Social paths unbalanced?

[remconius]

I have the feeling the social paths could be a bit unbalanced.

What I understand you can buy them with culture points and they add up. So no choice of which to choose (like civics) but as long as you can afford it, you can get them all (except the ones that are mututally exclusive). It also feel strange to "buy" these options (feels like a skill tree in where you buy skill with experience or skill points).

This means if you are building wonders and are getting more culture also you social paths can develop much further.
If on the other hand you are more economic or warmongering, you socials will be underdeveloped.

I really wonder how this will play and balance in the game. Any ideas?

 

[sensual benny]

I don't understand where the lack of balance comes in. Obviously if you focus more on economy or warmongering you'll have more commerce or territory than if you focused on culture, but there's no way to tell that those paths are any weaker at the moment.

 

[Venereus]

Don't know about social paths, but sociopaths are definitely unbalanced...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This means if you are building wonders and are getting more culture also you social paths can develop much further.
If on the other hand you are more economic or warmongering, you socials will be underdeveloped.
?

That is the whole point... culture is a useful thing, even if you aren't trying for a culture win (just like science is useful even if you are not trying for a tech win)

 

[stealth_nsk]

If you're economic or warmongering, you could still develop 1-2 trees related to your playstyle easily. No problems here.

Also there are choices:
- Due to not enough culture points to open everything.
- Mutually exclusive trees.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Don't know about social paths, but sociopaths are definitely unbalanced...

Best!

 

[remconius]

Well, let's say you are focusing on science and you are the most advanced in the game. You goal is to build the spaceship.
The resultant is that your government will be backward (despot instead of democratic in civ 3 terms or only the top civics in civ 4 terms).

Being forced to earn culture points feels unbalanced. Why would a technologically advanced nation not be able to have a proper government. And why would a nation focusing on wonder building be able to run many and more advanced social paths?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, let's say you are focusing on science and you are the most advanced in the game. You goal is to build the spaceship.
The resultant is that your government will be backward (despot instead of democratic in civ 3 terms or only the top civics in civ 4 terms).

You're not thinking in Civ 5 way. There's no advanced government.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, let's say you are focusing on science and you are the most advanced in the game. You goal is to build the spaceship.
The resultant is that your government will be backward (despot instead of democratic in civ 3 terms or only the top civics in civ 4 terms).

Being forced to earn culture points feels unbalanced. Why would a technologically advanced nation not be able to have a proper government. And why would a nation focusing on wonder building be able to run many and more advanced social paths?

Because they focused on society, the technological nation did NOT focus on their society so they get no social benefits. (they get technological benefits instead)

Also building wonders looks like a Terrible way to get culture, they only give a small culture bonus, compared to all the culture you get from culture buildings.

It would be interesting to have a society that built NO science buildings and compare it to a society that built NO culture buildings... both would have benefits.

(That might be a good challenge, win the game without purchasing ANY social policies.. culture can only be used for territorial expansion.)

 

[Darth Caesar]

Apparantly everything in Civ5 is unbalanced.

 

[iop]

Well, let's say you are focusing on science and you are the most advanced in the game. You goal is to build the spaceship.
The resultant is that your government will be backward (despot instead of democratic in civ 3 terms or only the top civics in civ 4 terms).

Being forced to earn culture points feels unbalanced. Why would a technologically advanced nation not be able to have a proper government. And why would a nation focusing on wonder building be able to run many and more advanced social paths?

In all previous editions, government options were solely determined by scientific progress. Civ5 makes this more complex. While you need to advance scientifically in order to be able to unlock advanced social policies, you also need to invest in culture (which can be generally understood as investing in nation-building) - exactly like someone who invests in wonder-building also needs to invest into science in order to get access to the wonders.

Basically, Civ5 appears to make it more difficult to purely pursue one thing while neglecting everything else.

 

[remconius]

Social policies have replaced governments/civics.

So for me the definition of an Advanced government would be to have many items developed on social trees. Maybe you can do without, but my feeling is you need to invest in culture to be able to use it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Social policies have replaced governments/civics.

So for me the definition of an Advanced government would be to have many items developed on social trees. Maybe you can do without, but my feeling is you need to invest in culture to be able to use it.

Now think about this - to win cultural victory, you need 5 of 10 trees. So even the most culture-focused civs will get only half of trees. And what is the difference between having 5 or 3 of 10? In your terms no civilization could be socially developed in Civ 5

 

[remconius]

I guess I can live with the "you always need to focus on science and culture" philosophy what ever your victory condition....

Curious to know how this will be in the game. With out the good old slider, you will somehow need to earn enough science, culture, gold and each one in an unrelated way. If the game is balanced you could not afford to neglect one. Like you could do with espionage, religion or corporations.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Apparantly everything in Civ5 is unbalanced.

Haha tell me about it! You'd think the devs completely failed if you read all the titles of these threads. Basicly everyone should skip V, because everythings wrong, even though no ones played it!

 

[Tomice]

I don't understand what the problem is?

Generally, you need a bit of everything. You need technology, you need an army, you need diplomacy, you need culture. And you focus on being excellent in one of those to achieve the related victory condition.

If you're asking yourself why technology alone doesn't allow a civ to have an advanced government:

Every nation will be able to unlock some SPs, because you will always produce some culture. Those culture points could be used to unlock more advanced SPs (those unlocked through later techs), however. So you will have the choice to adopt autocracy or communism, but overall, a nation that focused more on arts, culture and social development will have a richer heritage and therefore more bonuses through SPs.

 

[Zhahz]

I have the feeling the social paths could be a bit unbalanced....Any ideas?

Yeah. Play the game, then decide. I'm pretty sure the devs consider these things.

 

[Schuesseled]

I have the feeling the social paths could be a bit unbalanced.

What I understand you can buy them with culture points and they add up. So no choice of which to choose (like civics) but as long as you can afford it, you can get them all (except the ones that are mututally exclusive). It also feel strange to "buy" these options (feels like a skill tree in where you buy skill with experience or skill points).

This means if you are building wonders and are getting more culture also you social paths can develop much further.
If on the other hand you are more economic or warmongering, you socials will be underdeveloped.

I really wonder how this will play and balance in the game. Any ideas?

most wonders only give you 1 or 2 culture.

 

[SeismoGraf]

I really wonder how this will play and balance in the game. Any ideas?

It will add an additional playing field for competition. Some classic fields of competition were land grab, technology, economy, military, diplomacy, culture, wonder building. Social policies are different, but somehow comparable to Technology.

For the space race you need technology. A domination win requires a strong military. And cultural victory? In Civ4 it basicly meant accumulating points, points, points. The only notable short-term benefits were city defense, border expansion and assimilation of foreign cultures. Now the cultural player is more on par with the technological player.

In some games it may be impossible to compete with other players in certain fields, because they use powerful synergies. Or one just does not have the empire size to compete. SP seem to offer many ways to catch up as a small empire.

 

[Shurdus]

What does balance mean in this context? Obviously certain choices will be stronger than others on certain maps and worse on others. This does not unbalance things, it makes things interesting.

If the OP means to say that some choices will be stronger than others and that it actually pays to make informed decisions, then I am glad that the policies are unbalanced.