Many people seem to be concerned that the new social policies will offer a much simpler system than the civics used in civ 4 because one wont have to choose between benefits. Nay sayers are worried that if you can get some advantages from both autocratic and democratic branches, for example, that one could simply accumulate all advantages eliminating any need for strategy or planning. To the contrary, I imagine the social policy system adding an entirely new level of depth to empire planning. If there are 10 total branches and one need complete 6 of them for a cultural victory, then obtaining 60% of ALL policies is assumed to be a large number. So lets assume that a balanced play style, neither war mongering or extremely peaceful, one in which the player does not focus on obtaining entire branches but rather selects policies based on their situation to improve their score (in other words, the overall strength of their empire), will unlock at most 25 of these policies by the end of the game. Therefore there is no worry that a civilization could gain all available policies.
Each time a player must select a policy, or a new advantage to give their empire, I believe several different factors will weigh in their decision.
A player must decide which of the minimum of 10 policies (more if each branch branches out) will suit their playstyle best (ex. In civ 4 cottage economy -> universal suffrage; specialist economy -> representation). For every 1 policy a player invests their hard earned culture points on, they are neglecting to invest in 9 others. In civ 4, when a player decided to switch civics, the choice was between their current civic and the new one. One would sacrifice their current benefit to gain a different benefit. In civ 5, one will have to sacrifice the possible benefit of any of the other policies for the one they purchase. In the short term, it would work much like the civ4 tech tree does (Bronze Working for quick chop and to reveal bronze or Animal Husbandry to build a pasture on those pigs and to reveal horses?).
Then there is the long term planning. One will have the option of sacrificing early military power for example, to invest in policies which may not be as beneficial immediately but are prerequisites for a policy that could prove essential later in the game (or save the cculture points until the appropriate techs are researched). In civ 4, since there were no civics prerequisites (other than techs) the best choice would always be for the immediate benefit.
Finally, if there is no option such as revolutions for transferring spent points, it will be important to plan ahead. One will have to plan the expansion of their empire far in advance. Are you planning on sitting tight until your UU, then making a quick military expansion? Then you better invest in policies from the start that will come into play as your UU does, giving that extra oomph to your army or production in that specific era.
I know this post is the Great Wall of Text, but one final point. Ive seen many concerns about civs being a liberal dictatorship, or other paradoxical governments. But I dont see having policies in freedom and autocracy that way. If I have a full freedom branch with several autocratic policies, this doesnt necessarily mean a paradox. I am simply a democracy with slightly more power lying in the hands of the countrys leader. For example, Canada and the U.S. are both democracies, but in the U.S., the head of state has much more power than he does in Canada (such as being the sole person able to declare war). Both countries could be represented in civ5 (or how I imagine it to be) as civs with every freedom policy, but one has a couple more policies than the other in the autocracy branch. The policies will be more flexible, allowing for the imagination to create very a very specific situation.
Each time a player must select a policy, or a new advantage to give their empire, I believe several different factors will weigh in their decision.
A player must decide which of the minimum of 10 policies (more if each branch branches out) will suit their playstyle best (ex. In civ 4 cottage economy -> universal suffrage; specialist economy -> representation). For every 1 policy a player invests their hard earned culture points on, they are neglecting to invest in 9 others. In civ 4, when a player decided to switch civics, the choice was between their current civic and the new one. One would sacrifice their current benefit to gain a different benefit. In civ 5, one will have to sacrifice the possible benefit of any of the other policies for the one they purchase. In the short term, it would work much like the civ4 tech tree does (Bronze Working for quick chop and to reveal bronze or Animal Husbandry to build a pasture on those pigs and to reveal horses?).
Then there is the long term planning. One will have the option of sacrificing early military power for example, to invest in policies which may not be as beneficial immediately but are prerequisites for a policy that could prove essential later in the game (or save the cculture points until the appropriate techs are researched). In civ 4, since there were no civics prerequisites (other than techs) the best choice would always be for the immediate benefit.
Finally, if there is no option such as revolutions for transferring spent points, it will be important to plan ahead. One will have to plan the expansion of their empire far in advance. Are you planning on sitting tight until your UU, then making a quick military expansion? Then you better invest in policies from the start that will come into play as your UU does, giving that extra oomph to your army or production in that specific era.
I know this post is the Great Wall of Text, but one final point. Ive seen many concerns about civs being a liberal dictatorship, or other paradoxical governments. But I dont see having policies in freedom and autocracy that way. If I have a full freedom branch with several autocratic policies, this doesnt necessarily mean a paradox. I am simply a democracy with slightly more power lying in the hands of the countrys leader. For example, Canada and the U.S. are both democracies, but in the U.S., the head of state has much more power than he does in Canada (such as being the sole person able to declare war). Both countries could be represented in civ5 (or how I imagine it to be) as civs with every freedom policy, but one has a couple more policies than the other in the autocracy branch. The policies will be more flexible, allowing for the imagination to create very a very specific situation.
. I thought I'd read about people complaining that the cumulative effects eliminate strategic choices
.
.
