Do you allow social policy saving when you play?

Do you play with policy saving on?

  • No, I do NOT check "Allow Policy Saving"

    Votes: 96 72.2%
  • Yes, I check "Allow Policy Saving"

    Votes: 37 27.8%

  • Total voters
    133
There has never been a numbers-based analysis to support this patch decision. Nobody has ever shown numerically that storing is superior to up/front sooner gains on earlier SP.

Which makes this particular patch decision COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS. Why not just randomly change other balance features while the UI still doesn't work? Come on, it'll be FUN?!

I agree that there has never been a numbers-based analysis. That being said it is still possible to store policies by selecting it in advanced game options. No need to get upset over nothing.
 
I agree that there has never been a numbers-based analysis. That being said it is still possible to store policies by selecting it in advanced game options. No need to get upset over nothing.

The developers changed it to no-saving because that was their preference, and quite possibly their original intent. Then when a vocal minority complained, they gave them the option to play the way they preferred (or had grown accustomed to).
 
The developers changed it to no-saving because that was their preference, and quite possibly their original intent. Then when a vocal minority complained, they gave them the option to play the way they preferred (or had grown accustomed to).

I fail to see how this is relevant to my post which you've quoted. Regardless, I'm aware of this and it was the right move to make. I don't see why people still complain. I feel that they just want something to complain about, most likely.
 
I agree that there has never been a numbers-based analysis. That being said it is still possible to store policies by selecting it in advanced game options. No need to get upset over nothing.

Meaningful numbers based analysis in Civ are utterly impossible in any situation where you are comparing decisions made at different times in the game. The main problem is that you have to decide how much one gold/food/hammer/beaker is worth now compare to x turns ago. Obviously its better to have 1 hammer now than 1 hammer in 100 turns time, but by how much?
 
I fail to see how this is relevant to my post which you've quoted. Regardless, I'm aware of this and it was the right move to make. I don't see why people still complain. I feel that they just want something to complain about, most likely.

It's not relevant. I didn't mean to quote you - just post a free-standing opinion.
 
I DON'T like to be gamey. This is my history sim DARNIT!
 
It's not relevant. I didn't mean to quote you - just post a free-standing opinion.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up :) Was a little confused.

Meaningful numbers based analysis in Civ are utterly impossible in any situation where you are comparing decisions made at different times in the game. The main problem is that you have to decide how much one gold/food/hammer/beaker is worth now compare to x turns ago. Obviously its better to have 1 hammer now than 1 hammer in 100 turns time, but by how much?

Well I wouldn't say it is impossible, it would require a good deal of work and wouldn't be 100% accurate though.

Is it better to get that 1 hammer now and take longer to get to a later, more desired policy, or is it better to get that other benefit 50 turns sooner? Of course there are a lot of variables here too so this wont always be clear cut. It's still possible to get at least some idea of what the better option is even if it may be situational.
 
Top Bottom