The 10 social policies

[Never]

So, you can simultaneously get benefits from aristocracy and oilgarchy?

The way I see it is this: as new policies are made available you can choose to progress along the branch into the new policy at any time. You won't receive the benefits of the preceding policy in the new policy, simply the new policy will provide new benefits (like Civ4).

Whether these benefits will be appropriate to your situation depends, of course - so you may decide not to continue down that branch and instead start focusing on a new branch, opening up new possible benefits.

Perhaps Ahriman is right, whereby you can receive the benefits of all the branches simultaneously. However you can only progress down one branch at a time, and if you 'progress' down a branch you lose the benefits of the preceding policy in that branch.

This may explain the producer's comment that 'you are always thinking "what new benefit do I want now?".

So you may open up new policies on every branch before deciding you want to change 1 or all of them.

Question: do you think you can jump policies? i.e. continue researching down a policy branch, but not adopt new policies as they become available?

 

[Rexflex]

Well if there are as many as 10 different branches, and assuming we get to pick 4 at any one time to focus on, more than likely every civilization will be 'unique' in that their social polices will be different to every other civilization simply due to the number of possible combinations (especially if one civilization has focused on a particular policy branch opening up new policies that others can't get for some time).

Differing civ flavours between the computer controlled civs may (or may not) make their social policy choices unique (probably not all the time as otherwise they become too predictable - something we've been told not to expect.)

But civ flavours won't control human civ decisions - so what factor makes one human choose something different from another human (or one of the computer civs) if they are both going after the same goal?

Again, diverse - not unique.

 

[Ahriman]

You won't receive the benefits of the preceding policy in the new policy, simply the new policy will provide new benefits

I hope this is the case, and that each successive step is "better" on average but different, so advancing isn't always worthwhile.
But its not how I read their comments.

We'll see.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But civ flavours won't control human civ decisions - so what factor makes one human choose something different from another human (or one of the computer civs) if they are both going after the same goal.

Taste
Desired method of Victory
Situation (Geographic, Diplomatic)
Civilization characteristics.... some Abilities/UU and UB will probably have Synergy with certain social Policies


Assuming there are 50 SP available by the end game, and the average civ has 15 active, then there are 2 Trillion possibilities

If the practice is always to go up a tree as full as possible and the average is 3 trees, then that is 120 possibilities... even if only 10% are competitive, that is still 12 different possibilities...
and that is excluding partially going up one tree or another or the paths taken Or actually having different numbers of Policies

 

[Rexflex]

Taste
Desired method of Victory
Situation (Geographic, Diplomatic)
Civilization characteristics.... some Abilities/UU and UB will probably have Synergy with certain social Policies


Assuming there are 50 SP available by the end game, and the average civ has 15 active, then there are 2 Trillion possibilities

If the practice is always to go up a tree as full as possible and the average is 3 trees, then that is 120 possibilities... even if only 10% are competitive, that is still 12 different possibilities...
and that is excluding partially going up one tree or another or the paths taken Or actually having different numbers of Policies

None of what you stated guarantees unique outcomes.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

None of what you stated guarantees unique outcomes.

It does if the options are properly balanced.

 

[Schuesseled]

If there's a military policy tree, that would be badass.

Gee, do I get a gigantic army of infantry to throw at my enemies, or do I build a small, highly mobile force?

I think the honor tree was described as the military tree FYI.

 

[Rexflex]

It does if the options are properly balanced.

Not even then. Even if the balance was so well achieved that statistically the odds of any particular choice was made was exactly the same, that still allows for the same choices to be made by two people in the game.

But no need to consider such extremes - it would also be virtually impossible to achieve such balance anyway - no game of this sort has ever achieved a balance that would make no single choice more likely to be used than another, and it never will.

Look at it this way - there would be millions of ways to make a sandwich, but many people would tend to follow similar or even the same steps as other people because some make better sense than other steps.

Either the statement calling it unique was hyperbole, or a process in the social policies that hasn't been described makes it impossible to have the same combination. There is no third option.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Quit trying to convince people Civ5 won't be a disaster. Most of us will end up liking it once we... you know... actually play it.

Just let them get back to their regularly scheduled BS.

 

[Yakk]

... or you expanded the claim of "unique" to "guaranteed unique".

If there are 1000 choices, each of which is balanced between the yes and no choices, in a game with 12 civilisations at a time, each of the civilisations will have a unique set of choices.

Sure, it could be the case that two civilisations have made identical choices.

Another way of looking at it: in Civ4, how often did two civilisations have the same policies? Now there are 10 different categories...

 

[AlpsStranger]

Not even then. Even if the balance was so well achieved that statistically the odds of any particular choice was made was exactly the same, that still allows for the same choices to be made by two people in the game.

But no need to consider such extremes - it would also be virtually impossible to achieve such balance anyway - no game of this sort has ever achieved a balance that would make no single choice more likely to be used than another, and it never will.

Look at it this way - there would be millions of ways to make a sandwich, but many people would tend to follow similar or even the same steps as other people because some make better sense than other steps.

Either the statement calling it unique was hyperbole, or a process in the social policies that hasn't been described makes it impossible to have the same combination. There is no third option.

The level of parsing going on here is absurd. Almost nothing in a "talent spec" system is actually "unique." There will be a handful of very effective ways to spec, a handful of handfuls of less optimal but potent ways to spec, and a large number of sub-par but usable specs people can use for flavor/role-playing/showing off etc.

Was having one of the governments selected in Civ3 "unique?" Was having a certain set of civics in Civ4 "unique?" If you set impossible standards that even existing Civ games fail miserably then it becomes really easy to dislike Civ5.

I'm giddily anticipating Civ5 while you and your ilk are looking for reasons to be apprehensive about it. 9/10 chance it will be a great game. 1/10 chance that I'll be out $60 and have to keep playing Civ4. I have far more serious worries in my life, and I view a new Civ game as an upside.

I wish everyone would regain a sense of perspective and simply discuss the merits of the new mechanics in Civ5. In addition to this, I wish the discussion was in the spirit of fun and curiosity instead of a borderline religious schism between the Holy Church of the Stackers and the 1upT reformation. These are game mechanics, sets of decisions that developers make to strengthen, streamline, and solidify a certain type of gameplay. I am so sick of sacred cows in every single genre. FPS forums are pissed off because some sequel to somethingorother has a cling cover system. MMORPG fans are pissed because the death penalty in EternallyStupidGrindQuest3 isn't harsh enough. Knock it off!

 

[Rexflex]

... or you expanded the claim of "unique" to "guaranteed unique".

I didn't expand their claim - did you see me quote them as saying "guaranteed"? No - that was my word in response to a post on this thread.

Unique is unique. Either two players can't have the same choices or they can. The developers know this just as well as you or I. They knew it in Civ IV where they created unique buildings and units in that can only be used by one civilization in a game.

Sure, it could be the case that two civilisations have made identical choices.

THANK YOU. Now that you agree that unique is not the appropriate word we can move on.

... Was having one of the governments selected in Civ3 "unique?" Was having a certain set of civics in Civ4 "unique?" If you set impossible standards that even existing Civ games fail miserably then it becomes really easy to dislike Civ5.

Don't confuse my issue with the use of hyperbole by the developers or marketing team with my expectations of the game itself. I don't expect it to be unique - I expect them to not inflate their claims.

 

[Ahriman]

The level of parsing going on here is absurd.

We have a winner!

 

[Never]

Basically when you play a game in Civ 5 it is highly probable (due to the numbers) that your social policies will be different from any other Civ playing. Call it different, diverse or unique - I don't think it really matters? I don't know how to work out the math but if there are 10 branches and (assuming) at least 5 policies in each branch that would be what? 10 X 5 = 50 X 10 = 500 possible combinations?

I don't buy the assertion that there will be one or two 'correct' paths to follow, with the other routes being inferior in effectiveness. More than likely all the branches will be balanced - not to mention that the combination of 10 branches make it very difficult to place one or two superior routes, seeing as what route to follow would depend on your circumstances, civilisation and overall strategy.

 

[awesome]

these are really powerful modifications that make your civilization really, really unique," said Shirk.

let's say that aristocracy gives you +33 faster wonders and, i don't know, universal suffrage gives you +33 faster science research, for example. then let's say that these two policies are either mutually exclusive or, if they can be combined, the bonuses will be less as opposed to another combination. also, if there's a multiplayer game going on, chances are that different people will have different ideas about what gives the best set of bonuses, especially if certain abilities intensify/nullify the dis/advantages from certain policies.

 

[Alsark]

I'm guessing that certain policies will pertain to certain playing styles, and some playing styles. If we take Civilization IV as an example: certain civics are very clearly MEANT for specialist economies, and others for cottage economies. By the same token, the same will likely apply to Civilization V. Perhaps certain policies will be more production-focused, and others more commerce/scientific-focused. With that said, while the possibilities may "seem" infinite, it would be a bit ridiculous for somebody to run both a specialist and a cottage-specialized policy. Ergo, that drastically reduces the options for "uniqueness".

Of course, we have no idea how this all works, exactly, so speculation at this point is a bit wasteful.

 

[thelibra]

Good lord, y'all. You'd think we were senators picking over minutiae in a health care reform bill. It said "unique." Yes, grammatically speaking it means only one of it, ever. How much in reality has EVER applied to that? In marketing that word is as overused as "original," but we get what it generally means. Unless you are talking about fingerprints or something comparable, then neither literal definition applies. By "Unique" what they mean is "probably different from the rest."

For crying out loud, I have never seen so much b----ing and moaning and whining about anything in my life ever as I have Civ5. I thought this was a game primarily enjoyed by adults, not angst-ridden kids desperately searching for any reason they can find to hate the world.

 

[Thyrwyn]

my favorite has always been "new tradition"

 

[Rexflex]

Good lord, y'all. You'd think we were senators picking over minutiae in a health care reform bill. It said "unique." Yes, grammatically speaking it means only one of it, ever. How much in reality has EVER applied to that? In marketing that word is as overused as "original," but we get what it generally means. Unless you are talking about fingerprints or something comparable, then neither literal definition applies. By "Unique" what they mean is "probably different from the rest."

On the first page I presented a reasonable alternative word to describe this - "diverse". It could have easily ended right there, but others decided to argue that unique is still correct when even you admit that grammatically it is not. It takes two sides for an argument.

For crying out loud, I have never seen so much b----ing and moaning and whining about anything in my life ever as I have Civ5. I thought this was a game primarily enjoyed by adults, not angst-ridden kids desperately searching for any reason they can find to hate the world.

Before you and AlpsStranger had your little tantrums, just a few measly posts were spent on a fairly level headed difference of opinion about an admittedly small matter about how appropriate was the word to describe a function of the game and there was no b----ing and moaning or whining involved, and certainly no veiled personal attacks. You definitely changed that.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Before you and AlpsStranger had your little tantrums, just a few measly posts were spent on a fairly level headed difference of opinion about an admittedly small matter about how appropriate was the word to describe a function of the game and there was no b----ing and moaning or whining involved, and certainly no veiled personal attacks. You definitely changed that.

It's not just this thread, or even just this game. It is the entire pseudo-holy warrior affectation that the entire PC gaming world has developed. The slightest scent of this sends me berserk at this point. This full on ******** siege mentality has made 75% of avid PC gamers beyond intolerable for the last ten years. I was gaming in 1999, and 1989 for that matter. Nothing is all that different... so quit acting like someone cooked and ate your favorite dog.