Social policies: accumulated info so far and conclusions

Tomice

Tomice

Passionate Smart-Ass
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
2,353
Location
Austria, EU, no kangaroos ;)
I originally posted this on the thread about Ariochs Analysis pages (which is awesome) and was asked to create a seperate thread about it:

For people new to the topic:

Civ5 will have "Social policies" instead of government or civic choices from previous titles, I'll copy the descriüton from Ariochs site, hop that's ok:
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_cities.html



The Government/Civics system has been dramatically overhauled. Rather than having different forms of government or civics that the civilization can choose and switch between, Civ V uses a system called "Social Policy" which consists of 10 separate trees in which the civilization can spend Culture and unlock bonuses. These bonuses are cumulative, and the civilization does not "switch" between them, but rather chooses which trees to invest in.

There are ten trees:

Tradition
Gives bonuses that affect the Capital city. Adopting Tradition gives a bonus of +3 Food in the Capital.

* Aristocracy: +33% production bonus for Wonders.
* Oligarchy: +20%(?) combat strength for military units fighting within the empire's borders.
* Legalism: Reduces unhappiness from population in the Capital by 50%.

Liberty
Gives bonuses that speed expansion. Adopting Liberty speeds building of Settlers by 50%?

Honor
Improves the effectiveness of units. Adopting Honor gives +20%? combat vs. barbarians, and (something to do with barbarian camps).

Piety
(Religion/Happiness bonuses)

Patronage

Order

Autocracy
Unlocks at Industrial Era.

Freedom
Upon Adopting Freedom, population in cities produce half the normal amount of Unhappiness.

* Free Speech: Reduces the Culture cost of future policies by 30%?.

Rationalism

Commerce

* You start the game with access to the Tradition, Liberty, and Honor trees, and other trees unlock at certain eras.
* Some trees are incompatible with others. You can't have both Freedom and Autocracy, or both Rationalism and Piety.
* Purchasing all the options in six of the ten trees will unlock a Utopia Project wonder which can then be built to achieve a Cultural Victory (assuming your rivals don't destroy you first).
* According to Dennis Shirk, Social Policies don't affect your relations with other civilizations, but they do affect relations with city-states. "For city-states, yes, there are policies that can really dictate the relationships and yields you might get from city-states."


Tomice said:
A few thoughts on social policies:

I'm very sure we'll accumulate "SP points" to unlock SPs, since 30 unlocks a victory condition, players who won't focus on culture probably won't earn more than 15-25 in a game.

There are some reasons I doubt we will pay for unlocking SPs directly with culture (meaning all SPs would have a "price tag" of let's say 1200 culture). The most important is, that we'd unlock SPs faster and faster the bigger our culture output is, which would be in contrast to the usual way in games (e.g. leveling in RPGs) where you can choose a lot of "skills" early to lay a foundation, and further specialisation comes at a slower pace.
So I strongly believe we'll "level" like in a RPG, and unlock the first level (=Point to spend on one of the 50 SPs) at e.g. 100 culture, the next at 150, then 250, then 400 and so on.
I also believe that the SPs positioned higher up on the 10 trees cost the same as the "lower" SPs, namely 1 "SP-point". Everything else would just be too complicated, and the fact that the 10 trees are so small (having only 2 or 3 "tiers") also point to an equal cost of 1 "SP-point" for every social policy.
Increasing culture points cost of every "level" or "SP-point" (with quite cheap initial "levels")also allows warmongers to still reach some level of culture later in the game, but a culture-focused player will unlock SPs earlier and more of them.

Everything understandable so far? ;)



Now about switching between trees/social policies/goernment styles:

The first question we have to answer is: Is it desirable, from the devs point of view, to implement a "reskill" system (a RPG term you surely know). Will we be able to change governments?

Pro Reskill:

+ Changing governments/SPs is realistic, thousands of examples in history
+ It was traditionally possible in civ games
+ No one ever criticized the fact that you can change your Gv. in a revolution
+ Players would find it strange not being able to switch ("Dumbed down")
+ Switching Civics/SPs was a nice gameplay mechanic allowing to adapt to situations

Contra Reskill:

- More effort to develop
- More complicated
- Possibly problems with cultural victory (see below)
- It could be some philosophical decision I wouldn't understand :D

All together, I do believe the devs would have reasons enough to allow changing SPs, but let's check the effort and complicatedness I mentioned:


We know some trees cannot be unlocked at the same time as another. Let's take "autocracy" and "freedom" (or was it liberty? :confused: :D) as example. If we would be able to switch trees, would it be viable to loose all invested culture?

The cultural victory requires us to reach "level" 30, unlocking 30 SPs (6 full trees). Loosing all the culture invested would be a huge hit, so in this case culturemongers wouldn't want to switch even a single time. Seems like bad game design to me, opinions?

Let's look at alternatives: What "punishment" for switching SPs could there be if we keep our "level" (number of SP-points)? In Civ4, we had anarchy, what about that?
Actually, I find that very possible. For every invested SP-Point you "delete" to put it somewhere else, you could have a turn of anarchy. Is this realistic? Yes, because e.g. Germany did not loose it's culture permanently during Hitlers time, they didn't forget the HRR or Prussian history (although some books were burned and records deleted, but most of this was not destroyed worldwide). A nation achieves a level of culture, and thoughts that once were there cannot be undone (Napoleon also didn't destroy the democratic heritage of France).

So, ok, we may well be able to delete SP Trees. But what happens to the points? I doubt they would autoassign the points to the opposite tree (not allowing you to choose). But if you can freely put them everywhere, you would also have to recover points from the trees that have no opposite (Or at least it would be strange if you couldn't).
Oh, and one more thing: I doubt we'll have anarchy when we advance up in the trees for the first time, because it would be no revolutionary, but evolutionary progress. So you would "earn" anarchy turns when deleting, not when assigning SP points.

SUMMARY:

SP Trees might work like skill trees in RPGs, culture unlocks levels, reassignment of points should be possible.

So, after half an hour of work, woe betide you if you don't discuss my post as deserved! :lol:
Click to expand...
 
I'll just repost what I said in the other thread, for completeness.

Aramel said:
One reason the designers might not want to let you reassign social policies is that it takes away from some of the strategic decision-making you have to do. I remember hearing in one of the videos that you might have to choose between grabbing honor policies that benefit you now, or saving up for the commerce policies you'd only unlock later. If you can just reassign your points later, anarchy or not, that's no longer as difficult a decision.

I think the RPG comparison isn't exactly perfect, because most RPGs aren't intended to be replayed as many times as Civ is, and strategy doesn't have the same focus. What's more, most of the RPGs I've played don't allow me to reskill anyway (I kind of wish they would actually, for the reasons mentioned).

Other than that I agree 100% with what you said about how the policies will be acquired. Boxes filling up with diminishing returns is how almost everything works in Civ.
Click to expand...
 
Also, now that we know that Autocracy is unlocked by the Industrial era, I think we could probably make an educated guess as to when the rest of the trees unlock. I'm guessing that the trees are arranged on the screen in a chronological fashion, going clockwise. So we have Tradition, Liberty, and Honor at the start; Piety is probably unlocked by the Medieval age, as is Patronage; Commerce could be either Renaissance or Medieval; Rationalism and Freedom are almost certainly Renaissance; and Order is probably Industrial just like Autocracy, although I guess it could be modern. Also, it seems pretty obvious that commerce gives gold bonuses and rationalism gives science bonuses, right? I mean, that's probably not all they do, but those are probably what they focus on.
 
I really like this idea, which prevent the warmongers from getting all the 'cheap' policies in the first tier of each tree.

However, I don't think a few turns of anarchy is enough to make the tree switch a more strategic decision. How about that if you decide to switch from one tree to another, all the SP points you spent in the old tree will be lost, and your 'level' remains the same so you still get your next SP slower than all the previous points, thus your advance in the new tree will be (much?) slower than in the old tree.

Copied from the old thread and edited a little.
 
maybe all social politics get increasingly expencive for every politic you activate? Very much like the cost of the geat person in civ4? So, if you throw away a social tree, it really hurts because you have to pay increased price for its replacement. You wouldnt want to do that too often. Also it would make cultural victory much more challanging as if you have to pay fix prices... just a wild guess...
 
What I can see so far makes social policies look just the same as technologies, where there's a tree and as you go through it, various production etc. bonuses get enabled. If it's just a case of a slider which directs commerce to science (buy tech) or culture (buy social policies) it would be rather boring - I hope there's more to it than that.
 
My feelings on this is odd. It does not make me happy or unhappy that they are doing this. My rational mind tells me that it should make gameplay much more colorful, which is good. But I can't help feeling that Civ is moving to beautify the roof of a building listing on a decrepit foundation. Still, I don't mind appreciating a nice looking roof.

Thanks for the headsup, Tomice.

:)
 
hk2717 said:
I really like this idea, which prevent the warmongers from getting all the 'cheap' policies in the first tier of each tree.

However, I don't think a few turns of anarchy is enough to make the tree switch a more strategic decision. How about that if you decide to switch from one tree to another, all the SP points you spent in the old tree will be lost, and your 'level' remains the same so you still get your next SP slower than all the previous points, thus your advance in the new tree will be (much?) slower than in the old tree.

Copied from the old thread and edited a little.
Click to expand...

That seems like almost the opposite extreme, in that it would be too punishing to make you ever want to switch. I honestly think it's better if they just prevent you from switching at all, forcing you to plan ahead.
 
I doubt you can re-skill and get your culture or "social policy points" back. From a game-play perspective, I think this will be the case because it makes your decisions matter more. Where's the tension in deciding to go down (or up?) the piety tree in the middle ages when you can just take back all your points and go with rationalism in the enlightenment?

In my mind, it actually makes the most sense - from a gameplay and "realism" perspective, to be able to switch between the mutually exclusive trees, but not get the points back. For example, the Western-European Civ (let's say) went down the piety track in the Middle Ages and into the early modern period (think the wars of religion in the 16th century), but then, after the French Revolution and in the 19th century, switched to the "Rationalism" track using different cultural points.

I would actually worry about being locked into a certain track. Having to choose from the beginning whether to go with Piety or Rationalism is certainly a strategically "interesting question" - one benefit now or a different benefit later - but it almost seems too constraining. Being able to choose piety now, and then being able to switch to Rationalism later - but loosing all the points invested piety - seems like a good compromise. The choice is less about foregoing Piety now to get Rationalism later, but giving up Piety later to Rationalism.

From a "realism" perspective this makes more sense. As a civ evolves over time, it doesn't know what future developments may come. It's kind of silly to imagine a group of people purposely ignoring policies and ways of organizing themselves that give benefits now in hope of coming up with better ones later.
 
Tradition
Gives bonuses that affect the Capital city. Adopting Tradition gives a bonus of +3 Food in the Capital.
* Oligarchy: +20%(?) combat strength for military units fighting within the empire's borders.
* Legalism: Reduces unhappiness from population in the Capital by 50%.

Liberty
Gives bonuses that speed expansion. Adopting Liberty speeds building of Settlers by 50%?

Honor
Improves the effectiveness of units. Adopting Honor gives +20%? combat vs. barbarians, and (something to do with barbarian camps).
Upon Adopting Freedom, population in cities produce half the normal amount of Unhappiness.
* Free Speech: Reduces the Culture cost of future policies by 30%?.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen these. Are these confirmed from devs/screenshots, or speculation?

Some of them effects seem weird.
Why would having a good legal system only boost your capital?
Why would oligarchy give you combat bonuses?
Why would Tradition give you more food in the capital?
The honor and aristocracy bonuses seem more reasonable.

The Freedom bonus seems ridiculously strong; halving unhappiness basically means happiness isn't really a binding constraint anymore, basically removing a key gameplay mechanic..

Also: should probably clarify that it seems like there are 6 bonuses; 1 for unlocking the tree (a tree might be Available based on tech or era, but still has to be Unlocked) and then 5 more for various individual Policies.

I also think people should be careful about saying X is unlocked "by" an Era.
IMO its at least as likely (especially from the tech tree screenshots) that they are unlocked by specific techs within an Era.
 
Aramel said:
That seems like almost the opposite extreme, in that it would be too punishing to make you ever want to switch. I honestly think it's better if they just prevent you from switching at all, forcing you to plan ahead.
Click to expand...

Maybe the points lost will be worth the switch? Maybe the 'experience curve' will not be that steep so your progess in the new tree won't be too slow? I think it is a matter of balance in numbers.
 
I see the community splitting into two factions:

1) "Choosing SPs once and forever is a though decision and therefore cool and good. I want to have tough decisions."

2) "Switching SPs later again is more flexible, and also very strategic (It has been strategic in Civ4). Also, I don't want to think about what will happen in the industrial era when I haven't even invented gunpowder yet. Why should I be tied to a certain playstyle when the situation might change?"

I'm #2! :D

It's similar to games like DiabloII and the reskill discussion there. Usually player who know they will play dozens of games/create dozens of chars don't want reskill, whyle more casual players do. Although "reskilling" before going to war in Civ5 could hardly be considered as lame as reskilling in DiabloII before attacking a certain boss-monster. Also, the Civ version would be realistic, the RPG version less so.


On another topic, please consider my main points against loosing culture points when switching:
1) It would make switching virtually impossible for those who want to achieve cultural victory.
2) With increasing costs per "SP-Point", it would be VERY punishing, up to a point where you wouldn't ever want to do that.

EXAMPLE:

Assumption: The 1st SP-Point costs 100 culture, the 11th 10000 c and the 16th 100000 culture.

If you have 15 SPs unlocked, 5 of them in the piety tree, and want to switch to rationalism. You'd loose 5 SP-Points and have 10 left. Does the next SP-P point cost as much as the 11th or the 16th? I guess you see that there is a huge difference, and the latter version is so punishing that you can disallow switching in the first place.

BTW, don't forget I partly copy-pasted from Arioch! Thank him, too! ;)
 
I can see advantages and disadvantages to both 1 and 2.

To 1) I'd add simplicity and transparency - and ease of AI coding.

[Remember that the AI needs to be able to understand these kinds of benefits in abstract, for modding purposes. A mod could come along with an entirely different set of social policy trees bonuses and the AI still needs to do a decent job of choosing which policies to purchase]

To 2) I'd add that Revolution has been an important and fun part of history and a tradition in the Civ series. Many countries have moved from authoritarian regimes to enlightened democracies.
 
Ahriman said:
The Freedom bonus seems ridiculously strong; halving unhappiness basically means happiness isn't really a binding constraint anymore, basically removing a key gameplay mechanic..
Click to expand...
Actually it halves unhappiness from a particular source, specifically city population. Without knowing what other sources of unhappiness exist and what percentage of unhappiness each will typically represent it's tough to make a judgement.

I will say that if freedom becomes available in the industrial era then reducing the happiness penalty from population should cause a realistic (and gameplay warranted!) jump in city sizes ready to add the production capacity to build all the shiny new necessities of the modern age.
 
Its worth pointing out at this stage that I have a strong feeling that much of what we're seeing in this video is far from finalized, & will probably undergo significant tweaking & game-play balancing before release (trust me, I know whereof I speak ;) ). In particular, I doubt the freedom branch has only 1 policy within it, so I'm inclined to think that its still unfinished (as is Piety I reckon). Even the ones with more specific effects might undergo changes before release.

As to Autocracy, I find it unusual that it only unlocks in the Industrial Age. There were plenty of autocratic governments in the pre-industrial world, just look at some of the Tyrannical/Despotic Kingdoms of Europe. Anyway, will be interested to see how that pans out.
I'll be equally interested to see whether they still go ahead with the plan to stack effects from within a single branch. I really think the best way forward is to make people have to choose between an existing bonus, or losing said bonus in return for the next policy on that branch.

As to switching to a mutually exclusive branch of the tree, I reckon it will be do-able. My feeling is that there will be some kind of revolution function, but that it will come at a cost. Either a significant delay in when you can actually switch to the new branch (&, obviously, the loss of all the accumulated policies in said branch), or the loss of a significant number of the points you spent on accumulating said policies-or perhaps even some mixture of both. I just think it unlikely that they'll lock you into a single branch for the length of the entire game!

Aussie.
 
Tomice said:
1) "Choosing SPs once and forever is a though decision and therefore cool and good. I want to have tough decisions."
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd describe it that way. I don't like tough decisions just for the sake of being tough. I remember back when the forums were debating whether each new policy in a tree should replace the previous bonuses or just give you new bonuses I argued for the latter, because I thought the "toughness" of having to give up a bonus you already paid for didn't add anything to gameplay. I think the toughness of having to look several steps ahead to see if you want this policy now or another one later on does add something to gameplay, though, and is in fact much more strategic than being able to switch out to whatever best suits your needs at the moment. However, I can see where you are coming from on this; it would be nice to be able to change your mind sometimes.

But, leaving aside the question of whether switching would be a good idea or a bad idea, have the designers ever indicated in any of these videos that we'll be able to switch? Because it seems like it'd be a pretty important feature and they'd want to mention it.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
I'll be equally interested to see whether they still go ahead with the plan to stack effects from within a single branch. I really think the best way forward is to make people have to choose between an existing bonus, or losing said bonus in return for the next policy on that branch.
Click to expand...

Weird that we both mentioned that at the same time, eh?

Anyway without rehashing that old debate, I think if that was the system they were using they'd have some sort of graphical effect showing you which policy was currently active. In the screenshot here there's no such indication of that. I suppose they could change it, but then they'd basically have to rebalance all the policies, so I don't think it's likely. But in general you're probably right; none of this is really set in stone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
1
Views
459
Yerltvachovicic
Yerltvachovicic
M
Naval Domination (Archipelago) help as Dido
Replies
6
Views
1K
Laz0r
L
S
[BNW] National Wonder, Social Policy, Krakatoa Mod (v 2) now on Steam Workshop, my first Mod ever :)
Replies
1
Views
91
sephiroth7707
S
A
  • Locked
(7-WD) Swap Authority and Imperialism Scalers
2
Replies
26
Views
933
axatin
A
D
Cultural Events
Replies
9
Views
685
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Top Bottom