(28) Proposal - Policy Tree Openers (not Finishers) provide Wonder unlocks

[Stalker0]

Currently each policy tree gets a wonder unlock when you complete the tree. Tradition gets university of sankore as an example.

Proposal: Change it so that unlocking the opener of each tree provides the wonder unlock (instead of the finisher). So a player pursuing the Tradition 2 / Authority 2 (border blob) strategy as an example could build both University of Sankore and Alhambra.

Rationale: Currently there are plenty of reasons to finish a policy tree. Both the finisher itself, the unlocking of Great Person faith purchasing, and just the innate synergy of each tree that tends to make finishing the tree the best play. Adding variety so that "Christmas tree" plays where you mix and match from different trees becomes more viable adds more diversity to the game. It unlocks more strategies and allows people to approach the game in new and interesting ways.

By providing the wonder on the Opener, it gives players more incentive to try taking multiple trees, rather than always finishing the tree they started. For players who complete their tree, this will create zero change or issue. For those who want to Christmas tree, this gives them an interesting new tool in their arsenal.

 

[ma_kuh]

I think this is a cool idea. I'd maybe add something like Well/Water Wheel exclusions for same-tier wonders though; I don't think a hidden advantage of cross-policy play is the ability to spam more wonders.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

One hundred times no. You mix policies, you deal with the consequences, you gain other synergies which are powerful enough

I wouldn't support it in this implementation but I propose this which partly achieves what you seem to care about, i.e. more flexibility while still locking them in some way and retaining bonuses for completing trees:

All policy wonders are now available as normal to built. Completing associated policy tree gives a 100% production bonus to a wonder. Same mechanism as in fealty and industry

This also achieves more competition and remove strange situation when a human player gets some wonders guaranteed

 

[nekokon]

Agreed, synergy should be the main gameplay design.
If you can mix and match as you go depend on whatever's happening at the moment and get no bad consequence there's no more reason for careful planning and execution anymore. Especially in a game where some decision's results can only be seen after a long period.

 

[CrazyG]

This has two effects

1. You can build them earlier (eg: you need 1 policy rather than 6 for Sankore)
2. Mixing trees may be more effective.

#2 is an interesting idea to try if you are looking for variety. The AI doesn't do it though so some people find it exploitative. Either way its more interesting than it is powerful because you don't get finishers.

 

[ma_kuh]

6 / 12 /18 policies can still be requirements for each wonder, seems reasonable to add that to the proposal or add it in a follow-up balance proposal after seeing how it plays.

You also need techs to unlock the wonders, so even at 1 policy required you can't really rush them, but you can try and catch up if you are ahead in tech but behind in policies (mainly thinking at T2 and T3).

 

[Stalker0]

1. You can build them earlier (eg: you need 1 policy rather than 6 for Sankore)

I can't think of a time where I got the tech needed for a wonder before completing the tree. Maaaybe like Broadway for Industry maybe....but in general I am always accomplishing the tree long before the wonder becomes available.

 

[CrazyG]

I can't think of a time where I got the tech needed for a wonder before completing the tree. Maaaybe like Broadway for Industry maybe....but in general I am always accomplishing the tree long before the wonder becomes available.

I've gotten to Education before finishing tradition more than once. But I agree it wouldn't be especially common.

 

[Dimmy]

Big no for reasons explained already and mainly synergy. In my current game I already have opened tradition, autho, fealty and statecraft for situational reasons, I am already leading in wonders built etc. At least having them at the finisher stage keeps me to build them all.

Counter proposal would be the Wonder is unlocked along with one of the policy in the tree which could be at different stage for each tree (opener, first 2 policies, later ones or finisher).

Counter proposal 2: One "lesser" wonder at the opener and one "major" wonder at the finisher.

If you want more variety, add more wonders into VP or even the full mod More Wonders which is a must to me.

 

[youngsteve]

What about if the wonder is available after the first policy, but if you do build a poilcy wonder you are unable to build another without opening 6 more policies. At least that way it wouldn't be exploitive.

 

[DeAnno]

I would be more interested if this allowed the Great Person buy unlock instead. That doesn't victimize other civs as much, and it would make the lategame revolve less around TTGOG.

 

[rsc2a]

A better idea (if it works code-wise) would be to require Opener +3 policies. So you wouldn't need to complete the tree, but you'd need to complete a majority of it.

I'd also recommend the same mechanic for GP purchases.

 

[Stalker0]

What about if the wonder is available after the first policy, but if you do build a poilcy wonder you are unable to build another without opening 6 more policies. At least that way it wouldn't be exploitive.

Overall, I would argue if you are going to christmas tree 3 different policy trees just to pick up the chance at grabbing some extra wonders, you aren't really playing in an OP way, you are giving up A LOT for the privilege, as completing trees is just so very efficient in many ways.

This makes spreading your policies out more viable, which is a good thing...but I would still argue most optimized players would choose filling out 1 tree over mix and match.

 

[Recursive]

I sponsor this proposal.

Proposal Sponsors: Recursive.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)