Religious Bonuses Elimination Thread

[Guancyto]

Too much hate towards the Shiite faith in this thread

lol, I would say there's an awful lot of love toward it. I mean, it's beaten out Catholic, which is straight-up the best single-player religion in the game (my earlier votes against it were strategic, to help keep it from being the runaway favorite... apparently, not necessary)

The reason I'm voting Shia now is because, well, Catholic's gone so clearly we aren't talking about SP any more? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ThePatriotOfDreumel]

protestant 21
shia 4
hindu 15

There is so much wrong with this. Who got upvoted, who got downvoted?

 

[Lodard85]

Protestant: 21
Shia: 4+ correction from page 35 should have gone down 2 points only went down 1.
Hindu: 13--

Shia attributes are better than hindu imo. And require less hassle with monarch deaths.

ELIMINATED
4. Catholic
5. Reformed
6. Sunni
7. Orthodox
8. Nahuatl
9. Inti
10. Norse
11. Tengri
12. Mayan
13. Ibadi
14. Sikh
15. Coptic
16. Zoroastrian
17. Shinto
18. Jewish
19. Vajrayana
20. Theravada
21. Confucian
22. Mahayana
23. Pagan

 

[balmung60]

3 missionaries is quite the hoop to jump through to secure, Rome's not well-placed for a Hindu snipe.

Rebels ARE a hassle tbh, so I totally get the appeal of camping humanism + Hindu and just ignoring all that. From a strict power play standpoint Hindu isn't even top 5 (I'd put it behind all Christian options and the Islamic ones also, though I'd never willingly stay Ibadi unless screwing around), but humanist Hindu does lend itself to nice bonuses and removes a lot of the drudgery of micro vs rebels. Hindu client states are hilariously stable too (first monarch has 100 legitimacy --> 100% unity no matter where you make them). If you're voting flavor/ease of play over strength, I can see Hindu's popularity.

How in the world Sikh and the new world reform faiths made it so high is beyond me though, especially Sikh.

I think Sikh and the New World religions kinda flew under the downvote radar at first. Again, everyone "knows" (rightly or wrongly) that Buddhism, Coptic, Ibadi, Paganism, and Confucianism suck, so they downvoted them first. Nahuatl and company also probably got some longevity out of the reforms granting quite large bonuses, and in Nahuatl's case, regency wardecs.

As for missionary power, I can't say that I've had much trouble getting conversions done with 3 missionaries. Though I wouldn't mind one bit if Paradox decided to open up DOTF to everyone.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

3 missionaries for most faiths means that you hold Rome directly. It takes time before that's a realistic consideration. Even with a juiced Hindu with "enforced heritage", "movement support", "monastic education" and "save the burning world plus religious (giving base 2 + 2 +1 +3 = 8% strength from decisions) I couldn't keep up with even garden variety mid-late game expansion on 2 missionaries with Hindu. Keeping in mind that I had religious, so my actual base strength was 13%, that's crazy.

But if I were Coptic, I could have kept up in conversions easily, because rather than 2 missionaries, I'd have 5 (Mecca, Jerusalem, DotF), plus the other benefits DotF confers (with no risk of CtA in their case). Sure, the Christian decisions I'd take would only give me 2-4% strength (depending how much I care about not tolerating heretics), but that's 7-9% strength on 5 missionaries. It completely trashes the conversion rate of even 3 missionaries at 13% strength. A 9% strength missionary can convert a hostile culture Sunni province with 20 development and not take that long. Heck with an inquisitor and +1 stab that converts Mecca, and that's before cathedrals. Everything else gets swiftly converted in sub-20 months.

Even at 13% strength, most provinces take 8 months to convert (11 for Sunni). 2 missionaries converting provinces in 15 months (20 for Sunni) will win, but even Coptic is often faster than that.

It's no contest really, and the lack of DotF is painful because of how handy that is for a little morale and a lot of -WE.

 

[Kwami]

I keep reading that Christians have 5 missionaries because of Mecca and Jerusalem. But, that's really only one kind of game. Are you really going to conquer those two provinces in every Christian play through? Wouldn't that get boring?

 

[FrigidSoul]

I keep reading that Christians have 5 missionaries because of Mecca and Jerusalem. But, that's really only one kind of game. Are you really going to conquer those two provinces in every Christian play through? Wouldn't that get boring?

It's an available option for Catholics; that makes it relevant. And if you're conquering enough territory that the number of available missionaries is a major consideration, then you might as well take Mecca and Jerusalem.

Do you need to conquer the middle east? Not at all. With the base missionary, the missionary from Religious ideas, the missionary from Defender of the Faith, and the TWO extra missionaries from Counter-Reformation (which disappears in ~1650, but still), you're in a pretty damn good spot as a Catholic, conversion wise.

A crapton better off than Hindu.

 

[Path]

3 missionaries is quite the hoop to jump through to secure, Rome's not well-placed for a Hindu snipe.

Rebels ARE a hassle tbh, so I totally get the appeal of camping humanism + Hindu and just ignoring all that. From a strict power play standpoint Hindu isn't even top 5 (I'd put it behind all Christian options and the Islamic ones also, though I'd never willingly stay Ibadi unless screwing around), but humanist Hindu does lend itself to nice bonuses and removes a lot of the drudgery of micro vs rebels. Hindu client states are hilariously stable too (first monarch has 100 legitimacy --> 100% unity no matter where you make them). If you're voting flavor/ease of play over strength, I can see Hindu's popularity.

How in the world Sikh and the new world reform faiths made it so high is beyond me though, especially Sikh.

Oh, rebels are certainly a hassle--hell, they're a bigger threat than the AI tags for many starts. The Hindu/humanist route certainly makes handling things easier, but does it really help you snowball to the extent that it's worth giving up one of your (possibly your only) admin idea slot for as an RotW tag*? It makes these polls even harder to discuss though when people use convenience and ease-of-use arguments to vote up religions over clearly stronger choices. But what do I know--judging by that other thread Catholicism is crap and needs to be buffed. Guess it can't quite match the flavour and strength of Coptic and Ibadi.

Sikh likely just slipped through the cracks. I mean, no one seriously believes that Sikh is any good, right?

I think Sikh and the New World religions kinda flew under the downvote radar at first. Again, everyone "knows" (rightly or wrongly) that Buddhism, Coptic, Ibadi, Paganism, and Confucianism suck, so they downvoted them first. Nahuatl and company also probably got some longevity out of the reforms granting quite large bonuses, and in Nahuatl's case, regency wardecs.

As for missionary power, I can't say that I've had much trouble getting conversions done with 3 missionaries. Though I wouldn't mind one bit if Paradox decided to open up DOTF to everyone.

I've yet to attempt a RotW WC where I didn't struggle to keep my unity above the lower 90s even with three missionaries. It gets even worse following large integrations, naturally. Maybe I could get better at using vassals for conversions, but my experience with that (lol Hindu vassals converting) isn't great.

I keep reading that Christians have 5 missionaries because of Mecca and Jerusalem. But, that's really only one kind of game. Are you really going to conquer those two provinces in every Christian play through? Wouldn't that get boring?

Yes, assuming you're serious about blobbing--it's highly suboptimal to leave those provinces. If you're roleplaying and/or are satisfied with limited growth you don't actually need to, but then your choice of religion isn't terribly important either. And consider, RotW religions only get 2 (with religious) if they don't conquer Rome, which is arguably harder for most of them than it is for Abrahamic faiths to snag the Middle East.

* No, you're not technically limited to one or two admin groups pre-Westernization, but would you actually waste all that paper mana teching up for them when you could be coring?

 

[Promanco]

Protestant: 19 - It is inferior to Shia, is funner for sure, but it is inferior.
Shia: 5+ Shia is a BETTER religion, this ain't a competition to see which one is funner is one to see which one is better and that is Shia.
Hindu: 13


ELIMINATED
4. Catholic
5. Reformed
6. Sunni
7. Orthodox
8. Nahuatl
9. Inti
10. Norse
11. Tengri
12. Mayan
13. Ibadi
14. Sikh
15. Coptic
16. Zoroastrian
17. Shinto
18. Jewish
19. Vajrayana
20. Theravada
21. Confucian
22. Mahayana
23. Pagan

 

[Alectron]

Protestant: 17
Shia: 6
Hindu: 13


ELIMINATED
4. Catholic
5. Reformed
6. Sunni
7. Orthodox
8. Nahuatl
9. Inti
10. Norse
11. Tengri
12. Mayan
13. Ibadi
14. Sikh
15. Coptic
16. Zoroastrian
17. Shinto
18. Jewish
19. Vajrayana
20. Theravada
21. Confucian
22. Mahayana
23. Pagan

 

[moyang]

Protestant: 18 (+1)
Shia: 6
Hindu: 11 (-2)


ELIMINATED
4. Catholic
5. Reformed
6. Sunni
7. Orthodox
8. Nahuatl
9. Inti
10. Norse
11. Tengri
12. Mayan
13. Ibadi
14. Sikh
15. Coptic
16. Zoroastrian
17. Shinto
18. Jewish
19. Vajrayana
20. Theravada
21. Confucian
22. Mahayana
23. Pagan

 

[Kwami]

Yes, assuming you're serious about blobbing--it's highly suboptimal to leave those provinces. If you're roleplaying and/or are satisfied with limited growth you don't actually need to, but then your choice of religion isn't terribly important either. And consider, RotW religions only get 2 (with religious) if they don't conquer Rome, which is arguably harder for most of them than it is for Abrahamic faiths to snag the Middle East.

Is the topic really "best religious bonuses for blobbing in single player" or just "best religious bonuses"?

I, for one, find European "grab all the everything" games to be rather boring after a while.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've yet to attempt a RotW WC where I didn't struggle to keep my unity above the lower 90s even with three missionaries. It gets even worse following large integrations, naturally. Maybe I could get better at using vassals for conversions, but my experience with that (lol Hindu vassals converting) isn't great.

They made heathen vassal conversions (mostly) non-viable unfortunately. It's ironic too, back when you could release heathen vassals into your religion, the game was bugged to hell and AIs would freeze on converting until you restarted any time they were so much as sieged. Now that doesn't happen and they churn conversions dutifully in any core province they have negative tolerance, but what Hindu vassal will you feed? In the middle east I suppose you could use Hormuz or Haasa or some such, Khorasan in Persia if you're willing to convert a couple provinces before release. Sarig Yogir or Kara Del could work for China, mostly because they take religious and yet have few cores themselves so can be converted over readily. Hindu AI takes the 2% decision pretty reliably so they'll have 2 missionaries with 7% strength (8% with Arabian ideas).

* No, you're not technically limited to one or two admin groups pre-Westernization, but would you actually waste all that paper mana teching up for them when you could be coring?

If you want to hit ADM efficiency on-time, you can't take 2 admin groups since it needs tech 10 IMO. You have to westernize by mid 1500's and you have to bankroll +3 advisors with ADM focus to cover the ground, using that time period to feed vassals. Maybe someone like Ming could do it.

In most cases I find myself going religious/influence or admin/influence pre-westernization. I suppose you could go humanist/influence. It won't be as fast as religious, but it won't be awful if you have the influence finisher.

keep reading that Christians have 5 missionaries because of Mecca and Jerusalem. But, that's really only one kind of game. Are you really going to conquer those two provinces in every Christian play through? Wouldn't that get boring?

If you're not heading in the vicinity of these provinces, what could you possibly conquer that would need the conversion power?

 

[CrabHelmet]

lolwut best religion in the game out at 4th

this thread revealing once again most people are not very good at EU4

 

[Pedrinluigi]

lolwut best religion in the game out at 4th

this thread revealing once again most people are not very good at EU4

lolwut the religion YOU THINK is the best in the game out at 4th

this thread revealing once against most people DO NOT HAVE THE SAME OPINIONS AS YOU.

Make an argument before insulting or making a generalisation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

lolwut the religion YOU THINK is the best in the game out at 4th

this thread revealing once against most people DO NOT HAVE THE SAME OPINIONS AS YOU.

Make an argument before insulting or making a generalisation.

While the way he represented his post was uncalled for, people have (repeatedly) detailed the reasons that Catholic is markedly better than the religions below it, as well as Shia and Hindu for certain. With Protestant it's not 100% obvious between the two. The voting doesn't care about the arguments, which I suppose mirrors a lot of things said on the forums.

Seeing pagans lose to Buddhist is a similar complete joke. It's actually nicer to people who voted that way to assume that they're just not familiar with the game and the current pagan bonuses. Otherwise, it's hard to understand why someone would pick a nearly-permanent 10% discipline penalty over a solid set of base bonuses and decisions. However, that requires you to be experienced enough to understand why Buddhism is a functional monarch point drain and/or permanent 10% discipline penalty.

 

[Soranya]

Regarding Buddhists -i actually like them for the incentive of a different "play" style compared to the usual blobbing.
Also i haven't played them too much yet. But its certainly intriguing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Regarding Buddhists -i actually like them for the incentive of a different "play" style compared to the usual blobbing.
Also i haven't played them too much yet. But its certainly intriguing.

This game is built around warfare, a point trivially seen when evaluating which state forces the player to make meaningful decisions more often: war or peace.

Buddhism, by its nature, forces you to underexpand. The incentive to mix/balance up play isn't bad conceptually, but the current implementation in practice makes it hands down the least viable religion in the world, the kind of thing where you have to play poorly on purpose to avoid being harmed by your faith, or disable DLC to make it simply mediocre rather than actively harmful. No other faith shares that shackle.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I think the problem is that about a third of the people in this thread are rating on the actual viability of the religion in question in a competitive format, and about two thirds are rating on the basis of "it's different / funky / not common enough / Poland stronk / don't like the icon" etc.

 

[Keinwyn]

Protestant: 16 (-2)
Shia: 7 (+1)
Hindu: 11


ELIMINATED
4. Catholic
5. Reformed
6. Sunni
7. Orthodox
8. Nahuatl
9. Inti
10. Norse
11. Tengri
12. Mayan
13. Ibadi
14. Sikh
15. Coptic
16. Zoroastrian
17. Shinto
18. Jewish
19. Vajrayana
20. Theravada
21. Confucian
22. Mahayana
23. Pagan