About policy tree-mixing strategies and means to improve them

[Hinin]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to talk here about the current viability of tree-mixing policy strategies (meaning the idea of taking policies from several policy trees of the same era) and if additional elements could be added to make such strategies more viable at higher difficulties if people want to (basically preparing the terrain for proposals if feedback is positive enough).

Currently, there is indeed a lot of risks tied to policy tree-mixing (I'll call that PTM) compared to simply choosing a policy tree and sticking to it until it is finished :
- policy trees have scaling bonuses that buffs a specific element of the game in a coherent way ; PTM severely limits that aspects
- each policy tree finisher grants access to a unique world wonder ; PTM immediatly makes the race for such wonders impossible to win
- each policy tree grants a bonus (the tree finisher) when unlocking its final policy ; PTM abandons this

All in all, it is actually very rare for PTM to be viable compared to sticking to a policy tree during an era on a pure statistical level. That said, I know some people tried PTM for specific civs or strategies :
- the famous Tradition / Authority PTM for heavy border-growth strategies ;
- also Tradition / Authority PTM for the Aztec, this time to boost Aztec victory bonuses while boosting the capital ;
- Progress / Authority PTM for maximum Production per city ;
- Tradition / Progress PTM for Capital growth linked to Science generation.
etc

The main questions I'm asking are the following :
- should these kinds of strategies be left as marginal, or should there be more ways to support them ?
- if we want to support them, what forms should this support take without provoking yield inflation ?

Here are two ideas that could be introduced to support PTM strategies :
- per-opener scaling bonuses : each policy tree opener provides some kind of yield bonus that scales with the number of policy tree opener you've unlocked => PTM creates a situation where you have usually 4 openers instead of the usual 3, meaning per-opener bonuses would provide scaling to PTM strategies without provoking excessive yield inflation for classical policy unlocking ;
- adding PTM world wonders : each era would have 3 wonders that would require two openers to be accessible (for example : Tlatelolco, the great market of Tenochtitlan, could be a Tradition / Authority wonder), these wonders would be accessible at the same tech tier as policy tree finisher wonders => this gives PTM strategies world wonders to fight for while keeping them accessible for those doing very light PTM since openers are accessible to everyone.

What do you think ? Is it even worth talking about all of this ? Let me know.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Stalker0]

I personally would love to see more christmas tree strategies with policies. Its one of the easiest ways to create a huge new pool of choices for a player.

The easiest start....move GP buys back to the openers instead of the finishers. That would give a lot more incentive to pick up an opener from various trees.

 

[Rosete]

I think ptm should remain a niche/marginal strat. Making ptm viable would mean rebalancing the trees to be more frontloaded than they are now. PTM offers more choices with immediate gains. The normal way offers you one big choice with the promise of a big payout at the end. I like that you have to commit to a tree to get the most out of it, even having to pick a policy that doesn't help you much at all. If PTM were to be equally viable, then you'd get to pick the best choice all the time without the cost of commitment.

It is more headache than I think is worth it.

 

[randomnub]

Medieval and Industrial policy trees are frontloaded enough as they are, I mix them up constantly. The initial ones are always worth finishing due to how they scale, with maybe an exception in a 2 authority (right) dip when delaying serious warring for Renaissance+, but I see that as a good thing tbh, they define your playthrough. The only way to make mid-late game tradition or progress dip worth it would be totally reworking the openers (that are good only when picked up very early) and that means reinventing the wheel, they're fine as it is.

 

[axatin]

The AI are not allowed to open a new policy branch while another one isn't finished yet. As long as that's the case, PTM shouldn't be encouraged. And removing the AI restriction would probably lead to bad AI decisions in many cases.

 

[CAYM]

Personally, I think that creating different cherry pickers from a policy point of view actually dilutes each characteristic. I think it is good to have only policies that are appropriate for each era.

Of course, I think it's good to be selective about some civilizations.

 

[Solic]

There is already enough depth as it is for the policy trees in my opinion. Leaving it as niche is exactly where it should stay. It's easier for the AI and it also makes balancing policies easier.

If implemented, I'd think it'd be best as a mod, so players can opt into that additional depth if they so desire. I like the idea presented in the OP for that, but it doesn't fully give mixed policy trees, it just opens up a few more additional fixed paths where a selection of openers is taken, leaving any of the intermediate policies out to dry.

 

[4CV]

Usually I play on prince level, with espionage disabled, culture and diplo victory as well, because I don't like them. (Btw, sometimes I feel tempted to disable the happiness system too... )
All the warmonger civs are enabled, along with some victims. Then I go Authority>Fealty>Imperialism, and never a thought of mixing anything but wheat beer and lemon juice.(*)
But, atm I play the Ottomans (still on v3.7.12) and started in the tundra. Picked progress, to do sth differently and soon got into heavy problems, with barbarians coming unexpectedly, because I am so much used to being informed of freshly spawned nests.
Which led me to pick authority next, and good-bye progress finisher. But at least we reached medieval still alive.
I had planned to go statecraft, to see how this works with the Ottoman trade routes. But somehow it seems, I had lost courage and went the well known way of fealty. Which I regretted soon. After "Nobility", which I like for the better and faster castles and armories, I thought about opening another medieval policy, but did not like any of them.
Instead I went back to fill up progress. That worked much better than expected. My Ottomans became stronger, vassalized the Huns (who had started the war, but could not end it without Suleiman's consent), later picked Imperialism and won more wars. Until we were fighting dangerous unhappiness rather than other civs.
The rationalism opener changed that with a real Big Bang, from +/- 50 to full 100%, because of the additional yields on strategic ressources....
Now all are our vassals, or eliminated. Not literally all, to tell the truth, there is still a small tribe of unenlightened Celts...

Last night, after many "... one more turns", I stumbled upon Hinin's interesting OP, but was too tired to answer directly. Now I think, I will try the PTM thing more often, with different combinations, which might work better than I had supposed previously, even with the existing policy tree. At least on LPL...

edit: There is still one industrial policy to choose and I am tempted to open Industry for the 2 additional TRs...

(LPL="lazy prince level")

* edi2: to be honest, sometimes I am mixing hot milk and coffee, too.

 

[KlHannibal2]

I feel there is already a good deal of PTM viable on deity. Especially with the industrial trees. Medieval is also viable, while the initial trees I see only viable in niche situations.

I would be fine with more PTM for the openibg trees, but also with keeping things. More PTM could mean more interesting choices, but could be harder to do well for the AI (or the AI would just be blocked from doing it).

If we go for more PTM, I would rather not allow GP purchase from the opener or get more wonders or bew bonuses based on getting openers. I would rather shift existing bonuses in the trees to make them more front-loaded. I like the setup of a tree with strong early policies (not necessarily the opener), weaker/situational later policies, and a strong finisher.

 

[Stalker0]

I think a lot of PTM builds right now are dependent on To the Glory of God.

For example, I could never see dipping out of progress and giving up great writers at the end, that is a LOT of extra culture (and what policies would you give up, I think progress has the most balance between all its policies, I kind of want all of them). Authority and Tradition closers are not as important, though the last 2 tradition policies are quite juicy (if you dipped out of tradition early I think you would lose a lot of culture, so you would probably have to go authority for war culture, and it take a lot of warring to match that non-stop turn after turn culture machine).

Statecraft's finisher wonder is too good if I'm going DV, but if not I could see dipping out of it. The last two policies in fealty aren't great so I could see dipping into a couple of other trees instead, maybe statecraft and artistry openers. Artistry's Great Musician buy is hard to resist for a CV, so either TTGOG or not going CV.

I would never dip out of rationalism without TTGOG, the GS buy is just too good. With TTGOG sure, there is some funny synergies between the 3 trees (though with rationalisms shakeups I don't think its as dippable now but I haven't played around with it too much).

 

[KlHannibal2]

One specific idea to boost PTM: move the extra trade route earlier in the statecraft tree. There are many civs with trade route bonuses. An early extra trade route would encourage dipping into statecraft even if you don't go for DV.

 

[ma_kuh]

Adding a halfway unlock at 3 policies, not including the opener, would also be a middle ground. Take the example, unlocking GPs: a typical 4/2 split would not prevent you from unlocking one of the GPs, but you don't get both GPs just from opening the tree.

 

[pineappledan]

I like the idea of moving the GP purchase unlock to the openers. That has a nice symmetry with the wonder on the finisher and GP on the opener.
I also like how that re-aligns TTGOG to be a belief that saves you investing in a few policy openers you wanted, rather than acting as the lynchpin of several strategies that need a GP from an otherwise sub-optimal tree. It also frees up civs that are heavily reliant on certain GP types from feeling railroaded into the same policy tree every game (eg. Japan and Sweden needing the GGenerals from Authority, or Venice's reliance on GMerchant purchases from Industry)

 

[Zuizgond]

I've been using PTM for a long time. I'm almost always putting 1 point in fealty for the monasteries and 2 points in authority for the heal on kill + science/culture on kill. I don't get why some people are so hell bent on taking 1 tree from each era and finish it before starting the next one. To each their own I guess.

I don't think something needs to be changed to encourage PTM though, except allowing AI to be able to do so.

 

[rkkn]

I support ensuring that PTM is viable (strongly support, in fact), and I think that the only thing needed to accomplish that is making finishers less mandatory. There is absolutely no need to make the policy trees themselves more frontloaded. PTM is already inherently more frontloaded since you are picking policies that are more beneficial to your strategy.

Without PTM, you only have a single lasting choice every 2 eras. In VP policies give very interesting bonuses, so greater choice in which ones you take is imo the best way to make the game more interesting. In my ideal world there'd be even more policy choice: Each tree would have more policies than you need to get the finisher and unlock the next set of policies.

 

[andersw]

I think a lot of PTM builds right now are dependent on To the Glory of God.

For example, I could never see dipping out of progress and giving up great writers at the end, that is a LOT of extra culture (and what policies would you give up, I think progress has the most balance between all its policies, I kind of want all of them). Authority and Tradition closers are not as important, though the last 2 tradition policies are quite juicy (if you dipped out of tradition early I think you would lose a lot of culture, so you would probably have to go authority for war culture, and it take a lot of warring to match that non-stop turn after turn culture machine).

Statecraft's finisher wonder is too good if I'm going DV, but if not I could see dipping out of it. The last two policies in fealty aren't great so I could see dipping into a couple of other trees instead, maybe statecraft and artistry openers. Artistry's Great Musician buy is hard to resist for a CV, so either TTGOG or not going CV.

I would never dip out of rationalism without TTGOG, the GS buy is just too good. With TTGOG sure, there is some funny synergies between the 3 trees (though with rationalisms shakeups I don't think its as dippable now but I haven't played around with it too much).

Yes this is my take too, I usually go authority/progress mixed up later fill up both > rationalism.
Industry opener is worth it for maybe arabia and ottomans.
The recent rationalism nerf was not a day too early its still my top pick ... as a warmonger.

 

[4CV]

Yes this is my take too, I usually go authority/progress mixed up later fill up both > rationalism.
Industry opener is worth it for maybe arabia and ottomans.
The recent rationalism nerf was not a day too early its still my top pick ... as a warmonger.

In the game I reported earlier it would probably have been better too, not to choose fealty at all, but fill up the early trees. Btw, later I did not open industy just for the TRs, and I think that was better indeed. Science gives more advantage.

 

[andersw]

In the game I reported earlier it would probably have been better too, not to choose fealty at all, but fill up the early trees. Btw, later I did not open industy just for the TRs, and I think that was better indeed. Science gives more advantage.

Ottoman get science on finished external tr and I think bazaar makes tr historic event for arabia which nets some science.
I havent done any maths on it to see if its better than just full rationalism but it fits with ua's.

 

[4CV]

Ottoman get science on finished external tr and I think bazaar makes tr historic event for arabia which nets some science.
I havent done any maths on it to see if its better than just full rationalism but it fits with ua's.

I think, I didn't even consider using ETRs after opening Industry, because I am so used to push conquered cities by ITRs, plus the culture the Ottomans get on finishing them. And the amount of gold is not much worse than the gpt for ETRs, if at all. Maybe I should go back by autosaves and try it, but there is also a new version to try...

 

[andersw]

I think, I didn't even consider using ETRs after opening Industry, because I am so used to push conquered cities by ITRs, plus the culture the Ottomans get on finishing them. And the amount of gold is not much worse than the gpt for ETRs, if at all. Maybe I should go back by autosaves and try it, but there is also a new version to try...

Thing is, until you have a vassal no etr is safe .. well you can probably park a spy in your most nearby CS and use that also.
The current spy system is very detrimental for etr>cs play.