Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
Sorry. From Dictionary.com:
language=/=math
The 10 social policies
- Thread starter Semmel
- Start date
awesome
Meme Lord
thelibra
Future World Dictator
I wasn't just talking in reference to this thread, I was talking about the general attitude permeating the forums lately. Every single thread I see one of two attitudes:
"Fireaxis/2K/PR/etc... said X. They're obviously lying because (insert some unreasonable argument that either centers on ad hominem, or pure speculation with no basis in fact)."
or
"Fireaxis/2K/PR/etc... decided to (insert idiot basis for determinig whether or not to buy a game here). I'm never going to buy this game until they change it to how I want it!"
oh, and a smattering of
"These graphics suck!" (not shown: realization that these are Alpha graphics).
I think I've run into all of about 3 people who are level-headed enough to *gasp* wait for the game to come out before passing judgment, rather than attacking every single aspect of the game and everything 2K says, before it ever gets released.
So naturally, when I saw yet another of these arguments breaking out, my natural reaction was to call you on it. What I probably should be doing instead is staying the hell out of the Civ5 forums because it's only going to piss me off more and more each day to see how people are behaving here. I'm surprised 2KGreg hasn't given everyone the finger and said "NO SOUP FOR YOU!!" and blacklisted the community from any further communication channels.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I couldn't agree more. If people had a little humility or perspective in the discussion any kind of speculation or disagreement would be fine. We can disagree about reasonable things, like the use of Steam or 1upT or pretty much any other actual, substantial topic. Disagreeing with the direction Civ5 is heading doesn't give people license to fill the forum to the brim with whining, non-information, absurdly pessimistic speculation, absurd petitions, calls for ludicrous real-life demonstrations, boycotts, death threats, open letters, etc.
Some of us actually want to discuss Civ5, not insane delusions of kidnapping the developers and forcing them to make SMAC2 or Civ3Redux. We're getting Civ5, whether any given player likes it or not. 98% of their customers will never read anything any of us writes. Someone who has never played Civ before and likes Civ5 pays $60 for it, and someone who's played Civ 12 hours every damn day since Civ1 and ends up hating Civ5 pays $60 for it. That's the cold, hard reality. Your voice is one among thousands of wallet-voters, and it is exactly as loud as any other.
Embrace change or withdraw to the Civ3 forums.
I must agree with the two posts above me. There is a lot of unnecessary whining and bickering on these forums. It usually coincides with a lack of ciV information being given out.
Patience is a virtue that seems to elude most people in this current age.
The game is going to be great. That said, I can wait. Let them get it right.
Especially if Victoria 2 is released in late August. That game looks fantastic as well.
Patience is a virtue that seems to elude most people in this current age.
The game is going to be great. That said, I can wait. Let them get it right.
Especially if Victoria 2 is released in late August. That game looks fantastic as well.
awesome
Meme Lord
actually, if people disagree with a decision, they have every right to be as vocal about it as possible, as long as they understand that people who disagree with them have the same rights. the real life demonstrations and petitions are lame, i agree, but honestly, if you don't like something about a game, you have every right to not buy it, which is the camp i'm in so far, but that's a discussion for another time.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You see this is why-in spite of some issues-I *really* liked the Civics System. Some people have said there was a *perfect* combination, but I don't agree. Sometimes my terrain made cottages my best option, in which case I chose Civics that made towns work better. In other games, the terrain allowed for a more workshop oriented strategy-which made a different set of civics better. This was just one situational modifier to what was the "best" civics to choose-certainly much better than the Communism/Monarchy=War vs Democracy/Republic=Peace system that dominated Civ1 to Civ3.
So, if the SP system gives as much diversity in strategies as Civics (which would mean *no* stacking of bonuses from SP's on the same branch) then I'll be happy. So lets say that-right now I'm disappointed, but am prepared to reserve judgment until I see more information!
Aussie.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It Would mean stacking of SPs on the same Branch....
The Branches of the Social Policies are Not like the Civic categories... they are more like particular civics
ie one branch would have Police State, Vassalage, Theocracy... because it is the military branch
another would have Representation, Caste System, Mercantilism and Pacifism... because it is the specialist branch
another would have Universal suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation... the cottage Branch
So multiple SP's from the same tree Should be the norm.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It Would mean stacking of SPs on the same Branch....
The Branches of the Social Policies are Not like the Civic categories... they are more like particular civics
ie one branch would have Police State, Vassalage, Theocracy... because it is the military branch
another would have Representation, Caste System, Mercantilism and Pacifism... because it is the specialist branch
another would have Universal suffrage, Free Speech, Emancipation... the cottage Branch
So multiple SP's from the same tree Should be the norm.
All I hope is that they have a Revolution Syxstem which allows you to Lose a Social Policy and get some benefit towards a different Social Policy
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I confess that Civ without a Revolution system would be a step in the *wrong* direction IMHO!
Also, what I was getting at was that I don't want obviously mutually exclusive SP's to stack or-more specifically-I want to avoid a situation where there aren't tough decisions for the player to make, a la the Civics system!
Aussie.
Also, what I was getting at was that I don't want obviously mutually exclusive SP's to stack or-more specifically-I want to avoid a situation where there aren't tough decisions for the player to make, a la the Civics system!
Aussie.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I think they specifically ARE trying for that situation, as in you never "Give something up" when putting in a new policy.
But that is because you have to pay to get it.
I imagine the Social Policies will be astoundingly expensive... and hopefully their cost will depend on the size of your civ... so that Big empires will find it harder to get a Culture Win.
Aramel
Warlord
I don't really know what's so tough about the choices you have to make with the civics system. You unlock a new civic, and if it's better for you than what you already have, you switch to it. There are at most four different options for any particular branch, and usually only one or two of those are worthy of serious consideration. And if you change your mind about a civic, you can change it back without too much hassle.
With social policies, on the other hand, you've got up to ten different fields you can invest your points in. And unlike civics, this is a real investment; once you spend those points, they're gone, and you can't change your mind about it. You might spend dozens of turns working your way up to a high-end policy. Perhaps you have to weigh whether you should put points into the policy you just unlocked, or save up for a more appropriate policy down the road. I don't see how that's an easy decision.
I honestly don't see why choosing one policy needs to invalidate past policies or prohibit you from choosing certain future policies. The civics system had to be set up the way it was because there were no scarce resources involved, but culture points are limited, and any policy you purchase ipso facto prevents you from choosing several other policies. Your finite budget already limits your choices, what purpose does limiting it further serve? I could maybe see the reasoning for this on the basis of flavor (though I don't think it's strictly necessary), but it doesn't add any strategic depth.
I expect when we all get our hands on the game and play around with social policies, we'll find that the choices are at least as hard as they were with civics, if not harder.
With social policies, on the other hand, you've got up to ten different fields you can invest your points in. And unlike civics, this is a real investment; once you spend those points, they're gone, and you can't change your mind about it. You might spend dozens of turns working your way up to a high-end policy. Perhaps you have to weigh whether you should put points into the policy you just unlocked, or save up for a more appropriate policy down the road. I don't see how that's an easy decision.
I honestly don't see why choosing one policy needs to invalidate past policies or prohibit you from choosing certain future policies. The civics system had to be set up the way it was because there were no scarce resources involved, but culture points are limited, and any policy you purchase ipso facto prevents you from choosing several other policies. Your finite budget already limits your choices, what purpose does limiting it further serve? I could maybe see the reasoning for this on the basis of flavor (though I don't think it's strictly necessary), but it doesn't add any strategic depth.
I expect when we all get our hands on the game and play around with social policies, we'll find that the choices are at least as hard as they were with civics, if not harder.
Mustakrakish
In 'Node' We Trust
That
I'll definitely do that, did that in BtS and I'll sure be doing it in civ5...P.S.
Though I generally agree with you AlpsStranger and thelibra, I think you're being a little unfair, you make it sound like everyone on these forums are idiots (based on your frustrations with certain individuals) and you're a pinnacle of humankind.
I've seen my share of frustrating individuals and though I admit sometimes myself being perhaps a little unreasonable and uh "ranty"?, usually when I see discussion going nowhere and that person can't be reasoned with, I let them have their last word. It doesn't ruin my universe and it doesn't change/"summarize" (is that the correct word?) my opinion on people of cfc in general...
Semmel
Large Sid Meiers Collider
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 233
I add your information to the board and make it italic to indicate that we dont have an official reference. Actually I dont like to add something without a reference, but since you were there and journalists can be wrong as well as you, I dont really see the point to deny this information to be added. One importent thing though we learned from your way of writing is, that the social politics are just titles for the trees, but no actuall nodes. I'll reflect this in the presentation. Thanks
One question though: are the subelements "Oligarchy" and "Legalism" in linear order to "Aristocracy" or ware they parallel?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Because many policies are logically mutually exclusive. It sounds like (we don't know for sure) that you could be getting both the benefits of being a liberal democracy and a fascist police state, simultaneously. Which is bizarre.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
That
P.S.
Though I generally agree with you AlpsStranger and thelibra, I think you're being a little unfair, you make it sound like everyone on these forums are idiots (based on your frustrations with certain individuals) and you're a pinnacle of humankind.
I've seen my share of frustrating individuals and though I admit sometimes myself being perhaps a little unreasonable and uh "ranty"?, usually when I see discussion going nowhere and that person can't be reasoned with, I let them have their last word. It doesn't ruin my universe and it doesn't change/"summarize" (is that the correct word?) my opinion on people of cfc in general...
I've had great experiences on these forums with most of the users. I have no idea why the Civ5 forum is such a cesspool. I probably shouldn't have responded the way that I did, but I don't know why everyone is in such an uproar.
I apologize for my part of the noise. Let's see if we can't get that signal-to-noise ratio up.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
In World of Warcraft you could, theoretically, get the benefits of being a Protection warrior and a Fury warrior at the same time. The problem is, however, the scarcity of points. Likely you would have, for example, a fascist police state with a handful of democratic institutions, or a democracy that had a few fascist laws on the books. This is actually not even remotely unrealistic now that I think about it.
The one downside is that there is no more civic switching. My instinct, from what I have heard, is that this will be worth the trade-off.
Ambassador
Peacemonger
Doesn't anybody else find it strange, that Liberty and Freedom both should be branches?
Ahriman
Tyrant
But my understanding is that you only get 1 point (or whatever) per level, so there is a cap on the number of total points you can acquire
Whereas culture points can just keep accumulating.
And there is no conflict between being good at attacking people and good at defending yourself.
And being fascist doesn't mean "a few fascist laws on the books". It means "enough dedication to fascism in your system that it gives you bonuses". A few laws on the books for eg wouldn't be enough to give a big war weariness reduction.
Either having the fascist policies are central to your government, in which case they're big enough to give you bonuses, or they aren't central to your government, in which case they're not big enough to give you bonuses.
It is just impossible to be simultaneously both a narrow-minded theocracy and to have free religious tolerance and a secular state.
It is impossible to be an absolute monarchy (power in the hands of the King) and an oligarchy (power in the hands of merchant leaders) at the same time. If the King has only a few autocratic rules, then they aren't really an autocracy. If you have only a few civil rights, you aren't a liberal society.
Anyway, we don't have details yet, so I could be wrong. But I'm guessing the only way they'll be able to avoid the paradox of simultaneity is by having policies that aren't really very descriptive of how a government runs. The most central aspect to any government and society is who has the power; who gets to make the rules, and enforce them. Its just not possible to have all kinds of different groups that all have all the power; decision-making power has a zero-sum aspect.
Which is a shame, because it means that we'll lose a lot of the identity of governments. Those mutually exclusive policies about who gets the power are the most interesting differentiating factors between different societies.
So, no possibility of "free speech" and "censorship" policies. Both are logical things that would give different kinds of bonuses, but it would be crazy to get the benefits of both at once.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
My personal experience of Civics was that it wasn't always better to adopt the newest ones as soon as you could. The civics I chose were more to do with my situation than anything else. For example, just because I could adopt Mercantilism, I wouldn't usually unless I was fairly isolated-either physically or diplomatically. Similarly, I would often remain in Representation even *after* I got Universal Suffrage-depending on whether I'd focused on a Cottage or Specialist Strategy. Similarly, Bureaucracy was often a better option even *after* I could switch to Freedom of Speech-& so on. Of course, every time I had a chance to switch civics, I had to ask myself what would I be gaining *&* what would I be giving up-something that won't be a concern if bonuses simply stack. For example, if going from Oligarchy to Aristocracy involves sacrificing the cool bonus gained from Oligarchy, then a player needs to ask "do I want to purchase Aristocracy, or perhaps hold off & pursue Social Policies in other branches of the tree". If all the bonuses stack, however, then this choice becomes so much easier.
Also, as Ahriman quite rightly points out, some Social Policies should-by their very nature-be mutually exclusive, so how can their bonuses stack?!?!
Aussie.
Also, as Ahriman quite rightly points out, some Social Policies should-by their very nature-be mutually exclusive, so how can their bonuses stack?!?!
Aussie.
Similar threads
