Cultural Great People

[BuchiTaton]

Both. Universities are cutting back on their humanities programs and people generally see non-tech/science educations as less valuable because of the increased cultural influence of Silicon Valley over the past two decades.

I see, thank you.

Still I think many areas like pure Mathematics, Physics, Geology, Astromony and Biology are not more popular than others like History, Anthropology, Sociology or Literature. Degrees in applied disciplines of Economics, Laws, Psychology, Communication or even Pedagogy are closer to Medicine and Engineering than most natural sciences so idont see a split between social and natural sciences in terms of popularity. The only career that is popular but with low chances to get a good job is Graphic Design.

In terms of prestige, despite being "unpopular" or even not seen as highly profitable professions a Geologist or an Historian are still respected, since people view them as passionated people to even have studied something like that. While Lawyers are basicaly a synonymous of corruption and sadly almost everybody can share a couple of stories about bad Medics.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The idea of a tech tree that is purely scientific is profoundly horrendous to me and a sterling example of recentist (and, to a degree, western) bias - the idea of scientific and technological progress as its own exclusive field entirely separate from other forms of scholarly endeavour is incredibly recent even in the west. As late as the Enlightementment the distinction between a philosopher and a scientist was an incredibly blurry line - Newton wrote about theology as much as about mathematics and Franklin experimented with electricity as much as with new systems of government, and they are not unusual about any of this.

Retroactively applying something we've only had in the west for two centuries and for even less time elsewhere in the world to all of human history is daft. And it doesn'T fix the problem of techs being in the wrong time period for *some* civs, which is an inherent problem of tech trees, regardless of if they,re science-only or not.

(And being eliminated is not escaping the game, it's being kicked out of it , therefore not a win condition. More generally, the concept is that the game should only end if a civilization "breaks" the fundamental parameters of the game (competition between multiple civs, at least one of which is human, on a board representing one planet, for a specified number of turns) - it shouldn'T end because someone has accumulated arbitrary amounts of points of any kind.)

The problem again is turn this in game terms.
Religion and others elements of culture are also not as clearly divided along history and cultures. So what is your suggestion to solve this?

I saw people horrified to separate civics from techs or have a "science"* only university but the same can be said about Temples, Monasteries and Palaces not producing science and culture. Or what about museums, specialist and artifacts like CIV6 cultural ones but for natural science.
- Do we need Great Geologists and Biologists to discover specimens and fill exhibitions?
- Would civics and beliefs will be separated from their clearly western-centric naming and timing?
- How to deal with the absurd Arts > Civics > Tourism = Cultural Victory design?
- The separation between "Art" and "Handicrafts" is also full of a westerncentrism and elitism, like are the Great Artists vs Community Works.

 

[Evie]

Why is it more a problem to turn into game term than a completely disconnected from reality science-alone tech tree? You keep acting like having just science in the tree solve some problem, but it does not. We certainly do not need separate biologists and botanists. Temples and monasteries should produce culture and monasteries could produce science although that may be best associated to a civic or religious belief.

The rest of your questions are completely irrelevant to the notion of a science-only tech tree - they're whataboutism, "these other things are flawed so why are you criticizing this flaw".

 

[BuchiTaton]

Why is it more a problem to turn into game term than a completely disconnected from reality science-alone tech tree?

CIV6 is already like this, and I dont see the average CIV player horrified by it.

You keep acting like having just science in the tree solve some problem, but it does not.

It works for devs and most players, in a game that want separated elements for separated victories.

We certainly do not need separate biologists and botanists.

Why "certainly not"? Separated musicians from writers worth it when can be easily abstracted as Artists. Geological or Biological expeditions worth the same than Archeological expeditions, even most if Science victory is about colonize a different planet.

Temples and monasteries should produce culture and monasteries could produce science although that may be best associated to a civic or religious belief.

Every culture in the world have incorporated their early explanations of social and natural phenomena in their beliefs, ancient temples show a close relation of mathematics, time recording and astronomy to religions. Temples should be one of the earliest buildings on game and produce science by default even if is a little.

The rest of your questions are completely irrelevant to the notion of a science-only tech tree - they're whataboutism,

The idea of separate Tech and Civic trees is related to different ways to achive victory. If you want to change that it would affect the others aspect that could need some adjustment.

"these other things are flawed so why are you criticizing this flaw".

I am suggesting to change all those flaws in terms of unique gameplay. Turn ideologies into significative responses to your social changes, narratives from the interactions of your own pops and diplomacy.

More unique mechanics do not mean isolation, for example Universities and Temples could still produce Great Philosophers that provide free Ideologies to implement. A empire of multiple Heritages (cultures) would trigger events about Pluralism vs Unitarianism, or the lack of Amenities/Services would cause discontent in the Laborers of your many Factories, then a Proletarian Movement. New Techs would still be an element to unlock some Ideological Revolution but they would not be anymore pure accumulation of science or art(as is represented in game) to click a button in a boring tech tree.

You can build a ICBM being communist, capitalist, fascist, a monarchy, republic or even a theocracy, but you can not build the same ICBM without develop rocket, computer, radio, etc. Still a world with ICBM from rival nations would trigger a Disarmament/Pacifism ideology event with some nice diplomatic bonus.

So excuse me but I find more interesting as gameplay design, also more respectful of the history dehind civics/beliefs to have something beyond more "techs" to expend points in a boring tree.

EDIT: Do you know what? There is also this. You can use a Great Person (Scholar, Philisophers, whatever) to found Academies in your Universities (for a max of 3 or 4 each one). These academies would be named by their kind for example Economy, Theology, Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry, History, etc. And of course each kind have different bonus.

So here you have, a way to point the role of Social Sciences in universities without go back to a deterministic and boring civic tree (also save us from whole disciplines as "techs").

 

[Evie]

And Civ I through V had a tech tree that unified all form of research and worked for most devs and players, so why should we maintain the arbitrary split in VI instead of returning an older model that worked at least as well and modeled history better. The claim that those tech trees were more deterministic than the Civ VI one is one big fat joke - Civ VI made absolutely no improvement in terms of determinism, it just had two separate deterministic tech tree as you observed yourself by complaining about the civics..

Honestly considering that they are mechanically all the same except the name of the artwork they produce and the asinine game of you-need-the-right-museum-slot that comes with them (which is detrimental to the AI, as we see civ with great writers wandering around because the AI has nowhere to put their great work all the time), I would shed not a single tear if GWAM were all reunited in Great Artists next game.

Granularity - putting needless distinction for the sake of making the game feel more detailed everywhere - does not make for better games. It just makes for more micromanagement.

 

[Zaarin]

Still I think many areas like pure Mathematics, Physics, Geology, Astromony and Biology are not more popular than others like History, Anthropology, Sociology or Literature. Degrees in applied disciplines of Economics, Laws, Psychology, Communication or even Pedagogy are closer to Medicine and Engineering than most natural sciences so idont see a split between social and natural sciences in terms of popularity. The only career that is popular but with low chances to get a good job is Graphic Design.

In terms of prestige, despite being "unpopular" or even not seen as highly profitable professions a Geologist or an Historian are still respected, since people view them as passionated people to even have studied something like that. While Lawyers are basicaly a synonymous of corruption and sadly almost everybody can share a couple of stories about bad Medics.

As someone with a literature/history undergrad and history master's, let me assure you that is not the case. Most people regard those of us who pursued degrees in humanities as idlers who wasted our time and money (unless history is a prelude to a law degree, as it often is). And having graduated, my job options are basically "teacher" or "community college professor." As for lawyers, no one likes lawyers, but they're still afforded respect because the job is prestigious and well-paying. You tell people you studied literature in college, they look at you like your skin has turned purple or laugh awkwardly like you must be joking.

 

[Evie]

Yup. Economy (Because they've managed to con their way into being considered a science or maths by many people), Business/Finance/Law (because they basically run the world and you can't argue with results) and *maybe* psychology (because it's increasingly seen as healthcare and thus stem) are about the only ones that escape the humanities hate. And none of them are all that humanities to begin with,

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The idea of a tech tree that is purely scientific is profoundly horrendous to me and a sterling example of recentist (and, to a degree, western) bias - the idea of scientific and technological progress as its own exclusive field entirely separate from other forms of scholarly endeavour is incredibly recent even in the west. As late as the Enlightementment the distinction between a philosopher and a scientist was an incredibly blurry line - Newton wrote about theology as much as about mathematics and Franklin experimented with electricity as much as with new systems of government, and they are not unusual about any of this.

I don't might the idea of a technology tree that is purely scientific, as long as there is a separate tree/web for cultural development. I think a more appropriate name for a combined technology and civics tree could be named "Knowledge Tree".

As someone with a literature/history undergrad and history master's, let me assure you that is not the case. Most people regard those of us who pursued degrees in humanities as idlers who wasted our time and money (unless history is a prelude to a law degree, as it often is). And having graduated, my job options are basically "teacher" or "community college professor." As for lawyers, no one likes lawyers, but they're still afforded respect because the job is prestigious and well-paying. You tell people you studied literature in college, they look at you like your skin has turned purple or laugh awkwardly like you must be joking.

Yeah at least law schools will also take English and literature majors.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I think most, if not all, great people should provide bonuses policy-wise. My big complaint with the current great people system is that great people don't feel great. Many great people's special abilities aren't special at all. Irene of Athens and Adam Smith both provide governor titles, which, sure, they're not very common, but there are other ways of obtaining them. Some generals and admirals give free promotions or free units. Again, not particularly remarkable. Even for fan favourites like Hypatia and Newton, they only really provide extra science yield you'll only remember them by if you care to look at how much science each library or university gives you.

One way to make great people's legacy feel great is to tie their effects to policies. Some great people should give unique policy cards. It's always funny to me there's a policy card called Machiavellianism, but the writer Machiavelli just produces a couple pieces of writing that have the same effects as every other piece of writing in the game. Some great people could enhance existing policy cards. Adam Smith could triple the gold yield of policies that provide gold. Da Vinci could add culture to cards that provide production. There should also be a clear visual indicator (e.g. a seal) that these cards have been enhanced by great people. The government screen is something that players have to look at every now and then, so they're guaranteed to be reminded of the legacy of the people that have helped them win the game.

 

[BuchiTaton]

And Civ I through V had a tech tree that unified all form of research and worked for most devs and players, so why should we maintain the arbitrary split in VI instead of returning an older model that worked at least as well and modeled history better. The claim that those tech trees were more deterministic than the Civ VI one is one big fat joke - Civ VI made absolutely no improvement in terms of determinism, it just had two separate deterministic tech tree as you observed yourself by complaining about the civics..

I am not suggesting to keep a Civic Tree in CIV7, I am proposing to completety liberate ideologies from a "Tech Tree" where players only click to spend science/culture/faith on a list of cumulative improvements.

A lot of CIV6 Inspirations and Eurekas have ridiculous requeriments, still are some that show us that they could work if this mechanic is moderated, justified and more significant. Then while Ideologies can come from many different events (especially if your population have real objetives and necessities), proper Technologies beyond the early ones and those related to specific resources are harder to represent as events. So we can have Revolutions as a more significative version of Inspirations for Ideological changes, while Technologies keep the passive and cumulative Research through a Tech Tree.

And having graduated, my job options are basically "teacher" or "community college professor."

You can change History and Literature for Physics and Mathematics and would be the same, is even common to hear Chemical Engineering suggested instead of Chemistry to earn more money in the industry. It is not some Social vs Natural issue is the preference for applied and specialized jobs in the private sector.

I don't might the idea of a technology tree that is purely scientific, as long as there is a separate tree/web for cultural development. I think a more appropriate name for a combined technology and civics tree could be named "Knowledge Tree".

Exactly, the use of Technology should mean proper techs like the Rudder not a whole discipline like Biology.

I think most, if not all, great people should provide bonuses policy-wise. My big complaint with the current great people system is that great people don't feel great. Many great people's special abilities aren't special at all. Irene of Athens and Adam Smith both provide governor titles, which, sure, they're not very common, but there are other ways of obtaining them. Some generals and admirals give free promotions or free units. Again, not particularly remarkable. Even for fan favourites like Hypatia and Newton, they only really provide extra science yield you'll only remember them by if you care to look at how much science each library or university gives you.

One way to make great people's legacy feel great is to tie their effects to policies. Some great people should give unique policy cards. It's always funny to me there's a policy card called Machiavellianism, but the writer Machiavelli just produces a couple pieces of writing that have the same effects as every other piece of writing in the game. Some great people could enhance existing policy cards. Adam Smith could triple the gold yield of policies that provide gold. Da Vinci could add culture to cards that provide production. There should also be a clear visual indicator (e.g. a seal) that these cards have been enhanced by great people. The government screen is something that players have to look at every now and then, so they're guaranteed to be reminded of the legacy of the people that have helped them win the game.

Part of this problem is that there are too many different Great Peoples so each one are less unique and significative. Civics suffer a similar issue from being a copy paste of the Tech Tree, too many with little weight and no flavor.

 

[Evie]

You're grossly misrepresenting what Zaarin said by taking one specific tiny sentence from a much longer post and saying "well, this sentence is equal to the situation for people who study theoretical science, so that proves it's all practical-vs-theoretical, and it couldn't possibly be science-vs-humanities. which doesn't exist.

Great political gotcha line, but we're not running for elections here.

 

[BuchiTaton]

You're grossly misrepresenting what Zaarin said by taking one specific tiny sentence from a much longer post and saying "well, this sentence is equal to the situation for people who study theoretical science, so that proves it's all practical-vs-theoretical, and it couldn't possibly be science-vs-humanities. which doesn't exist.

Whatever exists or not a differentiation of brances of science Firaxis are not using it with negative intentions. On the contraty both CIV5 and CIV6 have incorporated more elaborated mechanics about culture, goverment, religion, etc. The game itself is mostly about the social elements, why would they be part of a "pro-STEM, anti-humanities narrative" if HISTORY its the main focus of their own game?

Great political gotcha line, but we're not running for elections here.

You want to bring out a real political issue from an in-game element. While I want to get into the game new political elements. So I dont see why keep talking about different things.