Patch notes adoption

[Txurce]

The settler cost change is a good idea. With 3 tiles between cities you really need more expensive settlers or your land will be grabbed in no time.

The change to power plants seems to go into the Civ4 direction and in fact I like it, but I agree with Sneaks about coal abundance being a potentially big problem.

Would settler cost be reduced if we stick witn 2 tiles between cities?

And given the focus on advanced power plants, should the amount of coal be increased?

 

[Joneill]

-1 to trade posts while they add an additional +1 to mines? Apart from making chemistry a must-have this means I will basically never, ever build a trade post again in vanilla. It's sooooo much better to just sell things to the AI (nothing in the changelog so I doubt they fixed that).

Trade posts may not be very useful before economics after the patch, but they are still the only universal improvement, so I don't see the problem.

University is even more important to get (everyone plays like Siam now).

I'd rather have the early library slot back, myself, along with nerfs to scientists and bulbing. Good news is I can have that in Thal's mod .

Making work boats so weak - they even need lighthouses now to provide any relevant bonus - will make me vomit whenever I found a city on the coast, which will happen often due to the 3-tile spacing need to squeeze in more cities.

I guess they thought they have to treat all bonus resources/improvements the same, so fish had to have a building bonus somewhere and fishing boats needed to get a tech-upgrade. Which means that until compass, improving fish may be a rather bad investment.

 

[GambleFish]

I don't see a need for this. Warfare should not be about culture. Culture should come from peaceful infrastructure, not war.

I don't think this is the case. Imagine a militaristic nation which places heavy emphasis on the prowess and experience of a warrior class / caste. This fits an early model for ancient countries or tribes such as Mongolia, Sparta, ancient Germanic / Gallic tribes, or the Aztecs (and is actually already seen in the Aztec's UA in-game) as well as late models for countries such as Nazi Germany. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want more freedom to develop your civilization in Civ 5, you should be able to create a militaristic Civ that spread its type of culture through conquest.

I mean, it's not such a stretch to add that ability to the Honor track from a realism perspective. Whether or not it fits the gameplay is another story.

 

[Txurce]

I don't think this is the case. Imagine a militaristic nation which places heavy emphasis on the prowess and experience of a warrior class / caste. This fits an early model for ancient countries or tribes such as Mongolia, Sparta, ancient Germanic / Gallic tribes, or the Aztecs (and is actually already seen in the Aztec's UA in-game) as well as late models for countries such as Nazi Germany. The point I'm trying to make is that if you want more freedom to develop your civilization in Civ 5, you should be able to create a militaristic Civ that spread its type of culture through conquest.

I mean, it's not such a stretch to add that ability to the Honor track from a realism perspective. Whether or not it fits the gameplay is another story.

This boils down to how you define culture. I happen to agree with Ahriman that culture is what the dictionary first says it is: the quality in a society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. As such, killing shouldn't give you "culture" - it gives you XP and military success, which is enough, and therefore should stay on its own, separate track. To take your examples, I would say the Germanic tribes and Gaul of Caesar's time didn't have much culture at all. And lack of culture is one of the main reasons why the Mongols eventually got absorbed by China.

Part of the problem is that words like culture and art are often used in terms like "culture of narcissism" or "art of the deal." That debases the language, in my opinion, but lots of people clearly disagree.

That the devs chose to call Aztec human sacrifice culture in an active way is 1) quite witty, 2) fun in its wacky uniqueness, and 3) marginally acceptable in that it was a permanent ritual in what, on the whole, reasonably fits the definition of culture. I would prefer not to stretch the notion to include every single civ who chooses that SP.

If forced to choose I will always take better game play over verisimilitude. I'm just not sure we have to make this choice in this case.

 

[Sneaks]

I don't disagree with any of the points above, but I do seriously dislike the idea that a civilization cannot choose policies simply because the player playing it likes to warmonger. I really really dislike any manner of mechanic that basically states that a portion of the game will be unavailable to you based on your tastes and playstyle. Should policy rate reward players that focus on culture over military? Absolutely. Should it be such a stark contrast as it currently is that a highly militaristic nation might fill up little more than a single policy branch? No. What is the point of having both Autocracy and Honor if the nation that would best implement both cannot actually get both?

That being said, it still is clear that the easiest victory course for a human player is conquest. Having played this route many times before, it simply is a bummer that I cannot engage in an entire aspect of play because I chose one of the pre-defined paths to victory. The small boost to culture per kill would hardly compare to the culture acquisition of a "builder" nation, and the conquest approach also means having many many more cities, so the rate will already be slowed.

 

[Txurce]

I don't disagree with any of the points above, but I do seriously dislike the idea that a civilization cannot choose policies simply because the player playing it likes to warmonger. I really really dislike any manner of mechanic that basically states that a portion of the game will be unavailable to you based on your tastes and playstyle. Should policy rate reward players that focus on culture over military? Absolutely. Should it be such a stark contrast as it currently is that a highly militaristic nation might fill up little more than a single policy branch? No. What is the point of having both Autocracy and Honor if the nation that would best implement both cannot actually get both?

That being said, it still is clear that the easiest victory course for a human player is conquest. Having played this route many times before, it simply is a bummer that I cannot engage in an entire aspect of play because I chose one of the pre-defined paths to victory. The small boost to culture per kill would hardly compare to the culture acquisition of a "builder" nation, and the conquest approach also means having many many more cities, so the rate will already be slowed.

I don't disagree with any of this, either - in particular that a warmonger should be able to fill Autocracy. For me the question would be, what would you need to achieve it under the present rules, and is there an alternative to giving culture for killing? Otherwise, I would go with the tiebreaker I mentioned, which is that game play trumps verisimilitude.

 

[Thalassicus]

From the perspective of realism can anyone really argue Chivalry and Bushido were not part of Europe and Japan's cultures? In my anthropology course it was said culture is how people develop a society over time, by passing down knowledge, values, and activities from one generation to the next. Arts, learning, and society can all be based on militaristic codes just as much as religious or scientific ones.

So to sum up my thoughts:

• Gameplay - I don't like restricting a player from specializing their empire's traits just because they like warfare.
• Realism - It's very difficult to argue militaristic societies have less culture than others, because culture is something that is subjective and cannot be quantified.

I do like the Aztec trait's uniqueness a lot though and there's other ways we could do this without simply getting culture from kills.

What about an Honor policy that improves rewards from looting cities? So like... if a Temple gets sacked and pillaged you loot some of the cultural artifacts from it, or if a Granary is looted you get some food. It'd be pseudo-random bonuses since it depends on what the AI constructed in the city, but might be an interesting combination of the Songhai and Aztec traits into a more general policy bonus for conqueror societies.

 

[Txurce]

From the perspective of realism can anyone really argue Chivalry and the Samurai were not part of Europe and Japan's cultures? In my anthropology course it was said culture is how people develop a society over time, by passing down knowledge, values, and activities from one generation to the next. Arts, learning, and society can all be based on militaristic codes just as much as religious or scientific ones.

So to sum up my thoughts:

• Gameplay - I don't like restricting a player from specializing their empire's traits just because they like warfare.
• Realism - It's very difficult to argue militaristic societies have less culture than others, because culture is something that cannot be quantified.

I do like the Aztec trait's uniqueness a lot though and there's other ways we could do this without simply getting culture from kills.

What about an Honor policy that improves rewards from looting cities? So like... if a Temple gets sacked and pillaged you loot some of the cultural artifacts from it, or if a Granary is looted you get some food. It'd be pseudo-random bonuses since it depends on what the AI constructed in the city, but might be an interesting combination of the Songhai and Aztec traits into a more general policy bonus for conqueror societies.

Chivalry and Bushido– which is different from knights and samurai – were a code of ethics, and definitely part of a culture. Knights and samurai were often heroes of medieval literature – and that’s as close as they came to having anything to do with culture. The same could have been said about how people viewed WWI fighter pilots… but they also had nothing to do with being part of a culture. They were just romantic.

The fact that culture can’t be quantified doesn’t mean that it can’t be defined. The difference between your definition of culture and mine is that yours includes, for example, the Mongols. They conquered Asia yet were absorbed by China, because of how culture is traditionally defined. Ask four people if culture is a violin or a gun, and at least three will pick the violin. Civ 5 clearly takes the latter view, which is why culture is acquired by building temples and cathedrals, or by trade with someone who provides you the equivalent.

Who happened to build temples and cathedrals? The same people who glorified samurai and knights. Japan had a very vibrant culture by any definition, with lots of temples and monasteries. The same goes for Europe to a lesser degree in the age of chivalry. They didn’t take the Mongol route. So why can’t warmongering civs be held to the same standards? If you want to slash and burn with a a necklace of ears around your neck, don’t expect to get very far in the SP branches. On the other hand, if you invest modestly in culture, or trade with someone who does, you should have no problem covering two SP branches.

I also think that TCB occasionally goes too far in making everything accessible – be it resources or, now, culture. Civ for me is a game where if you go north, you don’t get what’s in the south; where if I don’t get iron, then I look forward to making do with horses, or even neither. But obviously I’m okay with the direction TCB has followed, which is to favor as balanced a scenario as possible, resulting in a certain sort of game play. I’m reasonably comfortable with the idea of getting culture from capturing cities that produce culture, in that there would be presumably be some sort of aura effect. Quasi-realistically, it would be a needle right in the vein, so each decently cultured city could give a big one-time boost. It also sounds like a lot of fun, and despite all of the above, that still comes first in my book.

 

[Sneaks]

Anthropologically, your explanation of culture is pretty much wrong in tote. Culture most absolutely includes any social norms dealing with war. The Mongols had a rich culture, including the grand importance of horses. Their horsemanship, due to the cultural heritage, is one of the biggest reasons they were such an unstoppable force.

The fact is, many of the things that represent "culture" in the Civ V sense that apply to militaristic nations simply do not appear in game. There is no "Cult of Personality", etc. In fact, we have policies like "Military Tradition","warrior code", etc. based primarily on how many temples, opera houses, and museums one has. In some societies, that cultural tradition was learned in the barracks, not the temple or school.

 

[Txurce]

Anthropologically, your explanation of culture is pretty much wrong in tote. Culture most absolutely includes any social norms dealing with war. The Mongols had a rich culture, including the grand importance of horses. Their horsemanship, due to the cultural heritage, is one of the biggest reasons they were such an unstoppable force.

The fact is, many of the things that represent "culture" in the Civ V sense that apply to militaristic nations simply do not appear in game. There is no "Cult of Personality", etc. In fact, we have policies like "Military Tradition","warrior code", etc. based primarily on how many temples, opera houses, and museums one has. In some societies, that cultural tradition was learned in the barracks, not the temple or school.

I disagree with your definition of culture, which seems to be "Animal Husbandry = J.S. Bach," and you disagree with mine. An animal-husbandry culture like the Mongols will get you to Warrior Code, but they won't get you where you want to go - which is precisely my point about the shallowness of their culture. That, along with the fact that you want to warmonger and pick up SP's at the same time, is why we will always see this differently. Acknowledging a difference in perception is not the same thing as telling someone he's "wrong in tote" without a shred of evidence, but we all express ourselves differently.

 

[Sneaks]

The assumption of what culture is in general tends to be what is in reality defined as "high culture". High culture is associated with the fine arts, theater, etc. However, high culture is simply a subsection of culture, and in no means encompassing. This is what Thal and I both are attempting to explain. To steal a definition, culture is "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."
I totally agree with the fact that Civ V seems to only focus on high culture, but disagree that this very Western approach to the mechanic need be the only one. I would rather not do something as silly as adding culture to every aspect of the game, but I do think when it comes to the culture of a militaristic state, improvements can be made.
Lastly, I apologize in regards to my wrong in tote comment. I meant it in terms of the anthropological definition of culture, and prefaced it as such, but upon further reading, I realize it still comes off as harsh, which was unintended.

 

[Txurce]

The assumption of what culture is in general tends to be what is in reality defined as "high culture". High culture is associated with the fine arts, theater, etc. However, high culture is simply a subsection of culture, and in no means encompassing. This is what Thal and I both are attempting to explain. To steal a definition, culture is "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."
I totally agree with the fact that Civ V seems to only focus on high culture, but disagree that this very Western approach to the mechanic need be the only one. I would rather not do something as silly as adding culture to every aspect of the game, but I do think when it comes to the culture of a militaristic state, improvements can be made.
Lastly, I apologize in regards to my wrong in tote comment. I meant it in terms of the anthropological definition of culture, and prefaced it as such, but upon further reading, I realize it still comes off as harsh, which was unintended.

No problem - when we write as often and as fast, as many of us do, not everything is going to come off exactly as intended. That certainly applies to me.

I agree with how you define "high culture." I would quibble that there's nothing particularly Western about my perspective. The West has nothing on Asia in terms of justifiable pride in (or definition of) their "high culture" - and coincidentally my examples were China and the Mongols, as opposed to Spain and the Aztecs.

The real point for us is that Civ 5 has defined culture as "high." That's not quite 1upt or global happiness, but it's pretty hardwired. Again, I'm all in favor of finding a way for warmongers to reach Autocracy - including Thal's looting proposal - even if I don't see why they can't do what the militaristic Japanese or the all-conquering Romans did, and build some temples. But I'm leery of redefining culture with a broad anthropological definition, because that just ain't Civ.

 

[ChrisTheMean]

Very interesting discussion here re:warrior culture/high culture.

Even as somewhat of a non-warmonger in my playstyle (and in RL), I would have to agree that Bushido and Chivalry certainly fit within the broad category of culture. I would even like to see some culture-enhancing policy in the honor tree.

Having just finished my first OCC with this mod (Songhai/Emperor/SmallCont/Epic), I would say that Honor is actually a nice tree to augment one's defense given the need for a 6th tree with this mod. Oligarchy+Himeji+Discipline+Nationalism+Morale+GG=safe. However, there is one policy in there which always strikes me as very underwhelming. I think its 'military caste' if that's the one that gives +1 per garrison. Even in an all out warmongering effort I think its pretty weak.

What I would propose, would be to change that one to something that can have cultural benefit to either small or large empires investing in the honor tree, reflecting the aforementioned cultural influences of a 'warrior culture'. I would propose that it could be changed to "millitary buildings in all cities provide +2 culture/turn". This way it has some benefit to large empires, but you are not likely to have a barracks in every city. It also has a nice benefit to small empires with one city with barracks, armory, academy, etc.

Just a thought...

edit: here's another quick idea: "enables a new building: Dojo (or something similar) +15xp for land units, 2 culture per turn.

 

[rhammer640]

I agree that it would be a good thing for warmongers that adopt a certain policy to have access to a culture gain, as per thal and sneaks definition of culture in general, not an entire change but one policy, maybe something dealing with honor so that you only get culture if you kill an opponent of equal or higher 'base' strength or something to represent your warrior overcoming a superior foe or something like that (if even possible).

 

[alpaca]

If I'm understanding it correctly, fish food actually got a buff: base is 2F (1 for fish, 1 for sea) and +3 for improvements (1 from boats, 2 from Lighthouse) = 5F, compared to 4F in previous. Gold nerfed by 1 though - a fair trade I think.

Hmm I missed the change that fishing boats provide food instead of gold (forgot how weak they are in vanilla). Nevertheless, all the boat adds is +1, or does the lighthouse bonus for fish only work when its improved? That for sacrificing the boat, a lot worse of a deal than improving something with a worker.

As for culture, my very personal definition is that there are two different kinds of things that are cultural: things people talk about in a way that is independent of the talked-about thing, and things that a lot of people come together to do, with no other purpose than doing the aforementioned things.

So if you wage war to conquer land, it's not cultural, but if you write a book about it discussing strategy and tactics (like the Romans did), it is. If you play an instrument for your own enjoyment, it's not cultural, but if you discuss the best tunes with a friend, or play for a hundred other people, it is.

The level of refinement is not a major part of defining something as cultural, but to reach a high level at something, you have to talk about it and discuss with others, so highly refined things are often cultural. They are not cultural if all you talk about is "how can I make this work in the best way", but they are if you start talking about philosophies or reasons why things work, in order to improve them.

In fact, some of the things we now perceive as highly cultural were viewn as mundane or mechanical in prior centuries - painting, for example. But since art in general is very emotional, it compels us to discuss it, or gather to look at it, and it becomes cultural over time.

The Aztecs are a bit of a grey zone in my definition but I would say their wars were cultural, or at least led to cultural pursuits at religious ceremonies where they sacrificed their captives, and some wars were fought primarily to capture sacrifices, so they fulfill the second definition.

 

[Roto-Router]

I think you have to define "Civ culture" as opposed to "real life culture." In Civ, "culture" controls border growth, so "influence" might be a better term for it: the mechanism is kind of a strange amalgam of political influence and all those things we typically lump in with culture. So yes, it probably would include Chivalry and Bushido and some other social inventions which don't typically get lumped in with "culture".

 

[Thalassicus]

we have policies like "Military Tradition","warrior code", etc. based primarily on how many temples, opera houses, and museums one has. In some societies, that cultural tradition was learned in the barracks, not the temple or school.

In Civ, "culture" controls border growth, so "influence" might be a better term for it: the mechanism is kind of a strange amalgam of political influence and all those things we typically lump in with culture.

I think these are good points. Does it really make sense building Opera Houses helps us create an Autocracy? Civilization is very abstract so it's difficult to discuss details of realism one way or another, and even in the real world defining culture is subjective.

 

[Sneaks]

I guess this is what happens when you decide to make Civics require buildings

 

[Thalassicus]

Since the conversation about the Honor tree is starting to get rather detailed, I've created a new thread to discuss the policy tree here.