Specialists in wide empires:
Thalassicus said:
"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.