Religion is missing something?

[fodder]

I thought that's what religion maintenance was...?

eh.. isn't that actual upkeep of the temples, rather than corruption?

whole point of corruption is to basically increase cost for auto stuff

[Stue (DC)]

automatic donations would make no substantial difference compared to ordinary gold transfers except they would, yes, allow lords to be more passive.

my idea mostly rotates about current income, that is contribution from peasanats which does not lower region tax income at all, but present separate money inflow already.

before upkeep feature it was far too easy to earn money in religions without any effort. right now i feel it tedious to permanently fill in negative net balance which occurs in majority of regions. if upkeep would, for instance be reduced to one third of the current, mid-size religions could possibly earn 200-250 gold per month, which could not be so big deal, but would provide some fun to religious people.

moreover, if priests would not preach enough, income would fall to negative, so main purpose of upkeep would be intact - that would both punish too passive religious game, and would slightly, just slightly reward active ones.

after two-three months of savings, elders would post large bounty for duke who is very hostile to their faith, and with new feature, assassination would have some chance to remove him. that would be the game, without any revolutionary changes.

net income would be small and would just give some sort of independence to religions, and even that only if priests are preaching enough.

[Chenier]

eh.. isn't that actual upkeep of the temples, rather than corruption?

whole point of corruption is to basically increase cost for auto stuff

I was half sarcastic, as religious infrastructure costs an extreme amount of gold, everything being considered. The costs simply aren't realistic, imo. Feels like we are spending thousands of gold on cardboard temples.

I mean, seriously. Maya temples were overrun by jungle, and after hundreds of years they are still in pretty awesome shape. Catholic cathedrals are doing rather well too. I'm not saying these cost nothing to maintain, but I seriously feel the game exaggerates maintenance costs.

[De-Legro]

I was half sarcastic, as religious infrastructure costs an extreme amount of gold, everything being considered. The costs simply aren't realistic, imo. Feels like we are spending thousands of gold on cardboard temples.

I mean, seriously. Maya temples were overrun by jungle, and after hundreds of years they are still in pretty awesome shape. Catholic cathedrals are doing rather well too. I'm not saying these cost nothing to maintain, but I seriously feel the game exaggerates maintenance costs.

They also took years to build, and cost considerably more then a few hundred or even a few thousand gold. I think paying the maintenance is a small price for the wonderful instant build technology of the BM world.

[fodder]

insofar as them being dead easy to destroy? are believers spawned as strong npc when the temples get razed?

[Chenier]

insofar as them being dead easy to destroy? are believers spawned as strong npc when the temples get razed?

No, they aren't. Sometimes they attack your unit, but they never spawn militia units.

Temples are frigging easy to destroy. I'm not even sure it causes any revolt, as arresting priests does.

Really, we spend thousands of gold on wooden shacks, that would explain a few things...

[fodder]

well... perhaps they shouldn't be able to be destroyed quite so easily?

[Indirik]

Temples are not so easily destroyed, so much as looted and reduced in size. A level 6 temple would take three full days of looting twice a day to destroy, assuming you are successful every time, and the temple is not guarded. Given that they can be built instantly, I don't think that making you take three days to tear one down is all that unreasonable.

You are correct, I think, in that looting temples doesn't cause unrest among the peasantry. Perhaps it should, based on the number of followers. Looting and burning temples should probably cause the same effects as arresting priests. After all, sacking and closing temples using the lord's options does cause unrest. Quite a lot of it.

[vonGenf]

You are correct, I think, in that looting temples doesn't cause unrest among the peasantry. Perhaps it should, based on the number of followers. Looting and burning temples should probably cause the same effects as arresting priests. After all, sacking and closing temples using the lord's options does cause unrest. Quite a lot of it.

In a war, the unrest could end up hurting the target realm instead of the attacking realm... It's not entirely unrealistic (Hey! Nobles razed our beloved temples! Off with their heads, all of them!), but it could be unbalancing.

I would see peasant militia being raised, as with non-religious looting, being a better option.

Arresting priests creates trouble for the realm doing the arresting, usually, not the other way around.

[fodder]

well.. it wouldn't make much sense to cause unrest in that region against the owner's realm if some foreigner loot it.

if nearby regions belonging to the foreign looters have significant followers, then unrest in those regions would make sense.

mass militia in the form of "angry faithful" may or may not hurt the region... i mean.. it's not like we haven't seen a region looted to hell to get partisan/etc which are then killed, etc to depopulate the region.

would be nice if say... out of a region of 8k pop, let's say 80% following, 2k rise up to fight the looters... whoever left alive out of the 2k then go back into the region's pop after the foreigners get booted out.

[Indirik]

well.. it wouldn't make much sense to cause unrest in that region against the owner's realm if some foreigner loot it.

Hmm...... "unrest" is a pretty broad term. The locals could very easily get upset with the government in general for not protecting them and their faith. Also, mobs are generally not very ... focused.

would be nice if say... out of a region of 8k pop, let's say 80% following, 2k rise up to fight the looters... whoever left alive out of the 2k then go back into the region's pop after the foreigners get booted out.

Seems to me that having 25% of your region take up arms against the foreign invaders would result in a rather large hit to the region's normal operation.

[fodder]

of course... it'll drain the production/etc.. hence the caveat of those alive go home afterwards to boost the pop back.

only question is whether that mob will do any harm to the infidels to make it worth it

regardless of what happens inside that region.. nearby enemy (i.e. looter's realm) regions with significant following should get hit by unrest. only trouble is the 2+ realm vs 1 thing where you'll get some far away realm who pops in to loot so the nearby one doesn't get hurt. (seen that for TO/sympathy stuff i think) need to figure out how to stop that arising, maybe looter's ally get hit with unrest.

[Stue (DC)]

when you know some feature for rather long, new unexpected tweak brings nasty surprise:

arresting priests was normally bringing disturbance to region stats, and also that of surrounding regions.

knowing that, we prepared arrest by bringing region to top conditions first, but now completely different outcome occurs: with 20-25% followers in region of about 1400 it seems all of them took arms to protect priest (about 300 peasants in report) and attacked my veteran troop of 100 men, wounding 50 of them, while region stats are intact and priest is not arrested.

as it looked really odd, we tried few more times, with the same result, and it seems to be impossible to arrest priest.

this is major change as arresting priest was the only physical measure against his dealings, limited by many other factors as well: possible only against enemy realms, only on your lands etc.

moreover, how realistic is that peasants cause so large casualties to soldiers, not to mention that they remain intact.

making priest major pain in the ass, while being financially dependent as discussed in this post, only pushes more to direction of "duke brother's" game while others would tend to avoid all that stuff.

i don't understand what this change was supposed to bring.  weeding out remaining low percent of followers is incredibly harder, and without ability of military troops to interfere, that could end in not so funny game of two duke's brothers preaching one against another eternally, while lord, army and everybody else helplessly look at it. ok, infiltrator can risk his life to stop that process for two days.

generally, why are there so many changes that bring only annoyance, never something positive.

[Anaris]

this is major change as arresting priest was the only physical measure against his dealings, limited by many other factors as well: possible only against enemy realms, only on your lands etc.

That's not a change.  It's been happening that way for...I don't know, years?

[De-Legro]

That's not a change.  It's been happening that way for...I don't know, years?

Don't lie Tim. We all know DC is the oracle of BM who knows all, including all the faults. The fact that people seldom agree with him is just evidence of his genius.