Who else miss the civics?

[Veshta]

But Communisium backrupted them so it was not going so well for them. However the Chinese learned that they can combine Communisue with capitlism to have a thriving economy so at a point (about the time that Hong Kong went back to the Chinese) they keeped thier 'Civic' but changed thier 'policy' to avoid going down the same path that the Soviet Union did.

Damn we should have both it would make the game even more fun.

CCCP was bankrupted by trying to keep pace with western deficit spending. With no built in economic security like that of the capitalist system they were unable to run the same level of deficits - check out the debt/deficit history of the US from 1950-2000, quite the rollercoaster and almost broke their back too.
China has combined Communism with Free Market, not Capitalism. Communism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive (being polar economic theories) so there is no way to have both at any one time.

As has already been mentioned, it is possible to change policies provided one accepts an enormous waste of culture (ex. Piety to Rationalism). Why not have a more detailed (read: complex) system of interdependencies with a partial refund when selecting newer trees?

It is generally not a problem at Prince and below since you can easily win with only a handful of cities but with higher difficulties the settler spam becomes mandatory just to keep up science wise thus removing any and all natural development of policies. Forcing a player to use gimmicks, loopholes and borderline exploits just to play a game is a clear sign of crappy design .. that is what is wrong with the policy implementation.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

English obviously isn't your first language, so I'm going to have to assume something I'm saying isn't being expressed clearly.

To the part of your post that I put in Bold above, yes. That's what the phrase 'opportunity cost' means. It means that if you have five dollars, your five dollars could be used to buy a sandwich or a pizza. If spend five dollars to buy a sandwich, you can't trade that sandwich for a pizza. You've lost that opportunity cost, and now you can't have pizza.

Little red numbers don't make a game challenging. I'm not sure what makes you think that I haven't played, or don't like, challenging games. But it's pretty condescending.

Ok, you are assuming that there is significant difference between buying pizza or sandwich. That' s the fault, because they all satisfy the urge of hunger. So it's only a matter of flavour.. Ok it could make sense, but it is not a drawback, maybe a satisfied preference toward the same goal: stopping hunger...

So are the social politics, they are just a preference toward a goal: winning. They are both useful in any way toward this goal, only changing the flavour of that achievement... Or better, changing the benefit to fullfill that achievement...

So i can't see any drawback at all, and i think it's the same for every one that looks at this mechanic in an objective manner...

 

[kibbles]

It is generally not a problem at Prince and below since you can easily win with only a handful of cities but with higher difficulties the settler spam becomes mandatory just to keep up science wise thus removing any and all natural development of policies. Forcing a player to use gimmicks, loopholes and borderline exploits just to play a game is a clear sign of crappy design .. that is what is wrong with the policy implementation.

I agree with this entirely. One of my friends says he refuses to win by conquest victory, as it is much too easy. Whether you like it or not, when you can exploit a game clearly past the point of intent, the game is broken or needs serious fixing.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Ok, you are assuming that there is significant difference between buying pizza or sandwich. That' s the fault, because they all satisfy the urge of hunger. So it's only a matter of flavour.. Ok it could make sense, but it is not a drawback, maybe a satisfied preference toward the same goal: stopping hunger...

So are the social politics, they are just a preference toward a goal: winning. They are both useful in any way toward this goal, only changing the flavour of that achievement... Or better, changing the benefit to fullfill that achievement...

So i can't see any drawback at all, and i think it's the same for every one that looks at this mechanic in an objective manner...

Haha, saying "Yes, I'm sure everyone who agrees with me is being objective" is a very nice way of calling someone else irrational and crazy.

If stopping hunger was the only goal of the food, then yeah, you'd be right.

If winning was my only goal, I would just play France or China and spam settlers the whole game.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Is that your answer?

Are you trying to put that on flame because you lack the capabilietes to counter my statement???


If you can specifically tell me what is your real goal, if not satisfing hunger\winning the game, i would be pleased, and maybe our discussion can go somewhere...

 

[Meeber]

So the way you are describing it, social policies work well as a strategy mechanic, but the problem is that for a game dubbed "Civilization" it's gamey and extremely unrealistic. In the real world, governments DO change, radically...It makes no sense for a country to stick with a form of government for 6000+ years. I doubt any have in the history of mankind. Of course, it could be argued that SPs represent more than government, but then that's all the more reason to implement a system of civics!

But it's ok for a country to have the same leader ruling it for 6000 years?

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

My 'real goal' is to play the game in different ways and have fun. And since I am not starving, then when I eat, my goal is generally healthy nutrition and enjoyment.

If your goal is to simply 'beat the game', then you don't even need social policies.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

So you play to "play", and you are speaking of a mechanic, social politics, that is not important to you to win the game, but to have fun...

In the end, you are stating that you are uninterested if it's a good mechanic or not for the sake of the game, it's enough that you enjoy it as you enjoy eating a sweet after another, regardless of whether it is good or not for health (speaking of hunger), but just for pleasure...

So your logic is bit filled of flaws and biased by a personal taste, not an objective one.

Am i right? Can you tell me if you think otherwise trouble-free?

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Since I am not starving, yes, I have the luxury of eating for pleasure.

And this is all personal taste. There's nothing objective about my opinion, or yours.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Mine is based on the statement that i play to win the game, because the goal of the game is to satisfy the conditions for victory before the other players.

So it isn't biased or personal. It is the same of the game itself... And for that it is objective.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Why do you play to win the game? Because you choose to. And because you choose to, it's personal. It's a preference.

Like I said, if my only goal was to win the game, I'd play the same civilization over and over. I'd set the AI to the easiest mode. I'd play the same strategy.

But my goal isn't just to win the game. It's to have fun while doing it, and to explore and try different methods.

That's my preference. If your preference is only for winning and nothing else, then that's yours.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

It is not the Sims, where the purpouse of the game is pet a sim, the goal of Civilization is win the game, it is nothing personal, it is a fact...

Arguing that is personal is like saying that Lakers play in NBA for their own fun and not to win...It's a bit shocking, i was thinking that was a serious discussion...

 

[Veshta]

All those players in the Lakers started out playing their silly jumping (it is B-Ball, right? ) game because it was fun and challenging .. now they get paid to play so of course they aim to win

Civ is a game first and foremost, if it is not fun then it has failed. Very simple.

Winning the game using the built-in metrics is OK'ish a few times, but since there is very little variation from one game to the next, people go elsewhere for their fun after a shockingly short (for a Civ) period.
The static nature of the policies is a contributing factor to the feeling of sameness that oozes from C5 and will have to change for the un-modded game to stand a chance against the storm of full-conversions that are already being planned.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

All those players in the Lakers started out playing their silly jumping (it is B-Ball, right? ) game because it was fun and challenging .. now they get paid to play so of course they aim to win

Civ is a game first and foremost, if it is not fun then it has failed. Very simple.

Winning the game using the built-in metrics is OK'ish a few times, but since there is very little variation from one game to the next, people go elsewhere for their fun after a shockingly short (for a Civ) period.
The static nature of the policies is a contributing factor to the feeling of sameness that oozes from C5 and will have to change for the un-modded game to stand a chance against the storm of full-conversions that are already being planned.

They are upgrades, so it's obvious that it is a static feature. I prefer a system were or the socials or the tech tree unlock the civics and go along with them... Some civics than became obsolete advancing on the tech tree or the social politics tree (denpending of which you prefer to use to unlock civics...)

That's the best combination of either system, i hope a mod will come to help or i need to wait Civ VI to have the best ideas in the same game...

 

[SuperJay]

I don't miss the Civics specifically, but I do miss the more dynamic nature of the Civic system versus the Social Policy system. Social Policies feel too static and rigid in their current implementation, but I haven't spent any time trying to think up an alternative.

 

[WastinTime]

Similar feature exist in Europa Universalis. It is more complex, however, because there us more categories and levels (it is even overcomplicated for me).
Saddly, I am not sure which was first to give credit for - SMAC or Europa Univesalis.

SMAC came out over a year before EU.

 

[Ighten]

I miss the immersive aspect.. The silly sods screwed this up with tw Empire though you could sort of mod them back in as background the code is still there..

I agree as well..My long games I play to see how things develop across all the civs..Im not really setting out to win.. I use the shorter fast games for that or scenarios

 

[gingerbill]

I don't miss them , they were a decent system but i prefer social policies by far . I thank god for a change from picking the same civics over and over . Civics after awhile became a waste , everyone picked the same civics , so they might as well have just auto picked them for you .

 

[zomg]

I prefer social policies with the exception that I would like a civic for the actual government type be it monarchy, depotism, etc. There should be only one in place.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

I'd like to see more elaborate social policies, actually. Smaller and more varied ones, and maybe like additional bonuses for finishing out a tree or something. Right now, there's a bunch of policies that aren't very useful and I would never get really unless I was going for a culture victory.

I wouldn't have a problem with drawbacks on social policies as some people asked for, I just don't see it as something really important to add. The drawbacks make more sense for civics when you can change them in an all or nothing fashion, but don't seem like such a good idea for the sort of 'mini-tech tree' approach of social policies. You're supposed to be progressing through the trees, from a game design standpoint, and generally you don't want players to take a hit for that sort of thing.

I also like the idea of combining with a government system, or even if we didn't have a government system, have like, different effects for which different social policies you have. Like if you have Tradition + Commerce + Patronage, you would get one effect, or if you instead have Liberty + Freedom + Piety, you get a different effect. It would encourage you even more to try different styles.

Personally, I finally played a game of Askia where I got and maxed out Autocracy, but I really don't believe Autocracy is worth it, it'd be nice to see that overhauled a lot too.