Another new article

[mjs0]

Here is another E3 article I just came across; the writer has seen a demo at E3.

A couple of highlights:

Culture is now a currency as well, and used to purchase social policy. There are ten categories of policies that have to be first unlocked, with such spheres as “Tradition”, “Liberty”, “Honor”, “Piety”, “Patronage”, “Autocracy”, and so on. Each sphere of culture is further broken down into the types of policy under each sphere.

You can now install a puppet government in a city rather than annex it or raze it. Now, simply annexing a city can bring down production to your civ as a whole due to unhappiness. Leaving a puppet government means that it’ll funnel its production to your coffers, but you have no ability to tell it how to produce at all. You can still annex it later when the time is right.

Now, each spaceship part must physically be transported to the capital, so they’re vulnerable to enemy attack. The demonstration I attended ended with the Atzec capital being nuked in a glorious blast because their final part, the cockpit, was about to be delivered to it, which would have ended the game.

 

[Ahriman]

“Tradition”, “Liberty”, “Honor”, “Piety”, “Patronage”, “Autocracy”, and so on

So you can be simultaneously advanced in Liberty and Autocracy?
"Honor" is a value that gives benefits?

You can now install a puppet government in a city rather than annex it or raze it.

Interesting, so this is city-based, not civ based.
I wonder what the advantage is of not annexing - just less maintenance cost?

Now, each spaceship part must physically be transported to the capital

Hmm... weird, but whatever.

 

[mjs0]

I wonder what the advantage is of not annexing - just less maintenance cost?

The article implies annexing can cause civ-wide unhappiness issues that have an affect on production.

 

[Nicolas10]

So you can be simultaneously advanced in Liberty and Autocracy?
"Honor" is a value that gives benefits?

I don't know, this makes at least some sense... strong "honor-oriented" cultures had advantages. Sparta, for one. Japan, for another. Anyway, I think "Honor" is basically the gameplay mechanism for allowing military traditions in a civic sense.

Interesting, so this is city-based, not civ based.
I wonder what the advantage is of not annexing - just less maintenance cost? .

Yeah, the big fear is happiness, Ahriman. Since Happiness is Empire-based, annexing a big city which is profoundly unhappy will be a massive hit to your empire-based happiness. Whereas a puppet state will allow you to gain gold and beakers, albeit without the ability to actually produce stuff, like units or buildings. Or, at least what production occurs will be out of your hands (maybe a good city governor will still build useful things).

 

[Ahriman]

I don't know, this makes at least some sense... strong "honor-oriented" cultures had advantages. Sparta, for one. Japan, for another.

Sparta had good soldiers because of intense training. Nothing to do with "honor".
Nothing tells us that "honorable" samurai were better warriors because of it. Japan hardly fought land wars with anyone else until almost the 20th century (exception; invasions of Korea that were utter failures), and then it was all about technology and industrial production, so we have no clear evidence of superiority. The honor requirements (only honorable noble-class or warrior class people can have a sword) are about sustaining power by making peasant revolts more difficult.

Honor gave no military advantage. The image of the honorable warrior being a superior one is a romantic image, not a fact-based one. "Chivalric honorable knights" are similarly mostly a romantic construction, not a historic fact.

Yeah, the big fear is happiness, Ahriman. Since Happiness is not Empire-based, annexing a big city which is profoundly unhappy will be a massive hit to your empire-based happiness.

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
[Though I think you need to remove a not??]

I wonder if a big overall meta-theme; liberal/freedom type economic and political policies might boost economy, whereas autocratic/tradition type policies might boost happiness. So a very liberal society might have more gold per citizen, but might have fewer citizens because of happiness limits.

 

[Xzylvador]

So are vassal states gone then?
I mean, I'd rather have a good and powerful vassal with a bunch of cities that can actually be some help in a war instead of having 7 cities just doing what they want without any coherent strategy.

 

[CossackProblem]

Nations who have had great soldiering in history have always been tied to honor in someway, I think that is the line of thought Firaxis is driving at. It isn't "honor itself" that makes good soldiers, but the culture's perception and seeking of it. So while intense training made great Spartan warriors, intense training existed because of the goal of honor. Same for the Roman Empire, who saw honor not necessarily in the soldiers, but in their conquests. I think it's a good enough label.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

I really like the idea of having to transport the space ship parts to the capital. Simple and realistic.

 

[Ahriman]

Nations who have had great soldiering in history have always been tied to honor in someway

Only if you stretch it reaaaaly hard.

Mongol horsemen were some of the finest soldiers ever. No particular honor code.
Medieval knights were motivated mostly by trying to capture high-ranking enemies for ransom - for profit.
Roman legions weren't driven by honor, but by discipline. And conquests were pursued for wealth and power at an imperial level and a personal level, not for honor (saying Roman conquest was about honor is like saying that European colonialism was about honor).

intense training existed because of the goal of honor

Intense training existed because skill at arms was the only thing valued by the militaristic slave-state society. Where do you get honor from? 300 was a terrible movie, and it was fiction.

Honor is one way of trying to motivate soldiers on a personal level - the effective modern armies are good at this. But this is something limited almost entirely to professional volunteer operations, not levied or drafted.

If you want to call the path "professionalism of officer corps" then I'd be ok with that.

But thats pretty different from a general "honorable socities are more effective at warfare".

 

[Mannu]

Without knowing what is contained within the category it's pretty hard for us to criticize the label. Come up with a better one word label if you don't like it. I can't think of one that is clearly superior.

 

[PeterWimsey]

In the middle ages, "honor" (in the sense of chivalry) was important not in making knights better warriors, but in making them less violent when they weren't warring. This was something of an explicit goal, and is generally seen by medieval historians has having been successful across generations.

I don't have a problem with honor, although it probably is more accurately described as "military tradition" or somesuch - a value system which induces people to make whatever sacrifices are needed to produce strong warriors.

Re: 300 - I always liked how the movie went on and on about "freedom" while neglecting to mention that the reason Spartans had so much time for military pursuits was because they had enslaved most of the population of Lacedaemonia. I was disappointed that the movie failed to show the ceremony in which an 18 y.o. Spartan is presented with his own helot to work his lands.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I wonder if a big overall meta-theme; liberal/freedom type economic and political policies might boost economy, whereas autocratic/tradition type policies might boost happiness. So a very liberal society might have more gold per citizen, but might have fewer citizens because of happiness limits.

I will be seriously annoyed if Empire wide unhappiness limits # of citizens.

It really needs to generate Rebels that you need to kill off (or else they blockade your tiles and eventually liberate your cities.)

An overall decrease/increase in production might be ok, but NOT population size, that should be limited by Food/Health.

 

[Ahriman]

Without knowing what is contained within the category it's pretty hard for us to criticize the label.

We've been told it gives military boosts.

Come up with a better one word label if you don't like it.

Training.

In the middle ages, "honor" (in the sense of chivalry) was important not in making knights better warriors, but in making them less violent when they weren't warring. This was something of an explicit goal, and is generally seen by medieval historians has having been successful across generations.

My impression is that modern historians see chivalry as overstated; an ideal more noted in the breach than in the observance.

Anyway, its not a big deal, and I can live with it, it just feels weird that "honorable" societies will be better at warfare.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Training.

Anyway, its not a big deal, and I can live with it, it just feels weird that "honorable" societies will be better at warfare.

'Training' does not sound like a 'social policy'

'Discipline' might work though...

but Honor works well enough for describing it.

So you can be simultaneously advanced in Liberty and Autocracy?

Yes, your society has some of the benefits of Liberty (increased gold, science, culture production, happiness) and some of the benefits of Autocracy (security, happiness in the face of war, or because of unity, increased production, etc.)

Its like having a professional police force as opposed to vigilante mobs (high Liberty) or soldiers (high Autocracy) hunting down criminals... Professional Police force=high liberty AND high Autocracy have Both increased liberty AND increased government control.

Add some additional levels of Autocracy and you get a Police State, add additional levels of Liberty and you have Community Policing.. or something like that... add higher levels of Both... and you get a Police force that is amazingly effective without being offensive/bothersome.

 

[Magma]

I doubt it has anything to do with warfare at all to be honest, honour that is. Could as well simply describe how your society views honour and give bonuses according to that. Do they care? Or do they not?

 

[Ahriman]

I will be seriously annoyed if Empire wide unhappiness limits # of citizens.
It really needs to generate Rebels that you need to kill off (or else they blockade your tiles and eventually liberate your cities.)
An overall decrease/increase in production might be ok, but NOT population size, that should be limited by Food/Health.

I was unclear. I didn't mean that unhappiness would literally mean fewer people. I meant; if tradition/autocracy policies give happiness, then they allow you to support more citizens without running into happiness issues.
ie; your empire-wide happy cap is higher.

This is based on a guess that happiness even at an empire level is still somewhat binary; you have happiness providers that keep X people happy, any people over X are unproductive. But whereas in Civ4 X was recorded at a city level, X in civ5 will be recorded at an empire level.

'Discipline' might work though...
but Honor works well enough for describing it.

Discipline sounds better, yes. Honor is just weird...

Yes, your society has some of the benefits of Liberty (increased gold, science, culture production, happiness) and some of the benefits of Autocracy (security, happiness in the face of war, or because of unity, increased production, etc.)
Its like having a professional police force as opposed to vigilante mobs (high Liberty) or soldiers (high Autocracy) hunting down criminals... Professional Police force=high liberty AND high Autocracy have Both increased liberty AND increased government control.
Add some additional levels of Autocracy and you get a Police State, add additional levels of Liberty and you have Community Policing.. or something like that... add higher levels of Both... and you get a Police force that is amazingly effective without being offensive/bothersome.

This makes little sense to me; you can't have libertarian/liberal repressive dictatorships.
Community policing and a professional police force are not autocratic; they do not have unlimited power, they have checks and balances.
Police in an autocratic state are ones that can imprison you without charge indefinitely, or try you on trumped up charges or show trial/kangaroo courts. Policy in a liberal state have to show at least a moderate amount of respect for the individual citizen.

Autocracy means power to the state/dictator. Liberty means power to the individual. Mutually incompatible.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I was unclear. I didn't mean that unhappiness would literally mean fewer people. I meant; if tradition/autocracy policies give happiness, then they allow you to support more citizens without running into happiness issues.
ie; your empire-wide happy cap is higher.

THAT is what I hope they get rid off... 'max productive population' should NOT have to do with Happiness.. It should have to do with health/food.

Un/Happiness Should not result in a reduced number of productive citizens.

It should result in rebels or
Maybe in an overall decrease in Productivity
(I think it could have something to do with Golden Ages)
Enough Happiness builds up->Golden Age.. production/gold/science/culture bonuses for the empire
Enough Unhappiness->'Anti-Golden Age'... production/gold/science/culture penalties for the empire

A population cap is just BAD (especially if they are dealing with an Empire wide Happiness)

Autocracy means power to the state/dictator. Liberty means power to the individual. Mutually incompatible.

Not if you are looking at Benefits.. Autocracy gives some benefits to society from a Civ gameplay perspective, Liberty gives some benefits to society from a civ/gameplay perspective.

If you can get a high level of both, you have successfully developed a society that has the benefits of both... is it a purely Libertarian Democracy? No because that would be a crappy society without a change in human nature... is it a Personal 'play thing' for a Total Dictator? No because that would ALSO be a crappy society without a change in Human nature.

For example, the US is more autocratic (less democratic), and has more liberty than ancient Athens

Ancient Athens was a direct democracy, the US is not. Ancient Athents had Socrates executed, the US would not.

The US therefore has Higher Liberty AND Higher Autocracy then ancient Athens because it is a more advanced society

Higher Liberty->more ideas
Higher Autocracy->more control

You are thinking of Autocracy as an absolute.. state has total power.. think of it as a degree, think of its benefits (and costs) to society.

Now Think of the the costs+benefits of Liberty

Now take all the "Costs" from each and add their opposite as benefits to the other side
Autocracy: cost=nepotism/favoritism/corruption, becomes Liberty: benefit=reduces corruption,
Liberty: cost=decreased security, becomes Autocracy: benefit=increased security

So the idea is developing a society that has
High Security (from Autocracy)
AND
Low Corruption (from Liberty)

Doesn't seem to make sense? Well I'm sure our society wouldn't make sense to many of the ancients either.

Note: Police in Police states are still limited in what they can do, they have mounds of paperwork to fill out justifying their actions (or they can get in a lot of trouble with their superiors).. just like Police in a free state. (the only real difference is who reads that paperwork, and what will get you in trouble.)

"Police" in a failed state don't worry about that paperwork.. because you don't have the social policies that provide the benefits from that paperwork.

Civ 4 had plenty of these contradictions (Free Speech+State Property.. who controls the broadcast towers.. Universal Suffrage+Slavery.. Nationalism+Free Religion...and if you worship the god of the other nation?... If you run those you are illustrating a society that has found a 'third way' to get the benefits of both.)

 

[Ahriman]

Autocracy gives some benefits to society from a Civ gameplay perspective, Liberty gives some benefits to society from a civ/gameplay perspective.

But it is logically impossible to simultaneously reap the benefits of liberalism and autocracy, because a liberal autocracy is impossible.

For example, the US is more autocratic (less democratic), and has more liberty than ancient Athens

You're kidding. The US has universal suffrage. Athens had very limited suffrage; land-owning males. Very small proportion of society.
The US (and any modern liberal democracy) are far less autocratic than any ancient society. Even the poor have some power, and even the most powerful person (the president or prime minister) can be expelled by the will of others (congress or the party), or by an election.

I think you need to look up autocracy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autocracy

–noun, plural -cies.
1. government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
2. a nation, state, or community ruled by an autocrat.
3. unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group.

 

[migkillertwo]

The honor requirements (only honorable noble-class or warrior class people can have a sword) are about sustaining power by making peasant revolts more difficult.

Gun Control, feudal Japan. That just tickles me.

 

[Ahriman]

Gun Control, feudal Japan. That just tickles me.

Precisely.

Similarly attempts were made to outlaw crossbows in medieval Europe (they were ways that untrained peasants could take out armored aristocrats) but they failed because there was no centralized state that could enforce it. Japan was literally unique as far as I know in that the state really was powerful enough to put the genie back in the bottle.

Similarly some of the caste rules in India [as well as Japan) where the noble/warrior classes were the only ones who could bear arms, and could legally kill any low-caste peasant who came near them. Excellent way to retain status and prevent peasant uprisings - the greatest fear of most tyrants throughout history (or slave revolts).