Thoughts on the Civics tree?

[rreebb]

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

If you went by real-life dependencies, you'd get a much more linear tech/civic tree anyway, at least starting in the renaissance era, when "natural science" started to be a thing. But that doesn't make for more replay value.

 

[AinEiken]

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.

I somewhat disagree with your assessment that cultural development is strictly non-linear.

I find it very refreshing that "culture" will be seen as a separate development that is not dependent on technological progress. True: that was also the case in Civ 5 - but essentially flawed: how would you argue the "invention" of rationalism without certain aspects of cultural development beforehand? Also: cultural sciences strongly argue that it is - indeed - a science - therefore a rational approach to study cultural achievement must be possible. In a strict sense the baseline of all sciences (rationalism and logic) are inherently cultural developments (i.e. they explain a society's/civilization's belief system). The argument human technological achievements can be linearised must therefore (because it is a science) also be true for any kind of rational achievement.

Culture is NOT some kind of bubble that suddenly pops up somewhere, someplace. That is one of the biggest misunderstandings of all meta-physical research (Yes - it refers to Kant)

 

[isau]

I think it works well.

I personally despised the technology web in Civ: BE, so there's that to add. I found it overwhelming and difficult to strategize around. But part of the problem with that was all the technology was fictional and it was very hard at a glance to know what any particular tech did, which led to a lot of time rolling the mouse over techs.

 

[mjhousto]

I think it works well.

I personally despised the technology web in Civ: BE, so there's that to add. I found it overwhelming and difficult to strategize around. But part of the problem with that was all the technology was fictional and it was very hard at a glance to know what any particular tech did, which led to a lot of time rolling the mouse over techs.

I do prefer the tree-style chart for technology research since it capture the essence of real world scientific research and building from a foundation of proven knowledge . I agree that the web in B.E. made it more challenging to create a bulletproof strategy (that seems to be what a lot of people are looking for). I also feel that the B.E. Technology Web lent to a soulless feel for that game since it was the only mechanic available and did not provide any meaningful way of advancing.

I think the web is the right mechanic for modelling historic cultural developments however. It provides a great deal of flexibility in the path a civilization can take along its cultural development while still providing a means of progressing through the game. As I mentioned before, the 'affinity point' system used in B.E. also works well here to align the government system more intimately and strategically with the Civics Web. It will be incorporated alongside other means of advancement and so will not represent the heart and soul of the game as it did in B.E. A Civics Web would be a smaller scale than the B.E. Technology Web (since it represents only 1/2 of the available advancements) and the names of the Civics would (hopefully) be a little more intuitive then the B.E. techs, so it would be more accessible.

 

[BrokenSky]

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it feels like a step closer to the perfect system.

Maybe something like the Beyond Earth tech outwards-web-thing would be better for culture and civics stuff, with rings unlocked by era and era unlocked by tech? But then we lose the ability to drop science as top priority and go culture heavy (with science secondary) for an alternative play style. Hmm.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

People seem to forget that the tech tree in Civ4 took sort of a web approach. There were many techs that had invisible connections which would have been better represented by a web. The mechanic existed in Civ5 but was unused. It will probably exist in Civ6 and if it does I will connect Civics to Techs in a mod.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Tech web in BE was quite bad. Beelining to any direction was too easy, so there was actual progression - the affinity. Still beelining was too easy. If you want to have weak stuff first and stronger stuff later, it's nearly impossible to design web correctly. Tree is quite good for civic. Conceptually, separation between science and cultural tree is not good, but if we look at practical implementation, that's the best approach to civics/governments we've seen so far.

 

[BenZL43]

The best thing I like about civic tree is how old policies expired.
Take this example, Civil Engineering, one of the first techs(?) of Industrial Era.
In my opinion, this Era is marked by increasingly blurred boundaries between military and civilian, and also a more productive and efficient environment, etc
There's another tech that focused on removing colonization policies of previous eras, tech that focused on how the riches become interested in operas etc

At least, compared to how cultural progression is illustrated in the previous civilization game, I still prefer this one.

CIVIL ENGINEERING
875 Culture

Can build Farms on Grasslands Hills and Plains Hills.
Unlocks Urban Defenses, giving all of your cities an automatic 200 Fortification Strength and the ability to bombard.

Unlocks :
[*]Policy: Public Works (+30% Production toward Builders, and newly trained Builders gain 2 extra build actions.)
[*]Policy: Skyscrapers (+15% Production toward Industrial era and later wonders.)

Makes Obsolete :
[*]Policy: Bastions (+6 City Defense Strength. +5 City Ranged Strength.)
[*]Policy: Corvée (+15% Production toward Ancient and Classical wonders.)
[*]Policy: Gothic Architecture (+15% Production toward Medieval and Renaissance wonders.)
[*]Policy: Limes (+100% Production toward defensive buildings.)
[*]Policy: Serfdom (Newly trained Builders gain 2 extra build actions.

 

[pwoz]

My concern with ring/web type BE approaches is that they are essentially the same as Civ 5. You pick a path early and it is always optimal to follow that path until the end. The end is always where the big bonus is, so you want to get there ASAP. Diverging briefly to another ideology just delays you getting the more advanced forms. It just becomes optimal to finish out a given path to get the end game.

You're back in Civ 5's world of picking something at the beginning of the game before you have enough information to know what you actually want to do. The rest of the game is played out with that fixed choice. It was a terrible system compared to 4, and I think 6 is a big step in the right direction. Essentially Civ 5, and any web based specialization method is "pick the one that is the best most of the time" and hope you were right (in Civ 5 case it was almost always tradition anyway). Civ 6's tree lets you change as you go along in the game and respond to different circumstances.

The only thing I'd like to see (and maybe it is there but I missed it) is some sort of penalty to changing govts. I'm fine with card swapping, but govt swapping should have a cost (i.e. anarchy) beyond the lost legacy bonuses (especially given how long some take to build up).

 

[Ulthwithian]

pwoz: Changing to a government where you haven't been in a government of that tier before causes no unrest. Changing a government otherwise does cause some sort of anarchy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

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.

At present, it's about what I'd expect for the Vanilla version of the game. A wonderful twist on the "tech tree" premise-by separating out technological and cultural progress, whilst also incorporating the best elements of Civ4 Civics and Civ5 Social Policies. It's one of the features I'm looking forward to playing with the most.

 

[Promethian]

pwoz: Changing to a government where you haven't been in a government of that tier before causes no unrest. Changing a government otherwise does cause some sort of anarchy.

I watched Quill switch within the same tier with no notifications of penalties. He said the penalty comes in if you switch back to a government you have been before.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I watched Quill switch within the same tier with no notifications of penalties. He said the penalty comes in if you switch back to a government you have been before.

Yes, that's what developers said too.

 

[NycholusV]

My concern with ring/web type BE approaches is that they are essentially the same as Civ 5. You pick a path early and it is always optimal to follow that path until the end. The end is always where the big bonus is, so you want to get there ASAP. Diverging briefly to another ideology just delays you getting the more advanced forms. It just becomes optimal to finish out a given path to get the end game.

You're back in Civ 5's world of picking something at the beginning of the game before you have enough information to know what you actually want to do. The rest of the game is played out with that fixed choice. It was a terrible system compared to 4, and I think 6 is a big step in the right direction. Essentially Civ 5, and any web based specialization method is "pick the one that is the best most of the time" and hope you were right (in Civ 5 case it was almost always tradition anyway). Civ 6's tree lets you change as you go along in the game and respond to different circumstances.

The only thing I'd like to see (and maybe it is there but I missed it) is some sort of penalty to changing govts. I'm fine with card swapping, but govt swapping should have a cost (i.e. anarchy) beyond the lost legacy bonuses (especially given how long some take to build up).

How did Civ 4 do social policies? (I never played Civ 4.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

How did Civ 4 do social policies? (I never played Civ 4.)

There are several categories. You may choose 1 in each category and switch them at will at the expense of anarchy. Policies are unlocked with techs.
EDIT: The system is nearly 100% copy of SMAC system.

 

[narmox]

How did Civ 4 do social policies? (I never played Civ 4.)

http://guides.gamepressure.com/sidmeierscivilization4/guide.asp?ID=616

You chose 1 civic from 5 categories, to make up your kind of government. So it was kindof like choosing cards out of 5 categories (government, legal, labor, economy and religion), and each category having only 5 options. Each option was unlocked at a particular tech.

Now that I re-read that article I have quite some fond memories of that system! Looking forward to Civ6, seems like it's inspired by this a lot.

 

[stealth_nsk]

http://guides.gamepressure.com/sidmeierscivilization4/guide.asp?ID=616

You chose 1 civic from 5 categories, to make up your kind of government. So it was kindof like choosing cards out of 5 categories (government, legal, labor, economy and religion), and each category having only 5 options. Each option was unlocked at a particular tech.

The main problem of this article is what the author is strong supporter of specialist economy and generally dismisses cottage economy.

Now that I re-read that article I have quite some fond memories of that system! Looking forward to Civ6, seems like it's inspired by this a lot.

Now that I re-read that article, it makes me sick how the whole game is designed around only 2 strategies. The Civ6 system just looks way more flexible.

 

[narmox]

Now that I re-read that article, it makes me sick how the whole game is designed around only 2 strategies. The Civ6 system just looks way more flexible.

Really does seem like an improvement, so I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Zenstrive]

I haven't played Civ VI, so I can't say I would hate or love the civics tree.
But I actually love the system we have in Civ V. It feels like you are actually building a long lasting civilization that your earlier decisions could have ramifications in the long run.
Pick Traditional and not Liberty? Too bad, no Pyramid for you, but people in your capital is full and able to work all tiles and all citizen slots.

Also Civ V, for now, seems to be more streamlined in the gameplay, so you only think about placements and such, and build up your civs more efficiently so that you can reach victories however you like. I have multiple times aiming for cultural victory but in the end got science victory instead (with my units parking outside the last opponent only city's border)

In Civ VI, you got so many things to think about: city placement, district placement, civic cards, city states envoys, etc with the same 500 turns limit on normal speed (if you chose to limit the turns). I afraid taht in the end you will be raking in gold and steamroll the opponents anyway, and thinking that what's the point of the early micro managements?

Some may enjoy it, some may be overwhelmed.

But Civ VI is not out yet, so I withhold judgements until later.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The main problem of this article is what the author is strong supporter of specialist economy and generally dismisses cottage economy.


Now that I re-read that article, it makes me sick how the whole game is designed around only 2 strategies. The Civ6 system just looks way more flexible.

That said, it would have been nice seeing the same number of government categories as we had in Civ4-i.e. we have economic, military and wildcard in Civ6.....but I'd also have liked to have seen labour, legal and religion slots as well. Maybe in DLC or an Expansion!