Religious Victory?

[Evillemon325]

Create a religion, then spread it to become the dominant religion in all major nations (or a majority of cities or something) to win a religious victory? Or something along those lines. Creation of a global Islamic caliphate is a self-declared goal of many islamic militant groups in the middle east right now. Europe fought 8 crusades over 200 years. Global domination of your faith I believe could certainly be seen as a massive achievment for your civilization easily rivalling that of winning the AC space race or creating a utopia. It would also give just another path of winning the game that's not warfare, and from what we know of Religion it would also play quite differently from other victory paths, involving aggressive strategies with missionaries, prophets, maybe a little holy war in order to spread the faith, in addition to simple building construction and faith accumulation.

[WorldWarIV]

I like that idea. I'd also like a more economic victory, and if it was possible to win earlier in the game, in another way than military.

[Ahhuatl]

Eh, just because a region is religiously homogenous that doesn't mean there aren't distinct and competing civilizations at work.

[stethnorun]

For a religious victory, wouldn't it have to turn out that your religion was the "right" one and that your god comes down at the end of the game and says "I approve".

[craig123]

+1 for a religious victory and +1 for an economic victory.

For a religious victory, wouldn't it have to turn out that your religion was the "right" one and that your god comes down at the end of the game and says "I approve".

LOL

[wingednosering]

For a religious victory, wouldn't it have to turn out that your religion was the "right" one and that your god comes down at the end of the game and says "I approve".

Lmao. That is all.

A religious victory sounds awesome, but I'm unsure how the faith system works long-term. I sort of assumed it would be like the current expansion/colonization, where it explodes up until the renaissance and then just dies and only warfare promotes big change.

An economic victory would also be awesome, although I feel like the current diplo victory kind of fits into that, since it's based on money.

[Shiav]

Lmao. That is all.

A religious victory sounds awesome, but I'm unsure how the faith system works long-term. I sort of assumed it would be like the current expansion/colonization, where it explodes up until the renaissance and then just dies and only warfare promotes big change.

An economic victory would also be awesome, although I feel like the current diplo victory kind of fits into that, since it's based on money.

They're reworking the diplo victory so that it relies less on money i think.

An economic victory, where your economy encompasses XX% (lets say two thirds or three quarters) of the global economy would be awesome.

A religious victory would be cool, but who would it go to? Say Buddhism was the dominant religion. Would it go to India, who founded it, or China, who has the most adherents and has spread it? Would it be a group victory?

[wingednosering]

Hmm, good point ^.

I would guess it would go to whoever founded the religion, since they'd have 'the holy cities'.

Supposedly the new diplo victory will be focused more on the sidequests than money. I can't see that going well, but hopefully they implement it competently .

[Evillemon325]

Founder, I'd say. If the goal is to spread it to the whole world, group victory would be kind of odd.
It's also not in China's intrest to spread that religion if they think India is going for religious victory, but they would do it if they didn't believe india was going that way and wanted better relations with the nation their trying to convert. Bear in mind that any city that follows a faith will automatically spread it as well, meaning that if enemy nations don't take proper steps to contain their enemies religion it could grow on its own, regardless of whether or not on is trying to spread it.

[Artifex]

Founder, I'd say

The founder might not still be around. Also consider real world analogs. I really don't see the founders 'winning' much of anything currently.

We have been told that the influence of religion will dim as the game progresses, so I don't see it being a victory condition.

[SirMaru]

Most religions, which dominate a large area, start infighting between their own denominations (Sunni vs. Shiite; Protestant vs. Catholic; Stalinist vs. Titoist). In the game nations of the same religion should have an easier time allying and trading with each other - not winning the game.

[Shiav]

Most religions, which dominate a large area, start infighting between their own denominations (Sunni vs. Shiite; Protestant vs. Catholic; Stalinist vs. Titoist). In the game nations of the same religion should have an easier time allying and trading with each other - not winning the game.

I would've gone for Stalinist vs Maoist, ad it was the underlying cause of the failure of the East to beat the West. Don't provide a united front and you will tear apart at the seams.

Also, it doesn't really make sense to go for the founders. The founders of christianity and islam? not around any more. The largest christian/islamic nations? Did not found the religion.

[IrishSamurai]

The nation with the highest Faith score perhaps, or maybe they make it like a Cultural Victory: Max out your religion, store up enough faith, and then build Cristo Redentor or something akin to the Utopia Project. Still, with religion's importance fading by the Modern Era (killed by Science? ), a Religious Victory seems a little unlikely the more you think about it. Too bad. We could use some new paths to victory just to make things interesting.

[Evillemon325]

@ Shiav
Well, it's a game of Civ. New nations don't pop up later in time as they did in real life- all the major nations that are there at the end of the game, were there at the beginning of the game and each one had the chance to found a religion at the same time as anyone else. The founders would still be around, and if they weren't, then no-one could win a religious victory by spreading that religion, or maybe they could throw in some sort of inheritance deal with the religions- should the founder fall, the most pious and dedicated adherent of that founders faith can choose to become 'the defender of the faith', simililar to how Christianity passed to the Romans, who took it and made it there own, founded the catholic church, and it was then passed onto other nations like the Holy Roman Empire after they fell.

But the founders not being around in real life should not usually be a problem in Civ.

[Evillemon325]

I believe that they have stated in interviews that as time goes on, missionaries and conversions in general are more expensive are more difficult to use, and that is the mechanic by which religion tapers off in importance. Therefore, religious victories would be difficult, but not immpossible, in the late game, highlighting its dimmed importance, but will also be a viable way to win without going to late game or going domination. In all my MP matches with friends, we rarely have very much time, nor do some of them have much patience, so it's domination victory after domination victory, etc.

[stethnorun]

I believe that they have stated in interviews that as time goes on, missionaries and conversions in general are more expensive are more difficult to use, and that is the mechanic by which religion tapers off in importance. Therefore, religious victories would be difficult, but not immpossible, in the late game, highlighting its dimmed importance, but will also be a viable way to win without going to late game or going domination. In all my MP matches with friends, we rarely have very much time, nor do some of them have much patience, so it's domination victory after domination victory, etc.

Yeah, sounds like religion is just a tool (and an early game tool, at that) for achieving the real victories. And, of course, where religion is concerned, no one wins

[Shiav]

Yeah, sounds like religion is just a tool (and an early game tool, at that) for achieving the real victories. And, of course, where religion is concerned, no one wins

a talk you might be interested in, courtesy of TED

Note that I reflect no bias or judgement in it, merely stating that you might find it amusing. The views expressed within are solely those of their speakers and do not represent FOX, Paramount Pictures or Twentieth Century Entertainment.

Sometimes when the oldest one comes home I find myself unable to leave lawyer-speak for a few days, just out of habit from annoying him

[stethnorun]

a talk you might be interested in, courtesy of TED

Note that I reflect no bias or judgement in it, merely stating that you might find it amusing. The views expressed within are solely those of their speakers and do not represent FOX, Paramount Pictures or Twentieth Century Entertainment.

Sometimes when the oldest one comes home I find myself unable to leave lawyer-speak for a few days, just out of habit from annoying him

Wow...what a horrifying outlook. Collectivism at it's most frightening.

He also uses irrelevant and out of context examples (like Mitochondria) to justify his worldview. Creationists do the exact same thing.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Hmmm..

I can see problems with the victory. For example, you could use domination all the way to the end, spreading your religion, but leaving an ally behind, one of your religion. It has problems.

Also, considering the weakening influence once we hit the Industrial Era, I doubt it would be feasible.

[Hawk]

I think it's a good idea having more victory conditions. Firstly, it gives the game more replay value because you may wish to win the game at each victory, but secondly if there are other human players it may make it more interesting - provided all the victories are balanced that is. With the AI, less of them would be trying to kill you, as more of them would be going for other victories than you, so more chance of AI friendships.

The important thing is to get it right, and if we can't then best leave it as it is.

[MARDUK]

Religious victory sounds like a good idea. Though, the developers have said the importance of religion(s) start to fade out early in Renaissance era. But guess it could be possible to make it to work, without losing the aspects of following eras...

Just liked to point out that it would be cool if, for example, the Huns UA "Scourge of God" (perhaps?) or one of the new bonuses (religion, social policies) would give increased attack strength against cities with religion. First spreading your religion to the rival cities then conquering them. Would be a fun play style

[Evillemon325]

Hmmm..

I can see problems with the victory. For example, you could use domination all the way to the end, spreading your religion, but leaving an ally behind, one of your religion. It has problems.

Also, considering the weakening influence once we hit the Industrial Era, I doubt it would be feasible.

The religion of a city is not set at what the official religion of a civilization is (if a civ can even have an official religion if they don't found one), so conquering vast numbers of cities won't automatically convert all of them. You'll still have to do a lot missionairy work for that. And anyways, what's really so wrong with that? What you just described is a holy war and there've been plenty of those in history. And even if there was no religious victory if you're going domination that ally is getting screwed eventually.

The fact that religion starts tapering out, it merely makes the religious victory less and less likely as time goes on, versus the opposite for the other conditions, making it more unique to play that way.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

The religion of a city is not set at what the official religion of a civilization is (if a civ can even have an official religion if they don't found one), so conquering vast numbers of cities won't automatically convert all of them. You'll still have to do a lot missionairy work for that. And anyways, what's really so wrong with that? What you just described is a holy war and there've been plenty of those in history. And even if there was no religious victory if you're going domination that ally is getting screwed eventually.

The fact that religion starts tapering out, it merely makes the religious victory less and less likely as time goes on, versus the opposite for the other conditions, making it more unique to play that way.

I'd imagine it's easier to get citizens to convert to your state religion than doing so from someone else's state religion. Also, whilst I did describe a holy war, it takes away from the difficulty of the victory. What's the point of introducing it into the game if it's basically domination without taking one capital?

[WorldWarIV]

I's really too bad that religion importance is fading as the game progress. While it might be true to life in North America, it's still very important for several civilizations around the world today.

[craig123]

I's really too bad that religion importance is fading as the game progress. While it might be true to life in North America, it's still very important for several civilizations around the world today.

But a lot of those civilisations haven't left the Renaissance era yet.

[tfordp]

Haha Bavaria for example

[stethnorun]

But a lot of those civilisations haven't left the Renaissance era yet.

Sigh...or even the medieval.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

I's really too bad that religion importance is fading as the game progress. While it might be true to life in North America, it's still very important for several civilizations around the world today.

What?

Seriously, it's Europe where religion is fading. Europe, and Australia. In America it's still (unfortunately) incredibly strong. Not as strong as the rest of the world stuck in the past.

[stethnorun]

What?

Seriously, it's Europe where religion is fading. Europe, and Australia. In America it's still (unfortunately) incredibly strong. Not as strong as the rest of the world stuck in the past.

I would say, conservatively, we are about 2 generations behind Europe regarding atheism. When today's teens hit their 20s, the US is going to see a HUGE uptick of self-declared atheists. The "coming out of the closet" effect, combined with the internet, is crushing religion here.

And if you include Italy, I wouldn't be so proud of Europe.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

And if you include Italy, I wouldn't be so proud of Europe.

Church attendance in Spain and Italy is crumbling. But yes, it's true, southern Europe isn't as advanced as the west.

[steveg700]

Well, lowered chruch attendence doesn't equate to a surge in aetheism. Doesn't matter where you are, when life is comfortable, church attendance wanes. When life is bleak, it waxes. In the former case, people just sleep in on Sunday. There's no getting past it; most people need the comforting illusion provided by wishful thinking (a.k.a. faith). There are no aetheists in foxholes...or bread lines.

Given the many unsustainable trends taking place on a global scale, I suspect organized religion will return to prominence at some point.

[Shiav]

Question, why is atheism regarded as progress? Yes, religion has bad parts. But it is still the combined fears, hopes and triumphs of a culture. The crusades? Bad. But religion has moved past that.

Any institution that promotes kindness, generosity, love, and art is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. Plus, my mother is Italian.

Also, I'd be willing to make a bet. As we see the rise of Eastern societies, the West is going to undergo a cultural revitalization. And Christianity is going to be a major part of that. We saw it in the fifties, a religious re-awakening of the west as the combined fears of the atomic age sent people scurrying for answers.

[tfordp]

Thou speakest the truth ^

Edit: Not you Shiav, although what you say has merit, I meant the post above .

[Shiav]

Thou speakest the truth ^

Edit: Not you Shiav, although what you say has merit, I meant the post above .

Geez, thanks. Also, church attendance as Steve said means nothing. The church is more than a building.

[stethnorun]

Question, why is atheism regarded as progress?

Because atheism and science go hand in hand. And no, I don't intend on debating that fairly self-evident fact.

[stethnorun]

I suspect organized religion will return to prominence at some point.

There will always be people seeking to use religion and collectivism to control people. So to a certain extent, you are correct. And just because someone is an atheist on the topic of a god, most will then go and put their faith in something else, like "mother earth" or the government or even Apple products. Blind devotion and faith will never go away, even if churches to Yahweh do.

That being said, like I said up top, many many more young people are self-identifying as atheists because the social stigma against it is going away. Also, there are tons of atheists in foxholes, that saying is pretty stupid.

[tfordp]

Yes, but the commoner will look to the church in times of distress, the faithful can prey anytime. Isn't that what you said?
Edit: bless my iPhone, then it posts too late

[Artifex]

Question, why is atheism regarded as progress? Yes, religion has bad parts. But it is still the combined fears, hopes and triumphs of a culture. The crusades? Bad. But religion has moved past that.

Some have, some have not it must be said. But even the most charitable of churches can have trouble justifying themselves as a force for good in the world.

There are countless positive effects religion has had on our human culture, but the skeletons in the closet are there too, and I'm not talking historically.

[stethnorun]

There are countless positive effects religion has had on our human culture

If you can name one thing that religion, the concept, has added to humanity, I'm all ears. From my perspective, good people doing good things has nothing to do with religion. Those good deeds would have been done anyway, regardless of the idea of god.

[Shiav]

If you can name one thing that religion, the concept, has added to humanity, I'm all ears. From my perspective, good people doing good things has nothing to do with religion. Those good deeds would have been done anyway, regardless of the idea of god.

You don't strike me as an especially good person, Steth. And that's coming from a former KGB agent.

How about the Red Cross? How about the humility to realise you are not the be-all-end-all? How about Polish Solidarity? The first supranational sense of community? The first international banking and legal systems? And that's just the Catholic church. What about art? Music? Love? Architecture?

Also, atheism is not science. Atheism is using science when you should not be. Just like fanaticism is using religion when you should not be.