Who else miss the civics?

[locks]

Hi,

Been playing civ since I was a kid (Civ I), one thing that I really like was the governement civics, going from depostism to monarchy then to comunism for example was really immersive, getting to get all the communism leader against the democratic leader, when changing for example from monarchy to comunism, you feel like your civ is really going forward...

Not that I dont like the social policy, they can be a nice addition to the game, but I dont see why they had to remove the governement civic to include the social policy, no country in the world had their governement system stayed the same for 6000 years, they all had some revolutions at some point in their history where the governement system change drasticly, you cant do that with social policy because the choice you made 3000 years BC still apply in 2000 AD...

The way I would had done it, is use social policy as a cultural thing, include in there religions and other stuff that define the peoples in a civ, and keep the governement civics for the way you manage your empire, and allow to switch the governement while the social policy cannot be changed...

In my last game for example, I had about 20 cities around 1000AD, but only 6 social policy, I then realised that I would never be able to get the later policy since I'm still expanding/capturing and the next policy is always further away... it's like if my civ governement does not evolve any further, thats a game breaking for me as far as immersion goes...

what do you think about the social policy yourself? I am alone feeling this way about the governement system in CIV V?

I dont know much about modding, but would it be possible to mod the game to add a true governement feature with revolutions and change the social policy??

 

[BeardedWonder]

Yep, one of the biggest disapointments for me was the removal of civics. Lost a lot of flavour and depth with there removal to be replaced by social policies.

In the good old days...

 

[Guardian_PL]

I concur, but other than good mods from resourceful modders like Zappara or Aforess once the source code will be released I don't think there's any hope for counting on Firaxis to fix SP. A lot of people are actually ecstatic about social policies in their current state, and considered dynamic changing of civics in Civ4 ("at virtually no penalty" ) as cheesy-easy.

I've pretty much given up on Civ5 now, maybe around Christmas there'll be some progress in making it work but dumb AI, no diplomacy, broken city states and bland, unimportant terrain puts me off big time.

 

[C~G]

I do.

I think there should be at least some way to over time change your social policy.

 

[Eskel]

I miss civics. Greatly.
I am interested in sociology, and found it very accurate that societies could change the ways they live according to their current situation (e.g. Roman dictatorship, British dropping their liberties in WW2, Americans after 11.09). I have always thought that Fukuyama wasnt' right with his "end of the history". IMO true is thesis, that humans as well as other social animals have their natural forms of living in hoards (societies, packs, hives, whatever name it) that just slightly evolves over time - just as much as civics worked.
In Civ4 it was kind a lame, however it was very good implemented in SMAC.

I wish there were civics, and maybe policies as well. Preferably, civics should play role of general society forms , while policies stand for mentality and culture.(e.g. playing as US you could implement liberty and freedom policies, which should work great with democracy, while Chinese could go centuries earlier along with order policy instead, thus making for them democracy ineffective...)

Some people didnt like how drastic changes were allowed by civics system. I think this could be improved in way similar to Europa Universalis (and Knights of Honour): just throw-in empire stability, which should be lowered when changing civics. Of course, you can apply radical move, but the price is high, maybe even civil war...
Add simultaneously "revolution" system known from Revolutions mod, and the result would be Civ5 I'd like to see. Deep, complex, immersive and entertaining.

And I am disappointed with "streamlined" unrealistic simplicity, that is so close to "dumbness", of Civ5. It just...dont feel true or epic for me.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I miss them, but i think that some of them have to be locked or substituted when changing eras, because obsolete (like wonders)...

And along with social politics they can give some deep touch to Civ V.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

I like the social policies, you pick them based on how you want to play, but your play also changes based on what you've picked.

It makes playing through the game a little different each time, rather than just picking the best government for that time.

If I'm not a powerful, militaristic empire, and I'm having tensions with Bismarck, it effects how I deal with him, or if we do go to war, how I fight the war. I like that there isn't really the option to just change what kind of empire you have so you can beat up Bismarck.

It's not like picking a social policy is a permanent choice for all of Civ 5. Each game you can make different choices. I think it's perfectly fine to have permanent choices within the course of a game.

Like I said, it helps you tailor your empire to be more unique and to play differently. Your playing style isn't entirely determined solely by your civilization's unique abilities and such.

I agree, I wish they were a little more complex, or that there were MORE social policies, and maybe we'll see some changes and mods eventually. But I really didn't care much for Civ 4's civics, they weren't really interesting to me, and I'm not sure where people are getting all this depth they saw from It was basically just choosing, as people have said, what is best for your empire at the time.

 

[Beamed]

Social Policies are better in virtually every way. The inability to change them is negligible compared to the genuine feeling of progression you get as the game goes on.

 

[Eskel]

Beamed

Social Policies are better in virtually every way. The inability to change them is negligible compared to the genuine feeling of progression you get as the game goes on.

Progression? What kind of progression?
Do you really think that our method of perceiving some citizen liberties, forms of totalitarian dictatorship or bureaucracy are so much superior to those from past?
That civilization is like..ekhem..collecting achievements? (Irony intented)

I think that we have a lot to learn from some empires of the past.
The fact that we have invented computers in meantime doesnt make us so much better.

 

[Beamed]

Progression? What kind of progression?
Do you really think that our method of perceiving some citizen liberties, forms of totalitarian dictatorship or bureaucracy are so much superior to those from past?
That civilization is like..ekhem..collecting achievements? (Irony intented)

I think that we have a lot to learn from some empires of the past.
The fact that we have invented computers in meantime doesnt make us so much better.

The progression that your civ gains more specialized bonuses etc. as the game progresses rather than swaps one bonus for another.

Oh, sorry. Were you busy going on a completely unrelated tirade?

 

[locks]

I miss civics. Greatly.
I wish there were civics, and maybe policies as well. Preferably, civics should play role of general society forms , while policies stand for mentality and culture.(e.g. playing as US you could implement liberty and freedom policies, which should work great with democracy, while Chinese could go centuries earlier along with order policy instead, thus making for them democracy ineffective...)

Exactly this, have the social policy affect how your governement civic is effective, some policy may go better with democracy while other works better with comunism or facism, this will add more deep and so the democracy civic wont always feel the same according to what social policy you have establish.

I miss them, but i think that some of them have to be locked or substituted when changing eras, because obsolete (like wonders)...

And along with social politics they can give some deep touch to Civ V.

I like your idea that civic can become obsolute, and it make perfect sense too, this can go one step further, say you where running monarchy, then revolt to democratic, this should immediately make monarchy locked out since most likely the royal family must had get murdered or is hiding in another country to not be kill and the people wont welcome back another king to rule their country after a revolution that got the monarchy out.

I like the social policies, you pick them based on how you want to play, but your play also changes based on what you've picked.

It makes playing through the game a little different each time, rather than just picking the best government for that time.

If I'm not a powerful, militaristic empire, and I'm having tensions with Bismarck, it effects how I deal with him, or if we do go to war, how I fight the war. I like that there isn't really the option to just change what kind of empire you have so you can beat up Bismarck.

It's not like picking a social policy is a permanent choice for all of Civ 5. Each game you can make different choices. I think it's perfectly fine to have permanent choices within the course of a game.

Like I said, it helps you tailor your empire to be more unique and to play differently. Your playing style isn't entirely determined solely by your civilization's unique abilities and such.

I agree, I wish they were a little more complex, or that there were MORE social policies, and maybe we'll see some changes and mods eventually. But I really didn't care much for Civ 4's civics, they weren't really interesting to me, and I'm not sure where people are getting all this depth they saw from It was basically just choosing, as people have said, what is best for your empire at the time.

I kind of understand your point, like I sais it's nice to have a social policy tree that is permanent, but I dont see why you cant have governement civics along with that, it will add more deep... I agree that the civics from civ 4 was not the best thing, but mixing flexible civics with permanent social policy, i think it's they way they should had gone, it would had fixed the problem we had in civ 4 with the civics..

Another problem in civ 4 reguarding the civics (and this apply to all previous versions too) is that there was not enough penality for making drastic change, at more you had what 5 turn of disorder....

Take Russia as an example, Imagine that they had social policy that were geared toward comunist, and a comunist governement, it was working well for them, then they switch to capitalism/democratic, and they are still today have a hard time with their economy, the switch is not easy for them and they still suffer from it, so gameplay speaking, we can say that it's because of their social policy that may conflict with their new governement civics... I think it would be nice if a mechanic similar to this would be in the game...

Someone mention that they need to release the source code so modder can make big mods that alter the gameplay, how long can it take before they release that source code? will they ever release it?

 

[Tyrael]

I think the lack of flexibility is huge. Allowing civics to change allowed for interesting decisions throughout the game. Should I switch to Vasslage/Theocracy for better troops despite the anarchy? Should I burn a GP on a golden age to avoid that anarchy? The only cost to picking a new policy is opportunity cost- you get a bonus but you don't get that other bonus. Switching civics costed you something more- you get a bonus, you don't get that other bonus, AND you now no longer have the first bonus. Is it worth it? Maybe you should stay. Maybe that new civic won't help you as much as the one you already have. Now you just go ahead and add whatever bonus is the best without nearly as much thinking/evaluation.

 

[lschnarch]

. But I really didn't care much for Civ 4's civics, they weren't really interesting to me, and I'm not sure where people are getting all this depth they saw from It was basically just choosing, as people have said, what is best for your empire at the time.

Which is exactly what "civilizations" have done all over during history.

Civics, as weak as they may have been implemented, allowed for dynamic changes.
Social Policies are static modifiers, which only deliver positive things (apart from costs of opportunity).

 

[Veshta]

The fact that they are static makes them add anything but the feeling of progression. Societies/empires evolve over time as populations/needs grow, but due to the way it works with purple science (ie. culture) you have very little evolution taking place late game .. only way to get that feeling is by "cheating" and using the era slingshots while saving up culture.

What it should have been:
Upon advancing an era, all policies from previous eras can be 'cashed in' at 1/2-2/3rds their value or so thus freeing up some of the culture for use on more 'modern' policies.
That way you are not required to use gimmicks to play the game and you introduce an optional sacrifice for civs that choose another path to victory without having to load an early save.

 

[C~G]

For me it seems like these social policies are just chosen traits for each civilizations.

It's strange to call them even "social policies" since they last so long.

It's kind of picking some kind of "booster" for your game character in some action game with character development elements.

 

[Eskel]

Beamed:

Oh, sorry. Were you busy going on a completely unrelated tirade?

It wasnt intented as tirade, so pls dont take it too personal.
The point is that I think in terms of "reality simulation"(what is more evident in my earlier post), while you wrote about gaining bonuses, and more precisely - gaming experience.
We have just totally different expectations. I think they are mutually exclusive, unfortunately.
That said, you probaly are satisfied customer, while I am not.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

The fact that they are static makes them add anything but the feeling of progression. Societies/empires evolve over time as populations/needs grow, but due to the way it works with purple science (ie. culture) you have very little evolution taking place late game .. only way to get that feeling is by "cheating" and using the era slingshots while saving up culture.

What it should have been:
Upon advancing an era, all policies from previous eras can be 'cashed in' at 1/2-2/3rds their value or so thus freeing up some of the culture for use on more 'modern' policies.
That way you are not required to use gimmicks to play the game and you introduce an optional sacrifice for civs that choose another path to victory without having to load an early save.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Reaching the +3 production in Coastal Cities part of Commerce is a HUGE change for your empire. Most of the Order tree changes a lot as well. That reduced maintenance is HUGE for a big empire. The +5 production in all cities, when added to the modifiers of workshops and factories and such, also dramatically accelerates your empire. Stuff like the science from trading posts in Rationalism are very, very dramatic changes in how your empire is progressing too, along with the reduction in population size unhappiness from Piety.

And I dislike getting into arguments over 'how societies and civilizations really work' since almost every argument over realism devolves into people thinking things they dislike are unrealistic, but thinking things they like are realistic. But you said it right there in your post: societies evolve. They crawl into a cocoon and undergo a metamorphosis.

The Russian revolution was really dramatic, but the Russian people were still very distinctly the Russian people. Their literature, traditions, and values were still distinctly Russian. Some aspects of their culture were amplified, others were diminished, and others were simply dressed up in new clothes. Other revolutions are largely similar.

But then I really never, ever felt that civics in Civ4 were that compelling or interesting. They certainly didn't feel organic.

The poster who mentioned having both civics and social policies has a good idea I think. I think a lot of this anger comes from thinking that social policies are supposed to be the equivalent of civics, when they're really not. They're representing different things.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Social Policies are better in virtually every way. The inability to change them is negligible compared to the genuine feeling of progression you get as the game goes on.

I keep seeing people say you can't change social policies, but that isn't true.

You can change social policies later, that is, you can switch between exclusive ones. For example, you can switch between rationalism and piety. The catch is that you have to earn the social policy points again to switch. But you don't lose all the ones you've purchased either.

That means that you could buy the entire piety social policy tree, later decide to switch to rationalism and buy everything in that tree, and then later switch back to piety without having to repurchase any piety social policies.

So yes, you can't switch between them without a cost, but it's wrong to say that you can't change between them.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

The way I see it, civics really added another dimension to the game because you got to pick your civics based on your current need and reap the rewards. Also, EVERYONE got the same number of civics and got to pick their combination. In Civ 5, it seems like kind of an after thought. Like social policies are more "rewards" for having high culture and if you have low culture, you don't get any policies. It's like social policies are things that are nice to have, but not neccessary to play the game.

In previous Civs, they were much more important and central to the game I guess.

 

[CaptainKapow]

I don't miss them, but I never hated them either.

I also really like Social Policies.

Perhaps there is a way to properly include both systems but I wouldn't want Civics over Social Policies if one had to be chosen.

The decision making for Civics in Civ4 doesn't feel any more involved than choosing what Social Policies I want to pursue either.

I agree the Social Policies lack the dynamics of adjusting your Civic whenever you wanted. I didn't really do that much in Civ4 though unless I randomly got a Spiritual leader and I would sometimes switch back into Slavery to get some rushes out.