Should you be able to change Social Policies?

[Iberian]

Would you like to see a system implemented where you can change SPs?

Obviously we would have to work on some sort of balance but my initial thought would be like this:

Cost to X policies = .1*cost of current policy + .1*cost of n-1 policy...

If your current policy costs looked like this: 10,20,40,80

and you wanted to change the last 3 policies it would cost you

(.1*80) + (.1*40) + (.1*20) = 14 culture

This would allow for a flexible SP system that would help make the game more dynamic but also reflect a cost for opportunity.

As it stands I think this game would benefit from having more decisions where you calculate and oppurtunity cost and act on that rather then play the locked in style of decisions made when you had revealed 30 hexes.

 

[sketch162000]

I don't think that you should be able to change social policies, but I think that there needs to be a distinction between social policies and government--Monarchy is not a social policy.

Social policies are interesting in that they represent the values that your people believe in. It's a really neat way to shape the culture of your civ, and culture is harder to change so permanent social policies make sense.

Government is sometimes a different factor from culture and society altogether. Americans believe in freedom and liberty, but institutionalized slavery. The Romans despised solitary rule, but adopted a dictator when necessary and ultimately ended up with an emperor.

To this end, devs should have both -- reintroduce civics which can be changed, while keeping social policies that are permanent

 

[Cheetah]

No, changing social policies is completely unhistorical and does not add anything to gameplay!

For the historical part:
It's not like people throughout history ever changed their views on anything. All societies that used to have aristocracy or other right-by-blood laws, or who used to hold slaves or considering their leader to be a son of god still have aristocracy, slavery and divine rulers.

And for the gameplay part:
Adding more choices to the player just makes the game too confusing. You should need to pass kindergarten to be able to play Civilization.

 

[Iberian]

No, changing social policies is completely unhistorical and does not add anything to gameplay!

For the historical part:
It's not like people throughout history ever changed their views on anything. All societies that used to have aristocracy or other right-by-blood laws, or who used to hold slaves or considering their leader to be a son of god still have aristocracy, slavery and divine rulers.

And for the gameplay part:
Adding more choices to the player just makes the game too confusing. You should need to pass kindergarten to be able to play Civilization.

Exactly.

If I start a game and after 100 turns find out that there is only 2 civs on it and a lot of good coastal cities I may decide to go with maritime and liberty trees. Later though I find out that behind the closed borders there is an opening to the rest of the land mass with 3 more civs well then I may need to change my plan. I might want to start a war to get control of that choke point to the rest of the land mass so I can control my section. After the war I may want to go back or I may find that I will need to keep my cities off the coast because England is running away and already has ships controlling the seas. (this is in imaginary land where the AI can actually use naval units) Maybe I don't win the war (again this is imaginary land where the AI can win a war) and I need to try for a culture victory.

If my early plans have to change for whatever reason I don't want to be locked into a SP. We had the option to change directions in the previous versions why take it away? How does it make it more fun or help to take that away? Not like I don't have plenty of time to think about it between turns.

 

[DaveGold]

No, changing social policies is completely unhistorical and does not add anything to gameplay!

If you look at the 5 members of the UN security council, arguably the successful nations of the 20th century, you'll see compelling evidence of radical social change through revolution.

 

[Drawmeus]

I kind of like the notion of building up a set of social policies over time to craft your civilization's identity; the notion of a 'respec' for SPs kind of takes some of that identity away, imo. Maybe if there was a single-use respec, like a National Wonder that did it?

 

[ShuShu62]

If you look at the 5 members of the UN security council, arguably the successful nations of the 20th century, you'll see compelling evidence of radical social change through revolution.

Funny... Is there any doubt that the French are still French? Policies change quickly, cultures don't. Social Policies represent cultural decisions, not policy decisions.

Quick lets start a thread that they change the name 'Social Policies" to 'Cultural Influences"...

That's much more important than fixing the AI.

 

[sketch162000]

If you look at the 5 members of the UN security council, arguably the successful nations of the 20th century, you'll see compelling evidence of radical social change through revolution.

This is a good point. Of course, social change doesn't happen just willy-nilly. There needs to be some sort of massive upheaval for real change. Like much worse than 1 turn of anarchy. Maybe a civil war, revolt, heresy, destruction of government property; that kind of thing...

 

[Iberian]

Funny... Is there any doubt that the French are still French? Policies change quickly, cultures don't. Social Policies represent cultural decisions, not policy decisions.

Quick lets start a thread that they change the name 'Social Policies" to 'Cultural Influences"...

That's much more important than fixing the AI.

I am not too concerned with historical context or symantecs but rather gameplay.

Obviously the AI is the top priority but this is pretty low hanging fruit while revamping the AI is more of a Hurculean task.

Gameplay wise changing the SPs allows both the human and the AI to optimize play in the changing game circumstances with a penalty for lack of planning. I don't think though you should be penalized for not being able to foretell you are on an massive land mass with 5 other AIs and find that you have wasted 3 SPs.

 

[Roxlimn]

It's also not true that governments aren't an expression of culture. They are. In every case where America has tried to export its democracy, it has been corrupted into alternate forms by the peoples that have retained it nominally.

The way the Japanese practice democracy isn't the same way Americans or Brits experience it.

 

[Iberian]

This is a good point. Of course, social change doesn't happen just willy-nilly. There needs to be some sort of massive upheaval for real change. Like much worse than 1 turn of anarchy. Maybe a civil war, revolt, heresy, destruction of government property; that kind of thing...

Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't but I don't think that really should be why we should or shouldn't change the game mechanic.

The question should be would the game be more fun if I could change SPs at a cost.

Personally I think it would because it would actually mean I may explore something other than liberty and order.

 

[aday]

Absolutely! In my opinion, one of the biggest things missing in CiV is the loss of revolutions. I think you should be able to spend a certain amount of time in anarchy in order to "reallocate" some of your SP's, the exact amount depending on how many you are changing. There could even be some other penalties, like a loss of population in the capital or something.

And hey, what about giving the Great General some kind of "coup" ability that you could use to avoid some/all of the anarchy?

I think there is a lot of potential for modding here...

 

[ShuShu62]

It's also not true that governments aren't an expression of culture. They are. In every case where America has tried to export its democracy, it has been corrupted into alternate forms by the peoples that have retained it nominally.

The way the Japanese practice democracy isn't the same way Americans or Brits experience it.

Maybe China is a better example... Is it possible that the reason China is the only country to successfully implement a communist policy is because it was culturally communist for thousands of years before the policy was invented?

 

[Mikkow]

I especially like that they are not changeable. It gives much nicer flavor to the different nations and more interesting empires appearing.

The question should be would the game be more fun if I could change SPs at a cost. Personally I think it would because it would actually mean I may explore something other than liberty and order.

It is you who chose policies under assumptions of things that were wrong. You gambled and ended up not choosing the (perhaps) optimal. You can save your policy choices for later, or try to play it safe. Or you can try to figure out how to capitalize on the ones you have chosen.

 

[ShuShu62]

I am not too concerned with historical context or symantecs but rather gameplay.

Obviously the AI is the top priority but this is pretty low hanging fruit while revamping the AI is more of a Hurculean task.

Gameplay wise changing the SPs allows both the human and the AI to optimize play in the changing game circumstances with a penalty for lack of planning. I don't think though you should be penalized for not being able to foretell you are on an massive land mass with 5 other AIs and find that you have wasted 3 SPs.

I guess I can agree if you feel optimizing a spreadsheet is the ultimate goal of the game. If however, you feel the fun of a game is having to make decisions with unpredictable results, it is a different answer.

I have never liked chess, because it is a deterministic game, many love it for the very same reason. This debate is the same. The debate is whether it is more fun to see how your strategy can handle the unexpected (me) verses is it more fun to use the appropriate tactic for as the need arises.

 

[Roxlimn]

ShuShu62:

We have to clarify what we mean by "communist." True communism as envisioned by Marx has never existed and will probably never exist. It was an idea of economic utopia, not a political stand.

What he envisioned is that countries may have to go through a period of brutal authoritarian rule to get to that utopia, and this is what "Communist" leaders have traditionally used to seize power. The actual model is authoritarianism, which is not new.

China's take on communism closely followed their preexisting social models of free, self-sufficient farms and the local, decentralized power from the Mandarin system. Even today, local members of the CPP hold surprising amounts of power in their locales, particularly the ones far from Beijing.

 

[brianshapiro]

Maybe China is a better example... Is it possible that the reason China is the only country to successfully implement a communist policy is because it was culturally communist for thousands of years before the policy was invented?

China doesn't really practice Communism, it practices what it calls "market socialism". They admire Communist thinkers, Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc., but talk of 'errors' in past theories. The success of China's government is that its adapted to capitalism.

 

[brianshapiro]

I agree with the posters in this thread who say that a player shouldn't be able to change cultural policies... but just like it would be realistic to learn technologies from other players, it would also be realistic to learn cultural policies.

 

[Ahriman]

Selecting policies becomes much less meaningful if you can shift out of them later. There is no reason to hold off on making purchases until later era, and so you lose the strategic tension of buy mediocre policy now vs stronger policy later. And there is no reason to carefully plan your SP development along particular lines if you can just swap them out later.

More options doesn't always increase strategic depth.

 

[Deep_Blue]

For the historical part:
It's not like people throughout history ever changed their views on anything. All societies that used to have aristocracy or other right-by-blood laws, or who used to hold slaves or considering their leader to be a son of god still have aristocracy, slavery and divine rulers.

how is that? which history you are talking about, human history?

societies always change their views, societes evolve with time, societies adopt newer views that benefit them more. Science and knowledge is main drive behind newly adopted views or ideas, the more knowledge people gain the more they drop their old views that contradict with new science.

Think about how the world evolved, and who societies are moving towards globalization more and more.