More info from an E3 demo

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, the more I'm hearing about Social Policies, the more concerned its making me. The idea of stacking bonuses from what should be mutually exclusive pathways (like Tyranny & Liberty) is just lame-& I *really* hope we've just got the wrong end of the stick! I also don't like the fact that we're limited to 4 or 5 per category. If you look at religion alone, I could see more than half a dozen different categories (Pantheonist, Avatistic, Orthodox, Ascetic, Animist, Fundamentalist, Ecumenical). I'm sure you could get around 8 to 10 options per branch at least! Based on the information we have so far, it really sounds like Social policies are the part that they've invested the *least* amount of effort into-which, if true, *really* annoys me !

Aussie.

 

[bjbrains]

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that this is over simplified and somehow has had "the least effort" put into it. Just think Civics in Civ 4, they were simple (with only 5 catagories for an entire nation's way of life), but they worked and provided interesting gameplay choices. As long as they balance the policy tree (which I'm assuming they'll have done decently at the least), it'll provide interesting divergences for different Civilizations, and a incentive for culture outside of border fights and cultural victories..

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@ bjbrains.

Whatever their faults, by the end of BtS we had:
(a) a fully working religion system.
(b) a fully working espionage system.
(c) a pretty decent culture-victory system.
(d) a Civic system with a total of 25 options, & which often required you to make tough decisions.

This has all been ditched & replaced with a single Social Policy System, consisting of a maximum of 50 options & which-if we understand it correctly-works on a simple stacking principle, negating the need for tough decisions. Also, if you acquire merely 30 of these options, you're well placed to win the culture victory. Yet you ask me why I think its been "dumbed down"? I think it speaks for itself!

Aussie.

 

[bjbrains]

@ bjbrains.

Whatever their faults, by the end of BtS we had:
(a) a fully working religion system.
(b) a fully working espionage system.
(c) a pretty decent culture-victory system.
(d) a Civic system with a total of 25 options, & which often required you to make tough decisions.

This has all been ditched & replaced with a single Social Policy System, consisting of a maximum of 50 options & which-if we understand it correctly-works on a simple stacking principle, negating the need for tough decisions. Also, if you acquire merely 30 of these options, you're well placed to win the culture victory. Yet you ask me why I think its been "dumbed down"? I think it speaks for itself!

Aussie.

Here's my take:
a). Religion as in Civ 4 didn't work in Civ 5. They took out religion as a game system because they couldn't get it to work. Social policies aren't a replacement for religion at all, they don't do similar things.
b: Same thing. BTS's spy/EP system is mostly ignored by players beyond setting the ratios and the occasional revolt/steal. No need to complicate the game by introducing this, and we don't know what kind of spying/intelligence system there will or won't be it. It's *not* meant to be replaced or somehow part of the social policy system.
c) Cultural Victory in Civ 5 looks like it'll be the same as in Civ 4 in terms of purpose: A way to win via culture. The difference is that other victory conditions now have an incentive to get culture beyond border pops/warfare, thus adding a lot more decisions to the game. (Whether or not you want to spend gold/hammers/etc. on culture, and what you want to do with it).
d) The Civic system was a lot simpler than the social policy system. Which civic you used was a combination of what was available and what you are doing/planning to do (I.E, what kind of economy). But this simple system still led to interesting decisions. Instead of looking at how many "items" there are, take a look at the decision tree: There are 10 different choices for each "milestone", but each decision has both immediate effects on your empire (via the bonus), and long-term effects on your future decisions (Since it unlocks later, and probably more potent policies).

To summarize: You're not giving this system's complexity credit. It's much, much more complex than civics when it comes to decision making (There was almost always a "right" civic combination or a easy tradeoff to assess with civics). Civics didn't drive gameplay, besides allowing for certain strategies via their availability/absence. The social policy tree does drive gameplay, because your civ's current and potential future bonuses from social policies seem like they'll be important considerations through the entire game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I think I'm giving it more credit than its due-especially when you consider the *huge* changes they've made to the combat side of the game. The lack of sufficient choices within each category, & the ability to stack bonuses from mutually exclusive policy areas says to me that they didn't give this feature the focus it deserved. I'll also add the following points re:Civ4.

I believe that, with some modification, a decent religion system *could* have been incorporated into Civ5 (obviously minus the fixed diplomacy penalties/bonuses). I can also say that I made *frequent* use of espionage in my BtS games, & I doubt that I was the only one. Lastly, I never found myself in a situation in the game where there was a *perfect* combination of civics. It was very situational &, in some cases, I had situations where I would have preferred to have the bonuses of *two* civics from the same category-but was always glad for the fact that they made me make tough decisions. In Civ5, apparently, those tough decisions are removed.

Aussie.

 

[bjbrains]

Personally, I think I'm giving it more credit than its due-especially when you consider the *huge* changes they've made to the combat side of the game. The lack of sufficient choices within each category, & the ability to stack bonuses from mutually exclusive policy areas says to me that they didn't give this feature the focus it deserved. I'll also add the following points re:Civ4.

I believe that, with some modification, a decent religion system *could* have been incorporated into Civ5 (obviously minus the fixed diplomacy penalties/bonuses). I can also say that I made *frequent* use of espionage in my BtS games, & I doubt that I was the only one. Lastly, I never found myself in a situation in the game where there was a *perfect* combination of civics. It was very situational &, in some cases, I had situations where I would have preferred to have the bonuses of *two* civics from the same category-but was always glad for the fact that they made me make tough decisions. In Civ5, apparently, those tough decisions are removed.

Aussie.

Well, a lot of this is simply your opinion, and I can't really talk about how you 'see' things. A lot of that is "they could have" versus "they decided not to". I can say though, that you're focusing to much on whether you "can" have different policies versus the cost of it. Because you have to get the previous policy in a tree, getting different policies will take time and effort. That is, you won't just be able to grab the endcap of Honor and the endcap of Piety. You'll have to decide which one you want first, how much money/time you're going to put into culture to get them, and why you want them other another policy. In "theory", you can have all the benefits in this system, in practice, you're going to have to make a ton of tough decisions over which benefits you want versus how much you're willing to skew your empire to get them.

Civics came as a benefit of something that every civilization wants: research. Social policies require dedication to culture in order to acquire more of them quickly.
Every Civ will have social policies (like civics), but you now have the choice to really focus on them in combination with a cultural victory (but unlike Civ 4, the benefits of high culture go beyond a cultural victory). That's a level of decision-making that didn't exist before.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also bj, don't forget that it appears at least *some* of the Social Policies have simply been moved from their original position on the tech tree (like Monotheism & Polytheism). Making it seem even *lamer* to me!

Aussie.

 

[bjbrains]

Also bj, don't forget that it appears at least *some* of the Social Policies have simply been moved from their original position on the tech tree (like Monotheism & Polytheism). Making it seem even *lamer* to me!

Aussie.

It looks like there are a pretty equivalent number of techs though (based on screenshot analysis), and that these techs have simply been replaced by other ones. Even then, the loss of a few techs isn't going to change the game much compared to the long list of other changes.

 

[Thyrwyn]

In Civ5, apparently, those tough decisions are removed.

I'm not reading it that way.

I see social policies as representing - not government - but rather the civs overall ideology and spirit (which is how I justify them being tied to a cultural victory). The tough choices are still there, and have even more long-lasting effects: which tree do I spend my hard earned culture on? which policies do I want to have later in the game? when and how much should I invest in culture?

For every policy you "buy", there are up to nine that you don't. Do you spend your culture on one of the trees you have already unlocked, or save it to invest in one of the trees further down the line?

The policy that would be most beneficial right now (I'm at war), may not help your long range plans (I want to build a financial empire). And, since we can infer that it is extremely unlikely that you will acquire them all, there is significant opportunity cost with each one you do choose.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For every policy you "buy", there are up to nine that you don't. Do you spend your culture on one of the trees you have already unlocked, or save it to invest in one of the trees further down the line?

I completely agree with you. It looks like you'll be able to open only about 50% of the policies (since only 60% is required for cultural victory) and you need to carefully pick them.

Also about realism - why the hell anyone thinks what there will be mutually exclusive policies in different branches? I see no clues for this. Aristocracy could coexist with democracy and all other government policies. The same for religion branch. I doubt other branches will have conflicts as well.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I'm not reading it that way.

I see social policies as representing - not government - but rather the civs overall ideology and spirit (which is how I justify them being tied to a cultural victory). The tough choices are still there, and have even more long-lasting effects: which tree do I spend my hard earned culture on? which policies do I want to have later in the game? when and how much should I invest in culture?

For every policy you "buy", there are up to nine that you don't. Do you spend your culture on one of the trees you have already unlocked, or save it to invest in one of the trees further down the line?

The policy that would be most beneficial right now (I'm at war), may not help your long range plans (I want to build a financial empire). And, since we can infer that it is extremely unlikely that you will acquire them all, there is significant opportunity cost with each one you do choose.

That may all be true, Thyrwyn, but I still feel that certain Social Policies should be either completely mutually exclusive or-by having them-make certain other Social Policies prohibitively expensive to buy-even at the lower levels. i.e. the further you go down Autocracy, the more expensive Liberty should cost.
Failing that, buying an Autocratic Social Policy should negate at least some benefits earned from Liberty. The idea that you can be equal parts Tyranny & Libertarian just flies in the face of *all* logic.
Of course, I'm also disappointed because it risks the whole "Governmental/Social" element of the game far too amorphous. Now I didn't like the rigid, "one-size-fits-all" governments of Civ1 to Civ3, but I really enjoyed being able to say that I was a Police State, with a Command Economy (State Property), a Bureaucratic Legal System, an Emancipated Labor Force & a State Religion. I'm getting a strong feeling that the Social Policies won't allow for this, because the stackable nature of the bonuses effectively makes it an *amalgam* of past purchases!

Aussie.

 

[Ergo Sum]

bj: There's actually a pretty significant reduction in techs per era from Civ 4. For example, Medieval era had ~21 techs back when, and now has about 11. One wonders if some of the former responsibilities of techs, for civics and such, have been delegated elsewhere.

Aussie: Your strong reaction against social policies seems preemptive to me. We need a detailed look at social policies and how they work before we can fairly judge if they're egregiously ahistorical, simplify the game, etc. There's a case that they're ahistorical so far (although the Civ series has already had some very ahistorical moments) but no conclusive evidence. And personally, I doubt they simplified the government system too much compared to civics, after civics worked so seemlessly last game.

 

[bjbrains]

Ergo sum: That may be true, but the slider seems to show a pretty similar number. My guess is that the ancient era is expanded, and the modern era is as well. Probably an attempt to make the game more balanced in terms of time spent per era.

 

[paradigmx]

IMO, you go through techs too quickly in Civ 4 to begin with, half the time I'll skip over units because by the time I go to use them something better has come along, in most of my games, mustketmen are merely a footnote in history, I'd rather have a more focused tech tree with multiple advancement paths and longer research times than a large and diverse tree with shorter research times. If it takes more time to research something, you have a better chance of making use of what you already know about.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sounds like culture points are the only binding constraint. No exclusivity.
So, you can have Aristocracy from tradition tree AND liberal democracy=type things from the Liberty tree, and get both benefits simultaneously.

You really don't think any current Liberal democracies have Aristocratic elements to their society?... Specifically aspects of that society that would aid and encourage Wonder production.... look at Mt. Rushmore

Many societies are 'equal parts tyranny and libertarian' or perhaps not equal, but none are purely one or the other.

I don't like this. Social policies should have tradeoffs, not be More is Better.

Social Policies are now the Equivalent of Techs, but with non-entagling trees (imagine if the tech tree was 4 straight lines from left to right... that it what it is like)

I think the model does need
1. Revolutions so you can scrap one social Policy for another (possibly at a 2 for 1 rate or something like that.)
2. Variable costs... the cost of a Social Policy should probably depend on how many other Social policies you have. (it should probably also depend on how big your empire is)

#2 would probably relieve a lot of the concern... if it is cheaper to get "Universal Suffrage" if you DON'T have "Aristocracy" then it makes sense. (But that shouldn't be a specific counter, it should also be more expensive to get "Universal Suffrage" if you have "Free Market" or "Monotheism").
It would also stop the 'racing through the tech tree' feel if the cost was dependent on the size of the civ. (so small civs would be just as or probably More culturally advanced then large ones)


You can't 'be a Tyrant and a Democrat'... you can build a society that has some of the advantages of Tyranny, and some of the advantages of Democracy.

I think that is definitely reasonable


Especially since 6 trees=game win (ie Culture pumper)
10 trees=available...
assume the Average Civ actually only gets 3 trees by end game.

If it is effective to 'stack up' policies in the same Tree (ie Universal Suffrage+Free speech+Emancipation all worked best together in Civ 4... Just like Representation+Mercantilism+Caste System+Pacifism) then most Civs will only be working on 3 of the 10 trees. Which may provide some imaginative Societies, but the tech tree provided things like that already.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Exactly. As I posted in another thread, progressing through the various Policy Trees could represent becoming more effective, not becoming more extreme.

A society that values liberty & autocracy? a variation on a constitutional monarchy, maybe? It is the very nature of government & society to manage and define the relationships between various ideals/values.

Many ideals and values require compromise even with themselves, liberty/freedom being the most obvious: no one can have complete freedom if exercising that freedom is allowed to interfere with anyone else's freedom.

[Silly extremism alert] One could even argue, that in a society devoted to liberty (freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice) everyone would pursue absolute authority (autocracy), since only by doing so could you have absolute liberty [end]

 

[The_J]

Hey, nobody is saying that all the things in a social policy will be positive .
You're in an ongoing tree. "Slavery" and "Vassalage" could even be parts of this tree. Beginning with zero liberty until total liberty at the end of the game.

 

[grumbler]

Or conquer them so that they don't get to take one.

Of course, but making them your friends seems more beneficial in general:
1 civ = 1 vote
1 civ + 1 conquered city state (assuming that it ceases to exist) = 1 vote
1 civ + 1 allied city state = 2 votes (!)

 

[grumbler]

It sounds like a puppet state is really a city you conquer that gives you its income, for whom you don't have to pay maintenance (or suffer unhappiness) but you don't get to choose what it builds.

Unclear if it becomes part of your civ in border terms or not.

It feels a bit like they're strongly encouraging you to use this as a "governor" type feature.

Did you mean to say "city state"? Or am I confused about the differentiation between puppets and city states? (I was thinking puppet = vassal in civ4 terms.)

 

[spyroware]

Why once again we think off all the negative aspects of a feature we know nothing of but its name?

No one said the Social Policies replace Civics point for point. Firstly, as others said, "social policies" that seem conflicting in reality they're not. Aristocrasy and Liberal Democracy - Nederlands, Free religion and Organised religion and Theocracy - Italy. Many ideas can coexist as parts of a culture's heritage, which obviously figures to be included in CiV.

Also, from what I've read/watched so far Social Policies are like achievements for your Civ to give you a sense of progression. So the trees may include conflicting ideas that however make sense as a chain of progression eg (just a thought) clan leader->despot->elders' council->oligarchy->aristocracy->democracy->universal suffrage. You don't simply choose one like civics, you build upon it. And with culture in short supply and 9 other trees as alternatives it's your choice at which point you stop progressing in each tree.

And if you manage to max out a few of those trees then I guess you can call your society utopian enough to get the cultural victory.