(This is a continuation of my reply to the recent thread about the Civilization series.)
It's got some issues with, for lack of a better term, historical accuracy. There's some weird dodgy stuff in the tech tree. You may try to scoff and say that it's just a game, it's not meant to be accurate. Yeah, of course not, to a certain point. Old Man Redactor once saw me playing Darklands and pointed out that if you just changed the data files you could use the same engine to make a game about running a laundromat. What elevates games over spreadsheets is that there's some kind of story that it's telling you where the numbers mean something. In Civ, that story is history in general, so it had darn well better at least feel like it has to do with history.
I only realized later that actually my father is a Satanist who was trying to drive me away from good Christian games. One day on the solstice he made carry a bunch of 1-gallon milk jugs full of blood (I dunno what kind) from the garage to the trunk of his old Honda. Then he got in and it flew away into the night. That's when I put two and two together.
The way religion is handled I think is pretty butt-backwards. In the original Civ, it's all abstract. You build a temple and that's it, it's assumed that it's a temple for whatever these people believe in. It doesn't really matter what religion it is because, for the purposes of the game of Civilization, people from different religions act pretty much the same for the most part because we're all human.
The other approach you can take is what they do in Europa Universalis. (I dunno if they still have the guts to do this but they did when I played it.) Where you decide which religions are good or bad and give them bonuses and penalties. This obviously has some disadvantages. Like it's really fricking obvious what's going on when the game is made in Sweden and the good religions that get bonuses are in northern Europe. You can't get away with that if you're making a game outside of an extremely ethnocentric culture like Sweden.
Swedes always score themselves as the happiest country on Earth when they make those rankings, yet all the Swedes I know complain about how their husband just drinks all day and won't do anything even though she physically beats the shit out of him. Curious.
Civ IV tried to have their cake and eat it too but you end up with nothing and you're still hungry. The religions use the superficial trappings of ones from the real world but in gameplay terms they're completely generic with nothing differentiating them except which tech activates them. If they're generic why do we need them? Why not just leave it completely abstract like in Civ I? If we're assigning them to real world religions, why don't we give them their own special bonuses like we do with different civilizations?
The approach in Civ IV is kinda stupid both in terms of gameplay and theme. You might as call the religions pokemon because you're best off just collecting them all. Each one in a city adds happiness and gives you the opportunity to build more improvements. Honey, please. This is a stupid gameplay mechanic where you're encouraged to build missionaries to convert all your cities and build the same improvement several times for each religion. I consider this to be what Soren Johnson (designer of Civ IV) himself called a "degenerate strategy" in his seminal piece "Water Finds a Crack". You're doing something that's stupid and not interesting because the game rewards you for it. There's no interesting choices going on here. The other gameplay impact religion has is that basically it makes some of the AI civilizations hate you for no reason. This was obviously intended to stop you from just turtling and being friends with everyone, but it's annoying when you're left with fewer options to pursue in diplomacy.
In terms of history, this is all really stupid. Religious diversity works in America because the Founding Fathers designed our nation around it. In the rest of the world in the rest of history, having many different religions in one city is not a recipe for everyone to love each other. Let's look at the late 1500s, when religion was perhaps the most important in history that it's ever been. You had stuff like Protestant mobs surrounding the convent and yelling lewd suggestions of what the nuns should do. Today in Beirut they've got 15 religious sects and it's not giving them +15 happiness points. It's giving them continuous simmering animosity. Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, great cities that have "stood the test of time" like the ones represented in Civilization are not finding that diversity is their strength. By ignoring these real issues, I feel that Civ IV is demeaning both to America, where we actually solved them to some extent, and to the poor bastards living in those shithole countries where they have to deal with sectarian bullshit on a daily basis.
In 1976 the Lebanese decided that their happiness bonus from being multicultural society was so great that they asked the Syrian Army to come and violently put down sectarian violence experience it for themselves.
Also, what do you do with the Jews and Hindus? If you're putting real world religions into the game they're incredibly important so you have to include them, but they're not like the other ones featured in the game. They're not sending missionaries around trying to convert people. So what do you do? Write special rules for them? Who's gonna do that? You'd need to hire some guy from Hebrew University who also loves 4X to do any justice to it.
Now this is a nice campus.
The way that religion affects diplomacy in the game is stupid in the other direction. Countries won't make alliances with the "infidels"? How fricking naive do you have to be? Are like 4 fricking years old? Let's look at the late 1500s again. I don't have the book at hand at the moment, so this is from memory, but there was an alliance against the Hapsburgs that was something like this: Sweden, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Morocco, Algeria, various parts of Italy, and the Ottomans. They'd have added the Moros in the Philippines if they had better communications technology. In Lebanon they've gone through every possible combination of different sects allying with each since 1975. Most hilariously the Druze who have been both allied with and fought everyone else at least once since then. The elites running the country or the faction usually don't give a shit about sectarian hatred except as a tool they can use to manipulate the plebs.
Sana'a Mehaidli. Carried out a suicide bombing against the Israeli occupation force in 1985. I guess nobody ever told her that as a Christian she wasn't supposed to be on the same side as Muslims. 
Which takes me back to my original point about how Sid Meier did it with generic temples. It's not because he's some atheist who hates religion. (He's actually a Christian of the actually going to church kind btw.) It's because trying to fit too much low-level detail about religion into a 4X game is really tricky and probably won't work in terms of gameplay or theme. I've always had a strong impression that this feature was basically put in because there was a feeling among (mostly atheist) 4X fans that religion was a big thing in history so we need a gameplay mechanic for it. And my feminine masculine intuition is rarely wrong.
After all this time I spent writing this I really feel like... starting up a new game of Civ IV. It's a great game. 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Civ IV party on rDrama
Finally a Sid and Soren themed website 
Civ IV religions do leave a lot to be desired, but it gets credit for being the first civ game to really have religion. Each religion is just a superficial trapping as you said, but whether you have a religion or not is very important. The religious civics only work if you have one, so that's the difference between bonuses like faster building construction or free xp for military units vs getting nothing
These bonuses are so strong that they force players who don't found religions to adopt existing ones. Even taking on your rival's religion is worth it if the alternative is nothing.
This in turn answers the question of why one civ would ever take another's religion. It's part of the meta so you kind of have to lol
Of course, if you are the one to found a religion, you're getting a considerable amount of income per turn from having the holy city shrine plus free good relations with other civs of the faith. These bonuses require you to actually spread that faith though, so now you're on the grind churning out missionaries when you might have otherwise focused your production on something else.
The Apostolic Palace from BTS is very interesting because it's like a medieval UN (And I'm not sure why they never brought it back
) You can use it for a diplomatic victory, ending the game before the renaissance even starts! But that requires a hustle since multiple civs have to adopt your religion for that to be viable.
So religion does a lot for the gameplay of Civ IV, and it even recreates historical behaviors -- founder civs have every reason to furiously convert others and deny blasphemers, other civs willingly convert if they didn't get their own religion not unlike how "organized" religions almost universally displaced ethnic pagan faiths in the late classical/medieval period.
But I do agree that the RP potential is limited. The customizable religions from Civ V were pretty cool. The mechanic just needs to be in a better game
On that note, there are two Civ IV mods that did religion really well, and in two very different ways too.
Dawn of Civilization
So Rhye's and Fall is a mod that turns Civ IV into an Earth history simulator instead of a sandbox. You're always on an Earth map. Civs spawn where and when they're supposed to, so for example no America until the 18th century. AIs are programmed to follow history i.e. the Euros will colonize the world roughly how each country did irl and an abundance of defensive pacts starting in the late 19th century eventually cause global wars.
I could write a whole post about this really and I feel the need to apologize for underselling it. If it sounds unbalanced there are a number of mechanics to help later civs catch up. It's still kind of unbalanced, but now in a fun way
You have to believe me when I say a lot of the !historychads (I apologize for a vidya ping) on this site would probably love it.
RFC programmed each civ to be biased towards its actual religion. The spiritual continuation Dawn of Civilization takes this even further and actually does force the Civ IV religions into their historical niches. AI civs are programmed to trigger the religions about when they came about in history, and they're now soft locked to parts of the map (For example Judaism is almost always in Jerusalem and same with India and Hinduism) Holy cities can't be razed anymore so they become the centers of longstanding religious quarrels and you can't just cut the knot there. Smaller religions like
, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism are harder to convert to so they don't spread unrealistically, but the player can still spread them by force of will 
Hinduism/Buddhism and Confucianism/Taoism can coexist without a diplo penalty. Some religions have unique spawn conditions, for example Buddhism appears automatically when a Hindu temple is first built and Taoism requires a tech and for a civ with that tech to own a city in the Confucian map zone.
Christendom is extra interesting because the religion simply called Christianity was replaced by the three denominations. The religion first appears as Orthodoxy with all the Roman world as its new flip zone. But when there are more Orthodox cities outside of the control of Christian civs than inside (usually caused by Rome collapsing -- civs in RFC/DOC can actually collapse
-- or the Arab conquests) or when an Orthodox civ that doesn't control the holy city first builds a cathedral, the Great Schism happens and Catholicism steals western Europe. Much later in the Renaissance, Protestantism is founded with a tech and immediately causes a semi-scripted Reformation. Catholic loyalists have to declare war on new Protestant civs to keep it from spreading in their cities. Tolerating the religion keeps the peace but causes Catholicism to be replaced randomly in your cities. Fully Protestant civs go to war with the loyalists but get free money from looting Catholic monasteries 
Of course by this point the civs will have colonies and their own politics going on, so the resulting war can shake up the world.
Every civ also has a default pagan religion, which is what you are if you leave "no religion" selected. It's a nice new mechanic for the ancient civs because it lets you build things like temples, so now even the Aztecs and Inca can get the culture and happiness from those buildings without having to wait for Columbus to bring them an old world faith. Organized religion "beats out" paganism as it spreads, with pagan temples even being abandoned when any religion spreads to a city, but it's nice that some religious benefits can now be enjoyed from the get go. It's also interesting that literally every civ, even late spawning ones, has a pagan religion as a "back up" (The Ottomans inherit Tengrism from their Central Asian ancestors, America and Canada inherit Druidic shamanism from England, Mexico can revert to Aztec sacrifice, etc.)
Finally DoC introduces the religious victory, with every organized religion having unique conditions to be fulfilled. The fun thing is that you can pick which civ you think would be best for each religion's win. Like maybe you think America would offer better advantages for a Catholic or even Buddhist victory, but you'd have to grind to set that up. Each pagan faith also has a victory, so you can change history be refusing to ever convert (or just win the game early as an ancient civ) Lastly there is a secular victory for taking the late game secularism civic and rejecting the non-euphorics
Fall from Heaven
The other mod goes in the opposite direction of realism but addresses each Civ IV religion being mechanically identical. FFH is a high fantasy mod based on the guy's longrunning DnD campaign. The gameplay changes to the Civ formula here are incredible even if you can't get into the writing (Which I actually really like
)
Regarding religion, each one gives you tons of extra and unique content like units, buildings, wonders, OP hero units, and even powers. The evil Heck religion gives you rewards for bringing about Armageddon, which is its own huge thing in the mod. A Cthulhu religion can brainwash away unhappiness. Council of Esus is like a secret Illuminati UN that only these civs benefit from (and your true religion is hidden on the diplomacy screen) The wood elf Fellowship of Leaves makes forests into good tiles and spawns Treants, etc.
Another mod quirk is that the good, evil, and neutral thing from DnD is applied to entire civilizations. The evil devil religion and good knightly religion allow you to change your side and shake up the formula, and the mod even comes with appropriate unit graphics. Even the Orc and literal Demon civs can adopt the The Order, at which point you do indeed get Orcs and Demons in spritely Don Quixote armor.
More so than any official Civ game to come out even since, FFH makes your choice of Civ really alter your gameplay experience and the religions dial this up even further. As the FFH community says, there are really seven different versions of each civ in the game -- one for each religion you could adopt.
!g*mers Come learn more about the complexity of Civ IV's still active modding community
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That was interesting. Thank you and Redactor both for your posts
I've got 800 hours in Civ V and 31 in VI. I should play IV some day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You should fire up DOSBox and play the real thing, kid.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Digging these posts on Civ IV maybe I should try it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Absolutely. Just plan on using some vacation time first.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Civ VI was also better at throwing on constraints toward conquering. Each city would increase your social policies and technology increments, so you couldn't steamroll everyone simply by grabbing cities. You had to carefully choose some to raze.
Civ 5 and 6 throw all that out because
it's too hard! (for whiny cute twinks).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Civ 5 had happiness to do that, and the entire game revolved around founding as many cities as possible while keeping your happiness net positive. Basically this means every city needed a new luxury resource.
Civ 6 still has this to some extent, but if you don't play it or you're bad at it maybe you wouldn't notice. The luxury resources only have a limited quantity so if you build a bunch of cities you don't have enough luxuries to go around, which results in lower amenities in those cities. The punishment is not as much of a cliff as Civ 5 (where I think you went from +0% growth to -75% growth with a single point of unhappiness, I forget the details) and it's not really shown in the top info bar so if you're not paying attention you wouldn't notice it. Civ 6 takes it further and gives you a bonus for extra amenities though.
I remember Civ 4 having that mechanic about social policies but tbh I haven't played that shit since Civ 5 fully released (with all expansions) and it was much better. I just remember Civ 4 retaining that dumb shit from the older games where you'd just create death stacks and go steamroll shit. At least in Civ 5/6 you need some amount of tactics (Civ 6 made it much easier w/ corps/armies/fleets/armadas letting you sorta stack shit with obvious limitations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No it fricking streamlined all constraints from previous games into one global "Happy Face" resource so r-slurred babies could understand it, it was fricking SHIT
Shooting an arrow over a unit is not rich tactical gameplay and tactics do not mesh with strategy on a global map
You were probably playing on Chieftain
SHIT post SHIT 5cel apologia
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yet another one filtered by having to worry about local terrain features around the battlefields they fight on
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Civ4:
Civ5:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When they got rid of attack and defense stats for units, it made it extra r-slurred. Should've kept that, and the 1-unit per tile mechanic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ranged units effectively have that - they have a separate (melee) combat rating that's typically quite a bit lower than the ranged combat rating.
I'll argue it wouldn't make much sense for them to have separate attack/defense stats for melee units though, with the lack of unit stacking. There's already different melee classes (melee vs "anti-cavalry") and adding more ("defense") would be weird to deal with without unit stacking. Short of defending cities or other static points, I don't think defense melee units would have any purpose in an offensive army, unless civ 4 and below where they do because they're needed to defend a giant stack.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The funniest part about this is that siege units don't exhibit ZOC.
Didn't Civ 4 not even have ranged units? I seem to remember all units being the same melee units. Very tactical bb.
With Civ 6 this isn't the case, for example artillery can fire 2 tiles away (except if you have observation balloons then you get an extra tile) so you don't need to march your long-range artillery right up to the city gate to hit it. Because that's r-slurred. But I guess that's why r-slurs like u like it bb.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Any time I talk with a 5cuck I come to realize pretty quickly they literally never played 4. Maybe you played it once when you were 6 or something and have a vague memory of moving a warrior around for 10 turns.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
okay bb pls enlighten me
which units in civ 4 can attack without being in melee range?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The amenities are hardly a constraint and were harder in Civ 4. Remember hygiene/health? There's nothing like that in Civ 5+.
Yeah that's teh only improvement for Civ 5 and 6. That's it though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I legitimately didn't and had to look it up lol, it's been a long time since I played civ 4.
Looks like just a soft limit on city growth, much softer than the older games (never played 3 but 1 and 2 had a similar "happiness" mechanic which was far more punishing). Amenities are still pretty punishing in Civ 6 though, if you're negative then city growth is cut by 75% I think, which makes them really slow to grow, plus I think there might be production/science/etc. penalties that mirror the buffs you get with larger positive amenities. They also cause loyalty issues for border cities.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's -10% when you're at -2. I'm playing on Deity too. That may be only science, prod, etc though.
Maybe growth is cut more, but that's a good thing since you don't want more growth when you lack the amenities. I remember how bad that can spiral out of control on Civ 4.
Loyalty is -3 which is alright. Always helps to starve them out while seiging anyway.
It's all very manageable. The game's a breeze compared to 4.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
TL;DR Diversity is bad IRL because some religions are worse than others, but representing bad religions as bad in a video game offends people, so just make it a milquetoast feature with no differentiation between the religions instead.
IMO they should have created a few wonders for each religion and locked the ability to build them behind have a majority of your country be of a certain faith. No other effects.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's... actually a really good idea. Doesn't hit you over the head every turn with some tard's ideas about every other religion on the planet but actually makes them distinct.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I hate religion in all civ games. It's just a bullshit micromanagement minigame that mostly just ends up being more annoying than anything else when you get wololololed constantly. It would be nice if it was just the pressure mechanic that could be part of your build, but the missionary aspect of it sucks.
It's like how rock bands totally ruin cultural victory in civ vi. All that buildup just to end up spamming an endless stream of grunts into enemy turf anyways.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Religion is an important part of history but in 4X gameplay it's better used in a subtle way, not pushing units around the map.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The tradeoff never made sense. Do I want to (1) build a bunch of religious buildings and missionaries to uhhh make my civ more religious, or (2) build military buildings and an army in order to double the size, wealth, and production of my civ by taking over my neighbor?
(2)!
(2)! 
(2)! 
(2)! 
(2)! 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also if you do (1) and actually try to convert anything, everyone involved is immediately pissed at you and you become the first target for elimination on the map
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You should play Civ V, it's fun and religion has a mix of universal buffs and specialized per-religion tenants. One constant is that it's always better to found your own religion, and usually better to force it upon others, than to accept someone else's religion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I appreciate it but this ain't my first frickin' rodeo with Civilization.
I'm not looking for interesting new features, I want a balanced game that works. Which nobody has delivered since the mid-1990s. If I want novelty, I play it in French.
!francais
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I just wish Civ VI wasn't so… whatever it is. It feels like a thoroughly narrow-minded standard modern take on history.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The only reason to play Civ V over the superior Civ IV is for installing the exhaustive list of my little pony mods
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I haven't played a game of vanilla civ4 in years, I had forgotten how boring the religion system was.
I still play the FFH2 mod pretty regularly, and it managed to fix a lot of these issues. If two opposed religions are in the same city it causes problems, so you're encouraged to go inquisition and get them out and to stop trading with civs with that state religion. There's also different mechanics for each religion, making each civ/religion combination play very differently so you have some interesting choices to make.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I remember there being notes in Civ4 documentation about how they made extra super careful to implement religion in a way that wouldn't result in offensive depictions. Like there was an assumption at some point that religions could be like government types with distinct bonuses but if you made Islam provide military bonuses you'd risk a
at Firaxis. The result of all religions being a different coat of paint with diplomatic effects kinda worked but was boring. The thing that irked me was that in typical vanilla 4 games Buddhism and Hinduism as the oldest religions ended up being dominant while Christianity and Islam were insignificant little fringe religions. There's a rule where you can pick which religion to found regardless of the tech but I don't really like that either.
Dawn of Civilization makes some pretty solid improvements, all religions spawn at their appropriate time/region and have unique wonders and victory conditions so are a bit more distinct. Even paganism and secularism
have representation though not as true religions. You can win a pagan/secular religious victory. Collecting every religion like pokemon is generally beneficial but not as optimal as it is in Civ4 due to stability but also because religions come and go. If Catholicism spreads to a city it may replace Orthodoxy/Islam. Non-proselytizing religions like Judaism can organically spread diaspora through trade routes etc. if your culture is welcoming.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's also no mechanism for religions to spawn other religions. Like Christianity as an organized religion isn't just based on Jesus. It's based on Jesus being interpreted through a lens of Judaism + various Greek stuff + Zoroastrianism (for the tards in the crowd, the three magi make this explicit). So what do you do? Make up new rules for that? You go into a rabbit hole. You could make an entire game just about how religions have played out over time. So you're better off trying to keep the whole subject at arms' length.
(BTW if I don't say anything about mods it's because I never played any of them. Most of my enjoyment of the game was from trying to polish my own personal mod that reflected all my ideas and then playtesting it.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Didnt read
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The Europa Universalis system sounds good to me, some religions ARE dumb and obviously worse than others. The civilizations should work the same way. You want to play aztecs? Ok your people keep sacrificing citizens every turn, everyone hates you, and your civ is wiped out on the first drought because your water supply and crops are an incredibly fragile system
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is where EU and Civ are totally different. EU is, well, at least back decades ago it was trying to be related to specific events in real world history like the Wars of Religion. So it made sense to have the Protestants be chads who are smarter than everyone else, the Catholics be corrupt and smelling like olive oil, the orientals be docile, etc. I don't mean that I agree with these stereotypes, I mean at least it makes sense to put them in a game like that.
Civ is way more open-ended. EU starts in the 1400s or what I would call the just after Darklands period. Most of history has already happened. The Reformation is gonna happen whether anyone likes it or not. There's issues that have been building up for centuries.
Civ starts in 3000 BC around when the first ancestor of us r-slurs finally realized that there was more to life than being a caveman. It's difficult to have a game of that scope and put specific stuff from specific real world religions into it. As I mentioned somewhere in this thread, it would get so complicated you'd have to make an entire game Religion Simulator 2025 to do justice to the topic.
If you haven't played King of Dragon Pass and Six Ages yet, I think you would like those. They make you think like some ancient r-slur who believes that magic is real but you're still human and you can't just do constant blood sacrifices to solve all your problems without pissing everyone off.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The secret to King of Dragon Pass is that the success of your entire society depends on how many Chads and Staceys you have.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If your population gets too large they split off and form their own clan so I dunno what you're talking about. Just have a lot of cows, bro.
There are ways to break the game but in my experience I think you can buy all the treasures from everyone and that's the way to do it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Having Heroic characters is much more important than having a high population. Treasures help too. Really, you have perversely little need for population, especially in Six Ages.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And hero quests or whatever it's called is a crapshoot. I always savescummed those. It's supposed to be mysterious, I get that, but why am I getting a game-ending ending where my farms will never grow wheat again or something. I actually talked to the guy who made it very briefly and he was like "yeah sorry we knew this was a problem, we'll do better in Six Ages".
Then I'm an old man with a bunch of goddarn mail to open and stuff and I have, and I have
@kaamrev hounding me to keep up the Darklands series, and I've got no time to play that game.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
plox
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know what this means. I probably didn't get far in some quest.
I mean ffs I even did the Ernalda one once when we had a shortage of food but I never heard of no plox.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Plz
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Civ 4 was fun for allowing slavery. You'd kill off population for production, so it was great for cities with high food yield and very little production (mines/forests). If you did it too much, your people would revolt, and the Aztecs had a bonus that mitigated that pissed off effect. But all of this is too offensive to some people, so we get crap.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
yo ive been playing a lot of civ 6 lately. i know
@binturong and 
@box play too and are willing 
to join multiplayer games. do you wanna play sometime?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Age of Empires did religion better
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Nothing curious about it. Both genders get too play out their power fantasy. The moid of being a self righteous leech who does nothing and still gets paid. The foid of being able too declare that she is better than her husband and gets too wear the pants in her house.
Jewish lives matter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No this was real. One of the most uncomfortable conversations of my life. It's me and another girl and she just drops this on us. This is long long ago so I didn't have the social skills to say something like "dude bussy lmao". How in the frick are you supposed to say.... "Okay but..." to that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
lol.
Jewish lives matter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
GOOD POST
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah. That's one thing Civ VI does way better. When you found a religion you get to choose beliefs for it (there are a ton of them), and again when refining it up to 2 more times, which have some serious impact on the religion and gameplay in general. For example, you can get "Crusade" which gives you +10 combat against cities following your religion, which is fantastic if you have a good way of spreading your religion to land you plan on conquering later.
I mean Civ I and II just didn't have religion as a mechanic. Yeah you could build temples and temples would do stuff (literally just makes some number of unhappy citizens content) but they acted like any other building. It wasn't "abstract" it was non-existent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Gib Fascist suicide bomber gf
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
In civ V I always take God King as my pantheon. It's a great all rounder early game because it gives you a +1 to faith, gold, culture, food, and religion. I take tithe and cathedrals as my founder and follower beliefs. These give me extra gold and the cathedrals have an great work of art slot if I want to do cultural victory. I'll usually take the liberty path and select a great prophet for my free great person, using them to enhance the religion, taking swords to plowshares since I like to do science or culture victories and the food bonus helps. For the enhancer belief I'll take reliquary because it gives me extra faith when a great person is expended. Now this helps too because I'll often take the Piety tree too and get the reformation policy and pick To the glory of God which lets you pick any great person starting in the industrial era. So if you're going for science you can pick a bunch of great scientists and research all the late game stuff in line 4 turns. For culture you can pick a bunch of great musicians and launch them like nukes all over the map.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tithe and the one where religion spreads 30% farther.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
That was a mistake. You're about to find out the hard way why.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Get a load of this Civlet, I bet he only tries military victories
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Total conversion mods make religion so much more dynamic than in vanilla. In Realism Invictus, for example, instead of a generic temple for each religion that's always +1 happiness and +3 culture or whatever every religion's temple is different in what bonuses it gives (Sun Cult adds a trade route to the city, Zoroastrianism reduces maintenance costs I think, etc.). There are also wonders and units that are exclusive to each religion. Most interesting of all is that the religions themselves have unique passive effects when adopted - under Islam you don't get happiness bonuses from wine or alcohol
.
Honestly, V had the best idea with religion as an actual mechanic. The customization is fun and the way religions diffuse between cities is so much more interesting than IV's "oh I guess it's in this random city on the other side of the world now because you sorta have trade with this civ".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obviously these people have never met a Muslim.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Protestantism is unironically the second worst Christian religion in EU4.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
in EU4Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Interesting read. Thanks.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thx fam. I'll keep creating good content as long as people keep giving me attention.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
civ 6 = civ 3 > civ 2 > civ 5 = civ 4
the definitive universal objective factual civ series ranking.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Snapshots:
"Water Finds a Crack":
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Sana'a Mehaidli:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context