• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
Well religion in EU has been poorly done, especially for Asia, but even inside eruope.

First off, religion is all-or-nothing and every nation must have an offical religion. It was common of course, but there were exceptions.

For Europe its mostly the deal with CRC and that it can't seem to recognize catholic is not to be descriminated against.

For Asia, its mostly there are too few, they are treated as all-or-nothing in societies where the same person can be multiple religions, and Confuscianism is treated as a reliigion, which it isn't (Neo-Confusciansim is).

For everyone, you can have conversions target provinces that need not be converted, that provinces can be multiple relgiions, FE Balkans in europe). It also has no way of dealing with non-braching heretical beliefs. Finally many religions are teated as cultures or pagans or ingored.

FE: Sihkism is treated a sa culture, there is absoluetley no presence of Christiancity in Asia until Europans come, even though it had existed for millenia, just not catholic or eastern orthodox, but other older branches. Buddhism is also treated as 1 relgiion even though it has 3 distinct branches at this time whiich are quite old and they clashed with each other. There is also a major sub-brach for China/Japan which combnes Taoist and Confuscian and shintoistic philosphies and ism only mentioning it because these braches are wide-spread during this period.

And then with ll that, you have 1 state religion you must chose, not 0 or 2, only one and everyone else gets penalties, even in a society like china which gves no preferance.
 
i think that the current number of religions is fine. it is "europa universalis" after all. the sikhs don't come into their own until the late 1700s anyways.
 
Yakman said:
i think that the current number of religions is fine. it is "europa universalis" after all. the sikhs don't come into their own until the late 1700s anyways.


I don't know... brands of different religions would be kind of neat, if perhaps overcomplicated. (Baptists, Lutherans, Puritans, etc.) Would add a new level to the game.

Estonianzulu
 
Yakman said:
i think that the current number of religions is fine. it is "europa universalis" after all. the sikhs don't come into their own until the late 1700s anyways.
It is not. Go to AGCEEP and see all the problems we have because of the few religions and simplifed way of deeling with them. Even 1 more religion would make our life tons more easier, but several are really needed.

Plus there is no way to add user-religions, unlike user countries.
 
Jinnai said:
It is not. Go to AGCEEP and see all the problems we have because of the few religions and simplifed way of deeling with them. Even 1 more religion would make our life tons more easier, but several are really needed.

Plus there is no way to add user-religions, unlike user countries.
you guys create your own problems in the AGCEEP.
 
Yakman said:
you guys create your own problems in the AGCEEP.
Maybe so, but Asia gets crapped since it doesn't even have the main branches of Busshism, which is like saying Cthere should be 1 chrsitianity religion for the entire game.
 
Jinnai said:
Maybe so, but Asia gets crapped since it doesn't even have the main branches of Busshism, which is like saying Cthere should be 1 chrsitianity religion for the entire game.


Did the different branches of Buddhism fight? (I don't actually know) I know a lot of wars in Europe were fed by the differences between the branches of Christianity.
 
One thing i would like to see changed is that declaring war on a co-religionist always costs stab. For the Christian religoins this may be okay, though less so in the later game. But for Pagans, Hindus , etc. it is ridiculous as there are far too many vaiants of those religions, far too many to model in the game.
 
Estonianzulu said:
Did the different branches of Buddhism fight? (I don't actually know) I know a lot of wars in Europe were fed by the differences between the branches of Christianity.
Yes they did., but just like europe, they got along as well most of the time, but sometimes fights did break out because you were the "wrong" branch.
 
Jinnai said:
Maybe so, but Asia gets crapped since it doesn't even have the main branches of Busshism, which is like saying Cthere should be 1 chrsitianity religion for the entire game.
And the impacts of modeling different branches of 'in-game' buddhism????

I'm not opposed to more religions, but you guys go off the deep end sometimes. We don't need sikhs ["a small, but rising religion and a crucial state former in the game's end-stages!"], jews ["but they were a critical component of late 17th century urban life in southern syria!"], or nestorians ["if the pseudo-Nestorian shepherds of northern sichuan had managed to seize power in the wake of the Ming collapse...,"] etc.
 
Jinnai said:
Yes they did., but just like europe, they got along as well most of the time, but sometimes fights did break out because you were the "wrong" branch.


Well, then I'm with you 100%. With the impact that religions in general have played over the course of history, I think its a shame how much we loose in these games. The overly, and sometimes painfully, simplified religion that games like Civ give us hurt the game IMHO.

I think for EU3 to be truly successfull it needs to reflect the complexity of religion without overwhelming us with it.
 
Yakman said:
And the impacts of modeling different branches of 'in-game' buddhism????

I'm not opposed to more religions, but you guys go off the deep end sometimes. We don't need sikhs ["a small, but rising religion and a crucial state former in the game's end-stages!"], jews ["but they were a critical component of late 17th century urban life in southern syria!"], or nestorians ["if the pseudo-Nestorian shepherds of northern sichuan had managed to seize power in the wake of the Ming collapse...,"] etc.
I'm afraid i'd bore people if i listed everythong so let me put it this way.

Why do you need seperate branches for chrisitanity? when you answer that you'll be close to an answer for why buddhism need them.
 
Jinnai said:
I'm afraid i'd bore people if i listed everythong so let me put it this way.

Why do you need seperate branches for chrisitanity? when you answer that you'll be close to an answer for why buddhism need them.
Because the religious wars that were fought in europe are the driving force for the first 2/3 of the game. there are no such events in the buddhist or hindoo worlds at the same time.

such things were happening in earlier chinese dynasties, with the taoists and the buddhists and the confucians kicking the shit out of each other, but it wasn't a serious historical impetus in any sense in either the MIng or Qing Dynasties.
 
Yakman said:
Because the religious wars that were fought in europe are the driving force for the first 2/3 of the game. there are no such events in the buddhist or hindoo worlds at the same time.

such things were happening in earlier chinese dynasties, with the taoists and the buddhists and the confucians kicking the shit out of each other, but it wasn't a serious historical impetus in any sense in either the MIng or Qing Dynasties.
You obvisouly need to brush up of your asian history.

Yes China was relatively stable, but that's because China is an aboration in EU2, a state without a state religion, where it had the vestages of a modern beutractic system for some time, where they actually declined in naval technology over EU time period. Using China as your example is like trying to say England should respent all of Europe for its religion.
 
Registered said:
One thing i would like to see changed is that declaring war on a co-religionist always costs stab. For the Christian religoins this may be okay, though less so in the later game.

At least this penalty is removed after the Edict of Tolerance.
 
Jinnai said:
You obvisouly need to brush up of your asian history.

Yes China was relatively stable, but that's because China is an aboration in EU2, a state without a state religion, where it had the vestages of a modern beutractic system for some time, where they actually declined in naval technology over EU time period. Using China as your example is like trying to say England should respent all of Europe for its religion.
And Japan? The horrific Shintoist v. Buddhist strife? Or Thailand, where Mahayana Buddhists engaged in pogroms against Theravadas? :rolleyes:

Please, enlighten.
 
Yakman said:
And Japan? The horrific Shintoist v. Buddhist strife? Or Thailand, where Mahayana Buddhists engaged in pogroms against Theravadas? :rolleyes:

Please, enlighten.
That right there is more than what happened with reformed and sunni/shiite.

There were multuple incidents in SEA and Indonesia.

Plus, A Japanese Busshidt would not have accepted the beliefs of a Thiland buddhist anymore than a Russian would accewpt an italian version of chrsitianity.

Religion also affects stability, income, etc and creates fundimental flaws that have been mentiioned of how "a japanese buddhist isn't the same as a thiland one" And several threads about it when i changed Japan to the more acurrtate buddhism religio, but without that distiction, Japan can just as easily rule SEA and vise-versa because there is no distcition.

Just like China ruling Japan if we use confusiansim in default.
 
Jinnai said:
That right there is more than what happened with reformed and sunni/shiite.

There were multuple incidents in SEA and Indonesia.

Plus, A Japanese Busshidt would not have accepted the beliefs of a Thiland buddhist anymore than a Russian would accewpt an italian version of chrsitianity.

Religion also affects stability, income, etc and creates fundimental flaws that have been mentiioned of how "a japanese buddhist isn't the same as a thiland one" And several threads about it when i changed Japan to the more acurrtate buddhism religio, but without that distiction, Japan can just as easily rule SEA and vise-versa because there is no distcition.

Just like China ruling Japan if we use confusiansim in default.
Because a Japanese Buddhist isn't a pure Buddhist any more than a Chinese Buddhist is a pure Buddhist. They believe in their own stuff too. Do we have seperate Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Thai, Vietnamese, Khmer, and Ceylonese religions?

This is why we have 'culture' ;)