Why have science and culture?

[Big J Money]

Now that we've seen these trees and how they work on a basic level I figure it would be interesting to ask the question: why have both?

What if they were both consolidated into one resource (science) and one tech tree with all unlockables? Is there really a legitimate player choice here by having the two paths? Can a player somewhat ignore science to focus on culture and vice-versa as a legitimate game strategy?

This isn't an antagonistic question. I'm not against the design. I'm just curious what people think of it; merits or otherwise.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, it means that culture-focused civs won't get automatically aced by science-focused civs. It also makes sense: "Drama and Poetry" isn't a technology or at all science-related.

 

[Ulthwithian]

My immediate reaction is to reduce the 'one true yield' (Science) issue of previous games.

I am quite excited about it.

My only issue with Civics so far is that I almost wish that there were two initial Civics (one Military, one not), and they had two subtrees for Civics that overlapped here and there (e.g., Chivalry or Feudalism).

 

[SMcM]

Yes, it means that culture-focused civs won't get automatically aced by science-focused civs. It also makes sense: "Drama and Poetry" isn't a technology or at all science-related.

This. The old system was weird.

 

[Josephias]

I'd say it is raw power (science) vs finesse/control/versatility (culture). You will need both on the long run, but there is still choice on which of both you give the edge. (Or which terrain you have to foster one or another). And if the use of the resources is similar, the gathering may be not, making as well a difference.

 

[isau]

It also helps out with the "empty turn" phenomenon. By splitting the trees you can ensure more stuff is happening and the player is pushed in that "one more turn" direction.

 

[Big J Money]

It also helps out with the "empty turn" phenomenon. By splitting the trees you can ensure more stuff is happening and the player is pushed in that "one more turn" direction.

That almost makes the mechanic sound like fluff, though. That could also be fixed in other ways.

 

[Acken]

It tries to split progress into 2 yields to give more diversity on what yield you should get.

You're 100% right that it could be all in 1 yield... but the purpose is exactly to have 2 yields so that you look for both rather than only one.

Also the government system is well placed in another tree as it is a different part of the game. Putting everything in a single tree would be really messy.

 

[Big J Money]

It really wouldn't be messy. In fact, from what we've seen in the videos, both trees look much more bare than we're used to.

I think the best argument I've seen so far is that it's thematically appropriate, which makes sense. I'm more curious why it's beneficial from a gameplay/strategic-options-for-players aspect. I'm fine with the way it is, but I always question these things from a game design elegance sort of standpoint.

Another way to look at it is: yes it forces the player to make a decision in any given moment "improve science, or improve culture?". But is there really a valid decision to be made or is the answer always going to be "you really can't neglect either".

 

[thecrazyscot]

Maybe this?

Back on track, I think it's an attempt to equalize the victory types, so that pursuing one won't automatically mean you fall unreasonably behind in the other. Also to give the player even more interesting choices throughout the game...let's face it, lots of civ games just end up with you pushing end turn over and over again.

 

[Acken]

Messy in the sense that you have many unlocks for different systems spread out in the same tree. It's harder to balance and more confusing to the player where to get what.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Big J Money]

There really is no culture victory in Civ anymore. It should be called the Tourism Victory.

 

[Atlas627]

Culture provides different things (borders, and possibly Tourism defense like in V) and is gathered in different ways (Science gets huge boosts from mountains and rainforests, Culture seems to get huge boosts from urban structures).

They are also unlocking entirely different types of things in their trees. Tech seems to be units, districts, and some wonders/buildings. Culture seems to be governments, policies, and other wonders/buildings.

Could you lump them into one? Sure, but it wouldn't be the same. All other civ games basically did lump them into one, and that's why science was always the best yield.

 

[Haggbart]

Now that we've seen these trees and how they work on a basic level I figure it would be interesting to ask the question: why have both?

What if they were both consolidated into one resource (science) and one tech tree with all unlockables? Is there really a legitimate player choice here by having the two paths? Can a player somewhat ignore science to focus on culture and vice-versa as a legitimate game strategy?

This isn't an antagonistic question. I'm not against the design. I'm just curious what people think of it; merits or otherwise.

Sure it is possible, you could even throw founding of religions in the tech tree. That's what was done in cIV. So the only thing that would matter was to get your tech rate up either by commerce or specialists. TBH everything pre CiV was all about the tech tree.

However there is a sense of "been there done that", also it makes sense to seperate a huge complex system into several smaller systems that are easier to understand.
It does not necessarily make the game as a whole less complex (it sure doesn't seem that way in this case), but each and everyone of the systems seems more accesible.

Also, if one of the systems give a penalty to each new city founded and the other doesn't, that might also give different playstyles to wide and tall civs. Right now my money are on relatively fewer cities for tech oriented play and more cities for culture focus. If it was cramped together in one tree, you would easier end up with one optimal playstyle to max that one tree.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's logical continuation of previous systems. We had religious unlocks in Civ5 and policy availability depending on era. It was just next logical step to organize civics in tree and separate government from it.

 

[jtakau]

The true test will be whether a culturally highly sophisticated Civ (i.e. one with at least a step ahead in government/policies) can be equal match (in production/military) to Civ that is a step ahead in science. If that is achievable we have a true choice, especially if the numbers controlling the growth and different synergy bonuses for science and culture yields make it taunting to actually concentrate on both.

Of course ultimately a balanced approach (a half a step behind a specialist in its field but half a step a head in the other) should also be possible and effective...

 

[stealth_nsk]

The true test will be whether a culturally highly sophisticated Civ (i.e. one with at least a step ahead in government/policies) can be equal match (in production/military) to Civ that is a step ahead in science. If that is achievable we have a true choice, especially if the numbers controlling the growth and different synergy bonuses for science and culture yields make it taunting to actually concentrate on both.

Of course ultimately a balanced approach (a half a step behind a specialist in its field but half a step a head in the other) should also be possible and effective...

I believe it will depend on conditions a lot. For example, corps/armies are unlocked with culture. They allow matching units against those 1 tier stronger. But it's very large step. If you have corps and your opponent doesn't, your culture leadership allows you to compensate your lack of tech, if not - you can't.

I expect there to be much more nuances than this.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The way I see it as a way to separate actual techology or applied science from social sciences/concepts.

For example in classical Civ sense, Potery or Horseback Riding are technologies, so should be governed by science, while Philosophy, Trading or Monarchy are social concepts and should be governed by culture.

There are grey areas like Currency. It requres technology to be manufactured, but is social concept. In fact it would probably be social discocery with having bronse working technology as prerequisite.

I am actually hoping to have such prerequisites in Civ6, otherwise both new systems would be too much disconected from each other.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The culture district is very important if you want to win culture victory because it generate great people points towards the artists which is a key part in culture victory.

Terrain is maybe more important then anything else then it comes to what your civ should focus on. Religion wants natural wonders, thundra and desert if you got the parthenon that give faith bonuses for them.

Culture wants wonders and I guess you will turn culture into tourism in the late game. Science wants mountains and gold wants rivers and sea as the harbour district give a trade route.

Citizens seems to produce both culture and science which make these resources very common compared to stuff such as faith or even gold which is much more dependent on their districts.

 

[Ryika]

Of course ultimately a balanced approach (a half a step behind a specialist in its field but half a step a head in the other) should also be possible and effective...

It should not only be "possible", having a good balance should be ideal and stronger than systems that completely neglect one of them. And the exact ideal ratio of Culture to Science should depend on your surroundings and the victory you're going for.