. This includes military engagement.

"a. In combat, religious conflict happens first, performed by the AI.

"b. Though a unit wins a military combat, it may still have lost the religious conflict and leave the battle converted.

"c. The player cannot tell what religion a unit subscribes to until it reaches a city, and the resultant change in the city's beliefs, if any, is duly recorded in the city graph.

"d. A unit cannot be converted more than one time per turn.

"5A. Unit to City Conversion. As with Unit to Unit, a unit simply occupying a square adjacent to a city square enters into a religious conflict.

"a. A unit may not enter more than one religious conflict with a city while it maintains that belief, and not more than once per turn.

"6. City to City Conversion. A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit.

"a. A cleric unit spreads religion from its origin city to its destination city.

"b. Like a trade caravan in Civ II, it must enter its destination city, and is lost after affecting one city.

"c. A cleric unit has an extremely high evangelist/conviction rating, and folows unit to city rules when resolving conflicts. Hence, city conversion is not guaranteed.

"d. Due to its high religious attack, a cleric unit cannot convert units it passes in the field."

6. Question -- How are unit stacks treated in this model?

posted August 06, 1999 06:15            

I think we have a fork in the road. Some time ago you stated that religion, as a game play issue, is something to be chosen by a government to control the population, and this belief is evident in your model.

I fundamentally disagree. As in the real world, religions in Civ III should in effect BE the population. This would make controlling your population more challenging, interesting, and fun.

I do support other SE modifiers, like the SMAC model you're suggesting, but they should be part of the player's arsenal for controlling and guiding his civ's religious growth. What you may not realize is that by giving each population the ability to have its own religious belief -- YOU will have more ways of seeing your SE modifiers in action. The culture suggestion Mbrazier made above being just one.

posted August 06, 1999 15:48            

quote:

---

6) Culture

Some threads ago, I said culture would determine population happiness. I've made that a separate SE factor.

1)Culture determines how much it costs for you to bribe a unit or a city.

2)If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture. Cities converted to your culture get your city stile. If two civs already have the same city stile, I don't know yet what should represent the conversion. If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate.

3)A civ with a high culture rate has more population immigration from other countries.
Immigration : citizens from other civs migrating to your civ. Immigration/emigration has been suggested in the 'City Growth' thread in Civ3-General/suggestions.
Im- and emigration should depend on your culture rate and the happiness of the concerning city.

4) A high Nationalism(=Probe) rate lowers emigration. This is to simulate the Iron Curtain( or whatever it's called in English).

5) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

6) Can't say numbers. Testplaying needed.

maximum+6
+? : less money needed for bribing; immigrating people from lower cultures; conversion if higher culture; fast assimilation

-? : possible emigration and conversion if lower culture; no assimilation if lower culture
minimum-5

---

As you can see Culture doesn't affect only religion but primarily im/emigration.
So USA has a high culture(many immigrants).

Culture represents both your attraction and your resistance to other civs. So the human player can also get converted or take over.

"1) It looks like "one religion for each civilization", which is just plain _too_ simple. There are such things as stateless religions, after all."

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.

It could also spread to other civs by trade routes. There should also be CTP Cleric type units. Perhaps they can only be built under Government - Theocracy or Religion - Evangelism.

Animist citizens could be converted easily (perhaps they should have no defense in religious combat. Religious combat is a suggestion of Raingoon in his post of August 2 ), even if you have a low or the other civ a high Culture.
That way in the early game there could be formed civs with the same religion if one of them discovered Polytheism much earlier than the other.

Converting citizens that already have a belief should be much more difficult.
MBrazier suggested it would affect your religious combat strenght. Good idea. A bit like SMAC Morale.
+2 Cult = +25 % attack and defense in religious combat
+1 = +12%, 0 = normal, -1 = -12%...
The base defense and attack rate would be 1.
Who looses gets the religion of the winner.

The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones.
Perhaps this.
Animist = -100%
Revolutionaries = -50% (Read other posts to know more about them)
Unhappy = -25%
Content = normal
Happy = +25%.

About my SE Religion category.
It can still exist with your religion ideas.
The SE choices would be :
Animism
That choice automatically disappears when you discover Polytheism.
Evangelism
You try to spread your religion to other civs. Means increased Culture rate.
Worshiping/Paganism/State Religion
You are not trying to spread your religion. Decreased Culture rate.
Fundamentalism
Increased military.
Religious Freedom
All religions may exist.
Prosecution
You are trying to eliminate a religion.

posted August 06, 1999 22:31            

Exactly right.

"2. Please explain, what is the game benefit of being a religion's "central authority?"
3. When two civs declare the same state religion, who would be the 'central authority?' Am I reading more into your word choice than you intended?"

Whichever civ did the right things first would have the honor, I suppose. (I was writing off the cuff when I said that...) As for the benefit of having a Holy City in your civ: better diplomatic relations would be the main thing; the religion's head is a little more solicitous towards the country he lives in. You'd also have the Theocracy option for that religion, if you really wanted it.

On prophets:

"A non-aligned city where a prophet emerges is immediately 100% a believer in that religion.
"Any city that already has at least one religion represented, and a prophet emerges there, immediately alots 33% of its population to that religion. The remaining religions shrink in size, proportionate to their previous percentages."

Is this really necessary? In my own mental model each citizen in a city acts as a "unit" for religious purposes. That is, a city with 10 citizens works exactly like a stack of 10 units on one square. I would represent a prophet simply by converting one citizen at random and inflating his religious stats for five years or so; the ordinary conversion logic would insure that that citizen converted several others. This would also mean that any game parameters affecting the conversion logic still work on prophets, which only makes sense.

"The player cannot tell what religion a unit subscribes to until it reaches a city..."

Ick. I think the player _should_ be able to tell the religion of his own units at all times. Knowing what religion other civs' units follow is another thing entirely... put that on the list of Stuff Your Embassies Tell You. Or have spies go out and discover it.

"A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit..."

Yes, I like the missionary trick too. However... first, a Cleric unit should (when first built, haha) preach your civ's state religion, not the religion predominant where it was made. Which of course means that if you have no state religion you can't build Clerics. And second, why prevent a Cleric from trying to convert units in the field?

"6. Question -- How are unit stacks treated in this model?"

Now there's a good question. We need something that works quickly... how about letting co-religionists in the same tile add both their ratings, and try conversion as a single unit? Example: a stack of 5, where 3 are Bigendian and 2 Littleendian. The computer runs one conversion attempt, pitting the sum of the Bs' Evangelism against the sum of the Ls' Conviction; if the Bs win one L will convert. Then the computer has the Ls try to convert a B in the same way. (The main use for this is intra-city religious disputes, since cities are permanent stacks in this model.)

And now to M@ni@c:

Now that I've skimmed through the SE thread, it looks to me as if Culture's opposite stat is Nationalism. Since you liked my idea that your Culture affects your units' Evangelism, I suggest that your Nationalism affects your units' Conviction in just the same way. (BTW, SMAC's Morale stat was just the thing I had in mind here -- but we've got to find a better term for this than "religious combat"! Yes, it's resolved the same way as real combat, but the similarity ends there.)

"The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones."

Um. The point of the religion system is to _make_ your citizens happy; having happiness affect the conversion logic would put a messy feedback loop into the system.

"About my SE Religion category. It can still exist with your religion ideas. The SE choices would be: Animism..."

My "state religion" idea pretty much replaces this, I feel -- in fact, I'd make "Establish Religion" one of the SE stats, with values of "None" and all the religions your civ has contacted. And since I would far rather give the religions _different_ base values for the conversion stats, I'd make Animism into a "default" religion that just has poor basic ratings. Then the game's first prophet would naturally have a spectacular success, without any special code.

posted August 07, 1999 05:02            

I could use a primer on your concept of "State Religion" as it's evolved since you first posted it. It would help me in writing up the new version for the religion model.

"Ick. I think the player _should_ be able to tell the religion of his own units at all times."

Okay. That was in my original post. I wanted to test this out on others.

"Knowing what religion other civs' units follow is another thing entirely... put that on the list of Stuff Your Embassies Tell You. Or have spies go out and discover it.

Good.

"A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit..."

"First, a Cleric unit should... preach your civ's state religion, not the religion predominant where it was made. Which of course means that if you have no state religion you can't build Clerics. "

Nice.

"And second, why prevent a Cleric from trying to convert units in the field?"

Too powerful. I suppose you could argue he'd be like a diplomat, essentially bribing units he came across to his religion. But I have to point out, in this case it costs me nothing to have my cleric go out and convert units. And I haven't figured out what it would do to the balance of the normal unit to unit interaction. This cleric would seem more like a prophet.

"We need something that works quickly... how about letting co-religionists in the same tile add both their ratings, and try conversion as a single unit?"

My question gets down to, Can units still fight together with different beliefs? Some will complain that that doesn't seem real in certain government/social settings.

"The main use for this is intra-city religious disputes, since cities are permanent stacks in this model."

The question of stack behavior has to be considered some more. Perhaps what you suggested would work, perhaps it all depends on the government/SE status of your civ. Maybe M@ni@c's culture model comes in here.

It might be that only a Holy City can declare "Religion X an enemy of all religion Ys" and then you've got real trouble if you're cohabitating those two types in your stacks on the battlefield. You have to be able to enact some SE modifier, or change governments/build a wonder, etc. to counter that. Alternatively, you have to homogenize one or the other.

But the normal state of affairs for a "stack," be it a population acting like a stack in a city, or a real stack on its way into battle, religion is a laizes faire (sp?) proposition. Let the troops/people work it out amongst themselves. If no Holy City has emerged to lead one religion, you don't have anything to worry about.

Or if it has, then sufficient establishing certain freedoms in your civ to protect free expression and belief, could help to counter it.

"we've got to find a better term for this than 'religious combat'!"

I suggest, "religious debate." Avoid any reference to conflict, combat, etc.

posted August 08, 1999 15:38            

quote:

---

6) Culture

1)Culture determines how easy it for a Clerics to convert population (and units?) to your faith.

2)If a civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become automatically converted to your religion, if he has a trade route with one of your cities (or simply by geographical location?). If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate...

3) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

4) Culture affects your attack strenght(=evangelism) in religious debate/combat. Per +Culture you get +12.5% in combat. Per -Culture -12.5%.
The happiness of the population also affects the strenght.
Aristocratian : +25%
Worker : normal
Proletarian : -25%
Revolutianary : -50%
Animist : -100%
Animists are citizens without an advanced religion.

5)Your religious defense(=conviction) is determined by Nationalism.

6) Can't say numbers. Religious debate still busy on the Religion thread.

7) Numbers are relative. Means the effects are also determined by the other civ's Culture rate.

+? : Conversion easier; faster than normal assimilation

-? : Your population gets converted; no assimilation if lower culture

---

MBrazier :

Good idea about Nationalism/conviction.
I will edit my nationalist post.

It seems that you and Raingoon are discussing already quite a while about what makes something a Holy City.
Simple, where the religion arose, is the holy city.

"The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones."

Um. The point of the religion system is to _make_ your citizens happy; having happiness affect the conversion logic would put a messy feedback loop into the system.

I don't know if I understand you well or if you understand me well.
Isn't it logic that unhappy citizens are much willing to accept a new religion?
Isn't it logic that an unhappy citizen/city is easier to convert?

"My "state religion" idea pretty much replaces this, I feel -- in fact, I'd make "Establish Religion" one of the SE stats, with values of "None" and all the religions your civ has contacted. And since I would far rather give the religions _different_ base values for the conversion stats, I'd make Animism into a "default" religion that just has poor basic ratings. Then the game's first prophet would naturally have a spectacular success, without any special code."

So if I get it right, you want to create a SE category like Government, Market, Value... and give it as SE choices the religions of the civs you met.
Sounds OK to me, except this.
Will that SE choices be real-life religions? I have no problem with that, but others do.
Will that SE choices be fake religions like Turywenzism? I am against that. I find the name OK to represent _a_ religion in this discussion thread, but I wouldn't want to see it in a historical game.
And you want to give them SE factors(is it that what you mean with values?).
Sure, but what will they be? Religions evolve during time. That's in my eyes the most important roadblock for using real-life religions.
So unless you find a solution for this, I would stick with my SE choices.

"It strikes me, looking back at this, that it's better to establish than not. For the sake of game balance, perhaps we should give "no state religion" a Culture bonus -- your civ is more attractive if you're tolerant. What do you say?"

posted August 08, 1999 16:07            

I am going to be reposting the religion model based on our discussions here. From the previous posts, I now think that your culture model should be the main SE factor in player contol of his/her civ's religions, and will reference those different ways accordingly. I'll go back and try to summarize, but look for more question and discussion as I get closer to actually writing it out.

Regarding names -- I think you're right about historical names being better. The only hope of suggesting this to Firaxis is if each "set religion" under SE (as Mbrazier mentioned) has a zero base value. Obviously Firaxis will decide, but I think a sensible solution to the naming problem will help our case.

posted August 08, 1999 16:38            

When making your model, don't forget that Culture(should we rename it to Evangelism?) determines your religious 'attack' rate and Nationalism your religious 'defense' rate.

Regarding names, so you agree with MBrazier about the SE choices being the civ's religions?
What do you mean with 'zero base value'? Do you mean 'no positive or negative factors'?

If not so, I almost completed my Religion category.

Animism : -2 Res
->with the invention of Polytheism the Research penalty disappears, resulting in 'no pos or neg'.
Worshiping : +2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Evangelism : +2 Cult, +1 ?, -2 Dipl
Fundamentalism : +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap

posted August 09, 1999 07:00            

First, I hope you don't mean a state religoun is a paganic religoun, right?
Secondly, why should evanglism get a research bonus?
Third, what excatly is prosecution? A religounless state?
Four, whath happened to Athiesm? It IS the most spreaded religoun today. And no, it shouldn't get a happiness minus. I am not less happier cause I am a declared Athiest.

posted August 09, 1999 09:46            

1) Woops, slight mistake about Paganism.

2) I know it sucks. I just gave it because I know no other benefit of Evangelism than a increased culture rate. Suggestions would be very welcome.

3) Under Prosecution your civ is trying to eliminate a certain religion in your cities and install another one. That's why the increased culture. No atheism at all.

Raingoon, MBrazier : Makes me think that there is need of a State Religion category where all the available religions can be chosen, just as MBrazier said. Your choice would have no effect(no pos or neg) except that that religion is the one you try to spread with your culture.

4) I had heavy Atheism opposition by Snowfire and Jon Miller, and you weren't there to help me!! Even atheism seemed to provoke religious wars and arguements under the people. That's why I (the original idea was from Jon) came up with other SE choices that can't cause racial wars. And the State Religion category can contain real-life religions cause they don't get any SE effects.

No, Religious Freedom is the most spreaded religion today. There is no state in the world that has Atheism as it's State Religion. The USSR I would count under prosecution.

BTW Raingoon and MBrazier, make sure there is an Atheist State Religion option in your category.

The State Religion category appears after the discovery of Polytheism.
Atheism
Islam
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism

Sorry Harel no Judaism, you can't really call that a world religion.

posted August 09, 1999 10:34            

And I care not for jewdism, so you can scrap it for all I car maniac

How about +Urb for evanglist? Isn't breeding with zeal the hallmark of any good religoun? Which, btw, the reason why I support -2 Urb against -2 Hap to Atheism.

posted August 09, 1999 10:50            

Worshiping already has +2 Urb. Perhaps I should melt the 2 choices together.
? : +2 Urb, +2 Cult, -?

posted August 09, 1999 11:37            

Here is my suggestion:

First off, -2 dipl isn't a real threat.
Secondly, I think I covered just any thing we had along history... Not extreamly sure about the SE thought. About nations which oppose religoun: well, just pick police state and religous freedom ( cause their is no national selected religoun ). They should negate each-other bonuses.

posted August 09, 1999 13:55            

If it depended on me alone I would recall Strict Polytheism to Hinduism and recall Fundamentalism Islam.

But that is impossible cause then the ****ing Firaxis gets problems with ****ing laws.

You don't have to convince me of the importance of Atheism, but the inbelievers.

-2 Dipl not a real thread? Then it's the job of Firaxis to make Diplomacy better.

posted August 09, 1999 15:15            

I really do understand why people want to keep real religons off civ III. You know what? I accept that opinion. I really do. I too don't want names like Islam and budahism inside civ III.
First, if upset people. Secondly, civ is about making new histories, with new cultures. India can just as well develop the Islam in an alternative world. ( Gee, and I just saw a "slider" re-run ).

The point is, if you want to keep the religon types in the game "off-limits", you HAVE to include Atheism. I mean, Atheism is the only global religon possible!

We have thousands of different religon and under-currents in the world. All with a different code of honor, protocols, beliefs... in a different world, i guess every religon would be slightly different then our own. No other way.

The only truly global religon is Athiesm: the lack of any religon. I mean, a zero is always a zero, regardlss of what world you are.

So don't say Islam, say Strict monothaism. All I said it, that starting to even denounce monothaism is just plain silly: are we, in the name of politicly correct, going to cut religon into: "worship, evenglist, proseuction?!" huh? Comeon people. Can't we even use religon catagories?!

But hey, even in sub-typing, you still need to have Athiesm. Ok, you got worship, religous freedom, etc. You still need to have an option of "no religon". You know, some people prefer to go without the bloodshed and primitive thinking that go hand in hand with all religous beliefs ( that's why the +2 res ). No matter how far you want to analyze religon structre, no matter how far you take it. Why not just cut to it: belief, strong belief? But wait, no, strong belief leads to islam again. Can't have that. So, let's just have on value: belief. Yeah, that's right! That's the most politicly correct thing! No naming, no catagorizing peole and history. They belive. Thats all.

Maniac, I declare a formal remake to religon section:

Religon options

* Belief: no pos, no neg

End of religon options

But wait! You have belief... what about lack of any belief?
You see guys? No matter how far you go, how much you go forward in the name of politcly correctness until you refine all of the human beliefs into one pure conecpt, you still need Athiesm. Hand in hand.

posted August 09, 1999 15:24            

I love you too, Harel and M@ni@c

I hate to spoil this whole greatness of atheism party but..

Harel, Atheism no bloodshed? please, Every single state in history that was atheistic was as bad as the spanish inquisition

The French right after there religion, the USSR, and others

Ok so Europe has 40% agnostics and 20% atheists

that is only 20% atheists and it is by far the most atheistic area on earth

and how does europe being so atheist make it the future of the world?

you a far to eurocentric now

the world of importance has grown beyond europe in the past hundred years, in case you had not checked

M@ni@c what bugs you so much about my who/method system? I tell you what I don't like about your system (by the way, there never will be one set system for bell to put down and I don't think that bell should post one down when ppeople do not agree on one)

by the way, in the interest of civ3 (which should be the reason why we are all here) we need to put aside any antagonism we might fill towards eachother (I don't feel any towards you but apparently you feel some towards me) so that the most ideas as possible can come about

posted August 09, 1999 15:31            

"And I care not for jewdism, so you can scrap it for all I car maniac "

"SnowFire and Mbrazier have problems with Atheisim? Well... I am going to be very rude. SCREW THEM. I know, I know. Bad langauge. But I am annoyed."

This is so lame, I now have to think about this ***T, instead of the substance of what anybody is saying.

First, anti-semitic sentiments do not belong in any all-inclusive threads and I don't care who is in charge of this one, I am telling you they do not belong here. If you can't handle it, than you do not belong here.

Also, saying "screw somebody" is not offensive merely because of "bad" language. It is offensive to find such bad thinking in our midst.

And M@ni@c:

"BTW, you forget to screw Jon Miller. He irritates me most with his stupid who and method. BTW, don't screw Snowfire and MBrazier. They have also good ideas."

M@ni@c, the same now goes for you. Think about what you are saying. Both of you usually seem intelligent. I'm going to leave this thread for awhile, and if you want to trash people or anything else, just do it on an off-topic board. But unless the level of discussion stays at the level of dilligence it was at, I'm outta here.