RELIGION 2.1 (Hosted by Stefu)

[Maniac]

Raingoon, I have also read the Religion thread and I have a good and simple way to spread religion.
Here two extracts from my Culture post.

"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

I forgot to mention the penalty of Strict Polytheism/Worshiping/State Religion. It's -2 Culture.

[MBrazier]

Raingoon:

"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.

Incidentally, if I kept your Culture stat, I'd implement its effects by adjusting the religious "attack" rating for units in your civilization; a positive Culture makes your people more convincing, a negative Culture makes them less so.

[raingoon]

Mbrazier

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?


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 06, 1999).]</font>

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

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.

[Maniac]

First let's post my _entire_ Culture post here.

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.

Perhaps your Religion SE choice should have affect on the religion that has the most followers/citizens in your country.
Or perhaps you could choose a setting for every religion that exists in your civ. Then the number of religions would have to be limited off course.
I prefer the first option = it affects the biggest religion.

[MBrazier]

"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."

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.

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?

[raingoon]

So you didn't mean to imply any game benefit to laying claim to being the central authority for any religion, by declaring it your state religion. It's just a badge of honor to be the first.

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.

[Maniac]

I have adapted Culture to make it a better Religion factor. Why? The im/emigration doesn't fit into the same factor with religion.
eg Religious Freedom should have increased immigration, but a lower religious debate strenght.
So impossible to represent with culture. That's why immigration has nothing to do anymore with culture. Now it's only determined by the happiness of cities/world. This should also make making an immigration model easier.
I will post this on the SE thread.

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?"

Do you describe 'no state religion' as Religious Freedom? Then it should have a culture penalty for the reasons I described in the beginning of this post.

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

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.

[Maniac]

Wow, quick response Raingoon!

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

That's my temporary idea. Comments? I will explain the factors on request.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Hey maniac, followed you up
Just a few questions:

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.

Riddle me this

[Maniac]

To Harel, but also contains useful information for Raingoon's model.

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.

M@ni@c
Happy Atheist.

[Harel]

I didn't mean any nation support Atheism: I ment the more people are Athiest then any stream of a specific religoun.
For example, Christinaty, Islam, Budahism, Hindoism, all have several streams and cult inside them.
All atheist posses the same world view-point: therefor it's the most powerful religous stream today.
And you HAVE to include Atheism.
Even more so if you want your model to be "no-attachment", meaning no real names to cause feuds. Atheism is as "no-attachment" as you can get, it just float above everyone.

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.

BTW, you point out Jon and I will aim. No one should even doubt that Atheism have room in religoun, more then any other type.

[Maniac]

I know Atheism is very important and I know it is 'no-attachment', but for some reason my(our) atheist minds don't get, most people(MBrazier, Jon Miller, Snowfire) DO see it as attached and don't want it.

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

Just want to say something I already said in SE thread (so Raingoon reads it).
Perhaps Clerics should only be built under Evangelism and don't give it a second bonus.

[Harel]

Maniac, I allready posted this on the SE thread, but I will also replay here.
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. Atheism rules a big portion of the world today: it's a major belief, just like christianty and Budahism. And, I may add, it's the only belief no portion of here ( cult, seperate stream, or etc ) that has no bloodshed in it's history. No silly praises, worshiping, etc.
The SE options are not here to please people: I don't like dictatorship. So, we won't have Despotism as an option? No, ofcourse we will. Because we had Despotism in history.
And Atehaism? More then 60% of the people in europe stated "they fill no real attraction to religoun", and more then 20% "they don't belive in the existance of god". Well?
SE are not about what people like here. It's about society, past, present and future.
Atheism exist as a major power, and therefor must be presented.

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.

* Animism: no pos, no neg
->Polythaism: +1 cult ( Budahism )
* Loose monotheism: +2 Hap, +2 Urb, -2 Cult
* Strict monotheism: +2 Morale, +2 Pol, -2 Hap
* Religous Freedom: +2 Cult, +2 Dipl, -2 Pol
* Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Urb

[Maniac]

Harel, you can't just screw people . You have to be more polite. Your idea may be good, but if it is not accepted by certain people, it won't come in the summary.

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.

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.

[Harel]

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

[Harel]

Maniac, I don't want to "screw" anyone. Just got a little mad. Beside, I don't plan to screw Jon or any one else alone: if anything, i'll do a global screw.
joke. Kidding. Onwards.

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.

Annoying heretic, aren't I?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

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

Jon Miller

[raingoon]

Harel, some comments from you --

"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.



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

[Harel]

Oh pls Raingoon! Do bother to read the posts before you comment!

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.

But then again, you could have just read one post earlier.

[raingoon]

Harel

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?

Which is all to say why I have not been convinced one iota to assign values to religion in the game.

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

[Harel]

Sorry guys, I have to respond but this doesn't have any information beside to Raingoon.

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.

We are all humans. I apoligze again if anyone took offense with my cursing. I will mad, I am intitled too. Everyone are. And you Raingoon, must learned what the smily symbol means. Trust me, it's very clear when I am joking and when I am not.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

I must agree with raingoon(sp?). I got into an argument with Scooter months ago when I tried to suggest SE modifiers with "real-name" religions. I couldn't get much support, and he pointed out the problems that could be incurred by Firaxis if they made assumptions about religions. I tried watering it down; I even suggested RANDOM values that occurred with RANDOMLY assigned names for religions. Still it was a no-go. So I gave up. I still think real name religions could be used, but without any SE effects assigned to them.

Anyway my ideas for religion are both SE based & diplomacy based. The SE choices are generic; they apply to all religions, and it stands opposed to secularism (read: atheism). If slider bars are used then a civ can have a religious pop AND a secular one. Your SE choice will include their combined effects. The diplomacy ones are in diplomacy & are too long to write here.

[Harel]

Hmmm.
I am a blunt person Raingoon. Always have been. In face of stupidty and hard-mindness I maddned quickly.
I was angry. I used a words that I shouldn't have. I apoligized. Twice. I said i ered. Still, you say that I don't

...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.

Why didn't you stand up THEN, Raingoon, and told them that Atheist should be included too, like any other religon? Maybe because you don't belive in it too?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[will I]

I'd like to jump into the end of the religion debate, but as it pertains to the game, rather than the individual commenters' views. I think many of the ideas I've read will make the game more interesting. I'd like to suggest a few additional ideas.

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.

That's all for now. I'll think some more and be back tomorrow. Thanks for an interesting debate.

[raingoon]

Will

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.

In the current model, as I understand it, bonuses and penalties are culture factors set in SE. This needs some more clarification.

[raingoon]

Harel

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).

raingoon

[MBrazier]

Harel:

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.

About the Cleric, Raingoon: Yes, I see the difficulty. Setting the Cleric's religious stats high enough that he has a shot at converting a city also makes converting a lone unit into a nearly sure thing, and we don't really want it to be that easy. How about this? Leave the Cleric's stats at their normal levels, but rule that Clerics cannot themselves be converted except by other Clerics. Then add a special "city conversion" attack, which lets the Cleric attempt conversion once on each citizen (rather than taking the whole stack at once) but which also disbands the Cleric at turn's end.

[Maniac]

Shew, am I glad this ended. I feared this would become a religious war.

BTW Raingoon, do you recognize atheism as a worthy and full belief?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>