|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 11, 2016 21:51:05 GMT
Religion is always a touchy subject...but I think that we should start implementing things such as missionaries, churches, and religions into the TW's. The reason I say this is because Religion has always played an important role in history, from Alexander the Great to persecuting monotheistic peoples, to Christianity being a major downfall of the Romans, to Islamic expansion, to European colonization in the name of Christianity, and to religions such as Shintoism and Hinduism being unifying forces in nationalism and anti-imperialism in states such as Japan and India.
This is why I think we need to add stuff like religion into TW's.
Now if real religions are an issue in adding, we can make up fake religions for the countries we play as, but I would think the real religions are probably better.
If we do this, we could have religions which could give you bonuses for being whatever religion it is, converting provinces for some kind of gain, etc, etc. I don't think we should add in Holy Wars though as...well, i think its pretty self-explanatory.
If you guys disagree with this suggestion, i completely understand, but this is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 12, 2016 7:16:27 GMT
Perhaps this.
You can have 1 official religion in the beginning. Like islam, christianity, hinduism, shintoism etc.
All these things have a bonus. Like hinduism gives a bonus for storage, christianity for economy etc..
Now is it that some countries dont have 1 religion. Like the ottoman empire, their main religion was islam. But there were also christians.
So we make another map. One for religions.
You gain the religion bonus for every province thats in your religion. Like this:
For every province you gain 1 extra storage. If you have 15 provinces in total, but only 10 provinces believes in that thing, you have 10 extra storage in total.
Another example, if the bonus was BP-related. For every province you gain 1 bp. So if you have 8 provinces, from which 6 believes in it. You have 6BP extra.
For movemenr it would work different, ofc you cant gain 1 mivement per province. So you should do something like this, for every 4 province you gain one movement.
There can be techs like this:
*Convert a province
*Set another religion as official (this is a heavy tech and should require lots of turns)
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 12, 2016 13:23:19 GMT
Perhaps this. You can have 1 official religion in the beginning. Like islam, christianity, hinduism, shintoism etc. All these things have a bonus. Like hinduism gives a bonus for storage, christianity for economy etc.. Now is it that some countries dont have 1 religion. Like the ottoman empire, their main religion was islam. But there were also christians. So we make another map. One for religions. You gain the religion bonus for every province thats in your religion. Like this: For every province you gain 1 extra storage. If you have 15 provinces in total, but only 10 provinces believes in that thing, you have 10 extra storage in total. Another example, if the bonus was BP-related. For every province you gain 1 bp. So if you have 8 provinces, from which 6 believes in it. You have 6BP extra. For movemenr it would work different, ofc you cant gain 1 mivement per province. So you should do something like this, for every 4 province you gain one movement. There can be techs like this: *Convert a province *Set another religion as official (this is a heavy tech and should require lots of turns) I like this format a lot, we could maybe also add in something like Holy Provinces, where if you own the province you can gain prestige, but only if that province pertains to your religion. For Example A very holy area in Hinduism is the Ganges River. We could make a province that contains the Ganges and make it a Holy Hindu Site. If you are a Hindu State and you own the province, you could maybe gain some extra prestige per round or something to that effect. If you are any other religion and you own the Ganges, however, you gain no benefit. There are of course thousands of religions in the world, so here are the ones that I think would need to be added if we are to implement this concept and ones that could be added: Ones that need to be added: Hinduism Judaism Islam Christianity Zoroastrianism Shintoism Confucianism Buddhism Animism Ones that could be added: Incan Religion Aztec Religion Jainism Daoism Hellenism Egyptian Polytheism Bahai'ism Of course, you can't have some of these religions before or after a certain point. Also, we will need to implement sects of religion as well (i mean most global religions are not the exact same after all). I think that there should be a tech which can allow to form a different sect of your religion, which could have slightly different attributes than the former sect you belonged to, but more importantly you would not have to the head of the religious sect. |
|
|
|
Post by Władysław Anders on Jun 12, 2016 16:53:26 GMT
Religions are something i i=minorily went into in medival theroetical war
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 13, 2016 3:58:59 GMT
Religions in TWs aren't a bad idea by itself, but I really have to wonder about the practical application of adding YET another feature to TWs. Is there a point to it? I would completely understand why a GM would add religion if the setting revolves around holy wars (or more mundane: the settings of crusade ages without actually saying "holy wars" lol). It makes perfect sense to add features that fits the central theme. BUT on the other side of the same coin... It also makes perfect sense to eliminate features that doesn't work toward the central theme nor add something truly substantial to the TW gameplay (without being too complicated). Each newly built TW need to state the main objective/theme/purpose and the settings. And the GM needs to sit down and survey each feature whether if it adds strength to the central purpose of the TW or it's only clutter being there for the sake of simply existing. I'm thinking we are definitely experiencing feature creep. The definition: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creepNow, I know we're not a company making a product, but we are sort of designing a free product intended for use by people among ourselves. Those two classification of causes for feature creep boils down to: 1. "Hey, this is a cool idea, why don't we add that?" and 2. "I wanna that thing and you want this thing, but we can mix both!" Don't misunderstand me... Freedom of creativity is something I endorse and wouldn't want to stiffle anyone here in thinking up ideas to improve the TWs or to create wholly different and new TWs. Got a cool idea, share it? Yes! Absolutely yes! The problem is... not all ideas are created equal. Some are great but doesn't quite fit the purpose but could fit elsewhere. If anyone else says that all ideas are equal, that person either fails to notice or deliberately overlook the difference between the individual and the individual's idea. Equality of all people is a honorable principle, but equality of all ideas is a dishonest principle that prevents honest scrutiny and examination. I know, I know, this concept is foreign to the younger kids in the school classroom but believe me, it is the practical reality of the real world outside. I'm not looking down on ideas for being different than my own opinion. But I question and measure the ideas on the basis of quality and practical application in a honest and fair way with least possible personal bias. I'm trying to clarify the truth here. I don't want to offend anyone, so if anyone feels offended, it wasn't my goal. I only feel that we as the RPers of the forum needs to take a very serious consideration of what we have been doing needs a change in the paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 13, 2016 4:00:59 GMT
TL;DR version... The purpose of this new feature is...um okay? Why not just make the whole TWs thing simpler than more complex?
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 13, 2016 4:21:07 GMT
TL;DR version... The purpose of this new feature is...um okay? Why not just make the whole TWs thing simpler than more complex? TOTALLY AGREE, also I think we should first solve the main issue(s) of turns, money and population. This seems quite much secondary to me in terms of importance. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 13, 2016 4:25:08 GMT
TL;DR version... The purpose of this new feature is...um okay? Why not just make the whole TWs thing simpler than more complex? TOTALLY AGREE, also I think we should first solve the main issue(s) of turns, money and population. This seems quite much secondary to me in terms of importance. I think we should even also simplify the money, pop, turns too. But that's my view... |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 13, 2016 4:30:12 GMT
TOTALLY AGREE, also I think we should first solve the main issue(s) of turns, money and population. This seems quite much secondary to me in terms of importance. I think we should even also simplify the money, pop, turns too. But that's my view... you know I think we are two bodies with a same mind currently  , I'm thinking the exact same thing, check my post in the suggestion thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Von Bismarck jr on Jun 13, 2016 8:04:16 GMT
If we're gonna do Religion, I suggest Sid Meier's route.
Say the game is set way back.
You make your religion, but to your playstyle.
Say it's modern day.
Each religion has its own set bonuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Jun 17, 2016 15:36:51 GMT
Religions in TWs aren't a bad idea by itself, but I really have to wonder about the practical application of adding YET another feature to TWs. Is there a point to it? I would completely understand why a GM would add religion if the setting revolves around holy wars (or more mundane: the settings of crusade ages without actually saying "holy wars" lol). It makes perfect sense to add features that fits the central theme. BUT on the other side of the same coin... It also makes perfect sense to eliminate features that doesn't work toward the central theme nor add something truly substantial to the TW gameplay (without being too complicated). Each newly built TW need to state the main objective/theme/purpose and the settings. And the GM needs to sit down and survey each feature whether if it adds strength to the central purpose of the TW or it's only clutter being there for the sake of simply existing. I'm thinking we are definitely experiencing feature creep. The definition: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creepNow, I know we're not a company making a product, but we are sort of designing a free product intended for use by people among ourselves. Those two classification of causes for feature creep boils down to: 1. "Hey, this is a cool idea, why don't we add that?" and 2. "I wanna that thing and you want this thing, but we can mix both!" Don't misunderstand me... Freedom of creativity is something I endorse and wouldn't want to stiffle anyone here in thinking up ideas to improve the TWs or to create wholly different and new TWs. Got a cool idea, share it? Yes! Absolutely yes! The problem is... not all ideas are created equal. Some are great but doesn't quite fit the purpose but could fit elsewhere. If anyone else says that all ideas are equal, that person either fails to notice or deliberately overlook the difference between the individual and the individual's idea. Equality of all people is a honorable principle, but equality of all ideas is a dishonest principle that prevents honest scrutiny and examination. I know, I know, this concept is foreign to the younger kids in the school classroom but believe me, it is the practical reality of the real world outside. I'm not looking down on ideas for being different than my own opinion. But I question and measure the ideas on the basis of quality and practical application in a honest and fair way with least possible personal bias. I'm trying to clarify the truth here. I don't want to offend anyone, so if anyone feels offended, it wasn't my goal. I only feel that we as the RPers of the forum needs to take a very serious consideration of what we have been doing needs a change in the paradigm. Most game have a good run GW got feature creep the moment I started the idea |
|
, I'm thinking the exact same thing, check my post in the suggestion thread.
