Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Shmike, May 2, 2011.
What do you mean, how is that gamey?
I think he means that it's not realistic at all to have those policies active at the same time - and that it breaks the immersion that social policies are trying to create, reminding you while you're playing that this is in fact a game and that you should probably take out the garbage before your wife gets mad at you.
It is realistic to have all those policies active at the same time...
I recall all real non-realistic combos can't be done because of restrictions (As in Freedom+Autrocracy et cetera).
I'm not quite sure how you can think that a Communist Democracy with full Representation backed up by Socialism is at all realistic. If you can find me a realistic example of this at any point in world history, then you win.
The only way this could work "realistically" is if adopting Democracy somehow lessened the effect of Communism or vice versa - perhaps a system where the last sub-policy that you've picked takes precedence over previous policies, and after a certain amount of sub-policies have been picked, (say 5), the earliest one's bonuses are removed from your Empire.
Any rationale for why it would not be realistic?
Oh yes yes, "America Power! Communism sucks!" and all that makes it unrealistic.
Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Communism: A socio-political movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.
This makes it unrealistic.
On a side note, if you rewrote your signature to sound less demeaning towards CIV IV and it's tiny, inconsequential decisions, people would stop spamming and insulting you.
I thought this game was as much about creating an empire a it was about replaying history. I guess in a game where I make my own empire, it is very much a problem that I have a government unlike any other in real worlds history. Also, this is apparently gamey and a problem.
I never knew that until now. Fascinating. Me creating my own empire apparently breaks immersion. Leaders wearing the same cloths and standing in the same spot for 6000 years apparently does not.
I never said it was a problem. Merely that it's not realistic. After all, you're playing a game on a hex grid, picking Technologies from a Technology Tree, and building elaborate granaries that take thousands of years to build. None of this is realistic, and there's nothing wrong with that. I was just attempting to explain why another player would find the aforementioned example to feel "gamey."
And yes, leaders that wear the same clothes and ride the same horses for thousands of years also break immersion. They should be driving cars.
Actually, Communism doesn't exclude Democracy. Dictatorship excludes Democracy and Capitalism excludes Communism.
Although it's some of their favoured terms, too many people (Americans) don't really understand the terms Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism etcetera.
Nonetheless, I agree that an ''empire'' of one city turns into a traditional democratic, communistic, socialistic republic with both a liberty and honour system and blahblahblah. Whereas huge empires are only a few of these things. It is strange, but maybe you shouldn't take it so literally.
This. Thank you very much CYZ, for saying this for me.
If the policies had names that were not so politically charged, this discussion would be stopped dead straight away. Rather than thinking of a policy as a political idea, perhaps we should rather think of it as something else. Being a board game guy myself, I am fine with thinking of a bonus as a bonus and nothing more. Perhaps some one with a more lively imagination may fill in this blank, I care too little.
A lot of the problems people have with this game come from lacking imaginations anyway. Building a granary taking thousands of years it's stupid, sure. Thinking of a granary as a system of infrastructure and changes in society so that people gable good better and healthier makes more sense, and such changes may indeed take 1000 years. The granary is merely a symbol.
Fair point - but I wouldn't generalize Americans to that extent.
And thank you for changing your signature.
Both had their benefits. Personally I would like too see the policy trees have more "depth". Like honor.. maybe add a tier to focus into land, sea or air bonuses. Or with commerce.. all another tier to offer maybe a great merchant bonus, more gold from markets and banks... maybe allow one to unlock a building (Federal Reserve?) or something similar...
It has potential... I wish they would offer MORE... for me, policies are a way of molding your Civ into into something you want to play. So, adding units, structures or even wonders exclusively acquired by hitting the bottom of the trees would be really fun....
I really liked what they did to tradition/liberty: social policies that have two layers of benefits for example, and benefits that may be difficult to find otherwise (oligarchy, from tradition, or the insta-settler from liberty, for example). I wasn't sure before, but now, I am convinced: if they rework the other trees, the SP system will be vastly superior to the civics system (which doesn't mean I would mind if they added a slightly improved version of the civics, for the reasons that have already been said in this thread).
As it is, the SP system still has its problems. For example, the last branches (order/autocracy) are fine, but they should be nearly overpowered (especially for autocracy, which excludes liberty), because once you get there, most empires won't be able to get SP anymore. And then there's Commerce, which is nearly always worthless. And honor, which was first overpowered, then rightfully nerfed, and is now shaded by the improved tradition and liberty.
I reckon that if Firaxis keeps trying to improve this aspect of the game (and they should!), they are going to have a tough time finding the balance...
That's why I said ''people (Americans)''. Just specifying without generalizing. I do mean Americans, just not all Americans and also some not-Americans
Moderator Action: Please don't 'specify' negative stereotypes in future. Your point can be made without implying something negative about a specific group of people.
At first glance I thought this was a wonderful idea. Then I realized how badly it could be exploited. A "revolution" function would work only if the bonuses from SPs were ongoing. But some SPs provide a one-time bonus.
For example, you could go down the Liberty tree and get the free Worker and free Settler, have a revolution to reset your SP points, and then go back down the Liberty tree to get another free Worker and free Settler.
Likewise, you can go down the Piety tree to get the 2 free SPs, have a revolution to reset your SP points, and go back down the Piety tree to get 2 more free SPS. Rinse and repeat and you'd get a Culture victory a lot sooner than should be possible (same thing for the free tech at the bottom of Rationalism).
I don't mind SP's at all really. They give you more reason to build culture buildings even when not going for a culture victory. I'm just not keen on them being a substitute for civics. I see no real reason we can't have both in some way.
I would have preferred if they were not thematically various governments and such. Picking between options like being a seafaring people, desert-dwelling, jungle dwelling, etc would be cool. It wouldn't be much of a choice up front, but it'd be cool to see the impact of having developed as a desert tribe on your late game.
I'd love for instance if there were about 12 total trees, if the early game ones were based on terrain, the mid-game ones were different empire types (militaristic vs explorer vs religious vs commercial) and the late-game ones were based on ideology (democracy vs communism vs fascism vs fundamentalism), with some mutual exclusivity in each age but not up or down an age.
I don't mind Social Policies, but I do wish that it was easier to balance culture and military in the game. Currently, pursuing a military strategy means you'll get very few social policies, whereas in Civ IV you could balance tech (social policies available without culture) and military strength, lending to a more flexible, subtle game.
Well, with the right wonders (Sixtine Chapel, or Cristo Redentor), if you don't completely forget your cultural buildings (say, monuments, temples and monasteries everywhere), somewhat commit your SP towards getting more SP (the one in Liberty that limits the culture cost of new policies for each new city, or the Freedom one that reduces by 25% their cost), and aggressively buy the cultural city states (this last one probably being the most important), you can keep the social policies "rolling".
It actually sounds harder than it is. Just don't ICS, focus your SPs a bit, and once you get your economy going, if you've been puppeting your acquisitions, you should be fine (it will cost you a lot of gold and gpt, but the SPs should make up for it).
That's my personal experience, but I never play over emperor...
Separate names with a comma.