Who else miss the civics?

[sketch162000]

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

Nice strawman. No one was talking about the leaders, and I never said I agreed with having the same leader for 6000 years.

Except that in Civ IV it was very easy to completely change civics totally on the fly. It's not much of an opportunity cost if you can easily change it.

See, this is part of my problem with the central design decisions in Civ V. Ok, so it was too easy to change civics on the fly in Civ IV. Why would you scrap the entire mechanic instead of just trying to make it work better? They did this with religion as well, and it just results in an empty, boring game. It reeks of poor game design. It's looks like the ONLY reason that we have the rigid SP system is because the devs didn't like the fact that you could change civics at will in Civ IV. No one stopped to consider that it might not make any sense to have permanent theocracies or landed elites, or military classes.

I have a hard time seeing how gathering hammers that apparently are growing out of the ground, and piling them in your city can build an entire building.

I have a hard time seeing how that building can then somehow reliably and consistently produce technological breakthroughs by apparently manufacturing piles and piles of small blue beakers.

I mean, really, you expect me to believe that my people somehow know that they're ten years away from discovering electricity, and at least 25 years from refrigeration? How absurd!

That's like if you told me that I could completely change the system of governance on a whim, at the cost that everyone would be upset for about one year or so. After that, things would be back to normal, though.

Like I said, the realism argument is very silly. Typically, things people don't like seem unrealistic to them, and things they like, they are more willing to accept as 'realistic.'

* * * * *

@sketch:
You're right, 'abstracted' doesn't mean 'inaccurate' but again, Civilization is hardly 'accurate' in just about any regard. If you're having fun, your brain connects the dots and you're less likely to gripe or notice things that don't make sense. If you're not having fun with something, then all of a sudden the flaws are easy to spot.

When I was little, and playing Mario, my dad asked me why jumping on their head killed bad guys, and how come Mario didn't get hurt from jumping on them, only from bumping into them. A silly question, right? I mean, Mario jumps on their head. He stomps on turtles. It's what he does. But step back for a moment and pretend you have no concept of video games and recognize that "jumping on their heads" is kind of bizarre. Jumping on the heads of things has never been a way of defeating enemies. It's not a martial art or anything. It makes no sense except for the fact that we understand that's how the game is played and we never think about it.

If you want to complain about social policies being inaccurate, then you should really acknowledge the fact that the technology trees, and gold production, or luxuries are all ridiculous. Archers can fire farther than rifles? Rifles don't have any range? So on, so forth.

I don't have problems with these things, they don't bother me, because I understand they're part of the game like Mario jumping on a turtle's head, and I don't give them a second thought. It doesn't prevent me from creating an image in my head of my empire or becoming 'immersed.'

Reluctantly, I have to agree with you. You are apparently having fun with Civ V and the rigid social policies, so the inconsistency with actual history does not bother you. I am not having fun, and worse, I'm comparing the system to previous Civs where I could change the configuration of my laws as the situation called for it, just like in real life. I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on that.

As per your Mario example I understand what you are saying FWIW. (Mario can shoot fireballs underwater??) However, it always made perfect sense to me that he jumps on enemies. Mario squishes the baddies, you know, like bugs. The goombas even flatten out when you land on them. When he runs into them, they can bite/scratch him. He could not jump on the blue turtle shells with spikes because he would impale himself. I don't see how that mechanic was a suspension of disbelief for you or your Dad.

The same goes for most of your other examples in Civ. They just always made sense to me...I was never just accepting it as "part of the game." Beakers and hammers are a graphical representation of the city's academic performance or workforce, respectively. More beakers = more, better educated, better equipped eggheads and academic institutions. More hammers = larger/more productive workforce.

Gold production = simplified representation of taxes/however else governments collect money from their populations and the economy.

Luxuries make people happy because they are, uh, luxurious. Government taxes luxuries and people pay more for them anyway.

The tech tree is a bit jarring. So, in 4000 BC, world leaders each get the same list of technologies, and so they go to their smartest villager, point to a tech and say, "Discover this." But, then I don't see any other way to make that more immersive other than having a random tech pop up every few turns, and that wouldn't be much fun, (or would it?)

The rifle/archery range thing is a bit of a problem. But then, gunpowder changed what "close range" meant. Besides, riflemen still engaged in melee, regularly. Because of loading times, they'd shoot two volleys and charge, so technically they passed as hand-to-hand combatants. Later gunpowder units were deployed as front line troops, while archers, during their heyday, were almost always used as support units firing from relative safety behind the main battle line. Meh.

But then, there's the rigid SP system, which just doesn't compute. You can't explain it as an abstraction, because society/governments are not that rigid, at all. They just aren't. By your own admission, social change does occur, with major social upheaval, sure, but it does occur and has occurred fairly regularly over the history of the planet. Sticking by the same social policies and governments for the entirety of history is the extreme exception, not the rule.

You can't explain it as "just the way the game is" because every other Civ game in the series allowed players to switch government at will, and so Civ V either got rid of governments (?) or it replaced governments with SPs and made them permanent decisions. Neither choice makes much sense given the scope of real civilizations and it's a major departure from the Civ series.

The abolition of the Samurai class in Japan, the French Revolution, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US, the rise and fall of Knighthood in Western Europe, the Ancient Romans switching between monarchy, representation, and dictatorship--Almost none of that could have happened with the rigid SP system. Worse, Civ V took what was used for every previous game and scrapped it because, what, it was too hard to think up penalties for switching civics too often? I am utterly baffled that people try to defend permanent SPs...

[/GREATWALLOFTEXT]

 

[shadowplay]

I'd prefer a fusion of the old civics system with the new social policy system. I like being able to choose inidividual traits as your civilization progresses, but I miss the interchangeability of the civics from Civ4. I don't see why we can't have both.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Sketch, the things you talked about (abolition, apartheid, revolution, etc.) are part of my point in that most of those were forced upon the leaders of the government, not something they chose to do. Being able to effortlessly control it is a little jarring next to the reality of those events.

I understand what you're saying.

Also, your post gave me an idea for a fun optional game mode or mod: Random Tech. Maybe you could put an emphasis on which area you tried to focus research in (economic, cultural, militaristic), or maybe there would be other factors that weight tech discovery (if you have a high gold income, you're more likely to discover Banking than Lasers), or so on, but you would have to rely on blindly acquiring tech.

Sure, it could be very very frustrating, but just as an optional game mode, it would be kind of neat to have to adapt on the fly to your situation, and what you have, change your goals based on what you're excelling in. Add in some cultural diffusion so that if like, everyone else has horseback riding but you, you would get it quickly or something.

I dunno, seems like an idea!

 

[sketch162000]

Sketch, the things you talked about (abolition, apartheid, revolution, etc.) are part of my point in that most of those were forced upon the leaders of the government, not something they chose to do. Being able to effortlessly control it is a little jarring next to the reality of those events.

I understand what you're saying.

Also, your post gave me an idea for a fun optional game mode or mod: Random Tech. Maybe you could put an emphasis on which area you tried to focus research in (economic, cultural, militaristic), or maybe there would be other factors that weight tech discovery (if you have a high gold income, you're more likely to discover Banking than Lasers), or so on, but you would have to rely on blindly acquiring tech.

Sure, it could be very very frustrating, but just as an optional game mode, it would be kind of neat to have to adapt on the fly to your situation, and what you have, change your goals based on what you're excelling in. Add in some cultural diffusion so that if like, everyone else has horseback riding but you, you would get it quickly or something.

I dunno, seems like an idea!

LOL yeah I started to like the random tech thing as soon as I wrote it. Moddable?

Also, I agree with the emphasis idea. I always thought that it would be a good idea to have an area of study, so to speak. That way you could have a scientifically advanced but militarily primitive civilization. Or a nation of bushmen that have the best economic system on the planet. It trumps the whole idea of unilateral cultural evolution.

 

[Guardian_PL]

(...)

Also, your post gave me an idea for a fun optional game mode or mod: Random Tech. Maybe you could put an emphasis on which area you tried to focus research in (economic, cultural, militaristic), or maybe there would be other factors that weight tech discovery (if you have a high gold income, you're more likely to discover Banking than Lasers), or so on, but you would have to rely on blindly acquiring tech.

(...)
I dunno, seems like an idea!

Yeah, back in the good old days of gaming, in a title called Sid Meier Alpha Centauri that's exactly how it was done and (gasp) that option could also be disabled -then you've played picking the exact tech you're researching similar to civ series.

civics, AI personalities - it was all there, and done better than in any other game, including my favourite Civ4.

They don't make games like that anymore...

 

[moscaverde]

Nice strawman. No one was talking about the leaders, and I never said I agreed with having the same leader for 6000 years.

...

[/GREATWALLOFTEXT]

Unfortunately, this argueing is useless, as Civilization is now a wargame. I even saw people here in the forum saying they don't care about the history in the game, or that the policies should all be optional from the start etc. Like gameplay > realism x 1000.
Just look how one adopts a policy (communism for example: +5 hammers bonus, and thats it, no drawbacks).
If you like the history and the evolving empire feeling (like I do) you should play Civ 4 (like I do), certainly nothing was perfected in it, but way better than 5.

 

[joyous_gard]

You should have done a poll! I like social policies. I liked civics. They could have expanded the game and included both in some creative way... but I don't think the focus was on expanding the game.

 

[Peregrine]

Addressing the thread title;

Unchanging "social polices" is simply too unrealistic for moi. Civ games are historical games. The university definition of history is change over time. Social policies, or anything else, that is unchanging is unacceptable. I have no idea what the designers were thinking. Perhaps they need an historical consultant? I know of no civilization that did not change/transform itself over its history. Willing or unwilling, historical change is a constant.

I'll wait for Civ6. Seems like the even numbered versions are the winners.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

To be honest, in both Civ 4 and Civ 5, I'm very happy with the immersion feeling, but somewhere around the Industrial age, it all falls apart for me.

I dunno, I think the tech and aesthetic just changes too dramatically or something. In Civ 4, I really had no fun playing in the modern era. It's a little better in Civ 5, but I still find Ancient -> Renaissance to be my favorite parts of the game, and the parts where I most feel like I'm running an empire.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I'd prefer a fusion of the old civics system with the new social policy system. I like being able to choose inidividual traits as your civilization progresses, but I miss the interchangeability of the civics from Civ4. I don't see why we can't have both.

Yeah, same here. I don't feel both systems fill the same niche. The civics are the best form of "government" Civ ever had, while the policies give a nice sense of progression.

Having both, with synergistic effects, would be very cool. Depending on your policies, the state would have a clear set of "preferred" civics, but could still switch (e.g. for wartimes).

Cheers, LT.