philosophy of trees.

[Thalassicus]

I am concerned that the policy tree I picked won't help the strategy I want to follow because nothing unexpected happened, and the tree I'm following has some junk that doesn't help me much with the way I want to play.

I want everything in the game to feel fun, at least a little bit, even if it's not quite as good as something else. I don't want anything that feels like junk. Going back to our discussion in the specialists thread a long time ago, your viewpoint appears to be, "I don't want to use specialists for a wide empire, because that is not fun." (paraphrasing)

I'm asking, "How can we make it fun?" What's an interesting and exciting way we can involve wide empires more with specialists? Do you have any suggested alternatives to the approach I've taken?

 

[rhammer640]

I think this is where our basic philosophies diverge. I want everything to feel at least a little bit fun and exciting, even if it's not quite as good as something else. I don't want anything that feels like junk.

I think he was saying that if there are policies in a tree that don't mesh well just incase we need to switch style that those policies are kind of junkie if we dont have to switch which is the majority of the time.

 

[mystikx21]

1) I'm not sure it does add universal appeal to these trees in these changes. A tall player or (esp.) wide player now will have focus points that are less useful to them that represent substantial costs to them even if they appear to be benefits in flexibility to you. That is: they now lack focused advantages coming from them being a tall focused tree or a wide focused tree. They only offer advantages to players who are in the middle or don't know if they should focus tall or wide yet. This is (probably) not most players. I know pretty early based on what civ I got and what the surrounding area looks like or who is around me.

2) I'm not sure that it makes sense to not penalise poor choices by requiring people to now make different choices. This argues not for universally flexible early trees but for valuable early policies that offer culture or cultural advantages in social policies (like the per city effect) so you can ramp up and change directions as needed. All three early trees offered such policies quickly in the form of extra culture per happiness and wonders, extra culture on garrisons and from barb kills and extra per city culture and reduced per city penalties.

3) I'm not sure that the pre-existing benefits of extra military production or a free GP or free golden age were not means of flexible choices that could benefit any play style along these lines such that they required replacement with new choices. Every player can use a golden age. Every player can use cheaper units and barracks or walls. Some players can use them more than others. This wasn't inconsistent with an 80-20 design. These choices were not junk. They were useful. The current choices are at least sometimes junk. I might not have taken a bonus to merchants or engineers and might have totally avoided the order or commerce trees from whence these came. Is that a problem? Should it be? On the other hand, if I felt I needed to make those choices, they were available somewhere.

4) The new choices don't synergize very well to optimize and reward good decision making early. I suppose I tend to be an elitist. Generally I look to make bad decision making something we want to avoid by penalising it, decent decision making something that doesn't hurt us and can go either way from there, and good decision making something that offers advantages. These proposals take away potential advantages and replace them with catchup devices for people who make bad decisions. We can avoid bad AI decision making by making the civs mostly consistent in priorities such that even if a couple of civs err badly, others will be at optimal conditions. And we can avoid bad human decision making by scouting, by offering quick culture accumulation early, and by offering new decisions they now have to make as a consequence of early bad decisions in the form of the middle game trees or swapping to another early tree to tap its essential benefits.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't want anything that feels like junk.

Right, but a policy in Liberty that boosts merchants feels like junk. A policy that boosts villages in Tradition early game feels like junk. It feels like something I don't want to use but am forced to take if I want the finisher.

I'm asking you, "How can we make it fun?" How can we involve specialists in wide empires in an exciting way? What suggestions do you have as alternatives to the approach I've taken?

I don't think we can or should. Specialists fundamentally are better suited to tall empires, because they need food to support and because they need to be concentrated (2 engineers in 1 city is much better than 1 engineer in each of two cities, because the GPP points stack to generate a great engineer earlier), because they need lots of infrastructure buildings to work well (buildings with the slots, gardens, national epic), and because they stack well with Wonders that also provide GPP.

That's how specialists work. And that's ok!

I think it is wrong to try to force specialist use into wide playstyles. They don't fit.

The only way I could really see it working would be to move to a system where great person points accumulated at an empire level rather than a city level. But I don't think that would be a good idea; that would favor wide empires too much, it would abandon city specialization and it would make specialist slots unimportant.

If both wide and tall playstyles both favor specialist use, then wide and tall aren't very interestingly different playstyles. The game is more fun when the playstyles are actually different.

 

[mystikx21]

"I don't want to use specialists for a wide empire, because that is not fun." (paraphrasing)

What's an interesting and exciting way we can involve wide empires more with specialists? Do you have any suggested alternatives to the approach I've taken?

I think we've identified the problem correctly as being on the right or left of the fun module but I don't think that problem is resolved by shifting it from what is perceived as the center.

Is that supposed to be "fun"? Is it not already fun to play a wide empire and use villages more extensively instead? Or to use specialists as a tall empire instead of villages? It is not un-fun to use specialists as a wide empire or villages as tall. It is sub-optimal strategy because there are other benefits. Tall empires get growth benefits, encouraging farming instead of villages. Wide empires can get lots of bonus resource tiles, encouraging use of things like villages to pay for them while still producing growth and science without running up huge happiness deficits. It's not a uniformly better decision all the time because wide or tall empires are not clearly superior or less fun to each other. You're still allowed to use these things and there are specific circumstances that make it worth while (a city with a lot of food tiles might have specialists in a wide empire. GPs themselves are useful at a certain point to want to generate them. A gold deficit or a gold specialised city might encourage villages in a tall one).

Yes. This is a decision that makes one choice superior, but it is a decision that has costs and is therefore an interesting decision. Removing those costs isn't an ideal solution and replacing useful benefits with marginal ones for flexibility isn't very interesting.

I think that problem is resolved by there being ways to make shifts naturally in the game (new decisions and effects that already exist), or by changing styles and approaches from game to game. I don't play the same way every time. That would be boring, so I change tactics or approaches or try new mixtures of policies or new ways to try to optimize my weirder choices. If I had played Civ the same way every time, I'd have quit on the game long ago. I see the present approach as trying to get me to play the same way every time. You must use specialists! You must use villages! Why must I do those things every time? Is that fun?

There's a reason I don't play Risk anymore. The game is the same every time. I prefer games like this, or Victoria, etc, where the game can present some new challenges every time and some familiar challenges that can be planned for.

 

[Thalassicus]

@Ahriman
What other ways can you think of to make specialists exciting for wide empires? I agree with you that changing how points work is not a good solution, since it's so integrated into the game. What alternatives would you propose?

 

[mystikx21]

I also now want some ice cream.

 

[Ahriman]

What other ways can you think of to make specialists exciting for wide empires?

Mu.
That is the wrong question.
Specialists do not need to be exciting for wide empires. Wide empires do other things.

The question is like saying: "how could we have Tall empires still have massive amounts of territory"? It's the wrong question; if you want lots of territory, don't play Tall.

If you want Wide empires to still have a few great people.... then put the free great person back on the Liberty finisher.

 

[mystikx21]

1) GPs are valuable. That means they are exciting and rewarding for any player to generate. Tall or wide.
2) GPs are easier to generate if you're taller because you can expend extra population on them in one or two concentrated places instead of on... villages. .
3) Rewarding that play style is appropriate because it is a good decision, hence the freedom tree rewards it by making specialists cheaper.
4) Encouraging that play style is difficult without turning a civ into a tall one. Wide empires can still use GPs in very food rich areas (flood plains/rivers or wheat/fish areas) but will do so less effectively because they have to manage happiness more carefully because of city penalties.

One way to do this is to make tall or wide specialisation more interesting to the people who for some reason don't use it. Perhaps by making it stronger and more rewarding as a distinct play style instead of diluting it. VEM did the former and "we" are concerned that we're doing the latter now.

 

[Ahriman]

One way to do this is to make tall or wide specialisation more interesting to the people who for some reason don't use it. Perhaps by making it stronger and more rewarding as a distinct play style instead of diluting it. VEM did the former and "we" are concerned that we're doing the latter now.

Agreed, though I think there is still a faulty premise that people aren't playing with a range of different playstyles.

 

[Tarquelne]

Specialists in wide empires:

"How can we make it fun?"

I think the general answer is "Very conditionally."

For example: Empires that are Wide sometimes use Nationalism/Autocracy, yes? Then give that policy tree a specialist bonus/break of some kind. So now your generic Tall empire and a Wide civ under that tree with both want specialists. But for the Wide civ in this example it'll be only fairly late in the game, and depending on exactly how the policy works they may focus on only one type, or need to jump through an extra hoop or two, or use the specialist for some other purpose.

Example: (Assumes Wide and esp. conquest civs have Happiness problems.) Give the policy tree a policy that has Specialists give Happiness, perhaps using Local Hapiness to make the pop-unit Happiness-neutral. And give such a policy only to Nationalism.

That should see the Wide militaristic civ more interested in specialists. (Perhaps only Artists and Merchants?) But very differently than in a Tall or Free civ. They're not to give the bulk of the yeilds, or drive GP factories. And while every Tall civ might find specialists rewarding Wide are far more sharply bounded - only after a specific policy is adopted. If it is at all.


*********

I've been playing Civ since Civ1, and I not only use a variety of different play-styles: I keenly wish for more.



What I want out of a policy tree is for the tree to change the way I play the game, not simply reward the strategy I've chosen.

Without any policies we'd still have a variety of approaches - Wide, Tall, CS, conquest, etc.

If all a tree does is make a given strategy stronger - "I've got 20% more gold and 15% more population than I would have without the tree - the trees is pretty boring IMO.

OTOH, if a tree substantially changes how I play, I think that's great. Culture running over into happiness, for example, may very well see me pursuing culture in a strategy with a high-happiness demand but that doesn't otherwise reward culture.

And that's why I'm leery of trees that focus rather narrowly on heightening a single thing or strategy... especially when they're highly synergistic and avoid encouraging the player to do anything differently. A Rationalism tree that gives nothing but science and requires/rewards nothing by science buildings, Great Scientist, and RAs doesn't encourage me to do anything I wouldn't be doing anyway in pursuit of lots of beakers. It just gives me more beakers.

There's some interest to be found in mini-maxing such a tree, and it certainly encourages different play from a conquest/production strategy. And the investment it represents penalizes me if I switch strategies - which is good IMO. But such a tree still strikes me as a wasted opportunity. Same ol' same ol', but more-so. If my next game is conquest and I act to increase my science I'll do the same things to get science as I did in the previous game. Just later, not as often, and I won't get as much.

I don't believe "in case you switch strategies" is a good reason to have universally appealing polices. And a policy shouldn't be used to try and equalize something between strategies unless there's a real need[/i[ for it. Or, as Gekki (still in Seyda Neen!? I heard it was destroyed, though I don't want to believe it.) says it can be overdone.

But I do think they can be successfully included.

As long as they can't be easily cherry-picked that they're universally appealing shouldn't really matter - and they could be designed to encourage some hybrid strategies.

Odd-ball "not synergistic" policies could be geared as play-changers, rewarding/encouraging the player to play in a way he wouldn't normally. Done poorly such policies can easily seem out of place. But if they fit the policy's theme - though in a less-obvious way - and take advantage of an under-utilized or interesting mechanic I think they're far better than yet another policy that adds the bonus the tree focuses on to a building anyone using the tree would prioritize anyway.

 

[rhammer640]

Ignore Post:

late in the work day and i dont think it made sense

 

[Stalker0]

That point about changing our strategy is why I made the early trees more universally appealing. In the early game we don't know what path is best. It's like trying to guess the shortest line at a grocery checkout. We have to guess without much information, so I don't want to penalize the player for guessing wrong.

I think this is a good point, and also one we should consider from a tall vs wide perspective.

Sometimes tall vs wide is discussed like its a black and white set in stone decision made when the press new game. But like many decisions its a choice that evolves with conditions and the map. Further, its not like you have to play strictly wide or strictly tall, there are middle ground options that allow for fun play too.

 

[Thalassicus]

There's a reason I don't play Risk anymore. The game is the same every time. I prefer games like this, or Victoria, etc, where the game can present some new challenges every time and some familiar challenges that can be planned for.

You should totally try Settlers of Catan if you haven't already. It's incredibly fun!

@Ahriman
I'd like to find some compromise that fits my core game design philosophy: everything is at least a little exciting. I don't want any parts of the game that are "junk" or unexciting. This is a very important concept for me, which is why it's in the main goals thread.

 

[mystikx21]

I think this is a good point, and also one we should consider from a tall vs wide perspective.

Sometimes tall vs wide is discussed like its a black and white set in stone decision made when the press new game. But like many decisions its a choice that evolves with conditions and the map. Further, its not like you have to play strictly wide or strictly tall, there are middle ground options that allow for fun play too.

Generally speaking though, liberty, tradition, and honor allowed you to combine them for middle ground and had flexible choices in them for that purpose already in the form of happiness or culture or wonders. I can still play as tall with liberty or wide with tradition, just less efficiently or optimally. Or I can use large fragments of both and settle on a roughly middle way, again sub-optimally but with benefits chosen to help me. This suggests that the policies did not need to be altered to allow me to do both in the same tree, to replace policies that were already flexible and useful benefits, or to be altered in a way that now feels like a dud policy if you really wanted to focus. They're early trees and flexible by that design as is to swap between them as needed and there are the middle game trees that allow you to re-focus and re-assess based on changing conditions or goals.

These bonuses were always available at later points (village in rationalism, for merchants in commerce, in order). What makes us think that we couldn't have just used them as it was, forsaking their purported immediate utility and focusing on what we can do with what we had?

 

[Ahriman]

Then give that policy tree a specialist bonus/break of some kind.

Doesn't it already have -0.5 unhappy per specialist?
I agree with your general thought though, that wide specialist boosts should be from late-game trees, not early game.

What I want out of a policy tree is for the tree to change the way I play the game, not simply reward the strategy I've chosen.

But this is hard; I'm not sure how widely this can be implemented.

I don't believe "in case you switch strategies" is a good reason to have universally appealing polices

Agreed.

You should totally try Settlers of Catan if you haven't already. It's incredibly fun!

Absolutely, very good game!

I'd like to find some compromise that fits my core game design philosophy: everything is at least a little exciting. I don't want any parts of the game that are "junk" or unexciting. This is a very important concept for me, which is why it's in the main goals thread.

Your core game philosophy is wrong if it means that every part of the game always needs to be exciting all the time. It is really ok that sometimes favoring one strategy means that there is another area of the game that I am likely to ignore, or am likely to ignore in the early game. There is nothing wrong with that. Not everything can or should work well together all the time.
What is important is that different kinds of playstyle are exciting; it is not important that every playstyle-mechanic combination be exciting. It is fine that a cultural victory isn't very appealing to a warmonger. It is fine that a diplomactic victory isn't very appealing to someone who conquers lots of city states. It is ok that you don't use specialists much when playing Wide.

If a wide player wants to use merchants, they can, they should take Commerce, which should boost merchants and customhouses (if they want engineers they can take Order, if they want artists they can take Piety, if they want scientists they can take Rationalism). If a player who has been tall and peaceful for much of the game wants to go wide/conquest, then they can pick Autocracy, and do that. There is lots of flexibility in picking midgame and lategame trees to pursue all sorts of combinations.
But the early game trees should be a bit more narrow. They should be oriented mostly on early game benefits - and specialists don't work well here. In the early game, using specialists is mostly done to get an early great person. +1 gold on ~3 merchants is ~3 gold per turn. Pretty weak policy effect. Specialists-for-income is more of a mid-game thing, and so the specialist boosts make more sense on mid- and late game policy trees.

 

[Zaldron]

1. Villages not used for tall?
2. Let's make villages better for tall.
3. Villages are now used!

I removed the village bonus from the Tradition tree since that had mixed feedback. It's something we can discuss more later, but for now, I'd like to focus on stuff we all agree on.

The problem is that tall wants to GROW and villages don't actively help that in any way. Give villages +1f and tall will love them.

 

[GenjiKhan]

I think the root of the problem pointed out here is simple . There was a original plan for Social policies,but the distance between Theory and practice was very enlarged . That thing,along with the decision of eliminating ALL the social policy links,messed up entirely with the Policy stage . IMO,it would be better to give one step behind in the Policies stage and revise the original plan for Social policies,as there were many suggestions,critical for balancing,that weren't implemented . For remaking the steps,I suggest splitting up this part into 3 mini-stages,so it becomes easier to see how to balance Social policies:

1)Early main Social Policies(Tradition,Liberty and Honor);
2)Auxiliary Social policies(Piety,Patronage,Commerce and Rationalism);
3)Late main Social policies(Order,Power,Freedom);

 

[JohnS]

Would it be possible to make specialists fill a different role in wide empires than in tall empires, without making them intrusive/changing the wide playstyle way too much?

For example, in tall empires, we often want to cram as many specialists of one specific kind into one city, and no others, so as to maximize our GP-potential. Could there be a way of encouraging wide players to, say, put one of each type of specialist in each city? Then the way we use specialists would differ wildly for both gameplay styles, but specialists would still be a present factor in both.

For example, say there was a policy in the liberty tree that increased the national trade income by x% for each city that has a merchant present? That way wide players would want to have exactly one merchant in each city, but no more, making them a present gameplay element, but still being unobtrusive and more fitting the wide playstyle.

Then for tall players, there could be a policy in tradition (or wherever) which boosted Great Merchants trade missions? This would fit tall empires having an easier time generating GP, and trade missions have synergy with city states, another staple of tall empires.

I'm sure there are better actual policy effects we could settle on - the point is that we can give specialists different roles depending on the playstyle. They would still play a much larger role in tall empires, but they would still be present in wide empires - a bit like Thal's 80-20 vision for policies.

Similarly, there could be "tall" and "wide" policies for specialising artists, scientists and engineers. One benefit with this approach is that we ourselves could decide which specialists we wanted to give the "tall" and "wide" treatment: for example, say I play mainly wide but want to build lots of wonders. Then I could pick the "wide" policies for scientists, artists and merchants, while picking the "tall" policy for engineers, and stack my engineers in one city, generating GEs, while spreading out the other specialists.

I like the thought of specialising gameplay elements into what we want them to be - it feels empowering and strategic. For example, I was never very fond of vanguard units - until the day I realised that we could specialise them into filling completely different roles; that's when I "got" them. Even to this day, I still feel clever whenever I surround my medic vanguard with wounded units, while flanking my enemy with my fast defensive vanguards. The same unit, but *I* have made a choice with what to do with them.

TL;DR: We could use policies to specialise specialists mischief, with different effects fitting different playstyles/specialist handling styles!

 

[Thalassicus]

@JohnS
Thank you! You explained it in a new way I hadn't ever thought of, and I really appreciate the support.

Like the Vanguards you mentioned, there's lots of stuff we can strategically choose to use in different ways. You put it really well: the choices we make empower us to use something differently to match our playstyle.

Vanguard units
Scouting
Medics
Defense

Culture
Social policies
Border expansion

Units
Exploration
Garrison bonuses
Fighting units
Conquering cities

Gold
Buying things
Maintenance
Bribing citystates
Diplomatic trades

Specialists
Great people
???

etc...
...
...​