It has come to my attention that many people don't quite understand gaining new policies in Civ 5. I've read quite a few people argue that gaining culture shouldn't become harder as you add more cities because well, you have more cities and population and should therefore have more culture. The thing is, you are getting more culture but changing a social policy for an entire civilization becomes more difficult the larger the empire is; hence the more difficult in gaining a new policy with a larger empire. Think about it. The US had an easier time switching to democracy in it's early stages but lets see how long it would take the US to switch to a different form of government or values now that it is much, much larger.
Many people have the idea of culture in Civ 5 wrong
- Thread starter bobacjj06
- Start date
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
I think the main debate is based on the fact that it's easier to win culturally with a small empire, and people are used to cultural victories in Civ IV that work completely differently.
Also note that it's somewhat inconsistent with puppet cities not adding to SP cost, as you can have a huge empire and still get new SPs quickly that way.
Also note that it's somewhat inconsistent with puppet cities not adding to SP cost, as you can have a huge empire and still get new SPs quickly that way.
Shafi-is-back
Prince
I'm not saying it shouldnt be harder for a larger empire to gain a social policy BUT i definitely feel the scaling is not right. I.e. the culture cost difference for SP's between large & small empires is too much.
I generally believe that punishing a player for making good decisions is bad gameplay. This completely ruined Civ4:Col... The more you focused on education, the longer it would take to educate new colonists. The more founding fathers you got, the harder it would be to actually win the game.
I can see why they use these solutions, but in my opinion it totally ruins the fun. Getting more founding fathers should make it easier to win, otherwise, why would you ever go for them? More cities should also make it easier win. The challenge should not be to find the optimal magic number of cities that should have in order to win a cultural victory, the challenge should to actual get the empire working. They should've focused a lot more on corruption, crime, poverty, religions and riots... The things that cause large empires to fall apart in the real world. But in my opinion it's wrong to punish the player just because of the fact that he has many cities.
I can see why they use these solutions, but in my opinion it totally ruins the fun. Getting more founding fathers should make it easier to win, otherwise, why would you ever go for them? More cities should also make it easier win. The challenge should not be to find the optimal magic number of cities that should have in order to win a cultural victory, the challenge should to actual get the empire working. They should've focused a lot more on corruption, crime, poverty, religions and riots... The things that cause large empires to fall apart in the real world. But in my opinion it's wrong to punish the player just because of the fact that he has many cities.
The OP's analysis doesn't work because in Civ5 you can't switch culture decisions no matter what size your empire is. Instead you simply get less culture benefits as you grow larger. That is like saying that the US only has a few points in culture policies since it expanded from coast to coast. limiting the # of social policies based on size is not the same as disallowing the switching of social policies.
Actually it does work.
Just change the word "change" into "adopt a new".
How hard is it to take on a new law?
How long does it take to filter said law through all the diffrent bureacratic levels, ending ultimately with educating your people themselves.
That can take upto a year in some countries, whereas it's easier to have a "city-law" or a "state-law", since you simply have to inform a much smaller quantity of people.
Just change the word "change" into "adopt a new".
How hard is it to take on a new law?
How long does it take to filter said law through all the diffrent bureacratic levels, ending ultimately with educating your people themselves.
That can take upto a year in some countries, whereas it's easier to have a "city-law" or a "state-law", since you simply have to inform a much smaller quantity of people.
I agree, and think this game resembles Civ:4:Col in many ways. A bugged game with bad mechanics and limited ways to play it.... That was the first title I was truly disappointed with Firaxis over, but I thought they'd make sure their flagship game was still solid.
As for the culture point, I have to kind of disagree with the pop size theory. After all, ten size 3 cities don't equal three size 10 cities in population, but cultural victory still costs dramatically more. If the cost increase were properly scaled, I could possibly manage, but because it skyrockets so dramatically I've just never been bothered to go that route.
Don't forget that many policies become more and more effective as your empire grows. So while it takes more culture points to buy polices as a large empire, the effect of say getting science per trading post is vastly more effective with lots of cities.
katipunero
Prince
Interesting statement, but simply not accurate. The potency of newly enacted laws is not dependent on the number of cities or the size of the current population. However, adopting a totally different constitution or form of government can be a difficult, long, bloody and chaotic process, but its effects are almost instantaneous once the masses of sheep are properly herded and fenced. The civics mechanic in 4 oddly plays out these concepts the way they occur in reality--or almost. Civ 3 simulates this slightly differently by calculating turns on a state of anarchy based on the size of the empire and map.
I guess my point is that when it comes to laws the size of an "empire" does not really matter. Laws get amended, superseded or struck down for being unconstitutional regardless of how many cities or citizens you have. It's not as if the more cities or people you have the the greater the possibility of pissing off more people because of sheer number. If Civ 5 policies were like general laws, I'd say it's not realistic.
But an argument, in defense of the OP, may be made when it comes to radical changes in government and the constitution because a lot depends on how big and effective your police and military force is to quell the inevitable riots that would break out in the streets and definitely would also depend on how big the empire is. So the larger the population and with more cities, the task of containing the dissidents become difficult and slow unless you have enough militias with weapons, cops and tanks at every street corner to patrol the lanes.
If Civ 5 policies are proxy criteria for the process of fundamental change in the type of government and the constitution of an empire OP's point would make perfect sense. JS could probably throw into the mix a simulation, graphical or mechanics-wise, of anarchy (civil disobedience, riots, secession, revolutions and the like) if there isn't already in 5 to make the game more realistic or at least intuitive.
I'm sorry but your example is wrong. The limit on the number of trading posts used in your nation is your total population, not your number of cities. You may run out of land to work but you usually don't.
The policies do scale well, they scale upwards in mitigating the problems of your empire. They don't got further than that and reward expansion. Overexpansion still stifles your empire and makes it harder to correct existing problems due to increased policy costs.
carlisimo
Chieftain
Cultural changes are harder to implement over larger populations. Say you decide that your people will be pious from now on, even though theyve never been. Wouldnt it be easier to spread the word in a small country than a large one?
But as a game mechanic it is counter intuitive.
Cincinnatus C.
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 47
It's not counter-intuitive at all. Look at Tibet - China is struggling very hard to control it culturally, and the reason they are doing that is because they feel that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was due to its lack of cultural homogeneity - there was an article in the New Yorker this month that pointed out that the independence movements of e.g. Yugoslavia was due to their unity with the rest of the USSR being nothing more than a "hollow economic philosophy" - when Gorbachev gave them breathing room, they ran with it - although Communism is actually a policy in Civ V so this perhaps isn't the best example.
Theoretically, cities with less culture should get smaller benefits from policies to represent the lack of social/governmental influence on them (note how abstract culture is really a combination of tons and tons of factors). This would be difficult or impossible to implement with most of the policies we have now because they don't work on a per-city basis. So instead you have to flex your cultural muscles more to effect change across the nation.
Basically, it's a balance decision (so that having more cities is not as unilaterally positive as in Civ IV, f'rex) and that is the justification. I think it's pretty reasonable.
Theoretically, cities with less culture should get smaller benefits from policies to represent the lack of social/governmental influence on them (note how abstract culture is really a combination of tons and tons of factors). This would be difficult or impossible to implement with most of the policies we have now because they don't work on a per-city basis. So instead you have to flex your cultural muscles more to effect change across the nation.
Basically, it's a balance decision (so that having more cities is not as unilaterally positive as in Civ IV, f'rex) and that is the justification. I think it's pretty reasonable.
Similar threads
