Policy Saving

[iamdanno]

I've seen many times on these forums that many people consider policy saving to be cheating. Why would that be? If you are the leader of a civilization, wouldn't you be able to choose whether or not you enact social policies immediately or not?

 

[DevilHell]

I've seen many times on these forums that many people consider policy saving to be cheating. Why would that be? If you are the leader of a civilization, wouldn't you be able to choose whether or not you enact social policies immediately or not?

It's not cheating it's just cheesy, it's giving yourself an advantage

Of course a Civ can make an arrangement with another Civ that they will start exporting Sugar for an anticipate payment and then declare war and not give any sugar, but it's cheesy

 

[CoolLizy]

If you are the leader of a civilization, wouldn't you choose not to build a spearman because in another couple hundred years you'll have connected iron to your trade network to build swordsmen instead?

It's a gameplay mechanic. Just because it could make sense from a "realistic" standpoint doesn't justify leaving a broken game mechanic broken.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I don't really see it as cheesy, but I play with policy (and promotion) saving turned on. It's not like I abuse these for gamey win tactics, such as saving promotions for chaining instant heals. Sometimes I just like to wait on choosing the next policy because I'm short a few turns of reaching the next era. Then I don't have to worry about finding ways to somehow curb my culture growth by selling buildings, so I'm not forced to take a policy I won't ever need. I also rarely promote my archer units (I usually keep several defending my cities) since they're wasted promotions when you unlock rifling. So that's what I save my promotions for. There's even mods that fix this by converting such promotions upon upgrade. But I mostly play multiplayer with a few friends, so mods are out of the question.

It's just less restrictions for me and less I have to worry about due to artificial constraints (must choose policy NOW)! So as long as we aren't needlessly gaming the system, I don't see why the options are automagically "cheese."

 

[The Pilgrim]

When game came out and policy/promotions savings were the default, AI didn't use them. Unless it has changed, which I seriously doubt, there is no reason the player will be able to do so either.

 

[CoolLizy]

When game came out and policy/promotions savings were the default, AI didn't use them. Unless it has changed, which I seriously doubt, there is no reason the player will be able to do so either.

Oh god, as I read that I had a mental image of playing a game against the AI where they saved up their promotions to chain instaheals. It made me throw up a little in my mouth.

 

[n00bxqb]

Oh god, as I read that I had a mental image of playing a game against the AI where they saved up their promotions to chain instaheals. It made me throw up a little in my mouth.

I've had the AI do this to me on several occasions on Prince difficulty. Very annoying.

 

[iamdanno]

I can understand promotion saving being cheesy. It also seems like a bad idea in general. OTOH, policy saving makes good sense to me in both "reality" and gameplay. It seems to me that if you don't have to immediately use a GS, why should you have to immediately choose a policy?

 

[The Pilgrim]

I've had the AI do this to me on several occasions on Prince difficulty. Very annoying.

Chaining instaheals? Attack once, heal, attack again with the same unit, heal again etc? I doubt. AI uses instaheals the moment it becomes available even when it's not necessary. But I've never seen it stacking them. GOTM participants can say for sure.

 

[The_Quasar]

Chaining instaheals? Attack once, heal, attack again with the same unit, heal again etc? I doubt. AI uses instaheals the moment it becomes available even when it's not necessary. But I've never seen it stacking them. GOTM participants can say for sure.

No, the AI does not use chaining instaheals... it uses them as Pilgrim states, as and when they become available, sometimes even when they are not necessary.

 

[n00bxqb]

I played a game the other week where I had invaded Persia, took over his city, and he sent his army to take it back. One of his units insta-healed 3 turns in a row. I unfortunately do not have proof, though. I distinctly remember it, however, as I lost the city for a short period of time before my reinforcements arrived.

 

[claestw]

In reality, drastic policy changes across the board on a wide range of matters tend to incite instability, causing unhappiness (even if temporary), exchange rate fluctuations, (temporary) drop in government efficiency, and even interruptions in the economy.

I don't mind leaving the policy nuke in, but I'd like anarchy to follow if you chain multiple policies. Say you're allowed two policies in any consecutive five turns, the third will incite one turn of anarchy and your counter stand at 3 policies in 5 turns. You need to wait out that 5 turns or you'll incite another +2 turns of anarchy counter stands at 4p. The next policy within 5 turns incites another +3 turns of anarchy with your counter at 5p. Something like that.

Its realistic that policies are announced at a time of choosing, but it is also realistic that rapid and sweeping changes in policy cause instability.


One should also note that from a game balance perspective, the game was clearly designed to be played without policy saving. But the designers see no problems with a game that allows policy saving, hence they provided that advanced option. So it's up to us whether to use it or not.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'm actaulyl very much disappointed in the lack of proper Anarchy in Civ 5, since it's only present during major policy change that conflicts (rationalism vs piety, order vs freedom vs autocracy).

I also wouldn't understand why somebody would wait and save up 5 policies for so long, the only reason why I save a policy is if I'm behind the Tech Tree and my Piety/Patronage etc isn't available yet and don't wanna open up a new Policy Tree (e.g Liberty filled out, 1 policy tree, can't open up Patronage, has to choose between Honor, Piety or Tradition)

 

[claestw]

I think the early ICS strategies involved policy saving. If all you need is a few key policies in the later trees, policy saving is a very efficient way to play it out, since you'll have no need of the expensive cultural buildings, you only need a fixed amount of culture for the few policies you want, after which culture no longer matter. You can free up a lot of production and gold this way, I suppose.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I played a game the other week where I had invaded Persia, took over his city, and he sent his army to take it back. One of his units insta-healed 3 turns in a row. I unfortunately do not have proof, though. I distinctly remember it, however, as I lost the city for a short period of time before my reinforcements arrived.

Was that immortal? They heal at double rate. That might be it.

One should also note that from a game balance perspective, the game was clearly designed to be played without policy saving. But the designers see no problems with a game that allows policy saving, hence they provided that advanced option. So it's up to us whether to use it or not.

It's the other way around. Game was designed to be played with SP saving on, but then it was quickly realized that this option creates a huge loophole and it was 'moved' to advanced settings.

 

[claestw]

Ooooooh! Yes indeed I remember now, it was the other way around! Thanks for the correction!

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Was that immortal? They heal at double rate. That might be it.


It's the other way around. Game was designed to be played with SP saving on, but then it was quickly realized that this option creates a huge loophole and it was 'moved' to advanced settings.

What kind of loophole?

 

[Gamewizard]

The policies were different when policy saving was enabled by default. Left side of freedom had a policy cost reducer. Players would save their policies to grab this one as soon as freedom would open up, particularly for culture wins. Firaxis didn't like this playstyle, banned policy saving, and then later changed the freedom tree anyways.

I don't see any game breaking ways to use policy saving anymore, and I think it should be default again, unless someone can give a good OPed example.

Promotion saving, however IMO, is and has always been game breaking.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The policies were different when policy saving was enabled by default. Left side of freedom had a policy cost reducer. Players would save their policies to grab this one as soon as freedom would open up, particularly for culture wins. Firaxis didn't like this playstyle, banned policy saving, and then later changed the freedom tree anyways.

I don't see any game breaking ways to use policy saving anymore, and I think it should be default again, unless someone can give a good OPed example.

Promotion saving, however IMO, is and has always been game breaking.

While I exploit that to my fullest, I do agree, I do nothing but save my promotions for Insta-heals..

 

[The Pilgrim]

The policies were different when policy saving was enabled by default. Left side of freedom had a policy cost reducer. Players would save their policies to grab this one as soon as freedom would open up, particularly for culture wins. Firaxis didn't like this playstyle, banned policy saving, and then later changed the freedom tree anyways.

I don't see any game breaking ways to use policy saving anymore, and I think it should be default again, unless someone can give a good OPed example.

Promotion saving, however IMO, is and has always been game breaking.

Well, that's true. Many things have changed since then. Policies themselves, tech tree etc. It's not as wicked as it used to be. Still, the ability to beeline industrial and clear all Autocracy in single turn seems extremely unfair. Will AI stand a chance?
The same reason why GS are a loophole. AI doesn't save them for crazy end game bulbing party and we all think GS/RA's are OP'ed. Would we think the same had AI been able to use them as effectively as humans do?