New Policy system

[killmeplease]

I think policies aren't good enough currently. Its too much bustle with card switching in civ6, and the civic tree feels redundant. Civ5 policies were nice little things you collected throughout the game, very satisfying, but the whole system was too static.

What i propose is a new policy system:

Edit: there is no civic tree or governments, just individual policies
Policies can be created with great philosophers when specific conditions are met (similar to eurekas). Great Philosophers are born when philosopher points accumulate from palace, govt plaza buildings and maybe some other like courthouses and gardens. Some great people of other types may also create unique policies (merchants, generals etc).
Also, policies can be learnt from other civs with a statesman (as well as techs?) Statesmen are bought with culture in govt plaza. Statesmen can also abolish or re-enable old policies.

Why to switch off a policy?

Policies cost culture per turn to maintain. Some policies can be good in the early game but become too expensive for their effect later (e.g. God King costs 1 culture per 10 population, while providing flat +3 faith). This encourages the player to choose which policies he really needs at the moment, and create a tradeoff between running more policies now and saving culture for later (more powerful) policies. Also the player can change current policies according to situation, but it isnt free (requires a statesman's charges to disable some policies and enable others).

Another idea is revolutions. It may be a positive event overall, during which you can scrap old policies releasing some culture to buy new policies, which also may cost cheaper during the revolution. Revolutions may be initiated by some philosophers (like Karl Marx) or occur naturally in the course of the game (for the losing civs to catch up).

 

[Naeshar]

I think policies are good enough.
So, your idea is to introduce new GP type, who grant access to a new policy, and a unit to copy a policy from opponent. Policies would not be limited by policy slots(?), but incur upkeep costs and can be disabled. A revolution lets a player replace all the policies with new ones and shall be a civilization jump mechanism.

I see several issues here.
1) There is no problem with new GP type, but how will the AI handle it (esp. Brazil)? Would the GPs be unique and with their custom abilities or blank civ5-like GPs like Prophets? Would there be an era or civilization limit? Philosophers usually did give the idea, but not realize the change themselves, and Marx wasn't a revolutionary himself either. The action came decades after he died, though he inspired many and in different ways.
2) The culture tree would be really empty without policies assigned directly. The GPhilosophers would check what steps did you complete? If the policies created would be still dependent on your progress, why bother with two systems? Also, the act of changing policies is important gameplay-wise, although not quite realistic currently. Would Philosophers or revolutions only trigger this?
3) Culture is not a currency, but rather bucket-filling. It can't be spent currently. It would not make sense thematically for me either... The costs could be like dark age policy downsides, but at all policies. In general, I don't want to imagine AI in the situation, reducing its culture to 0, or negatives...
4) Revolutions maybe had a positive long-term aspect, but usually exploded when the situation was unbearable, not because of intentions. History is a lesson in revolutions and attempts at revolutions, most were paid with blood and had no other effect. Please be realistic. You don't need to leave home country for examples.
Also, you can currently initiate a revolution to change your policies with gold. It results in three turns of anarchy (no income, growth or science/culture). I don't think I ever used it. Another type is the unrest, when you lack amenities and cities spawn partisans, or loyalty issues, though limited to single cities.

But the positive aspects I see:
1) The point where you replace policies is currently arbitrary. I often switch culture progress to avoid or speed it up;
2) Collecting policies and working towards them actively would create a new feel. Also, philosophers did create some religions. Compare Confucius and Lao'C, Buddha. There might be a link to Prophets.
3) Upsides and downsides of choices. Too bad this could have three effects: increasing micromanagement and complexity, confuse the AI, go against Civ6 gameplay principles. I think of policies like decrees: "Trajan decided, that from now on, each conscript receives a horse instead of gladius and scutum! (changing a military policy). This can be easily changed and the resource is actually the slot.

tl;dr: It has some good points, but I disagree.

 

[killmeplease]

1. philosophers give new policies, and more up-to-date policies is better, so there will be no excess of them (if you're low on culture, create a culture policy).
in the game's terms, several decades is a few turns.
2. i propose to get rid of policy tree. its redundant (and governments too). philosophers create policies when conditions are met (e.g. have a trade route in every city in the industrial era to create the free market). statesmen switch policies on-off, revolutions scrap policies.
3. culture will be a currency. ai should be programmed accordingly
4. revolutions are beneficial to a civ long term. england, america, russia, china -- all had a rev shortly (historically) before becoming a superpower.
in civ6 you can switch for free every few turns, so the paid switch has no use. i have never used it and even didnt know its followed by anarchy

1) yeah civ6 cultural gameplay is weird
2) maybe there should be no prophets but philosophers with an ability to create a religion, and most of the early game philosophers will have it. and temples will generate philosopher points
3) civ6 yields act in very different ways, dont think culture being a currency violates any of the game's principles. and i dont target civ6 exclusively. it could be civ7 or ..

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

In addition to (or possible instead of) dividing policies up into Military, Economic, Diplomatic, and Wildcard, I'd also divide them up according to which government types they work with. Some policies would be exclusive to certain governments. Others would be compatible with all governments, but might take up two or more slots, being off-type.

For Example, Free Market and Laissez-Faire wouldn't be able to be slotted into the Communist Government whatsoever.
On could enact Martial Law in a Democracy, but it might require two Military slots, whereas it'd only require one in Communism and might not take up any in Fascism.

This would definitely help to flavor the game better.

 

[killmeplease]

In addition to (or possible instead of) dividing policies up into Military, Economic, Diplomatic, and Wildcard, I'd also divide them up according to which government types they work with. Some policies would be exclusive to certain governments. Others would be compatible with all governments, but might take up two or more slots, being off-type.

For Example, Free Market and Laissez-Faire wouldn't be able to be slotted into the Communist Government whatsoever.
On could enact Martial Law in a Democracy, but it might require two Military slots, whereas it'd only require one in Communism and might not take up any in Fascism.

This would definitely help to flavor the game better.

there could be a system like political compass, each policy having two coordinates. if policies are too far from each other, there will be a culture penalty, depending on the maximum distance between any two active policies. this will work without hardwiring policies to specific governments (so no need in governments)



E.g. the Free Market's coordinates are (3,1) and the Martial Law's (0,-3). The penalty is 3+4=7 culture per turn (x Era?)