A Few CiV Questions -mostly about social policies

[Marshall Thomas]

I have some questions that aren't really related to one another:

- does the United Nations wonder have any effect other than enabling the vote for a diplomatic victory?

- are random events definately not in CiV? If not, that really is a shame. I was hoping they'd be in and be easy to create through modding. So many possibilities...

- what do "pacts of cooperation" do? If no one knows for certain, what would you speculate they might do?

- I just read that new social policies cost the same amount of culture, regardless of how far down the social policy tree list they are. Some have suggested that this makes choosing from trees you've already opened more effective because you adopt a "more powerful" policy for the same culture cost. But are social policies that are further down a social policy tree really more powerful?

- I know that some social policy trees are incompatible with others (you can't be an autocrat and have a free society; and you can't be a traditional religious country that specializes in science). But what about the idealogical differences which where behind the struggle between the monarchies and the revolutionary republics of the late 18th/early 19th centuries (Napoleonic Wars); and the post WWII conflict between capitalism and communism (The Cold War)? How can a country be both a monarchy and a republic at the same time? How can a nation have both a communist economic policy and capitalist free-market at the same time?

Thanks in advance for all replies

 

[Stefanskantine]

How can a country be both a monarchy and a republic at the same time? How can a nation have both a communist economic policy and capitalist free-market at the same time?

Thanks in advance for all replies

1) See England
2) See China, Gulf States (modern "state capitalism"

 

[Marshall Thomas]

1) See England

I can see a country becoming a democracy after already being a monarchy (and keeping it's monarchy). But I can't imagine a democracy adopting a monarchy form of government. But with the CiV social policy system, you could benefit from adopting "monarchy" after you've already adopted republic.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I can see a country becoming a democracy after already being a monarchy (and keeping it's monarchy). But I can't imagine a democracy adopting a monarchy form of government. But with the CiV social policy system, you could benefit from adopting "monarchy" after you've already adopted republic.

See George Washington and why he refused to serve a third term. Also, see Rome.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

See George Washington and why he refused to serve a third term. Also, see Rome.

I guess my real concern with it is that you can become a monarchy without losing your republic and vice-versa. When Augustus became emporer, Rome was no longer a republic. Many Romans wanted to go back to being a republic. With these two social policies being compatable, there'd be no in-game advantage for doing so.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Imperial Rome still had a senate, it just was no longer the supreme authority. But it did retain some influence. The senate didn't just completely drop off the map as soon as Augustus became emperor. I think this is fairly well represented by the social policies system.

 

[Ahriman]

- I know that some social policy trees are incompatible with others (you can't be an autocrat and have a free society; and you can't be a traditional religious country that specializes in science). But what about the idealogical differences which where behind the struggle between the monarchies and the revolutionary republics of the late 18th/early 19th centuries (Napoleonic Wars); and the post WWII conflict between capitalism and communism (The Cold War)? How can a country be both a monarchy and a republic at the same time? How can a nation have both a communist economic policy and capitalist free-market at the same time?

Yeah, I made these points when we first started hearing about social policies.
Its weird and unrealistic that policies last forever and that you can overlap all kinds of weird bonuses, but I can see their point in terms of it being a functional system in terms of gameplay.

1) See England

England is not a monarchy; the monarchy has no power.

2) See China, Gulf States (modern "state capitalism"

State capitalism is not communism, not even close.

And the senate had very little power in Imperial Rome, particularly after the first few years where they still controlled Africa.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, I made these points when we first started hearing about social policies.
Its weird and unrealistic that policies last forever and that you can overlap all kinds of weird bonuses, but I can see their point in terms of it being a functional system in terms of gameplay.


England is not a monarchy; the monarchy has no power.


State capitalism is not communism, not even close.

And the senate had very little power in Imperial Rome, particularly after the first few years where they still controlled Africa.

The point is these are not Governments... they are your Society.

The monarchy is still a part of English Society even if it is not currently part of English Government.
Communism is still a part of Chinese society even if it isn't the economic practice of the government.
The Republic was still a part of the Society of the Roman Empire.
Theocracy is still a part of some Societies even though the Government has Free Religion.

Choosing a social policy indicates a change in Society... that has certain effects on that society... not a change in any laws or rulers or constitutions.

Government has been removed from the game, just like Religion.

 

[Ahriman]

The monarchy is still a part of English Society even if it is not currently part of English Government.
Communism is still a part of Chinese society even if it isn't the economic practice of the government.
The Republic was still a part of the Society of the Roman Empire.
Theocracy is still a part of some Societies even though the Government has Free Religion.

I don't think this is true at *all*.
The monarchy has no significant impact on modern England - on its economy, industry, government, technological development, cultural/institutional development or military power.
It doesn't affect any of the things we care about in Civ. If England abolished the monarchy tomorrow, none of these things would be affected in any significant way.

Name one country that was once theocratic and now has free religion where the fact that it was theocratic affects any of these variables today in a significant fashion.

Communism has a few lasting vestiges in China because it was abandoned so recently, and it takes a generation or two for these things to go, but in a few more decades China will have abandoned any vestiges of Communism in its actual economic output. (Its authoritarianism is different).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think this is true at *all*.
The monarchy has no significant impact on modern England - on its economy, industry, government, technological development, cultural/institutional development or military power.
It doesn't affect any of the things we care about in Civ. If England abolished the monarchy tomorrow, none of these things would be affected in any significant way.

They would still have the monarchy tradition... in Civ V terms, England, France, and Russia all still have 'monarchy'.. it is a part of their society and history. Whether there are any currently living Monarchs with any benefits or power is a secondary issue.

Name one country that was once theocratic and now has free religion where the fact that it was theocratic affects any of these variables today in a significant fashion.

look at the CivV effects... -20% unhappiness in non-conquered cities.. a measure of religious unity..I'd say that many places have that (although some may have replaced Piety with Rationalism)

Communism has a few lasting vestiges in China because it was abandoned so recently, and it takes a generation or two for these things to go, but in a few more decades China will have abandoned any vestiges of Communism in its actual economic output. (Its authoritarianism is different).

The effect of Communism in the game has nothing to do with economic output it has to do with happiness and growth of a large empire. Those effects probably won't go away.

 

[12agnar0k]

England is not a monarchy; the monarchy has no power.

Thats not correct,

Though the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative,

The monarch could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister

The royal prerogative:

Spoiler :

Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign and is known as the Royal Prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, only exercising prerogative on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through the Prime Minister or Privy Council.

The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (providing they command the support of the House). In Bagehot's words: "the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

However the Monarchy can technically remove the Prime Minister, so basically, the Monarcy only has to abide by the PM's decision if H.M wants to let the PM continue running the country.

Technically a Monarchy could rebel against Parliment, its all a matter of where the people stand really, and where the armed forces stand, Although a consittuational monarchy has limited powers, they could regain all thier power given back to the people if they had the support to wage a civil war. Which isn't that likely, most people would like to hold onto the power given to them .

 

[Duo]

I don't think this is true at *all*.
The monarchy has no significant impact on modern England - on its economy, industry, government, technological development, cultural/institutional development or military power.

Mostly true, but it is still a pretty enormous cultural touchstone.

It doesn't affect any of the things we care about in Civ. If England abolished the monarchy tomorrow, none of these things would be affected in any significant way.

Perhaps, but I also doubt that Stonehenge literally caused the construction of a monument in every settlement in England. The real world and game world effects don't need to be 1-to-1.

 

[Zhahz]

- does the United Nations wonder have any effect other than enabling the vote for a diplomatic victory?

No clue, not something that really matters to me - but if you want to know what's known, check the confirmed features link here or visit Arioch's site.

- are random events definately not in CiV? If not, that really is a shame. I was hoping they'd be in and be easy to create through modding. So many possibilities...

No clue, probably not, I don't think it was in vanilla Civ IV either. This kind of fluffy side thing that not all players like and that isn't tied to core gameplay is a great thing to put in an expansion or something.

- I just read that new social policies cost the same amount of culture, regardless of how far down the social policy tree list they are. Some have suggested that this makes choosing from trees you've already opened more effective because you adopt a "more powerful" policy for the same culture cost. But are social policies that are further down a social policy tree really more powerful?

The cost to unlock your next SP is consistent and ever increasing regardless of where the SP is coming from, because the SP system builds up over time as you customize your civ, so to speak. Every new SP you add to your mix is giving you more oomph. Some SPs appear to be setup in a tiered structure where low tiered are prereqs for the next tier, so I would imagine that the higher tier SPs are a little more powerful.

- I know that some social policy trees are incompatible with others...

You have to love how almost every thread here, even the ones on the most mundane and outlandish topics conceiveable (not that this thread is one of those), end up in some kind of debate over history and reality.

 

[The_J]

- are random events definately not in CiV? If not, that really is a shame. I was hoping
they'd be in and be easy to create through modding. So many possibilities...

You get small tasks by the city states and cities will demand some special resources sometimes to celebrate a "We love the X" day.
This seems to be semi random.

- what do "pacts of cooperation" do? If no one knows for certain, what would you speculate they might do?

Oh, the hover text said "Will improve the relationship between the 2 civilizations" (or something near to that). -> Even ingame no precise information, which fits to the rest of the diplomacy system.

 

[Stefanskantine]

England is not a monarchy; the monarchy has no power.


State capitalism is not communism, not even close.

1) Did I say England in 2010? English history is a long story of a slow transfer of power from the crown to the house of commons. Did England have a king and a parliment, both very significant politically, around, say, the time of the American revolution? Why yes it certainly did.

2) No, state capitalism is not anywhere close to communism. But it does share common elements, such as state control over major areas of the economy. IMO state capitalism is what happens when you have communism, and then "overlay" free market principles on top of that system. This is how Civ V new social policies should be understood, IMO.

And it makes perfect sense to me that such a hybrid system would get benefits from both. The rapid rise of China as economic power is due to the fact that it benefits from both the profit motive of the free market, but retains the ability to intervene radically in the economy by taking land, rushing major infrastructure projects, backing government owned firms, etc.