Thoughts on the Civics tree?

[NycholusV]

What do people think about the introduction of the 'Civics tree' into Civ 6? There's a few things I really don't like about it:

1. It's unrealistic. Culture is not like technology in that while human development of technology can be linearised to quite a degree, culture can not. The system in Civ 5 of opening and developing particular trees is more historically accurate. There are many civics in the tree that would have not even been 'developed' at any point in history by certain nations, including ones that are optional to make progress.
2. It's too small. The size of the civics tree is such that it may as well have been merged into the tech tree. Of course, it wouldn't make much sense having policies unlocked by technologies, but perhaps then a system of multiple civic trees (similar to Civ 5) would work better, because:
3. It duplicates a game mechanic. The mechanics of the main purposes of culture and science in Civ 6 are fundamentally identical. Sure, the new policy card system is pretty cool, but that still doesn't change the fact that the civics tree and the tech tree are a duplicated game mechanic.

I don't want to sound like one who wants to only complain. I'm really looking forward to Civ 6 and I'm optimistic, but this is a change I don't agree with and I want to hear what others think of it.

 

[sonicmyst]

I like the civics tree but my only concern is that some civics path seems mandatory, especially those containing early governments.

 

[Suho1004]

I like the idea of the civics tree and I think it is a good addition to the game, although from what I've seen so far it does feel a little limited in places.

 

[criZp]

I like the civics tree but my only concern is that some civics path seems mandatory, especially those containing early governments.

Yeah political philosophy is super strong, but we will see how it works out.

 

[StrideColossus]

Whilst I agree with most of the comments in this thread regarding the contents of the tree (it's a little sparse, some of the civics are virtually mandatory) I think the mechanism is a refreshing introduction - now we have to consider and balance progression in both the physical sciences (the traditional tech tree) and social sciences, and anything that adds more depth and complexity to the decisions we have to make during the game can only be a good thing IMHO.

 

[masda_gib]

I like the Civics tree (and the government/civics system itself) way more than CivVs policies. So I strongly agree.
There are 100% still balancing issues and maybe the interaction between the tech and civics tree can be refined in the future but the direction is good.

 

[kolpo]

It is a great way to prevent the absolute dominance of science.

 

[Jabulani]

Adding stuff doesn't mandatorily equals to improving the game, f.i. having 5 civics trees is not necessarily better than having one, two or none of them, IMO.

I would have focused on other implementations instead, f.i. AI diplomacy, AI warfare skills, AI naval warfare skills, etc etc... but, from a marketing point of view, people react better to a new civic tree than to AI warfare skills improvements.

 

[rhaak]

I like the civics tree but my only concern is that some civics path seems mandatory, especially those containing early governments.

You could say the same about the tech tree in each Civilization game.

 

[Promethian]

I look at what has been done in the previous games and this is an excellent way to implement such things. The new government style offers the pick our own bonuses and frees us from being locked into those choices forever. The culture tree is using a system that is proven to work well (the unlock tree) as the means of advancement in the new government style. It is a dramatic improvement over previous incarnations. I think Firaxis has learned their lessons well.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

I'll never stop wondering what kind of problems are people able to see in everything. Civic tree and policy system is major improvement over Civ5 system, mainly because of flexibility and tons of decisions/paths it provides. Realism and mechanic duplication (which partly apply to civic tree itself, but not on policy cards which are more important) are completely irrelevant compared to gameplay quality.

 

[Cerilis]

I think it's a very good addition, it should just be handled a bit different, not like a second tech tree, because - as you said - culture is not necessarily linear.
Maybe it'd be better if it weren't really a seperate tree, but teching into a new era in the science tree opens up a new era/part of the civic tree, no matter if you completed-...no that's too much focus on science again. I will think about this and come back again.

Maybe a civic web like the techs in BE?

 

[Big J Money]

I think it's much better than Civ V Civics and I'm excited for it.

Still, I agree with your points a bit.

What if it were a Civics Circle instead of a tree? As you go deeper in one direction, you actually move farther away from others. You could theoretically go back and get some of the earlier ones you didn't get, but it slows you down from getting the 'end game' stuff. In this way, I would put all governments in their own Civic, rather than having sets of 3 governments coming together.

This would be closer to simulating life, as well as making nothing be a 'must have'.

 

[Cerilis]

Okay, I got this!

Instead of a seperate culture tree, civics could once again be in the tech tree (just like in previous games), BUT they'd still cost culture and are researched seperatly (as in, you can at the same time invest science/beakers in Iron Working and culture/books in Early Empire).
Civics wouldn't be in one straight path and you wouldn't have to research them all, rather they'd be unlocked by seperate techs/eras. More like optional sidepaths to the tech progression. At the end of each sidepath could be one extra powerful civic or even a combination of a tech and a civic, that costs both science and culture to be researched.

Crude and quick example I just pulled out of my head:

Printing press tech unlocks the humanism civic, that opens a small path throughout renaissance and enlightenment civics, with scientific method at its end. Scientific method requires both culture and science and needs also seperate techs to be unlocked fully, but gives, for example, a powerful boost to science.

HOW'S THAT?!

 

[KmDubya]

Okay, I got this!

Instead of a seperate culture tree, civics could once again be in the tech tree (just like in previous games), BUT they'd still cost culture and are researched seperatly (as in, you can at the same time invest science/beakers in Iron Working and culture/books in Early Empire).
Civics wouldn't be in one straight path and you wouldn't have to research them all, rather they'd be unlocked by seperate techs/eras. More like optional sidepaths to the tech progression. At the end of each sidepath could be one extra powerful civic or even a combination of a tech and a civic, that costs both science and culture to be researched.

Crude and quick example I just pulled out of my head:

Printing press tech unlocks the humanism civic, that opens a small path throughout renaissance and enlightenment civics, with scientific method at its end. Scientific method requires both culture and science and needs also seperate techs to be unlocked fully, but gives, for example, a powerful boost to science.

HOW'S THAT?!

That still has science being the end all be all that it has been in previous games. In your scenario the science leader is going to be the civics leader as well when it gets to scientific method. Better to keep them separate so that if you want to excel at both you need to work at it.

Anything that can make "more science" not the answer to everything will be welcome.

I'm willing to give the new system a try before I try and fix it

 

[Cerilis]

That still has science being the end all be all that it has been in previous games. In your scenario the science leader is going to be the civics leader as well when it gets to scientific method. Better to keep them separate so that if you want to excel at both you need to work at it.

Anything that can make "more science" not the answer to everything will be welcome.

I'm willing to give the new system a try before I try and fix it

Mhrm, maybe gate some important science buildings/boosts behind those sidepaths, forcing you to do them if you want to have the best science output? You should still have decent science though if you ignore them and go for example for more military-like civics.

Also, religious/culture-victory endgame-civics should ofc be unlocked way earlier than the science victory techs. Tbh, you can't deny science to be a very important stat anyway, I cant imagine a culture victory being possible without also advancing in science (like, you have information era in civics, but renaissance in tech )

 

[MadDjinn]

What do people think about the introduction of the 'Civics tree' into Civ 6? There's a few things I really don't like about it:

1. It's unrealistic. Culture is not like technology in that while human development of technology can be linearised to quite a degree, culture can not. The system in Civ 5 of opening and developing particular trees is more historically accurate. There are many civics in the tree that would have not even been 'developed' at any point in history by certain nations, including ones that are optional to make progress.
2. It's too small. The size of the civics tree is such that it may as well have been merged into the tech tree. Of course, it wouldn't make much sense having policies unlocked by technologies, but perhaps then a system of multiple civic trees (similar to Civ 5) would work better, because:
3. It duplicates a game mechanic. The mechanics of the main purposes of culture and science in Civ 6 are fundamentally identical. Sure, the new policy card system is pretty cool, but that still doesn't change the fact that the civics tree and the tech tree are a duplicated game mechanic.

I don't want to sound like one who wants to only complain. I'm really looking forward to Civ 6 and I'm optimistic, but this is a change I don't agree with and I want to hear what others think of it.

except... point 1 is not true. CivV 'policy trees' is not more historically accurate. think of a country/nation/etc that has lasted a very long time. How often does it stick to the same cultural plan, vs changing things over time (not always due to its own choice?). Let alone the government style changes. Writing things in stone 6000 years ago didn't lead to them being the same now.

Too small? probably. Both the tech and civic trees could be built up (in both num techs/civics and things inside them), but this is a first pass at it and there's more total things to research than in the civV tech tree already. This bodes well for deeper expansions with brand new content, rather than filling in gaps with old content.

Duplicated mechanics? oh noes? well, except that all government parts are civic only. One benefit for it -- cross tree eurekas. Some locations expect certain tech advancements to get a civic faster and vice versa. That's a nice way of slowing down anyone who went too far on tech or culture and ignored the other one.

 

[elitetroops]

I really like the general idea of a divided tech tree that you progress through using different mechanics. The only minor disappointment for me is that a large part of your culture and science will come from the same source, population. I would have liked to see more of a trade off between them, so that you can't boost both of them by doing the same thing.

Currently both greatly benefit from a wide empire. It would be more interesting if going as wide as possible favors one of the trees, while the other tree benefits the most from tall development. Not sure how this would best be done. Maybe one of them could be generated mainly through population, while the other would mainly be generated by infrastructure. In a way it would make sense that population creates culture while all infrastructure adds to your science output to some degree. All new discoveries aren't made at libraries and universities. People working in industrial zones, commercial hubs, harbors and encampments are also coming up with new inventions.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Most of your science/culture does NOT come from pop.

Imagine a size 15 city...5 districts....one is either Theater OR campus
Science
Pop=15*0.7=10.5
District=adj+buildings....lets say you only have university (not research lab)and an adjacency of 2 ...so 2+2+4=8
That 8 can be doubled with the right policies and can also have 4 added from specialists...for a total of 20

Culture
Pop=15*0.3=4.5
District....assume only museum and 1 adj bonus (since theater adj bonuses are harder)...so
1+2+2=5
(Also double w policies and +4 w pop)
Also add 2 from monument
So non pop culture (notcounting Great works) is 16


So a district is any where from 50% to 400% as much as just pop.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

I really like the general idea of a divided tech tree that you progress through using different mechanics. The only minor disappointment for me is that a large part of your culture and science will come from the same source, population. I would have liked to see more of a trade off between them, so that you can't boost both of them by doing the same thing.

This is actually not true, at least for culture. I randomly chose Marbozir's Kongo game, turn 183, he has 7 cities with total pop ~70, which is 20-23 culture (depends on amenities). He has total culture 105, so population makes 20% only

EDIT: Lol, this is what you get if you start a post and finish it 30mins later. KrikkitTwo beat me to it in some extent.