Does anyone not like social policys?

[Shmike]

I think they're alright but I prefer Civ 4's way better. I didn't play too much because I couldn't get into the stacks of doom, but I really liked it. I shouldn't let it bother me but it does. I wasn't a warmonger either, I liked building my cities. But I wish they stuck with the old way.
I would of made this into a poll but I don't know how to do it.

 

[King Patrick]

Never played Civ 4, my old computer could not handle it, but I like the social policies a lot. Lots of very cool toys to tinker with your civ depending on your style & objectives, plus exploiting different policy trees make for different games even with the same civilization.

 

[MoonFlare]

Social policies need to be reworked.Combine them with Civ4 civics(like an extension of civics) and make them changeable.They are permanent now.That' not good...like some sort of crappy RPG.And change some of their names.

 

[Shmike]

That would be wicked. I really liked the civics a lot, while I don't mind social policies, I prefer civics or if they combined them like you said.

 

[TM Moot]

social policies > civics

to be honest I like both, but found that i ended up in the same civics at the same time in most games

social policies are good, but could be balanced abit, also i don't like the way that it penalises you if you have a large empire (non-puppet cities)

 

[Samuil]

I started liking them after some 150 hours of play... Realized that without them no one would ever bother with cultural buildings... Consider them there to balance play and direct your empire in a specific area

 

[chazzycat]

Social policies hands down. So many more options, so many more cool benefits...and I like the fact that you can't change them. It means you can't flip from total democracy to warmonger at the drop of a hat, you have to plan ahead. this is a good thing.

I think there is some room for improvement though:

- added bonus for completing a tree. This would give incentive to complete a tree, it wouldn't have to be a major effect. Say for example liberty it could be +1 movement for embarked settlers. Something a little useful later in the game but not game-changing at all.

- Flavor. Leader titles are a nice touch but more could be done. Say for instance, if you select autocracy, your units do a little salute or something. that would be cool. Give the leader a crown in the diplo screen once he picks monarchy, that type of thing.

- diplo effect. Why not have a minor positive modifier for sharing the same values? Say each civ has a "favorite" and you get a small bonus with that civ for selecting one from that branch.

 

[dexters]

This is all subjective, but there's clearly more combinations of Social Policies possible than civics and you can change the tenor of your empire with SP in a more profound way than civics which by design is linear with later civics having more bonuses.

I play a certain way all the time, and in Civ4, I almost always go for certain Civics in every game because I play with little variation.

In Civ5, I can play the same way strategically and still switch mid game and go balls out on rationalism path when I decide I can forego the extra happiness from piety and need more science or conversely, I find myself accumulating enough city states in the earlyt game that unlocking patronage is worth the time.

There's really no one 'best' end game or even early game solution. I see a fair split between Tradition and Liberty paths to start and both provided different bonuses.

It's implementation may require tweaking but the concept of social policies is far superior in practice than the Civ4 Civics, which tend to overpower later civics as they are meant to represent human advancement, where as social policies are something you build on over time, save for the rare occasion of switching between two incompatible policies.

This also avoids politically charged decisions like placing Free Market below Environmentalism as a way to organize your economy with Environmentalism being almost always the superior choice for players who play normalling (sprawing/dominant large empires) and not running some gambit or gold economy to prove a point.

 

[OrsonM]

Social Policies all the way. In fact I yearn for the technology tree to get the same treatment.

In the end, isn't the technology tree just a finicky policy tree with twice as many restrictions and a different interface?

To focus on farming and food I have to go from Farming to Pottery, Calendar and Animal Husbandry and wait thousands of years and numerous pesky requirements for this "policy tree" to allow me to get to Fertilizer. As if in history every single civilization had to advance in this European fashion to become an empire.

 

[chazzycat]

I see you changed the title right as I was posting

I'll add one other comment, that I think the later policies should be made a bit more powerful to give culture players more options. For me the last meaningful policy is usually Theocracy or Scholasticism - anything past that is just gravy and I don't give it much thought. The exception would be island maps where commerce is worth pursuing. The order policies are ok but not really that great, since you have to pick 4 policies to get the one you actually want. I've seriously NEVER picked autocracy and only picked rationalism once or twice in extreme situations.

 

[Lyoncet]

I prefer social policies by quite a bit for a number of reasons, but the principle one is that Civ is a strategy game, not a tactical game, and civics encouraged tactical play, whereas social policies encourage strategic planning (which happens to be what I prefer). The civic MO of "what micromanagement can I do right now to get the greatest short-term benefit before I switch to something else for another short-term benefit before finally settling on one thing and then ignoring civics altogether" fits great in a game like StarCraft, which is tactical. But this isn't StarCraft. Social policies encourage - and almost require - you to come up with a strategy and game plan and commit to it. That doesn't mean it locks you into permanent war or nothing but research, but it forces you to think ahead, evaluate your options, and holds you accountable when you chose poorly. Which, in my opinion, is what strategy games should do.

I'm sure some prefer tactical elements in their strategy games, which is fine. But I'm a long-term, big picture kind of guy, and as such I prefer elements that encourage that kind of play.

 

[Shurdus]

I liked civics better, and I disagree that these policies provide more choices.

At the same moments in different games, you are forced to make the same choices with policies. Not only that, but unlocking a social policy makes it rather hard to pick the opposing policy later on. That way you are being railroaded into a narrow path, whereas in civics you could go back and forth as you wanted.

 

[dexters]

The nice thing also with policies is some are designed so that you get its 'big' benefit upfront, sometimes, even just unlocking it gets you the big bonus.

Others have their big bonus at the end of tree. there's tremendous flexibility there because you can opt to go one rung in on a policy tree on unlock another for the bonus you need right now.

and in fact, there's plenty of tactical elements embedded in each SP upgrade. Deciding between a GS now vs more happiness in piety path is a classic example.

 

[aatami]

I prefer policies, first because their more realistic (though I think civics should be integrated, but not instead of policies, as a seperate feature, of course), and secondly because they are more fun and immersive.

 

[JWAT44]

your policy choices should influence other leaders' opinions of you so that nations going on similar tracks will like each other better and nations with opposite ones will dislike each other and it would make alliances a little bit more stable/long term and make more sense

 

[The_J]

I would of made this into a poll but I don't know how to do it.

If you still want one, then send a private message to a moderator, with the question and the answers for the poll.


Ontopic: I think the current approach is interesting, but not dynamic enough. It resembles another tech tree too much, which is not that really new.

 

[snarzberry]

I prefer the Civics from Civ 4 and I think the SP's are a little dull and lifeless. I basically never see a SP as anything other than what it can do for me gameplay wise whereas there was something about at least some of the Civics that aided in immersion/roleplay like Theocracy or Free Religion. I wouldn't support going back to exactly Civ4 style but I think having a vast amount of options that the player can experiment with should be the goal.

 

[Fabiano79]

I miss the old civics.

The biggest problem with sp is what shurdus said:
Not only that, but unlocking a social policy makes it rather hard to pick the opposing policy later on. That way you are being railroaded into a narrow path, whereas in civics you could go back and forth as you wanted.

I dont think this is realistic. Every civ changed at least once its political system, empires become republics etc.

I suggest that you take a look on Nights mod, its not perfect, but its way better than the vanilla option.

 

[NicTeos]

civics were far better, because they were more often a decision than with social policies. And also needed strategic planning - switching from CE to SE or something between. And a switch between civics lead to some rounds anarchy , except golden age, religious. Civs change , so civics, but not social policies. They made it a little bit more balanced with the last patch, but some are just too strong while others are still too weak. Generally social policies in civ5 have more influence than civics in civ4 and without, culture wouldn't have that place in civ5 and you would have to think even less - ok, many social policies are no-brainer. But therewith you get something of only one more turn. civ 5 wont work with civics and civ 4 hardly with social policies.

And civics represented the values of a civilization far better. Also because what it isn't - in civ 5 you can have the most trees.

I also wished some advancement of civics for civ5.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I never really liked border expansion as a representation of culture. Social policies don't throw the game, but can be really helpful.