Policies

[Namel]

So you can have monarchy, Representation, Republic, Communism, Theocracy, Organized religion, and Free religion all at the same time?

Sweden is Monarchy. They have representation and since one definition of republic is representative democracy they have that as well. Some means of production in Sweden are owned by government so it could be said to be communist. In Sweden they have free religion but on same time they have state church so they obviously have organized religion as well. Only thing I can't really claim Sweden having is theocracy.

 

[MickyLuv]

So, you guys are basically stating that because the social policy screen is shaped like a chart, with symbols, that it's an RPG? I'm just trying to understand. The tech tree is kind of like a sideways social policy chart, and it has symbols...does that make the research element of Civ an RPG?

Please help me to understand.

Any answers to these questions? Particularly the second one.

 

[AfterShafter]

Wait, so you're arguing against a statement that you now know never existed?

No, the statement exists, it's there plain as day. You were kind enough to come back and tell me what you were actually trying to say later on. I disagree with the one that exists... I agree with what you were trying to say.

The main issue is, you have a very hard time just saying "Yeah, I did kind of botch explaining that" and are pretty dead set that I didn't understand well enough or some such.

 

[DaveGold]

I actually prefer social policies in V to the civics in IV. I never liked that you could completely change your entire civilizations form of government, have a few turns of anarchy and then 'bam'...everything's changed. In V, you build your civilization as you go, and the decisions you make permanently change your empire, and thus need to be weighed carefully. I wasn't a fan of any of the aspects of IV that allows this changing of your civilization on a dime, like sliders.

I think is the heart of the civics vs policies argument. I just think civics made a better game. You could be playing happily in CIV4 and suddenly realise you needed to do something different, you'd give your nation a big kick, and it would jump. You could make things happen. The game gave you the tools to manage your empire. On turn 1 you might not have thought you were going to play your Aztecs as a mercantile pacifists but if that turned out to be the best thing to do at any particular time you could decide to give it a go. In CIV5 you set the wheels in motion and watch it unfold, no kicks, no jumps, no decisions.

I think there's also a risk that once players get a blueprint of policies for a nation, they'll always play it much the same way. The game then loses interest for repeated play.

 

[Venereus]

Civics in Civ IV were also arranged in groups, are you saying that because IV used words, and V uses symbols (that give more info when hovered over) that that makes V "RPG-ish"...? But actually, there are small symbols next to the Civics in Civ IV...I guess the Civics system in that game is RPG-ish as well. Looks like the social policy system isn't as 'watered down' as we thought.

Firaxis has been turning our beloved civ into an RPG for the last 6 years...right under our noses.

**I just noticed the tech tree in IV has symbols all over it...another attempt to "water down" civ into an RPG, I guess**

We went from a switching effects mechanic, to a no-rollback progressive mechanic. I know you can tell the difference. In most RPGs, you don't get to rollback character development. The choices you make at leveling up are hard and matter because you gotta stick to them. That's how it works now with SP.

On a side note, now that you mentioned it, the yet to be released MMORPG "Guild Wars 2", will have skill developed in the classic progressive model, as well as special skills that change according to the weapon you're using. So it'll have both progressive and switching mechanics (and GW1 already had a lot of switching). Funny how Civ V goes backwards where RPGs go foward.

 

[Stefanskantine]

It's a little bizarre to see some people being so tenacious over a non issue.

Especially considering they could be playing the game that apparently is akin to mana from heaven instead of purposely misunderstanding things on this forum.

More bizzare than people who allege a game is atrocious, irreparably broken beyond repair, core mechanic is hopelessly flawed etc, yet still spend all day hanging out in said game's forum?

Not everyone who enjoys Civ V thinks it is "akin to mana from heaven." I find it to be a good game, enjoyable, good core changes, but in need of some bug/ai fixes and a little balancing. Some people are involved in constructive discussion to that end. Alleging conspiracy theories that Civ V is part of grand stratagem to weed out the true Civ fans and replace us with a new generation of RPG simpletons is not helpful or instructive.

 

[Venereus]

More bizzare than people who allege a game is atrocious, irreparably broken beyond repair, core mechanic is hopelessly flawed etc, yet still spend all day hanging out in said game's forum?

Not everyone who enjoys Civ V thinks it is "akin to mana from heaven." I find it to be a good game, enjoyable, good core changes, but in need of some bug/ai fixes and a little balancing. Some people are involved in constructive discussion to that end. Alleging conspiracy theories that Civ V is part of grand stratagem to weed out the true Civ fans and replace us with a new generation of RPG simpletons is not helpful or instructive.

Jeez, talk about polarizing...

 

[Songkok]

The way I see social policies is kind of building leader traits as you play. As we all know in IV, each leader had a couple of traits, that would give bonuses to culture or settler building, etc. Now in V, slowly, as your civilization builds, these traits are planned out and chosen to suit that particular game you're playing.

Charon, You said the above: "BUILDING the leader traits", and you can't see how it is RPG-ish?

More bizzare than people who allege a game is atrocious, irreparably broken beyond repair, core mechanic is hopelessly flawed etc, yet still spend all day hanging out in said game's forum?

Because they have paid for the game and wish it to be improved to get back their investment? You did noticed that they are not playing the game anymore?

Not everyone who enjoys Civ V thinks it is "akin to mana from heaven." I find it to be a good game, enjoyable, good core changes, but in need of some bug/ai fixes and a little balancing. Some people are involved in constructive discussion to that end. Alleging conspiracy theories that Civ V is part of grand stratagem to weed out the true Civ fans and replace us with a new generation of RPG simpletons is not helpful or instructive.

You do know that they are half joking right? see the quote below:

Oh boy, this thread is getting actually quite amusing, it's like a rehash of Monty Python - "No sir, the parrot is fine. But it's dead! No, it's just sleeping, can't you see that, what a lovely plumage!"

 

[Thormodr]

No, the statement exists, it's there plain as day. You were kind enough to come back and tell me what you were actually trying to say later on. I disagree with the one that exists... I agree with what you were trying to say.

The main issue is, you have a very hard time just saying "Yeah, I did kind of botch explaining that" and are pretty dead set that I didn't understand well enough or some such.

Seriously, just forget about it.

Either you honestly don't get it or you are pretending you don't get it. Either way, it is futile to discuss this further with you.

Other people are willing to discuss the topic and not allegedly what someone else said as it is painfully obvious to them what was meant.

However, if you are willing to discuss how the social policies tree looks rather similar to a skill tree from an RPG game then you are quite welcome to put in your 2 cents then we can have a proper discussion.

 

[charon2112]

Not because of the word "building", no. Civ is a civilization "building" game, there's nothing RPG ish about it at all.

This is all so silly. Because a screen looks cosmetically, kind of, like an old RPG screen, that makes the system of social policies RPG-ish?

Charon, You said the above: "BUILDING the leader traits", and you can't see how it is RPG-ish?

 

[mercury529]

We went from a switching effects mechanic, to a no-rollback progressive mechanic. I know you can tell the difference. In most RPGs, you don't get to rollback character development. The choices you make at leveling up are hard and matter because you gotta stick to them. That's how it works now with SP.

On a side note, now that you mentioned it, the yet to be released MMORPG "Guild Wars 2", will have skill developed in the classic progressive model, as well as special skills that change according to the weapon you're using. So it'll have both progressive and switching mechanics (and GW1 already had a lot of switching). Funny how Civ V goes backwards where a RPGs go foward.

So you claim a no-rollback mechanism is inherently inferior to a switching effects mechanics (as supported by your claim that "Civ5 goes backward"). So I imagine you would think it was an improvement if at any time you could switch how you spent your beakers? Right now, the Civ games lock you into a permanent choice for how you spent your previous beakers

 

[Thormodr]

More bizzare than people who allege a game is atrocious, irreparably broken beyond repair, core mechanic is hopelessly flawed etc, yet still spend all day hanging out in said game's forum?

Not everyone who enjoys Civ V thinks it is "akin to mana from heaven." I find it to be a good game, enjoyable, good core changes, but in need of some bug/ai fixes and a little balancing. Some people are involved in constructive discussion to that end. Alleging conspiracy theories that Civ V is part of grand stratagem to weed out the true Civ fans and replace us with a new generation of RPG simpletons is not helpful or instructive.

Why is it bizarre? I have played the Civ series for 19 years and have spent many hours enjoying the intricacies of the previous games. It saddens and dismays me (and many others) to see this half baked, unbalanced mess that is ciV. I'm going to raise my objections to this debacle.

They've watered it down to appeal to the mass market and 2K Games and Firaxis have stated as much with their "We're making it more accessible" jargon. It's pretty clear.

Anyway, hopefully if enough people raise their voices and state that this product is completely unacceptable then it won't be to late for Civ VI.

Bootlicking, playing yes man or apologizing for this mess is not helping matters.

 

[Venereus]

So you claim a no-rollback mechanism is inherently inferior to a switching effects mechanics (as supported by your claim that "Civ5 goes backward"). So I imagine you would think it was an improvement if at any time you could switch how you spent your beakers? Right now, the Civ games lock you into a permanent choice for how you spent your previous beakers

Whoa, the Civ V love brigade is amassing.

I think giving players more options should always be the way to go for videogames. Bringing up ridiculous examples won't prove nothing, of course I don't want to switch to older techs, progress is the name of the game when it comes to scientific advances.
But goverment? It's based on ideologies, and boy do those switch...

 

[Stefanskantine]

Bootlicking, playing yes man or apologizing for this mess is not helping matters.

Bootlicking? And I'm accused of being polarizing...

"Playing yes man" would be defending the bugs, ai shortcomings, and balance issues, and exploits that are obviously wrong with the game (but fixable). I don't see anyone doing that (certainly not me).

The thoughtful critic points out things that are wrong, and contrasts them with things that are done well. Then offers some suggestions for reasonable changes.

You seem to be engaged in a different enterprise. You want to stage some kind of grandiose boycott so, 10 years from now, Civ VI brings your precious civics back. You don't like the changes to social policies. That's fine. Perhaps you believe a Civ game should approximate government in a way that makes it easier for your Civ to change course rapidly. Many people disagree, and like the new social policies. That doesn't mean we therefore prefer a "dumbed down" game. I could muster several reasoned arguments for why I believe they are both more complex and fun in the game, and actually more reasonable approximations of real life governance. But what's the point? I will only be accused of being a dupe of Firaxis, or on the payroll of 2k, or an RPG console gamer in disguise sent to sap and undermine support for your "movement" on the forums...

 

[Frosty_AUT]

If Social Policies make Civ V an RPG, then diplomacy surely makes it a dating-sim.

 

[Venereus]

Bootlicking? And I'm accused of being polarizing...

"Playing yes man" would be defending the bugs, ai shortcomings, and balance issues, and exploits that are obviously wrong with the game (but fixable). I don't see anyone doing that (certainly not me).

The thoughtful critic points out things that are wrong, and contrasts them with things that are done well. Then offers some suggestions for reasonable changes.

You seem to be engaged in a different enterprise. You want to stage some kind of grandiose boycott so, 10 years from now, Civ VI brings your precious civics back. You don't like the changes to social policies. That's fine. Perhaps you believe a Civ game should approximate government in a way that makes it easier for your Civ to change course rapidly. Many people disagree, and like the new social policies. That doesn't mean we therefore prefer a "dumbed down" game. I could muster several reasoned arguments for why I believe they are both more complex and fun in the game, and actually more reasonable approximations of real life governance. But what's the point? I will only be accused of being a dupe of Firaxis, or on the payroll of 2k, or an RPG console gamer in disguise sent to sap and undermine support for your "movement" on the forums...

Ok, so you've given up on debating the issue because it'll get polarized into irrelevance. I would even agree. But then, why post?

 

[Stefanskantine]

Ok, so you've given up on debating the issue because it'll get polarized into irrelevance. I would even agree. But then, why post?

Because I have to grind out a new level of XP with my post count on the forums.

CFC has become an RPG!

 

[Thormodr]

Bootlicking? And I'm accused of being polarizing...

"Playing yes man" would be defending the bugs, ai shortcomings, and balance issues, and exploits that are obviously wrong with the game (but fixable). I don't see anyone doing that (certainly not me).

The thoughtful critic points out things that are wrong, and contrasts them with things that are done well. Then offers some suggestions for reasonable changes.

You seem to be engaged in a different enterprise. You want to stage some kind of grandiose boycott so, 10 years from now, Civ VI brings your precious civics back. You don't like the changes to social policies. That's fine. Perhaps you believe a Civ game should approximate government in a way that makes it easier for your Civ to change course rapidly. Many people disagree, and like the new social policies. That doesn't mean we therefore prefer a "dumbed down" game. I could muster several reasoned arguments for why I believe they are both more complex and fun in the game, and actually more reasonable approximations of real life governance. But what's the point? I will only be accused of being a dupe of Firaxis, or on the payroll of 2k, or an RPG console gamer in disguise sent to sap and undermine support for your "movement" on the forums...

Meh. I'm being lambasted about being upset by someone with the title of angry partisan? Ha ha.

I think some things are done well. Hexes are good and I like 1UPT (even though they could make an exception for civilian units except for great generals)

I don't mind the art deco style to be honest and I like the graphics quite a bit except for the rivers and trading posts.

I actually don't mind the social policies. I was merely commenting that they do look more RPGish and stated the reason why that is. I don't mind RPGs like Diablo to be honest but I'd rather they didn't mix some of their elements with Civ.

I never said the social policies were dumbed down per se. I would like to see a mix of civics and social policies though. I think that would be ideal.

The game is not a total loss and with some foresight, it could be made into a very good one. Great, I'm not so sure now. Mods will likely save it though. RFC or AND for ciV would be great. Fall from Heaven 3 will be excellent.

Anyway, here is a good summation of why I don't appreciate ciV that much. I think the author of the post nailed why there is so much division over ciV. I liked the god game design of the first four Civ games. I'm not a big fan of the board game design for ciV. From 2K Forums:

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1196145

BTW, how's Busan? I've been there I think 5-6 times. Much nicer than Seoul I think.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Yeah Busan is nice. It's the place to be in Korea I think, except perhaps Jeju.

Anyway, I really don't want to "lambast" anyone. People are certainly entitled to voice their concerns. I just often feel people are too hasty to throw out the baby with the bath water.

That board game vs. god game distinction is interesting. I enjoy both immersion as well as strategizing around hard rules, and certainly there are always some trade offs in design. Will have to think on it more, but I'm about to start a new Civ V game. I'm thinking Suleiman, immortal, small continents, sparse resources, raging barbs. See if I can strategize on how to make the most of the much-maligned Ottoman UA while immersing myself in the role of a Sultan attempting to recruit some barbary pirates...

Actually I've also thought that combining socials policies with government might be interesting. Perhaps some interesting synergies could be created for min/maxing. Probably a task best suited to the modders (if its possible) than to the core game though. I think in time through mods both of us may be able to have our board game cake, and eat it in god mode too. Time will tell.

 

[mercury529]

Whoa, the Civ V love brigade is amassing.

I think giving players more options should always be the way to go for videogames. Bringing up ridiculous examples won't prove nothing, of course I don't want to switch to older techs, progress is the name of the game when it comes to scientific advances.
But goverment? It's based on ideologies, and boy do those switch...

Do you consider comments like "the Civ V love brigade is amassing" part of civil debate? Is your intent to be inflammatory? Or are you honestly unaware that comments like that undermine rational discussion? How would you react if I started my post to you with "another member of the Civ5 hate party"? Your attempts to lump everyone who disagrees with you into some group that unconditionally loves the game weaken your argument. You should have confidence that your arguments can stand on their own without resorting to generalizations that are frankly false.

You are entitled to your own opinion. But claiming that a game that has both no-rollback and switching effects is automatically more forward-thinking than a game that has a no-rollback is flawed. Your discussion of science proves that each mechanic should be considered on a case by case basis to determine what makes logical sense (if that is even the basis for game mechanics design).

You apparently think being able to switch some fundamental ideas about how a government should function mirrors reality. There is some truth to that. It also happens to exist in Civ5 as well through the concept of mutually-exclusive trees.

I think governments far more often build on the past rather than radically switch. You have to admit the Civ4 civic system created some very unrealistic situations. Switches in and out of slavery for instance are quite unrealistic, especially on the 1 year scale later in the game. From a realism perspective, I personally could see allowing a point or two to be redistributed upon reaching a new era. That could represent an ideological shift while still taking into account that there is a certain amount of ideological inertia. From a game mechanic situation, I am against making the game in its current form any easier. I already feel the difficult could stand to be boosted. And I frankly enjoy needing to make difficult decisions like determining if an immediate bonus outweighs waiting for a more potent one later.

Lastly, I love how there is this insistence that Civ5 is catering to a more casual user. Virtually every modern RPG that has a "skill tree" also has a respec option. They have a respec option precisely because casual gamers do not like being locked into decisions. I do not understand what is beginner-friendly about a system that forces you to make difficult decisions you cannot undo. If it is frustrating veterans of the series who should be better equipped to make strategic decisions, what reason is there to believe a beginner who is less capable would be enjoying it?