Why we removed religion...

#1iron_zealot7531Posted 3/11/2010 10:51:59 PM

Jon Shafer posted...
We made some changes with religion. Because diplomacy is one of our focuses with Civ V, planning what an AI leader is thinking, how he's going to win the game, that wasn't something that was meshing very well with the religion system. In Civ IV, the religions were primary factors of who liked whom and who disliked whom. And that wasn't meshing very well with what we wanted to do, so we decided to move on without the religion system. But that's mainly because we wanted diplomacy to have more depth and not be so predictable. We wanted to make sure that the AI leaders were taking into account the same things as the player was taking into account. A player might not care what religion you're running, but they might care quite a bit if you attack one of their friends.

This is what lead designer Jon Shafer had to say about the issue of removing religion in an interview with PC gamer. I really can't comprehend how so many people are so butthurt over it's removal. Religion in CivIV made diplomacy simplistic and arbitrary. It's removal is a good thing.

#2CoD4_FunGAMEzPosted 3/11/2010 11:30:21 PM
Lame. I enjoyed sending religious missionaries on a crusade to spread my civilization's faith to others and usually this will create a bondage among many civilizations that adapt my faith. Often we would have Holy Wars as well if any other civilization isn't my religion...
#3ViperMaskPosted 3/14/2010 9:58:13 PM
At least no one will have a chance at a religion monopoly anymore.
#4flipinchicagoPosted 3/20/2010 12:17:44 AM
I enjoyed the religion system. Also I really enjoyed the sounds the missionaries/building made. Although the Islam horn (was it a horn...?) was really nasally.
---
good Samaritan or evil simian?
#5Lord BladePosted 3/26/2010 5:31:31 PM
We wanted to make sure that the AI leaders were taking into account the same things as the player was taking into account. A player might not care what religion you're running, but they might care quite a bit if you attack one of their friends.

I remember having many leaders who shared my religion hate me for attacking their friends... and breaking deals... and trading with their enemies... and spying on them... and not helping them with their ridiculous demands... :p

Having the same religion was something like +2 to how well they liked you.
But the -10+ you got from the bad things far outweighed it.

I've also had civs of a different religion who ended up my allies.
---
"I'm the pretty one." - Oghren
#6Yellow_MonkeyPosted 3/26/2010 5:40:43 PM
He doesn't actually explicitly state that religion has been removed, only that "we made some changes with religion." I could see a system where you're rewarded for spreading your religion (much like in Civ IV) but are penalized, at least initially, for allowing foreign religions into your boarders. That way the computer players will be mad if you try to convert their populations, and may also be mad (to a lesser degree) if you don't let them convert your population.
---
There was once a place I thought was a dream but it actually wasn't real at all
#7Cyco_ChickenPosted 3/27/2010 2:42:14 PM

I love sending missonairys and soldiers to a holy war trying to spread my religion.

#8FreakazoidianPosted 3/29/2010 5:31:50 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#9Supramundane-Posted 4/7/2010 2:25:57 AM

I enjoyed the benefits of having spread all religions in my land.. With the civic Free Religion people were stoked.. It sure made it easier not having a lot of luxuries.

#10vahram90Posted 4/7/2010 11:57:35 AM

Thats a shame, the income from religion was a critical facet of making large forces. Without that variable I do not see how immense armies will be funded.