Policy Cards vs Social Policies vs Civics

[BuchiTaton]

Don't you think you're taking people's criticism of your generic Great People idea a little over the top?

Yes.

But it is also true that mix cards like this is because Firaxis do not see a problem with that, and you can look at others threads of people asking for Techs and Civics being linked to X or Y historical figure, so we can be sure that part of the community would actualy enjoy this kind of approach to the historical figure behind the idea whatever is about art, commerce, military, science, religion or politics.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I generally liked Civ 4's idea, where you had a whole "suite" of policies based on various overarching aspects of your empire. Government, Legal, Labor, Religion, and Economy.
I just wish it wasn't so easy to change policies on a whim. (If I remember, you had one turn of "anarchy" i.e. no production, and that was all! Nothing, really.).

Now that Humankind is out, I don't like the fact that you don't have to pick any policies if you don't want to. There were various times in which I had a "cultural osmosis event" (where an encroaching foreign culture forces you to pick a certain policy) that did not cost me anything at all specifically because I did not ever choose a contrary policy to begin with.

 

[Xandinho]

The Civ4's model was nice, and it helped to avoid adopting contradictory policies as in the current model in Civ6. On the other hand, it was pretty simple, and the civics were unlocked in the science tree because there was not cultural tree at that time. I preffer that the social and politics progress be more related to culture advances than science. But they can bring some good ideas from there, like a period of anarchy for sudden changes of government.

 

[Krajzen]

The Civ4's model was nice, and it helped to avoid adopting contradictory policies as in the current model in Civ6. On the other hand, it was pretty simple, and the civics were unlocked in the science tree because there was not cultural tree at that time. I preffer that the social and politics progress be more related to culture advances than science. But they can bring some good ideas from there, like a period of anarchy for sudden changes of government.

As I said in the other thread, I actually orefer one tech tree instead of tech - culture split because it is very wrong 'common sense' idea regarding history that culture, tech & science and
philosophy evolved in separation from each other... It makes sense to unlock civics from tech tree - how could capitalism and marxism exist without factories and thermodynamics? Or chivalry culture (knights) without advancements in horse tech (stirrups etc)? Or universal suffrage in large countries without advances in communication, transoort, bureaucracy
etc.

I think the 'anarchy period' is self - defeating game mechanic and there is a reason it is so meaningless in all civ games: it is just too damn frustrating to lose control of vital parts of your nation for that to happen often and for long. So it is doomed to be always very short and therefore insignificant. It just doesn't work as a penalty.

 

[Zaarin]

Or chivalry culture (knights) without advancements in horse tech (stirrups etc)?

Strictly speaking, whether you take chivalry to mean a warrior society based on an accepted code of honor or horse-based warfare, both predate stirrups. You have horse-based warriors going all the way back to the Kassites who plagued (and conquered) the Sumerians, and Medieval chivalric society specifically had its roots in Germanic warrior societies who would pledge themselves to local lords in exchange for treasure.

 

[Evie]

While that may be the case, I agree with Krajzen about remerging the two research trees simply because the absurdity of universities and libraries not contributing to legal-political-cultural thinking while theaters and museums do because they produce culture HAS to go.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While that may be the case, I agree with Krajzen about remerging the two research trees simply because the absurdity of universities and libraries not contributing to legal-political-cultural thinking while theaters and museums do because they produce culture HAS to go.

That's less an argument for merging two different sets of 'progression' than an argument for doing them right, and especially for getting the interactions between culture, social policy, civics and technology right.

To use the example already presented, the technology (or, more properly, technologies) that produced Knights - armored warriors on horses with couched lance and sword - were available in the 1st century CE, because the Sarmatians, Alans, and Sassanid Persians all produced men armed in exactly that manner. A little later it also produced the heavy cavalry shock force of the Tang Dynasty armies in China (and virtually all the Central Asian early Medieval groups, like the Khazars and Bulgars). Yet none of those societies were either Feudal or, especially, Chivalric in the Medieval European sense: the technology did not automatically produce the Civic/Social order.

 

[Zaarin]

While that may be the case, I agree with Krajzen about remerging the two research trees simply because the absurdity of universities and libraries not contributing to legal-political-cultural thinking while theaters and museums do because they produce culture HAS to go.

I have mixed feelings about remerging the tech/civic trees, but I do agree that I don't like the way it works right now.

That's less an argument for merging two different sets of 'progression' than an argument for doing them right, and especially for getting the interactions between culture, social policy, civics and technology right.

100% this.

 

[Xandinho]

As I said in the other thread, I actually orefer one tech tree instead of tech - culture split because it is very wrong 'common sense' idea regarding history that culture, tech & science and
philosophy evolved in separation from each other... It makes sense to unlock civics from tech tree - how could capitalism and marxism exist without factories and thermodynamics? Or chivalry culture (knights) without advancements in horse tech (stirrups etc)? Or universal suffrage in large countries without advances in communication, transoort, bureaucracy
etc.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, for example, to have capitalism and a market economy before economics, or to have class struggle before industrialization. I think the best way to solve this would be to have some links between scientific and cultural trees, you couldn't have capitalism civic before economics tech.

 

[Zegangani]

I think the best way to solve this would be to have some links between scientific and cultural trees, you couldn't have capitalism civic before economics tech.

If we would make the Tech Tree less linear, maybe with branch offs, either for whole specific Fields (Economics, Naval, Military...etc) or just for some Techs that are either locked or optional for research, and if the Civics Tree is also much less linear, maybe with a combo of Civ 6 Civics Tree and Civ5 Social Policies, then interconnecting the Tech Tree with the Civics Tree/Social Policies would be a good solution to this IMO. Perhaps with some Civics unlocking a locked Technology Path or boosting some Technologies. And vice versa.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

While that may be the case, I agree with Krajzen about remerging the two research trees simply because the absurdity of universities and libraries not contributing to legal-political-cultural thinking while theaters and museums do because they produce culture HAS to go.

I think the simpler solution is just let libraries and universities yield culture too.

 

[Evie]

Oh, I'm not agreeing with him on the specifics. Just on the absurdity of dividing research in the game along (ridiculous) contemporary STEM vs Humanities segregation despite approximately 5900+ years of human history predating this nonsense.

I just want one research tree, where you can research societal ideas (feudalism) and technologies (lances/stirrup/whatever), as separate techs that may in some cases be prerequisites of each other.

(In this case, I'd actually have separate techs unlocking the armored horseman (I want to say cataphract...) and feudalism, with the knight being a feudalism-specific lower-cost UU alternative to the armored horseman.)

I'd rather culture have its own unique niche in the game rather than being science 2.0.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Oh, I'm not agreeing with him on the specifics. Just on the absurdity of dividing research in the game along (ridiculous) contemporary STEM vs Humanities segregation on the approximately 5900+ years of human history that predates this nonsense.

I just want one research tree, where you can research societal ideas (feudalism) and technologies (lances/stirrup/whatever), as separate techs that may in some cases be prerequisites of each other.

(In this case, I'd actually have separate techs unlocking the armored horseman (I want to say cataphract...) and feudalism, with the knight being a feudalism-specific lower-cost UU alternative to the armored horseman.)

I'd rather culture have its own unique niche in the game rather than being science 2.0.

I agree that the problem is that we are seeing it as another form of research where it should be more about cultural progression. Which is why I think the culture should go back to something along the lines of unlocking like the social policy trees of Civ 5 where each branch unlocks after you either research writing for an Educational branch or found a pantheon for a Religious branch. Afterwards each civic has similar things that you unlock like the current civic tree: governments, social policies, wonders, units, districts, buildings etc. through culture.

 

[Evie]

I like the idea of using cultures to mold your civilization like that, but I don't like the notion that once you unlock the tree, you can just buy all of it. IMO civics should represent application of new ideas to your society - but you should still have to discover new ideas via research first. Kind of like building a new building a city: you use hammer to build, but only after you used research to unlock it.

Could also see culture as a weapon to undermine another civ's civics and policies in some way.

(Actually I'm now thinking of an Ideological Victory system that would unify culture and religious victory and where culture (integrating some aspects of faith) would be the primary resource, with propaganda units and effects fueled by culture being how you undermine another civ's ideology...)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I like the idea of using cultures to mold your civilization like that, but I don't like the notion that once you unlock the tree, you can just buy all of it. IMO civics should represent application of new ideas to your society - but you should still have to discover new ideas via research first. Kind of like building a new building a city: you use hammer to build, but only after you used research to unlock it.

Well you would still have to progress through the branches with culture. My point is as long as you research writing you at least have access to the beginnings of an "Educational" tree which you could start by progressing towards either Drama and Poetry or Philosophy, if that makes sense.

(Actually I'm now thinking of an Ideological Victory system that would unify culture and religious victory and where culture (integrating some aspects of faith) would be the primary resource, with propaganda units and effects fueled by culture being how you undermine another civ's ideology...)

I think the best way to reconfigure the religious victory is by combining it with culture in some form whether it be ideological or still tourism.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Strictly speaking, whether you take chivalry to mean a warrior society based on an accepted code of honor or horse-based warfare, both predate stirrups. You have horse-based warriors going all the way back to the Kassites who plagued (and conquered) the Sumerians, and Medieval chivalric society specifically had its roots in Germanic warrior societies who would pledge themselves to local lords in exchange for treasure.

The point about the Kassites and Germanic warrior societies move this to the real power behind social change POPULATION, not anybody with stirrups would turn Feudal "just because". On a model were your POPs (population unit) have real identity like culture (ethnic/religion) and profession (job/caste/social class) you can do:
1- Tribal cultures could center their society to be mainly of Warrior (class) by gain cultural aspects like Horses (Horse Raiders), chose the cult of War Diety, win battles (invest promotions on those cultural elements), militar infrastructure, etc.
2- Your Classical society recruit Mercenary and/or Auxiliars from minor civs with a militar culture. At some point these tribal warriors represent a % of your society you can pass a reform (Feudalism) that give them more representation (land) with pros and cons (better troops, more loyalty, worse economy?), at the same time others POP could lose power.

 

[Zaarin]

The point about the Kassites and Germanic warrior societies move this to the real power behind social change POPULATION, not anybody with stirrups would turn Feudal "just because". On a model were your POPs (population unit) have real identity like culture (ethnic/religion) and profession (job/caste/social class) you can do:
1- Tribal cultures could center their society to be mainly of Warrior (class) by gain cultural aspects like Horses (Horse Raiders), chose the cult of War Diety, win battles (invest promotions on those cultural elements), militar infrastructure, etc.
2- Your Classical society recruit Mercenary and/or Auxiliars from minor civs with a militar culture. At some point these tribal warriors represent a % of your society you can pass a reform (Feudalism) that give them more representation (land) with pros and cons (better troops, more loyalty, worse economy?), at the same time others POP could lose power.

Yes, something we both strongly agree on, as well as several other posters, is that individual population units need to play a bigger, more central role in Civ7 with ethnic and religious identities.

 

[Evie]

I'm definitely leaning toward ideology, as it absorbs faith much better.

This also allow flexibility to have one broad framework for ideological victories (ie, spreading your ideology) but specific additional requirements that reflect each ideology (ie, how do we determine who the "leader" of a given ideology is - and thus who scores the win if that ideology wins). That would make this a very diverse victory condition, where playing an Nationalism Ideological Victory and a Liberalism ideological victory should feel very different.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Let me throw this out, because I've been fiddling with it off and on for some time . . .

First, I like the idea of a 'branching' Tech Tree, in which the basic Technology leads to Branches or Applications. Ideally, there should be about 3 Applications per Basic Technology, and you can simultaneously be researching 1 Tech and 1 Application. That means you will have to specialize on the technologies your Civ actually needs, becasue you cannot possibly research all the Applications. In a way, this takes care of the calls for Civ-specific Tech Trees - you will in effect put together a Civ -Specific Tech Tree in every game, based on the in-game situations.

Second, Civics and Social Policies and 'culture' are also related to technologies and applications. Having certain social policies helps you Apply certain Technologies, and in other cases, may close off (temporarily) some Technologies - your little digital citizens simply aren't interested.

This is an early game example, and assumes a 'Neolithic Start' with a Game Start Date around 10,000 BCE instead of 4000 BCE.

Tech: Agriculture
Resource Requirement:
Food: Korn, Tropical Fruit, Rice
Fibers: Flax, Hemp, Cotton
NOTE: If you have nothing to grow, you will not learn to plant and grow anything.'Korn' is a nice short-hand term for all the similar Grains: wheat, millet, rye, barley, etc
Knowledge Requirement:
None
Allows:
- Unit: Basic Warrior
- District: Settlement
- Building: Granary
- Improvement: Farm
Bonuses:
NOTE: Things that make it easier to Research the Technology by generating a NEED for it.
- Have any Population reach Hungry state for 2 consecutive turns
- Have Water adjacent to exploitable Food Resource tile (marsh, river, oasis)
NOTE: The first shows the Need to plant edible crops, the second to use Fibers for nets and snares to exploit fish and waterfowl, two enormous sources of food for hunter-gatherer types, and frequently used to supplement early agriculture

Applications:
Flood Irrigation
- Provides +1 Food on Floodplains or plains/grassland Tiles next to River or Lake - Provides Bonus ('Eureka') towards Tech: Writing
- Provides Bonus towards Civic: Heirarchy
Selective Plant Breeding
- Reveals Potato, Maize Resources
- Reduces Production Cost of Archer Unit by 20%
- Provides Bonus towards Tech: Agricultural Innovation
Brewing
- Reveals Wine Grapes Resource
- Farmed Korn, Rice, Potato, Maize Resources provide + 1 Amenity (Beer!)
- Provides Bonus towards Application: Sealed Pottery
- Provides Bonus towards Civic: Host Relations

Hopefully, one example shows at least partially what I'm talking about: you cannot easily research even a basic Technology without a Need for it, and while the Basic Technology will give you access to some things, the Applications of that Technology will give you access to more, and some of them may turn out to be Necessities. In the example above, getting access to Potato Resource because you are in hilly country and potato crops can exploit hills much better than 'ordinary' grains (Korn) or Rice.

And there are some sneaky things hidden here (which gamers will no doubt quickly catch on to after their first game(s)). The Sealed Pottery Application simply means your low-temperature Pottery containers (which date back to 17 - 18,000 BCE, so are Starting Tech) can be waterproofed to hold and preserve Food and Drink. BUT it's pretty imperfect, so Sealed Pottery will provide a Need for higher-temperature fired Stoneware which is non-porous, and those higher-temperature kilns will also allow you to produce Fired Brick for better construction and smelt the metals that give you Bronze and, eventually (with Charcoal firing) Wrought Iron.

Oh, and Bronze Tools (an Application of Bronze Working) is a Pre-requisite for The Wheel Tech, which along with Woodforming gives you the (relatively late) Application of Spoked Wheels, which gives you access to Chariot Units, one of the Units whose use provides a Bonus for the Heroic Warrior Civic

 

[Leucarum]

I find policy trees as implemented both in CivV and Stellaris feel limited. You end up doing the same thing every time you pick a tree and you also limit yourself to being stuck down that tree once picked. Maybe adding in some branch points where you lock yourself out of certain paths? But then you run the risk of making huge trees. The advantage is that you do feel more like you are making RPG-style choices, but it does little to keep games fresh.

I don't mind policy cards in that they give you a lot of flexibility, but it certainly isn't particularly realistic that societies can change their civic focuses for almost no cost, and with zero repercussions on stability. For gameplay I think they are maybe the best, for immersion the worst? Maybe there is a middle ground where there is more of a stability cost for playing with policies?

Humankind civics are probably my favourite. I have said before I think they might be one of the best part of the game. They keep the RPG-like feel of social policies without being quite so rigid. Maybe expand selecting them into a wider event system? The drawback is that they are more isolated from a civic system unless you have cultural advancements unlock them. Some of them can be hard to trigger so players never see them... And what resource would civ use to enact them? I'd not like it to be money...

I'd also like to throw Alpha Centauri's approach into the mix. Allow different policies to adjust the players up or down sliders. Humankind and Stellaris both have some elements of this, but I kind of like it. Keeps some of the RP element by having your society be classified by an ethical alignment, but it does have less possible combinations of options than other systems and tends to result in % modifiers which aren't as interesting...