Thoughts on the Civics tree?

[juanpavo]

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

Yes, totally agree. A big improvement over civ5.

 

[elitetroops]

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

Those are late game figures. I was thinking more about the early game. If you can expand to 2-3 times as many cities as anyone else in the BCs, you will be ahead in both culture and science with quite minimal investments in infrastructure. And you will have way more potential to unleash once you unlock the later improvements and bonuses.

It's true that in the late game most of your culture and science, especially culture, will come from infrastructure. However, in the early game the monument is so cheap and efficient that it is all you need in your cities to keep up a decent culture rate while building units and settlers to expand.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

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.

1)Its Civ. Realism isn't a concern. Functional mechanics are.
2) Debatable. I can see adding some padding to the early game, but the late game already looks tedious, so more stuff for the sake of having more stuff doesn't strike me as desirable.
3) You need to make a case for why this is bad. I don't really see anything wrong with two separate research pools- it broadens the game (though science still seems the dominant research pool by far).

 

[mjhousto]

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'.

I agree that this is the way that Civics should be incorporated into Civilization. It should work exactly the same way as the 'Technology Web' from Civ B.E.

You can choose to unlock 'node' civics, along a string on the web, and then choose whether or not to unlock 'leaf' civics corresponding to that node. There are many different paths through the web with different 'end' points at the edges. This still allows progression of the game to be controlled through the Civics Web and not just through the Technology Tree. The ages would be represented as concentric rings, as shown below, and when you reach a certain distance from the web center you enter the corresponding age.

Instead of selecting your government style from a list after unlocking a certain civic, you gain 'affinity points' toward a certain style of government with each civic that you unlock. Your style of government is decided by your highest ranking 'affinity'.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

From a realism point-of-view a Culture tree is probably the most accurate representation of Cultural evolution. In the prehistoric era there is a general agreement that tribes had similar basic cultural needs like Art, Music, Chiefdoms, Jewelry, etc. As societies evolved into sedentary settlements, unique and more complex cultures developed. This would best be represented by a tree as one idea or a combination of ideas lead to multiple others. I think they got it right in Civ6. In Civ5 this evolution isn't as evident with the separate trees.
This is probably why I have always enjoyed the tech tree in Civilization. The evolution throughout history has fascinated me.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I can point out that very little requires 'technology' (which IMO should not exist before the Scientific Method's supremacy) to be at the same level as 'culture'.

As one specific counterexample, Heian Japan (circa 900-1050) had an incredibly convoluted governmental structure--to the point that it typified Japanese government until, honestly, post-WWII, as well as a sophisticated economic system reminiscent of European systems 600 years off. And, of course, there is the argument put forward (which I neither agree nor disagree with) that the Genzi Monogatari is the first modern novel, a writing form in its essence not to be seen in the West for hundreds of years.

From a game perspective, the fact that the Civics tree works similarly to the Tech tree is a bonus, rather than a drawback. This means that the game is more accessible as you can explain one or the other to a new player, and then say, 'And this other Tree works exactly like the other one, except it uses this resource rather than that one.'

I will also say that I think BE had a better system (i.e., a Web) than CiV (i.e., a Tree), because neither Science nor Arts have ever been very linear.

 

[beorn]

The more you think about these trees, the more you realize the limits to realism. But I think it's gameplay we are looking for here, and I am optimistic this is going to work out pretty well.

 

[jekke]

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?!

I very much like this idea. This would interconnect scientific and cultural progress in a much better way than it is done now, via occasional inspirations and eurekas.

On the other hand, civic tree is a big improvement over policies in Civ V. I suppose modding this combined tree is feasible within reasonable time and efforts.

 

[Haggbart]

I really like the civic tree. Or not so much the tree as the entire way culture works now. In CiV it was accumulated small bonuses, which was cool but not very tactical. I wanted something more like the civic system in cIV where you could change focus and go in different directions as circumstances changed. Now you can do that with the social policy cards and governments, which is awesome. And I also like that the civic tree unlocks buildings, wonders and units as well.
In earlier civ games you would generally beeline to anything that would increase science, so this makes for an interesting change.

And I do think they deserve credit for coming up with a deep and strategic system that seems fairly easy to understand and learn for new players. There are probably plenty other ways to do, but I'm not sure doing a culture web (the CivBE tech web was a nightmare for free tech exploits, tech cost and balancing) or mashing culture/tech into a giant tree with complex paths would add much tactical depth as much as adding unnecessary complexity.

 

[nzcamel]

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.

CiV (much like the games before it) had the tech tree for discovery of all ideas and advances; and then another mechanism -the Civic Policies- for simulating and implementing governance of your people. I think the mistake you are making, is in thinking of the Civics Tree in CiVI as a replacement for the Civics Policies of V - it isn't. The replacement for that is the card system, tied with government options.
What the new Civics Tree is (as StrideColossus sums up so well below), is a separation between technological ideas and conceptual ideas. The science tree has been split in two which is realistic and good for game play. While there is overlap between the two, they are driven from very different processes, and most of the people who excelled in one field, didn't excel in the other.

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.

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

Conceptual ideas (or social sciences) are science. They're just a very different branch, which is harder to measure thanks to ethics which limits how stringently we put any human in a test tube

 

[NycholusV]

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts! I think that I should have made it clearer that my post concerns the civic tree specifically, not the policy cards and governments system, and that I should have put less on an emphasis on making comparisons to Civ 5. Having read the replies to this, I'm thinking that the civics tree is mostly an improvement upon Civ 5, but with some missed opportunities. I'm really liking the idea of a non-linear civics web, which addresses all three points I made in my original post. Some other ideas I've had are making some civics unlocked on an 'or' basis rather than an 'and' basis, so for instance, developing Suffrage, Totalitarianism OR Class Struggle would unlock Cold War, which would open and diversify strategies a lot. Perhaps some civics could be mutually exclusive, like focus trees in Hearts of Iron.

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.

Like I said, I'm not complaining about Civ 6 and I'm really hyped for its release. I've defended many of Civ 6's design decisions, such as the art style, choices of civs and leaders, among other, so I'm certainly not a cynic. I just wanted to discuss a feature that I find somewhat questionable and get other people's thoughts on it. No need to be spiteful.

In some ways it does provide flexibility, though it is still more or less a "fill out the whole tree" system. Some people have posted some really good ideas about differentiating civics from technology that address this. I'm not talking about the policy cards here (which I think is a great new feature), but the civic tree specifically.

My argument is that mechanic duplication generally does not favour gameplay quality. Gameplay quality necessitates a diversity of game mechanics, which Civ 6 has overall done very well in, but is lacking as it relates to the civic tree.

What if it were a Civics Circle instead of a tree?

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.

I love all of these ideas. They address all the concerns I have about the civics tree. Hopefully these will be systems that can be modded into the game at some point.

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.

…

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.

Absolutely agree. Though one may argue that one's heritage has implications on the present. However, Civ 6 still has this problem because the civic tree is a linear tree. I think you're mostly referring to the policy cards system which I think is a great improvement from Civ 5. I'm referring to the civics tree, which is like one universal policy tree, which like you said, is not historically accurate.

Again, I'm referring to the civics tree specifically. The strategy for the civics tree is almost entirely parallel to the technology tree. An interesting game with a high degree of strategy should have a diversity of game mechanics. Civ 6 does this well, but not as it relates to the civics tree. I agree with your point about minimising the prominence of culture.

1)Its Civ. Realism isn't a concern. Functional mechanics are.
2) Debatable. I can see adding some padding to the early game, but the late game already looks tedious, so more stuff for the sake of having more stuff doesn't strike me as desirable.
3) You need to make a case for why this is bad. I don't really see anything wrong with two separate research pools- it broadens the game (though science still seems the dominant research pool by far).

I suppose realism is largely a matter of preference, but it is important to many, and Civ is a game essentially based on human history. Nevertheless, my other points directly goes to the issue of functional mechanics.

Mechanic duplication does not favour a game with a high level of strategy. The way a player approaches the civics tree and the technology tree is the same. I don't think there's anything wrong with two separate research pools, as you said, it broadens the game, but the duplication of mechanics for both systems inhibits that. Some people have suggested a civic web, which I think is a great idea.

I agree that this is the way that Civics should be incorporated into Civilization. It should work exactly the same way as the 'Technology Web' from Civ B.E.

You can choose to unlock 'node' civics, along a string on the web, and then choose whether or not to unlock 'leaf' civics corresponding to that node. There are many different paths through the web with different 'end' points at the edges. This still allows progression of the game to be controlled through the Civics Web and not just through the Technology Tree. The ages would be represented as concentric rings, as shown below, and when you reach a certain distance from the web center you enter the corresponding age.

Instead of selecting your government style from a list after unlocking a certain civic, you gain 'affinity points' toward a certain style of government with each civic that you unlock. Your style of government is decided by your highest ranking 'affinity'.

Never played Beyond Earth, but I really, really like this idea.

From a realism point-of-view a Culture tree is probably the most accurate representation of Cultural evolution. In the prehistoric era there is a general agreement that tribes had similar basic cultural needs like Art, Music, Chiefdoms, Jewelry, etc. As societies evolved into sedentary settlements, unique and more complex cultures developed. This would best be represented by a tree as one idea or a combination of ideas lead to multiple others. I think they got it right in Civ6. In Civ5 this evolution isn't as evident with the separate trees.
This is probably why I have always enjoyed the tech tree in Civilization. The evolution throughout history has fascinated me.

There are some civics that many civilisations would never have developed, like Feudalism, Opera, Colonialism, Cold War, etc.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Civilization is a game of "ifs". It is not a simulation of reality but a simulation of what ifs

Allowing certain civs to research things they never researched or discovered.

 

[Furycrab]

Conceptual ideas (or social sciences) are science. They're just a very different branch, which is harder to measure thanks to ethics which limits how stringently we put any human in a test tube

I'm pretty sure they just were talking about the dominance of science as a yield in terms of achieving any victory type, and how 6 challenges a lot of our assumptions.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

@NycholusV: you are absolutely correct. This is why there would be many branches to choose from at a certain point. Every Civilization took a different path at some point in history. The problem though is that some civilizations advanced further than others. Some civilizations died out. So to have a tree that is exactly historically accurate would not work well in terms of gameplay. For gameplay purposes it is better to look at the big picture and follow a general path that most of humanity followed with a few forks in the road.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One important thing about the civics tree is it has a Lot of dead ends and branches. Its possible to reach the end without getting anything past the classical governments.
(it even has 2 separate "Future Techs" ie ones that you can repeat)

That makes it far more interesting than the Tech tree which has almost no dead ends and really just 2 branches, military and economic. (with overlaps in medieval and modern)

 

[God of Kings]

There should be a civic after Globalization and Social Media, known as Future Civic. Social media isn't the pinnacle of human culture at all and neither is globalization.

 

[jekke]

There should be a civic after Globalization and Social Media, known as Future Civic. Social media isn't the pinnacle of human culture at all and neither is globalization.

I like to think that social media civic rather represents a dead end in cultural development. Hence we are not going to have future civis, sorry.

 

[Civilization6]

lasers beams to rule

 

[criZp]

Perhaps the civic tree and tech tree should be merged into a single progress tree, while still having some things unlock with science and some things with culture

I can't see globalization and social media developing without internet/computer tech.

 

[Fede1893]

Civ V system was not so bad imo but had two problems:
a) the choices you would make would last forever and couldn't be changed; this is not bad per se but had the effect of not being a choice because you would always pick the strongest branch.
b) science was far more powerful being the only source for buildings/units/era advancement.

Civ VI system has been made to correct the above two problems and it seems it does it pretty well. However:
1) the tree is too "tight" to be called a tree, it's more like a branch: a linear path with some occasional minor deviation. I agree with the previous proposals of making it more a circle or a web (like B.E.);
2) some policy cards are at the moment way better than others (e.g.: bonus xp to scouts currently sucks vs. +5 combat against barbs);
3) in late game the system feels like more of the same, with cards and governments being just upgraded versions of previous ones, but this is a general problem of Civilization.

Personally I like the mechanic but I don't love the idea of culture being a linear evolution. To me culture is powerful when shared by a large part of the population, so it needs to be "unlocked" but also to be "maintained" and cannot "expand" too much in every direction because being for example libertarian is opposed to being authoritarian.

So for culture I would have preferred a system with a web to unlock new ideas that also gives affinity points towards a certain type of government with the addition of a cultural maintenance cost in which every card/idea you want to have active in your gov. has a cost based on his power (a tight homogeneous society "costs" a lot and will advance less than a loose open society but its government will have a stronger grip on decisions).