The problem with holy sites

This is perfect. A great suggestion.

I disagree. Unless you want to argue that the concept of holding holy sites shouldn't affect MA of a religion (which I could potentially see someone making a case for), your proposed change does not actually model what holy sites are supposed to do.

If you don't control sites considered extremely important to a faith, there should be some issues with the perceived legitimacy of that religion. Besides, there is no malus for not holding a holy site. You simply don't get the 10% bonus.

An organized religion is already +20%. Religious head bonuses can give a substantial amount, especially for Caliphs (who can end up with piety out the wazoo). An organized religion that controls 2 or 3 holy sites should already have near 100% MA unless they're losing holy wars.

But more importantly, why should, say, Mecca being held by a Shia muslim give any MA to the Sunni faith? How does that make any sense? Why should the Catholic church controlling Rome make Orthodoxy a stronger religion? Being in the same religious group doesn't mean they aren't competing religions.

clockworkBabbag said:

But more importantly, why should, say, Mecca being held by a Shia muslim give any MA to the Sunni faith? How does that make any sense? Why should the Catholic church controlling Rome make Orthodoxy a stronger religion? Being in the same religious group doesn't mean they aren't competing religions.

Click to expand...

True, but there is a big difference between say a Shia holding Mecca and how it would impact a Sunni, vs. a Christian holding Mecca.

The First Crusade was called by the Pope, and answered by (Catholic) Lords and Kings to defend Christians, ie the Orthodox Byzantines. In reality I would not truly define these as entirely separate religions, but more as competing theological doctrines (Definitely in the Shia vs. Sunni case, but also in the various versions of Christianity).

Certainly some merit in the original suggestion, but it's all an issue of balance.

zbyrne said:

True, but there is a big difference between say a Shia holding Mecca and how it would impact a Sunni, vs. a Christian holding Mecca.

The First Crusade was called by the Pope, and answered by (Catholic) Lords and Kings to defend Christians, ie the Orthodox Byzantines. In reality I would not truly define these as entirely separate religions, but more as competing theological doctrines (Definitely in the Shia vs. Sunni case, but also in the various versions of Christianity).

Certainly some merit in the original suggestion, but it's all an issue of balance.

Click to expand...

Whether you define them as different religions or "competing doctrines", there's still the fact that they are in conflict. A gain for Sunni muslims is not and should not translate into moral authority for Shia or Ibadi.

As for Christianity, yes, the first crusade was both Catholics and Orthodox working together to wage war on Islam, but the fact that a crusade was called for political reasons is pretty irrelevant as to whether or not the sites held by the Catholic world helps out the moral authority of Orthodoxy. I mean, the entire Great Schism is a pretty obvious reason to think that they shouldn't contribute positively to the moral authority of each other.

Remember, controlling holy sites translates in-game into a positive bonus for MA, not a penalty for not holding one. And therefore, you should be thinking of it in terms of "holding a holy site helps improve the legitimacy of a faith" instead of "having a holy site controlled by another religion actively hurts the faith." But that means you actually need to control it to get a bonus for it, and this makes sense.

If you want to argue for the current mechanics to be changed in order to reflect what you were talking about, sure. But that still shouldn't be modeled by giving everyone of the same religious group a bonus to MA for having a holy site controlled by someone of the same religion. Rather, the correct way to model that is to introduce an actual penalty to MA if a holy site is controlled by a different religious group or heresy.

And I'd actually kind of like to see that, seeing as how it's still possible (and incredibly easy) for, say, Catholocism to have 100% MA even if no holy sites are controlled and the Catholic world is reduced to some backwater duchy somewhere.

If your holy sites need help being controlled by your religion, it is your job to help that along.

Kansai-kun said:

My proposal's the following: Remove the MA malus, if the "main" holy sites are held by a religion within the religious group:
Mecca/Medina for Islamic religions
Jerusalem/Rome for Christians

Click to expand...

I suppose MA malus can add more depth, something like -10% for non-Muslims holding Mecca, no malus for Shia, and +10% for Sunni (for Sunni POV ofc). Same thing would work fine work Catholics too, in situations like Jerusalem being held by Orthodox.

We need different weights for different holy sites too, MA should tank if a Norse guy gets Rome/Medina.