Info on Next Patch

[bryanw1995]

I predict over-reaction; a lot removed here and not much added (in the sense that the big ticket changes are pretty clearly aimed at making the game more restrictive.) I also predict imbalance (in the sense that they will need to patch the patch, given the level of the changes.) Some good in there, but I think that the real fixed involve changes to underlying mechanics (e.g. the cost for new cities) rather than tweaks to the broken global happiness metric.

I've been playing most of my games with mods lately. Many of them have adjusted these exact things, for example +3 unhappy per new city, fp only -33% instead of -50%, colosseum's -3 unhappy instead of -4, etc. obviously all changes aimed squarely at ics. when you throw in the briefly mentioned bonus to city growth gameplay, especially on higher levels, will more likely favor a more balanced city grid. ics will still be possible and still could make sense in some cases, but like the horseman rush it will become situation instead of the 100% thing to do.

 

[bryanw1995]

I'm worried about this. The typical city can only get 12 happiness from buildings. The rest has to be with the luxury buffer, social policies, and wonders...

...but they also nerfed the early happiness policy and the biggest happiness wonder. There's now nothing early in the game to defend against the +2 per city.

Or, maybe not - instead of stopping at size 2 cities for early happiness neutrality, you'll stop at size 4 because the unhappiness hit won't be any worse. Early filler cities are actually better, even if you get fewer of them. Size five doesn't cost any happiness if you get Theocracy first. And there you'll sit for a long time, just like now.

Number of cities will be reduced based on the impact of the meritocracy and FP changes, but alpaca already proved ICS works just fine without any SPs whatsoever. I'm convinced that the maritime fixes will have little effect on filler cities. Basically, the worst case scenario is that you reduce some of your fillers' income by 1 by having to build a granary.

I'm willing to give it a shot. I just hope their goal is to rein ICS in a little, not kill it outright. In my latest game, though, each filler is generating a +8 gain. The building change will reduce that to +6, and I'm guessing that the FP/meritocracy changes will reduce that to +5. Ironically, if you want big cities, you're going to need more small ones!

um, since you can't get more happiness than the city pop it will be -2 per city unless you have fp/meritocracy. that will place a much greater premium on happiness resources/wonders/sp's imho. ics isn't necessarily dead but it probably won't be smart to do it in most cases.

 

[Louis XXIV]

ICS will be most useful if you build happiness wonders, plus have Forbidden Palace and Meritocracy. It's not dead, but it has much more limited uses. At a minimum, you can't use it as Colosseum cities.

 

[Wulf38]

And its an exploit because gamers who choose that path literally ignore the concept of early social policies...when i am positive the concept of a civilization building game is to ensure that civilizations dabble in early social policies before graduating to more advanced ones...not have a civilization producing a large amount of culture, but staying prehistoric for a 1,000 years, and then unload it and suddenly become socially advanced even though they never adopted early social concepts.

There's no rule in the game saying that early SP trees are a prerequisite for later ones. Disabling saving up SPs just encourages people who want late SPs to avoid getting any extra sources of culture until they reach a later era, and to beeline later eras even harder to avoid wasting early SPs. That doesn't seem particularly "immersive" to me. The fact that they need to "fix" the game but then add an option to turn that "fix" off just shows that the social policy system wasn't thought out properly to begin with. If they want early SPs to be a prereq for later ones, then they should explicitly make it that way, instead of tying it to eras.

 

[bryanw1995]

My guess is, even if it wasn't intended, it's not something that can be changed without extensive balance testing to ensure that it doesn't mess up the tech tree timing too much. Whether it was by design or by mistake is pretty much irrelevant at this point.

huh? it doesn't mess up tech tree timing that much right now, it's just annoying to have to micro in that level of detail. having said that, I believe that it was a design decision to limit out of control tech progression b/c culture does have overflow. it would be extremely helpful if john or another of the designers would tell us WHY they didn't want it, however.

If it's not patched in there is a handy mod that implements it.

 

[AfterShafter]

Well, it is gaming the system in that, its utilizing an exploit that has been around for a long while.

Because its been around for a long while, Civ fans see it as a feature rather than an exploit.

But the concept of saving up promotion points until the last minute in battle, or saving up culture points to sling shot 100 turns after said culture was aquired...its a concept that makes no sense, but exploited by gamers to literally game the system.

And its an exploit because gamers who choose that path literally ignore the concept of early social policies...when i am positive the concept of a civilization building game is to ensure that civilizations dabble in early social policies before graduating to more advanced ones...not have a civilization producing a large amount of culture, but staying prehistoric for a 1,000 years, and then unload it and suddenly become socially advanced even though they never adopted early social concepts.

It would be like not having a tech tree, just allow people to stock up on beakers and wait to buy advanced stuff without having to learn early Civ pre reqs if the game so chooses...from a gamer perspective i could see how it would be fun to have either choice...but from a gameplay perspective it doesnt fit the concept of building a real civilization.

We are basically forced to pick a new tech when we aquire a certain amount of beakers (thats what the pre-reqs basically do)...are you saying we should have the option and NOT be forced to ppick a tech when we have a certain amount of beakers? I should have the choice to load up on beakers and just purchase nukes when im ready? While i understand being able to choose that playstyle could be fun in its own right..it shouldnt be the basic gameplay rules. It makes little sense from a civlization progression/building POV...which is the main view of this game.

But again, thats why i applaud the idea of making it a hard feature change...you SHOULDNT be able to hold on to promotions and culture points to bypass gameplay and ignore any sense of trying to make the concept of building a civilization grounded in logic and reality. Thats why they are changing the basic gameplay rules so you CANT do that.

But for those who want to turn off immersion rules...you should be able to turn it off so you can get all the fun and choice you say you have in culure hoarding. Everything should be options.

Heck, give gamers the option to spend science beakers like gold and purchase techs whenever they can afford it without haveing to adhere to pre reqs. It makes just as much sense gameplay wise as culture point hoarding and slingshotting...so why not give that option for gamers to game the system too!



Right..but thats why its now an option to turn off instead of being part of the Civ ruleset. Im not arguing you shouldnt have the choice to hold off on promotions or SP spending...i just want it to be clear that its basically an exploit. Its purley a gaming the system mechanic. Always has been.

All I've got to say is, you're imposing a very particular judgement on something that has multiple interpretations. You say it's an exploit because it unrealistically allows for us to completely skip the early social policies and this is somehow an unrealistic and huge leap in development. There are systems in the game that already mirror this in the "saving up" sense. Believe it or not, that great person you have stashed in your city for when you can build the Sistine Chapel wouldn't actually be able to sit in Paris for 2000 years waiting for it - but we all do it. Is that gaming the system too? Believe it or not, that ever growing mass of gold in your bank couldn't actually sit there accumulating for thousands of years - real world economies can't stockpile for centuries waiting to learn to build new military powers, but we do that in Civ. Heck, having an upgraded warrior stay active for thousands of years waiting for gunpowder so you can dump a bunch of that "gamed" money onto him and turn him into a musketman is also a huge historical leap from bearskins to modern. You see, the game is already rife with systems which completely blow the idea of linear historical progress. Why on earth are you trying so hard to make it seem SP storing, which already has unrealistic storing analogs in the game, is some form of "gaming the system" and we're all just a bunch of dirty exploiters?

The fact is, this was all dealt with earlier in the thread, and you're parroting points that others already have. If you want to label saving SP's an "exploit" to make your playstyle seem more "pure" or true to history in a game that's impure and untrue to history, be my guest - but you are fooling yourself in thinking you've somehow pointed out one of the last vestiges of those dastardly unhistorical exploiters. Civ is loaded with 'em. I think SP storing opens up significant options for tailoring one's playstyle, and disallowing storing social policies takes out a significant lineup of strategic possibilities with no real gain other than appealing to people who feel it's in some way not true to history or some such. Can't we be happy both groups are getting their way? Personally, I'm glad you guys are getting what you want, and I'll keep the ability to tailor my playstyle that much more, thank you very much.

But anyways, your labeling it as an "exploit" is silly. As stated, there are plenty of existing systems that similarly let you bypass early bits, keep things for *far* longer than one could historically explain, etc etc, and those are just civ staples. If you want to label it an exploit, you're doing so in the face of a game that readily accepts such practices as non-exploits.

 

[Louis XXIV]

huh? it doesn't mess up tech tree timing that much right now, it's just annoying to have to micro in that level of detail. having said that, I believe that it was a design decision to limit out of control tech progression b/c culture does have overflow. it would be extremely helpful if john or another of the designers would tell us WHY they didn't want it, however.

If it's not patched in there is a handy mod that implements it.

"I believe that it was a design decision to limit out of control tech progression"

That's my point right there. Whether it was designed that way or not is irrelevant. If it isn't there, there will be out of control tech progression. They'd have to re-balance tech costs to make up for this.

 

[ButSam]

There's no rule in the game saying that early SP trees are a prerequisite for later ones. Disabling saving up SPs just encourages people who want late SPs to avoid getting any extra sources of culture until they reach a later era, and to beeline later eras even harder to avoid wasting early SPs. That doesn't seem particularly "immersive" to me. The fact that they need to "fix" the game but then add an option to turn that "fix" off just shows that the social policy system wasn't thought out properly to begin with. If they want early SPs to be a prereq for later ones, then they should explicitly make it that way, instead of tying it to eras.

The real issue is that the later social policy trees are progressively more powerful than the earlier social policy trees (with the possible exception of Piety, which seems to be the weakest unless you are seeking a cultural victory).

To fix this, you either need to make it harder to advance eras (meaning more techs of the current era are required to progress to the next era), or make the later social policies somewhat diminished in value.

 

[Txurce]

There's no rule in the game saying that early SP trees are a prerequisite for later ones. Disabling saving up SPs just encourages people who want late SPs to avoid getting any extra sources of culture until they reach a later era, and to beeline later eras even harder to avoid wasting early SPs. That doesn't seem particularly "immersive" to me. The fact that they need to "fix" the game but then add an option to turn that "fix" off just shows that the social policy system wasn't thought out properly to begin with. If they want early SPs to be a prereq for later ones, then they should explicitly make it that way, instead of tying it to eras.

The idea that your civ has grown culturally, but you're going to save it for thousands of years as if it were something tangible like gold, is "gaming." Agree or not, this is why the developers decided to change the rule. Had you decided to game the fix by not choosing SPs at all until the later eras, it's you - not the developers - who would be choosing a non-immersive playing style.

That they decided to give players with your preference the option to disable the rule doesn't mean it wasn't properly thought out. There's little doubt about what the developers are trying to achieve: a reduction of exploits. Note the basic game will still not allow the saving of SPs. But adding the disable option is an easy way to please a certain camp with a valid viewpoint.

 

[bryanw1995]

The idea that your civ has grown culturally, but you're going to save it for thousands of years as if it were something tangible like gold, is "gaming." Agree or not, this is why the developers decided to change the rule. Had you decided to game the fix by not choosing SPs at all until the later eras, it's you - not the developers - who would be choosing a non-immersive playing style.

That they decided to give players with your preference the option to disable the rule doesn't mean it wasn't properly thought out. There's little doubt about what the developers are trying to achieve: a reduction of exploits. Note the basic game will still not allow the saving of SPs. But adding the disable option is an easy way to please a certain camp with a valid viewpoint.

they could make pre-reqs for later policies, like honor-autocracy, commerce-order, liberty-freedom. probably need to buff up autocracy however to make it worthwhile, especially in light of everything you must give up to get it. same for piety.

 

[Txurce]

they could make pre-reqs for later policies, like honor-autocracy, commerce-order, liberty-freedom. probably need to buff up autocracy however to make it worthwhile, especially in light of everything you must give up to get it. same for piety.

I agree this would have been the ideal way to go, and it's too bad they didn't do it from the start. That they didn't is probably a result of Shafer saying he didn't want the SPs to be either-or so much as mix-and-match.

 

[Wulf38]

The idea that your civ has grown culturally, but you're going to save it for thousands of years as if it were something tangible like gold, is "gaming." Agree or not, this is why the developers decided to change the rule. Had you decided to game the fix by not choosing SPs at all until the later eras, it's you - not the developers - who would be choosing a non-immersive playing style.

That they decided to give players with your preference the option to disable the rule doesn't mean it wasn't properly thought out. There's little doubt about what the developers are trying to achieve: a reduction of exploits. Note the basic game will still not allow the saving of SPs. But adding the disable option is an easy way to please a certain camp with a valid viewpoint.

My point is that if you turn off the option for saving SPs, then the best strategy for reaching later game SPs becomes to AVOID any cultural development in your empire for thousands of years. How is that any more realistic or immersive? Are my prehistoric settlers thinking "we should avoid building any monuments now so we can one day be communists"? A well designed system wouldn't create this dichotomy between immersion and strategy.

 

[AfterShafter]

The idea that your civ has grown culturally, but you're going to save it for thousands of years as if it were something tangible like gold, is "gaming." Agree or not, this is why the developers decided to change the rule. Had you decided to game the fix by not choosing SPs at all until the later eras, it's you - not the developers - who would be choosing a non-immersive playing style.

That they decided to give players with your preference the option to disable the rule doesn't mean it wasn't properly thought out. There's little doubt about what the developers are trying to achieve: a reduction of exploits. Note the basic game will still not allow the saving of SPs. But adding the disable option is an easy way to please a certain camp with a valid viewpoint.

Well, technically, having "tangible gold" that can be saved for thousands of years is a fantasy too - economies don't store resources for literally thousands of years. Having great people that can sit on ice in cities for thousands of years is, again, a fantasy. Having a warrior that can sit in a city for thousands of years to be upgraded to a mechanized infantry is again a fantasy. The thing is, they're all fantasies in similar ways - they allow for an unrealistic progression on how you utilize or spend things across time. Just like social policies.

Those are fantasies, much like storing culture is. The reality? I'm sorry, but none of the gold that was stolen from the new world is helping fund Spanish military spending now, no Japanese Samurai are currently being outfitted for police actions in Africa, and, there's no over a hundred year old Ben Franklin waiting somewhere to construct the next wonder. You get the idea.

The fact is, these fantasies are all accepted parts of Civ. So, I'm curious, why is this one labeled "gaming" in some negative sense, and pinned as an "exploit"? It's in line with several other mechanics in Civ which we all accept and readily take advantage of.

As for the idea of storing an intangible like culture. As with most things in Civ, the way it is represented is an exaggeration, but... Is it so hard to believe? Keep in mind, the act of changing social policy is more likely to represent the act of revolution from one thing to another, not the production of the work/theory/whatever that sparks the revolution. Jean Jacque Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in the 1760's, but it became one of the central inspirations for the French Revolution decades later. Stored for then perhaps? It has recently been revealed that the Shroud of Turin was actually produced in the 1200's (I believe it was). Imagine if that sparked a large movement in various denominations of Christianity and lead to a new policy - something produced almost a thousand years ago sparks a revolution now. Believe it or not, Aristotelian virtue ethics recently had a resurgence as a very viable theory of how ethics develop in a person - about 2300 years after the theory actually came about. Is it going to start a social revolution? Not likely, but who knows... It could lead to the next Walden being written and spawn some funky new movement like transcendentalism, and be the inspirations for another Mahatma Gandhi. Things which could be considered products of culture from thousands of years ago can have shocking affects on contemporary society and policy in ways we can't predict. In some way or another, their culture could be, if simplified, considered to be "stored."

If we're willing to grant immortal leaders who rule from year 4000 BC to 2000 AD, similarly immortal military units, economies that maintain fidelity of money over thousands of years, and Leonardo Davinci that could create the Sistine Chapel immediately or be saved for hundreds of years to build the Statue of Liberty, why is SP storing considered an exploit and those are just good old Civ gameplay? is it really such a stretch to think that such an immortal leader might withold or suppress a certain cultural work, then release it when it has a chance to spark a revolution? They're already gamplanning tech paths from the wheel to future tech.

 

[kaltorak]

Second holidays I have without civ5 :/ I hope the new diplomacy is worth such long wait ¬¬

 

[Buccaneer]

I still like the idea of scarce resources, even if they are not scarce enough imo. Civ4 was ridiculous in that you can rapidly build up a city for food, production and/or gold. The consequences was being able to build everything everywhere because we got way too much resources. Too much in that it rendered fighting for resources irrelevant, as well as resource trading.

Civ5 improved that, allowing us to think better about how we want to grow (I don't do something as stupid as ICS). And to better prioritize building of units, buildings and wonders. Key resources like iron, horses and oil are still too abundant (standard start), both in locations and quantities (and from city-states) to make them that strategic.

In the end, I like the limited tile yields and wish that key resources are more scarce so we can fight over them. It's sad that some wants to play with a mod that gives them more, more and more.

 

[Txurce]

My point is that if you turn off the option for saving SPs, then the best strategy for reaching later game SPs becomes to AVOID any cultural development in your empire for thousands of years. How is that any more realistic or immersive? Are my prehistoric settlers thinking "we should avoid building any monuments now so we can one day be communists"? A well designed system wouldn't create this dichotomy between immersion and strategy.

I don’t consider it “strategy” to game the system by saving SP’s, as is presently possible. It’s an obvious optimal exploit – which is why the rule is being changed.

I agree that if you choose to avoid cultural development for thousands of years in an attempt to get around the new rule, there will be nothing immersive about your experience.

But I doubt that avoiding long-term cultural development will be the optimal strategy for those who choose not to disable the function.

 

[Txurce]

Well, technically, having "tangible gold" that can be saved for thousands of years is a fantasy too - economies don't store resources for literally thousands of years. Having great people that can sit on ice in cities for thousands of years is, again, a fantasy. Having a warrior that can sit in a city for thousands of years to be upgraded to a mechanized infantry is again a fantasy. The thing is, they're all fantasies in similar ways - they allow for an unrealistic progression on how you utilize or spend things across time. Just like social policies.

Those are fantasies, much like storing culture is. The reality? I'm sorry, but none of the gold that was stolen from the new world is helping fund Spanish military spending now, no Japanese Samurai are currently being outfitted for police actions in Africa, and, there's no over a hundred year old Ben Franklin waiting somewhere to construct the next wonder. You get the idea.

The fact is, these fantasies are all accepted parts of Civ. So, I'm curious, why is this one labeled "gaming" in some negative sense, and pinned as an "exploit"? It's in line with several other mechanics in Civ which we all accept and readily take advantage of.

As for the idea of storing an intangible like culture. As with most things in Civ, the way it is represented is an exaggeration, but... Is it so hard to believe? Keep in mind, the act of changing social policy is more likely to represent the act of revolution from one thing to another, not the production of the work/theory/whatever that sparks the revolution. Jean Jacque Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in the 1760's, but it became one of the central inspirations for the French Revolution decades later. Stored for then perhaps? It has recently been revealed that the Shroud of Turin was actually produced in the 1200's (I believe it was). Imagine if that sparked a large movement in various denominations of Christianity and lead to a new policy - something produced almost a thousand years ago sparks a revolution now. Believe it or not, Aristotelian virtue ethics recently had a resurgence as a very viable theory of how ethics develop in a person - about 2300 years after the theory actually came about. Is it going to start a social revolution? Not likely, but who knows... It could lead to the next Walden being written and spawn some funky new movement like transcendentalism, and be the inspirations for another Mahatma Gandhi. Things which could be considered products of culture from thousands of years ago can have shocking affects on contemporary society and policy in ways we can't predict. In some way or another, their culture could be, if simplified, considered to be "stored."

If we're willing to grant immortal leaders who rule from year 4000 BC to 2000 AD, similarly immortal military units, economies that maintain fidelity of money over thousands of years, and Leonardo Davinci that could create the Sistine Chapel immediately or be saved for hundreds of years to build the Statue of Liberty, why is SP storing considered an exploit and those are just good old Civ gameplay? is it really such a stretch to think that such an immortal leader might withold or suppress a certain cultural work, then release it when it has a chance to spark a revolution? They're already gamplanning tech paths from the wheel to future tech.

I don’t think anyone saves all their gold from the start of the game – you spend it, make more, rinse and repeat. The warrior in the city is clearly not an individual, but a unit that is constantly restaffed and evolves over time. (A good example of this are RL mech units still called “Cavalry.”) The leader around for eons embodies the original nickname for this genre: “god games.” It’s your embodiment in whatever civ you chose to play, but has no effect on game play. That, like a lot about civ, is a fantasy that works as well as it does partly because it’s so immersive.

I agree with all your examples about culture being “stored,” although “incubating” may be more accurate. These are bursts of progress, sometimes based on an ancient foundation. Saving SP’s is a controlled mega-explosion of culture – emphasis on the “mega” - based on conscious total abstention. That does not remotely happen in RL. It’s almost the diametric opposite of what does happen.

In the end, though, this dialogue is particularly subjective. Saving GS’s to multi-bulb is generally considered an exploit, but socking away Leonardo to build the Statue of Liberty isn’t. This may be because it’s been part of the game for a long time, and we intuitively link it with the “god” aspect of Civ. But that’s an opinion, not an argument. And I’d be in favor of a turn limit for the use of GP as well!

 

[PaperBeetle]

Can't we be happy both groups are getting their way? Personally, I'm glad you guys are getting what you want, and I'll keep the ability to tailor my playstyle that much more, thank you very much.

No, I'm not happy about all this. As you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, both groups were already getting their way. Those that wanted to store culture could do so, and nobody was forcing the rest to do it. Firaxis are just wasting developer resources in recoding the status quo, with the exception that people who choose to stockpile culture now have an extra checkbox to select in game setup.
While they are at it, please could they add a setup option to enable renaming cities: I don't do it, and the AI can't do it, so I think it should be disallowed. But I realise that some people might enjoy using their own city names, so let them explicitly enable the option if they must.

 

[AfterShafter]

I don’t think anyone saves all their gold from the start of the game – you spend it, make more, rinse and repeat. The warrior in the city is clearly not an individual, but a unit that is constantly restaffed and evolves over time. (A good example of this are RL mech units still called “Cavalry.”) The leader around for eons embodies the original nickname for this genre: “god games.” It’s your embodiment in whatever civ you chose to play, but has no effect on game play. That, like a lot about civ, is a fantasy that works as well as it does partly because it’s so immersive.

I agree with all your examples about culture being “stored,” although “incubating” may be more accurate. These are bursts of progress, sometimes based on an ancient foundation. Saving SP’s is a controlled mega-explosion of culture – emphasis on the “mega” - based on conscious total abstention. That does not remotely happen in RL. It’s almost the diametric opposite of what does happen.

In the end, though, this dialogue is particularly subjective. Saving GS’s to multi-bulb is generally considered an exploit, but socking away Leonardo to build the Statue of Liberty isn’t. This may be because it’s been part of the game for a long time, and we intuitively link it with the “god” aspect of Civ. But that’s an opinion, not an argument. And I’d be in favor of a turn limit for the use of GP as well!

But some people - many people, actually - DO save large portions of gold for periods far beyond what's realistic for purchasing/upgrading of certain things. Yes, units aren't individuals and do evolve over time, but they don't evolve over time in Civ. We've all had warriors sitting around for hundreds, thousands of years who later on we say "oh, I'll just upgrade this guy." In Civ, a unit goes from X to Y to Z in single, one turn gold fueled bursts, and oftentimes they'll go from X to Z directly, or even more extremely W to Z. Are they all exploiters too? Of course not - the things they're doing are just a parts of Civ.

These examples could all be given the "oh, they're not immersive" treatment but, frankly, they largely aren't, and few of the examples I cited are considered exploits. Many of them deserve to be judged by exactly the same standard you guys are holding against SP storing, but they aren't. Go figure, they're just part of Civ.

You mention "]I don’t think anyone saves all their gold from the start of the game – you spend it, make more, rinse and repeat" as if this exonerates the game of giving you the ability to do just that. Well, guess what - people DO save gold for extended, totally unrealistic periods of time. What's more, the fact that people are saving "gold" in periods before currency was even invented, saving it for hundreds of years, and then using it to instantly buy items in their cities... Sorry, at this point, you've already thrown reality/immersion out the window. But, it's been given a free pass because it makes sense from a gameplay perspective and there's some sort of historical phenomenon which is being hugely altered to suit the purposes of the game.

So why are we picking SP saving to be the one that "ruins immersion" and is an "exploit"? Why not prehistorical gold saving and building buying? Why not units that don't evolve over time but get instant upgrades? Why not bearskin wearing warriors being an effective garrison in an industrial aged city?

I've given a historical case for SP storing and you've even admitted there is some sense to it. SP storing - or, cultural storing, whatever you want to call it - has some reference to an actual historical phenomenon. It's a stretch to imagine it implemented as is, but as should be clearly evident from many of the examples given, the game is full of similar stretches that require similar suspensions of disbelief. Why are we picking on SP storing? Why is it an exploit, why does it ruin immersion, etc, and why not the above things? If held to the same standard, they should be. Obviously, they're not being held to the same standard.

Oh, and, just for the record:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=399722

This is a poll for how people actually use stored culture. You'll see the people who save it all from the get-go are quite the small minority.

 

[cf_nz]

No, I'm not happy about all this. As you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, both groups were already getting their way. Those that wanted to store culture could do so, and nobody was forcing the rest to do it. Firaxis are just wasting developer resources in recoding the status quo, with the exception that people who choose to stockpile culture now have an extra checkbox to select in game setup.
While they are at it, please could they add a setup option to enable renaming cities: I don't do it, and the AI can't do it, so I think it should be disallowed. But I realise that some people might enjoy using their own city names, so let them explicitly enable the option if they must.

That's all very well if there is only one human per game, I imagine once you deviate from that being able to control the 'rules' is much more important.
Oh, you already can rename cities .