Of course. Us fan base will put up with any changes, much as we grumble, any number of release day bugs, any predatory dlc business model, but DO NOT TAKE AWAY OUR GHANDI NUKES MEME
Something I thought would be cool and fairly historical is if each settlement could pick a unique pantheon/god, since each pantheon is closer to an individual god in Civ 5-7 anyways in antiquity. This would reflect the more local and patronage based gods that a lot of faiths had. Then, when you form a religion you can either choose to keep those gods and merge them for a polytheistic religion, keeping weaker versions of all their buffs, or choose to favor one specific god and develop into a monotheistic religion, losing the more diverse beliefs each city had in exchange for a far stronger buff in favor of one particular path. I feel like that would be a really cool way to represent how most religions actually developed.
I could see that as an option, but I can also see how that would be much harder to implement. Perhaps by the time CIV VIII rolls around, we will have the computing power to make this feasible.
I like how theyve aimed to make civ less eurocentric in most ways, but it's a shame they've not changed the very Christian model of religion with missionaries, relics and converting everyone else to your religion. It'd be neat if you could make religions with different 'goals' beside converting everyone to your religion, ie ones which instead focus on keeping your religion strong in your own city.
You’re wrong? Missionaries aren’t inherent to Christianity. It’s just often associated because missionary is the English term and England is Christian historically. Also, you can make religion with other win conditions? It’s just meaning that religion itself isn’t your win con? What you’re asking for is absurd.
If a religion doesn't spread, it dies. The history of religion is defined by how effectively they spread and capture the minds of new believers --- the measure of religion's impact on other elements of society (as Civ VII is addressing) likewise depends on how prominently a religion has spread: how many believers it has. That being said, it would be entirely possible for a specific civilization to come along with a unique rule or mechanic that offers what you're describing (because I don't think it's a bad idea, it's just not an issue of eurocentrism) -- think the Congo or even India in Civ VI, but with more of an impact, perhaps by changing the metric by which religious strength or success is measured (e.g. "lack of followers of opposing religions" instead of "followers", as one example)
Really like the look of religion here being tied into the culture victory and also areas of the domination victory, it always felt strange having it standalone and feels good having it intertwined with variable different playthroughs. Only nitpick being the text/effect when you spread your religion (around 8:13) with a missionary looks so cheap! Hopefully a placeholder for now.
Not that I tried that many times, but I was never able to win a religious victory in Civ 6. I always gave up towards the end and just won by science or culture instead.
@@charlesajones77Except culture victory in civ6 is awful. It's literally just spam national parks, tourism wonders, acquire great works via great people, spam rock bands, and then wait for an imaginary number to go up. It's the most boring victory by far. At least with religion you have to do something on the map even if the win condition is just a different flavor of domination
That's one element of the three-Age split I hadn't considered --- that they can use each Age to focus on different elements of gameplay, rather than having them all crammed in together competing for attention throughout the whole game. I really like that religion plays a central role in multiple victory conditions throughout the Exploration Age, because that maps very well onto real history. It will be interesting to see what they do with the Modern Age considering this will allow them to focus on tropes of modern civilization (without also having major religious influences to worry about, as one example)
It would be cool if the religions you can pick from have some unique things about them. I would like to see accurate religious architecture for each one. And i dont know how they would implement it but imagine you could make vatican city if you have catholicism as a sort of city state. Maybe they are ways to make religious gameplay unique like that.
Hope we see a return of a Free Religion / Religious Tolerance model. Only like one in five actual countries today have an official state religion and it's one of those areas where more recent Civ games feel regressive relative to previous games where you could just nope out of an official religion once your country became developed enough.
Im curious why they dont implement a religions character. So you can have pantheons/beliefs that encourage you to dominate the world, and those pantheons would shape your culture that way. Alternatively, you can have Buddhism like religions that encourage you to persue peace from within, making your culture more scientific.
Has anyone ever actually won a religious victory in Civ 6? I sure couldn't do it. Every time I tried I eventually said "screw it" and won by culture or science instead.
@rudequartz when I think Altar, I just think of a single "table" for religious observance. When I think Shrine, I think of a whole building constructed around that altar. Look at the Shrine building in Civilization VI to see what I am referring to.
I really dislike the idea of everybody getting a religion. As a civ 5 player, I think the limit on religions: 1) The tough choice presented by the opportunity cost early in the game for getting a religion. Maybe you value a wonder over a shrine, or a growth/prod/culture pantheon early. Always presented an interesting choice 2) Adds a lot to diplomacy, i.e. befriending certain civs to benefit from their religious tenants, etc. Even going against AI, many of my “best” religious/piety games involved not taking a religion (Cuz impossible on piety), cuz say I initially was spread a religion with pagodas, but then later gave open borders to another civ who had production + Jesuit education. You could still get tremendous benefit from religion without having to sacrifice early game, and I always thought that was very interesting way to play that I think if completely removed when everybody can get their own religion. I imagine it will be near impossible to spread your religion to other civs. 3) I think religion was pretty great in civ 5, I would stick to that model, the only complaint would be to limit the AI’s spreading of religion. Cuz they clearly just spent all their faith on missionaries even when it made no sense to, and I swear on diety their missionaries are like 4x stronger than yours.
You don’t have to take a religion, as it’s still a race to get the best benefits, way I see it this change allows people who passed on a religion early to still be able to shift their strategy later if the opportunity arises.
@@0002pA There is a religious race regardless of whether everyone can found a religion or not. In terms of realism founding a religion quite late into the game is actually historically accurate, e.g. Mormonism.
Did hate to have to control dozens of missionaries and apostles and fight with them others by them blowing lightnings of their fingers as the emperor in starwars... they should change that to thunderbolts out of their arse... ;)
Never liked how religion worked in 6. Dumb that only certain number of religions can exist and that those religions never splinter. Utterly absurd given historical reality. Should also get much bigger benefits from secular societies later in the game
ugh, so they're keeping the main thing I disliked about civ6 religion, the manual moving about and managing of missionaries. That's disappointing, ah well.
I know that it's quite niche, but does "Not losing your own religion in your holy city, ever" mean that you can't choose to make full use of other players' religions? I thought it was quite neat that a fellow player could make a good religious combo and you could sort of adopt it if you liked the benefits too and didn't want your own
I'm so excited for this game, but still so worried that the separation of leaders from their own historical civs will ultimately water down the entire experience, or introduce massive amounts of meta-gaming, forcing you to always pick certain rulers with certain civs to largely remain relevant throughout the game.... Humankind was really plagued by this...and playing as some late medieval Spanish queen when picking the Maya or Han China just seems a bit incohesive. Still hoping for the best, got a lot of good times out of Humankind, but I guess it was too much to hope that they would revert back more to the style of CIV V
Some of it look's preetty good and intersting , sadly they ****ed it up by civ switching and the three mini games . Hopefully keep some idea's to transfer over to Civ 8
the only two questions on anyone's mind: 1. Will Civ 7 let us pick Gandhi ? 2. Will Gandhi get access to enhanced nuclear weapons ?
YES
The AI never uses nuclear weapons
Gandhi has not yet been announced as the civ 7 leader
@birkuru which is why the 2 questions are: 1. Will Civ 7 let us pick Gandhi? And 2. Will Gandhi get access to enhanced nuclear weapons?
Of course. Us fan base will put up with any changes, much as we grumble, any number of release day bugs, any predatory dlc business model, but DO NOT TAKE AWAY OUR GHANDI NUKES MEME
"Majapahit" will always remind me of "History of The Entire World, I Guess" by Bill Wurtz.
Ding!
Mapajahit
Religious and cultural victories have always been very fun to me so I hope it turns out solid
Something I thought would be cool and fairly historical is if each settlement could pick a unique pantheon/god, since each pantheon is closer to an individual god in Civ 5-7 anyways in antiquity. This would reflect the more local and patronage based gods that a lot of faiths had. Then, when you form a religion you can either choose to keep those gods and merge them for a polytheistic religion, keeping weaker versions of all their buffs, or choose to favor one specific god and develop into a monotheistic religion, losing the more diverse beliefs each city had in exchange for a far stronger buff in favor of one particular path. I feel like that would be a really cool way to represent how most religions actually developed.
Good idea!
I could see that as an option, but I can also see how that would be much harder to implement. Perhaps by the time CIV VIII rolls around, we will have the computing power to make this feasible.
I like how theyve aimed to make civ less eurocentric in most ways, but it's a shame they've not changed the very Christian model of religion with missionaries, relics and converting everyone else to your religion.
It'd be neat if you could make religions with different 'goals' beside converting everyone to your religion, ie ones which instead focus on keeping your religion strong in your own city.
You’re wrong? Missionaries aren’t inherent to Christianity. It’s just often associated because missionary is the English term and England is Christian historically. Also, you can make religion with other win conditions? It’s just meaning that religion itself isn’t your win con? What you’re asking for is absurd.
If a religion doesn't spread, it dies. The history of religion is defined by how effectively they spread and capture the minds of new believers --- the measure of religion's impact on other elements of society (as Civ VII is addressing) likewise depends on how prominently a religion has spread: how many believers it has. That being said, it would be entirely possible for a specific civilization to come along with a unique rule or mechanic that offers what you're describing (because I don't think it's a bad idea, it's just not an issue of eurocentrism) -- think the Congo or even India in Civ VI, but with more of an impact, perhaps by changing the metric by which religious strength or success is measured (e.g. "lack of followers of opposing religions" instead of "followers", as one example)
Maybe they should change missionaries to jihadists for a fresh new take!
Really like the look of religion here being tied into the culture victory and also areas of the domination victory, it always felt strange having it standalone and feels good having it intertwined with variable different playthroughs.
Only nitpick being the text/effect when you spread your religion (around 8:13) with a missionary looks so cheap! Hopefully a placeholder for now.
I found religion so tedious in Civ 6 that I always turned it off as a victory condition. Some improvements it seems here, but I remain dubious.
Agreed. At lest it’s limited to exploration age only
Same for me. I hate Religion in 6, also the fact that religious unit ignore closed borders. I 100% always disable it as a victory condition.
Not that I tried that many times, but I was never able to win a religious victory in Civ 6. I always gave up towards the end and just won by science or culture instead.
@@charlesajones77Except culture victory in civ6 is awful. It's literally just spam national parks, tourism wonders, acquire great works via great people, spam rock bands, and then wait for an imaginary number to go up. It's the most boring victory by far. At least with religion you have to do something on the map even if the win condition is just a different flavor of domination
Nice the Mapajahit are in the game
Oh uhhhm Mahapajit
Ma Ja Pa Hit?
That's one element of the three-Age split I hadn't considered --- that they can use each Age to focus on different elements of gameplay, rather than having them all crammed in together competing for attention throughout the whole game. I really like that religion plays a central role in multiple victory conditions throughout the Exploration Age, because that maps very well onto real history. It will be interesting to see what they do with the Modern Age considering this will allow them to focus on tropes of modern civilization (without also having major religious influences to worry about, as one example)
It would be cool if the religions you can pick from have some unique things about them. I would like to see accurate religious architecture for each one. And i dont know how they would implement it but imagine you could make vatican city if you have catholicism as a sort of city state. Maybe they are ways to make religious gameplay unique like that.
God this game looks great but they really have to put some attention to those leaders and icons 😭
*cries in adhd*
Hope we see a return of a Free Religion / Religious Tolerance model. Only like one in five actual countries today have an official state religion and it's one of those areas where more recent Civ games feel regressive relative to previous games where you could just nope out of an official religion once your country became developed enough.
Reddit-tier opinion
Im curious why they dont implement a religions character. So you can have pantheons/beliefs that encourage you to dominate the world, and those pantheons would shape your culture that way. Alternatively, you can have Buddhism like religions that encourage you to persue peace from within, making your culture more scientific.
Has anyone ever actually won a religious victory in Civ 6? I sure couldn't do it. Every time I tried I eventually said "screw it" and won by culture or science instead.
Whilst its a minor quibble, I really wish they'd rename "Altar" to "Shrine". It sounds so much more.....grand to me.
Really? Altar sounds grander to me than shrine.
@rudequartz when I think Altar, I just think of a single "table" for religious observance. When I think Shrine, I think of a whole building constructed around that altar. Look at the Shrine building in Civilization VI to see what I am referring to.
@@TheMarcHicks how about pulpit? sanctum? reliquary? sanctuary? hehe. I like the sound of Altar over Shrine, it's more aurally pleasing to me.
I really dislike the idea of everybody getting a religion. As a civ 5 player, I think the limit on religions:
1) The tough choice presented by the opportunity cost early in the game for getting a religion. Maybe you value a wonder over a shrine, or a growth/prod/culture pantheon early. Always presented an interesting choice
2) Adds a lot to diplomacy, i.e. befriending certain civs to benefit from their religious tenants, etc. Even going against AI, many of my “best” religious/piety games involved not taking a religion (Cuz impossible on piety), cuz say I initially was spread a religion with pagodas, but then later gave open borders to another civ who had production + Jesuit education. You could still get tremendous benefit from religion without having to sacrifice early game, and I always thought that was very interesting way to play that I think if completely removed when everybody can get their own religion. I imagine it will be near impossible to spread your religion to other civs.
3) I think religion was pretty great in civ 5, I would stick to that model, the only complaint would be to limit the AI’s spreading of religion. Cuz they clearly just spent all their faith on missionaries even when it made no sense to, and I swear on diety their missionaries are like 4x stronger than yours.
You don’t have to take a religion, as it’s still a race to get the best benefits, way I see it this change allows people who passed on a religion early to still be able to shift their strategy later if the opportunity arises.
i really hope religion is not too anoying with hyper aggressiv ai...
One of the first mods will be removing that everybody can found a religion and holy cities can be converted.
And I will install that mod ASAP.
I dont see what the problem with allowing everyone to found a religion, however the holy city thing is annoying.
@@Smilemonster1912 It simply waters it down. There will be less of a race to found your own religion.
@@0002pA There is a religious race regardless of whether everyone can found a religion or not. In terms of realism founding a religion quite late into the game is actually historically accurate, e.g. Mormonism.
@@Smilemonster1912 I don't care too much about realism.
Did hate to have to control dozens of missionaries and apostles and fight with them others by them blowing lightnings of their fingers as the emperor in starwars... they should change that to thunderbolts out of their arse... ;)
Never liked how religion worked in 6. Dumb that only certain number of religions can exist and that those religions never splinter. Utterly absurd given historical reality.
Should also get much bigger benefits from secular societies later in the game
Secular societies don't exist
1:30 Michael Stipe: nooooo!
That's him in the corner
ugh, so they're keeping the main thing I disliked about civ6 religion, the manual moving about and managing of missionaries. That's disappointing, ah well.
Thx
Holy Cities being protected is weird, Jerusalem didnt always have the same majority religion and it's the Holy City of 2 major religions
looks good but holy cities being unable to be converted is lame. It was always fun converting other civilizations to your religion fully.
It doesn't make any sense. It's like Rome still being Pagan.
I think a holy city cannot be converted only when the original Civ still owns the city. If you conquer it, surely you can convert it.
Borobudur doesn't built adjacent to coast... 😅
Oh no the bot(s) are here Love the content can’t wait for civ 7. Civ 6 is the only civ game I can play looking forward to the switch up
What if you’re a bot tho
@@blueflame5975
What if you're a bot ?
@@MiguelBaptista1981what if I am?
@@blueflame5975 Maybe we're all bots and we just don't know it!
@@craig_z Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto.
ahh yes the civ 7 comment section experience.
I hoped some beliefs would be tied to a religion. To give them a stronger identity.
I dont like being forced to play a game within their parameters, I want the freedom to play my way. Targets wont work for me.
Kinda wish there was a non-religious option. Maybe a religious tolerance option that you could build towards.
Will be playing as Russia.
Will convert the world to Orthodoxy.
☦☦☦☦☦
I know that it's quite niche, but does "Not losing your own religion in your holy city, ever" mean that you can't choose to make full use of other players' religions? I thought it was quite neat that a fellow player could make a good religious combo and you could sort of adopt it if you liked the benefits too and didn't want your own
I'm so excited for this game, but still so worried that the separation of leaders from their own historical civs will ultimately water down the entire experience, or introduce massive amounts of meta-gaming, forcing you to always pick certain rulers with certain civs to largely remain relevant throughout the game....
Humankind was really plagued by this...and playing as some late medieval Spanish queen when picking the Maya or Han China just seems a bit incohesive.
Still hoping for the best, got a lot of good times out of Humankind, but I guess it was too much to hope that they would revert back more to the style of CIV V
I was hoping we had more options to reduce/remove religion. it looks like its too maincore now, unavoidable.
Some of it look's preetty good and intersting , sadly they ****ed it up by civ switching and the three mini games . Hopefully keep some idea's to transfer over to Civ 8
All the features available after the 3rd DLC. No thanks.
Civilisation 7 will release before cities skylines 2 has anymore updates
they broke the game in three parts... im so disappointed. :/
It looks like a 5 year old went on to Microsoft paint and spent 10 minutes on this GUI
It looks awful
they should add in customizable cosmetic option for UI. However to me, i think the simpler the UI the better
Can’t wait for sukritact ui mod
They did spend 10 minutes, it’s always the last thing to get finished, after the gameplay is locked down
No way bro, you're just mad because it's different
2:16 pretty lame they don’t have Asatru or any other pagan/heathen faith
Listen
Trans Julius Ceasar
Make it happen Bigots!
:,-(