Civ IV: Firaxis is teh bias against Papists!

Civ IV: Firaxis is teh bias against Papists!

Um, you might want to check the URL.

Why, what’s wrong with it?

I suspect you just clicked it too quick. In the future, I suggest you allow a three to five minute delay between seeing my posts and actually acting on them – you know, clicking on them, reading them, that sort of thing – so that I can complete the complicated process of getting my ducks in a row. Although I am eventually thorough, I’m not terribly prompt.


Well, ok. The /templates/admin.php just seemed like a weird thing.

EDIT: Oh, and it’s now 10 minutes past the posting and still not working :)

Ah, I think I have it now. Where can I send you your copyediting fee, shang? :)


I can’t wait for the retaliatory Catholic mod which explains that the Protestant trade bonus is due to the sale of pornography, alcohol, and dildos.

Ha, ha, Tom wrote “afterward” instead of “afterword”!

No I didn’t.


P.S. Christoph, where should I send you your copyediting fee?

If there were to be differences between the religions, I wonder how they would shake out so that no one would be offended? Civ has moved away from the “only good government is democracy” railroad that earlier versions had, but there is a presumption in Civ4 that the best society is a multifaith one.

Here are some modest suggestions for debate.

  1. bonus happiness for same faith cities in the same country as their Holy City, a negative value for those not.

  2. Hinduism extra health, Buddhism extra happiness, Taoism extra science, Confucianism lower maintenance, Islam extra coin, Christianity extra culture, Judaism more hammers.

  3. The trick is adding a negative to these bonuses. We’re already venturing into sterotype territory in my suggestion, and I won’t move further on my own. While this sort of thing was perfectly manageable in a not-quite mainstream game like EU, the mass appeal of Civ probably means that giving negatives would piss somebody off.

Re tobacco and slaves - I see no problem with tobacco since wine is already there. Maybe it can be made obsolete with medecine the way that ivory is with a later tech. Or slaves can be used only with the slavery civic but add war weariness, though I see no real need to ape history in this respect. Its presence neither helped nor harmed the prospects of Call to Power.


Bring the so called “pagan” religions too! Ancient greeks, romans, celts and not having any of their great faiths. Disgrace.

How did EU venture into stereotype territory? Religions were handled very well there I thought.

I thought so, too. The handling of religion (like hurting stability, the whole “Protestant work ethic” thing) was subtle enough to have a major impact though there are undeniable stereotypes (or anachronisms) involved like the idea that Shi’ites are super warriors with a morale bonus or that Hinduism discourages research.

It helps that EU2, especially, gives the player numerous ways to overcome or counteract any negative effects by having all those domestic policy sliders. A game as abstracted as Civ would require a more deft touch.


Plus, EU’s religious model was more ethnic than religious. You had to juggle how nice you were to your Catholics vs your Protestants, or you could stuff them all in favor of importing Shi’a Islam or something similarly wacky.

In Civ, though, the modifiers (if they existed) would be a good deal more contentious, both because the game is more accessible and wider in scope.

I shudder at the thought of the first “realistic religion mod”. “I went Judaism for the trade bonuses.” “Yeah, but I’m flooding your cities with Hindu missionairies to force that tech penalty on you!”

Why not just add liberal/conservative distinction to each religion?

liberals can get +1 science and conservatives +1 culture or something while moderates get +1 happiness. The bonuses will be calculated on a per city basis by seeing the % breakdown of each religion…and of course will be affected by in-game factors

(ie. cities with only 1 religion present will most likely be conservative while multi-religion cities will have more liberals)

And you can’t build Hollywood in a conservative city!


Sure you can! I’ll just be nothing but higher and higher budget remakes of ‘The Passion’ :)

Because people like this shouldn’t be given more encouragement.

Well, his point about Mount Rushmore being a Fascist wonder is interesting (maybe it fits better under Nationalism in his mind?). The whole Dan Quayle thing is a left-over from the first games when people remembered who Dan Quayle was.

He should look up Liberalism in the dictionary though. Or even the Civilopedia.


Much the same way I was quietly amused by the person earlier who posted “liberals should get +1 science, conservatives should get +1 culture” (why not commerce?)

Sure, if you’re modelling the past 100 years. 1000 years ago, a “liberal” was someone who thought escaped slaves should only be beaten, not killed. And let’s not even get into how “liberalism” morphed from what we would now call libertarianism into its current meaning sometime in the past 50 years.

But you can build Bollywood.