Civics - The forgotten layer?

[Sauron07]

Been trolling here for a while and rarely posting on subjects of interest. I love the site, but amongst all the excellent strategy threads on the board there appears to be on area where focused discussion islacking - CIVICS.

I think that civics choices have a tremendous impact on strategy but don't seem to get the recognition or focus they may deserve. I also think that many players inherently agree that civics are important but don't place them at the forefront of the thought process when developing strategies. Instead civics seem to be something where you use whatever civic "works" with your chosen strat rather than developing a strat based around one or a particular combination of civics choices or designing/tweaking strategies to maximize the benefits provided by the various civics.

I realize that the difference in leadership traits, starting tech and UU's create "uniqueness" which lends itself to civ specific strategies, but feel that many other universal aspects of the game have generated substantial discussion (the Great Profits thread or any military strat based on a particular unit are a good example of this).

Ok, now the goal of this thread is to get people to think about civics as something which you can or should base strategies around or at least include in any strategy discussion. Here's an example of the type of discussion/thought process I'm talking about: Is Caste System/Representation/Pacism the be all end all of a specialist centric strategy or are there other civics that may be more beneficial to certain civs or game situations)

CAVEATS - Before people start pointing me to various threads, I want to state that my goal is to try and get people to think about civics as another "layer" of strategy which is just as important as civ, tech or build choices. I know that there are discussions out there where civics choices come up in relation to other strategies(Vel's pop and chop(tm) in his 2nd strat thread is a good example). I would welcome people linking or referencing any particularly good civics threads here as well.

When I get home this evening I will try to complete my writeup outlining my thoughts on the various civics choices to kick things off.

[Writersbl0ck]

I think the problem with creating a coherent strategy around civics is that a fluid game will require many differnet civic changes depending on what is going on. You don't want to be paying extra for each unit as a pacifist nation if you are at war, you want instead to become a feudalistic theocracy and get the free units and extra XP.

If you try to put together a strategy based on civics before you see how your game is going, you are going to get crushed trying to stick to that strategy. Civics are necessarily part of your strategy of play, but they are reactionary in nature and should be adapted according to the needs of your civ.

Similarly, city improvements are reactionary. You don't go in saying "I am going to build X farms and N cottages on each city." Instead you see what you need and go from there. IMHO Civics are much the same kind of tool. You see where you are as a civilization and then adjust your civics accordingly.

[Crossfire]

The CS beeline, while aiming for an expensive free tech, also aims for a particular civic. By the same token, you get the pyramids so that you can get the civic choices that make the most sense at that point in the game.

Otherwise I would say you are right, there is some attention to them, but only in the larger context of another strategy. I would love to hear a thorough review of why people use what civics combination, when.

[Dis]

I mostly use the better civic as it comes in. I usually go for the democracy style of play (free religion, emancipation etc). Unless I'm in a conquest game. Then I go for police state.

I'd like to see a discussion on anarchy. I know it's only 1 turn. But all those turns add up. How often do you guys switch civic? The second post would seem to indicate he does it often. If I get attacked, I never switch out of the peace style civics unless I'm in a long protracted war or I'm in conquerer mode.

[rjmatsleepers]

I like getting Code of Laws early and thus enabling a switch to caste system. The specialists that would otherwise not be available are very useful for increasing the chances of a different GP.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Enigma_Nova]

In the early game, I quite prefer Gprophets and Gengineers. a Gscientist is useful for his academy, and the extra beakers from Representation Scientists is quite useful, but I don't particularily mind the type.
I don't GP-Pump that often, partially because I'm not a Phi Civ, and mainly because I prefer to have a production powerhouse & war machine.

[baboon]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
I like getting Code of Laws early and thus enabling a switch to caste system. The specialists that would otherwise not be available are very useful for increasing the chances of a different GP.

RJM at Sleeper's

Don't forget about representation. Is Caste System really provided by Code of Laws?

[Son of David]

Hereditary rule, vassalage, slavery, theocracy, and free markets - the absolute bee's knees.

[Enigma_Nova]

Sure, if you take a slash-n-burn approach to conquest. I prefer to keep at least some cities.

[Just_Matt]

Re: Free Markets

I hope I'm not co-opting the thread on civics, but I'd like to ask why you prefer free markets. I find the restriction on foreign trade routes to be painful.

I make an awful lot of money selling extra resources to the competition. This also keeps them poor and unable to afford military units later in the game. When I pop a GTrader I ship him off to the farthest and largest city I've found for another nice bit of profit.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, I'm just trying to learn new ways of thinking.


>> I'm an empire builder. I try to hold off on conquests until I have an overwhelming military advantage (+2 or +3 unit upgrades (not promotions) above the enemy).

[Cort Haus]

I don't think we can consider Civics without hailing the power of the Spiritual strait. SPI civs can re-optimise their civics for whatever they want to do every 5 turns. This makes a huge difference compared to the commitment required by non-SPI civs to their civic choices.

So, if you're using slavery for the whip, but want to speed up a Great Person for a bit, switch to Caste System + Pacifism and run some specialists. If at war, use Vassalage & Theocracy. Need some missionaries? No problem. Being able to chip and change every few turns can be hugely powerful. It's also a good way of learning the various civic combos.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by baboon

Is Caste System really provided by Code of Laws?

I think it is - do you know something different?

RJM at Sleeper's

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Free Markets

Originally posted by Just_Matt
I hope I'm not co-opting the thread on civics, but I'd like to ask why you prefer free markets. I find the restriction on foreign trade routes to be painful.

That's mercantilism. Free Trade's only effect is +1 trade routes.

I make an awful lot of money selling extra resources to the competition. This also keeps them poor and unable to afford military units later in the game. When I pop a GTrader I ship him off to the farthest and largest city I've found for another nice bit of profit.

Mercantilism doesn't prevent either of those. Look in the upper-left part of the city screen - those are the trade routes it's talking about.