Suggested Change in finishing policy trees

Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
2,028
Location
Germany
The Great People unlocking mechanic on finishing policy tress is annyoing, and this was now brought up several times in the last 2 years but didnt got that much attention. I know, we are staying now relative long with this feature, but most of the GP unlocked by the trees didnt make thematically sense. Sure, scientists by rationalismn or generals by authority make sense. But why does a infrastructure and city development tree enables you to get Great Writer?

Sure, its a result of the development and every GP have to be represented and housed in one of the trees. But, isnt there a better solution? Before we reach gold status, I want to suggest a change in this mechanic. Of course I also think about Gazebo, not creating too much new code.

Instead of unlocking a single GP for every finished tree, you gain a discount on some GPs.

Reaching industrial era unlocks every GP, but their cost are greatly icreased. Those cost are reduced to "normal" values, if you have finished the right policy trees. Lets say, GPs cost now 50% more (all shown values are only representive and can be changed), but finishing progress decrease the cost of engineer, merchant and scientist by 15% (so final value would be 127,5% of original cost of those GP). finishing industry decrease the cost of merchants by 30% and engineers and diplomats by 10%. Cause the values are multiplicative, a merchant would cost now 89,25% of its former cost. Tradition gives a discount to engineers (for wonder) and writer, fealty a discount to prophets and artists, artistry a discount for writer, artists and musicans, statecraft a great discount to diplomats, rationalismn a great discount on scientists (something like that).

Also doubling the cost of the GP and give greater discounts by finishing the trees is possible, making not focused GP possible, but more than 2 or 3 really expensive.

Often I only want some parts of a tree, but not the whole one, denying my self the ability to buy GP in the lategame cause of this wish sometimes really hurts. Sometimes I go progress cause I will go for a lot of population and want the lategame bonuses even I didnt have much cities and want engineers, but all I get is writers, thats annoying.

Finishing policy trees still play with the GP, expand the option to balance the worth of GP and bring additionally prophets into play. Of course, TtGoG and some policies/beliefs have to be adjusted, but I think it would improve the gameplay in general.
 
To be fair, this is not a bad idea. I think its a reasonable approach for Tree finishers.

That said, I don't think the current scenario is bad, the "GP Unlock" mechanic works fine to me, at least well enough that I don't see the need for major change.
 
Not gonna happen. This is a huge change and a ton of new code.

Also, “brought up multiple times this past year” - the only person I’ve seen making this argument is you. :)

G
It didn't feels that much have to be changed. Not more than changes in WW-system, the chaos with flanking, the change in happiness system with its save mechanics and UI, or the new enhancer beliefs you implemented.

Everything is already there. All GP unlocked like TtGoG, special GP faith cost reduction like India or Byzantium have. It's hard to believe your not as good as I think in coding to do this change in.an acceptable time. I don't think the AI is able to think about favoring GPs by finishers, in this case, it would be a small improvement for AI, cause they can go ahead to their favorite victory condition, even with not optimal picked policy trees.

Edit: as said, it was said several times in different threats, but not followed long enough to make it to a discussion.
 
Last edited:
It didn't feels that much have to be changed. Not more than changes in WW-system, the chaos with flanking, the change in happiness system with its save mechanics and UI, or the new enhancer beliefs you implemented.

Everything is already there. All GP unlocked like TtGoG, special GP faith cost reduction like India or Byzantium have. It's hard to believe your not as good as I think in coding to do this change in.an acceptable time. I don't think the AI is able to think about favoring GPs by finishers, in this case, it would be a small improvement for AI, cause they can go ahead to their favorite victory condition, even with not optimal picked policy trees.

Edit: as said, it was said several times in different threats, but not followed long enough to make it to a discussion.

Here you go again. It isn’t ‘all there.’ It’s 100% all new code. You don’t think I would know that?

And comparing it to other changes is a false comparison- you don’t know what those changes required on the back end to achieve.

An argument about relative effort isn’t going to sway me.

G
 
Here you go again. It isn’t ‘all there.’ It’s 100% all new code. You don’t think I would know that?

And comparing it to other changes is a false comparison- you don’t know what those changes required on the back end to achieve.

An argument about relative effort isn’t going to sway me.

G
New code? Sounds strange to me you need new code for things which are already in the game, while other things like the WW change, the save-needs mechanics and new beliefs didnt needed new.
Would you agree to consider a change, should more people vote for change in a poll?
 
New code? Sounds strange to me you need new code for things which are already in the game, while other things like the WW change, the save-needs mechanics and new beliefs didnt needed new.
Would you agree to consider a change, should more people vote for change in a poll?

If it’s already in the game, then why are you complaining about it’s absence? Oh, it’s not in the game? So I’d have to add it? Then it isn’t in the game. Code does not work the way you think it does.

G
 
But why does a infrastructure and city development tree enables you to get Great Writer?
Because we consider the people who wrote the important philosophical and political texts great writers.

Aside from coding, I don't like this idea. I consider specialism good, it makes games different and strategies constrained.
Boo hiss.
 
I could consider swapping great artists with great writers, since they don't actually belong to any tree, but OP change it's too big.
Artist is belong to Fealty. I personally dislike the idea. It makes picking policy trees less strategically involved. For example: picking authority and imperialism and play a faith heavy Japan to buy great general and admiral for culture victory. Its fun.
 
I mean, why is Fealty related to great paintings and golden ages? Other than gameplay. Scientist to Rationalism is evident. So they are Great Diplomats and Great Merchants. Great Engineers makes sense with a tree dedicated to wonder building.

But GWAM are just there for gameplay reasons.

Side question, did you try great artist golden age action? I've spent two artists and could not trigger any golden age.
 
Yeah I tried. I could make a whole golden age by a great artist pop, but it was very late into the game when I had many themed bonus. I think it was actually my last artist of the game which I can achieve that, but I was getting perma Golden Age from wonders and policies anyway so I just poped him for another great work :crazyeye:.
 
I agree with @Mad Madigan that G Artist belongs in the Artistry tree, and that the G musician should be moved to fealty.

Artistry, aside from being the CV victory tree, is also the GA tree. G Artist helps both those focuses, and mitigates how necessary Artistry feels for a CV right now, but doesn’t eliminate the GP’s ability to contribute to that victory.

Fealty is the empire happiness tree, and G Musicians give you a flat happiness bonus on empire. It’s more thematically consistent than the current setup, because Fealty has no GA bonuses, yet it gets the GP which triggers GAs.
 
no Fealty has Castle bonuses that provides a Great Art slot
 
Everyone gets castles. Just because Fealty has one policy that buffs castles which happen to have a great art slot doesn't make for a great argument against pineappledan's.
 
And everybody gets happiness. GAs benefit wide empires more than they do on tall empires. Flipping to a Golden Age is much stronger and booms more happiness than a Great Musician's Concert Tour. If you're wide, you're more likely to go Fealty either way and you get splendor benefits of having a Great Artist than a Great Musician. A Great Musician's Concert Tour also scales on output of your Tourism which is significantly reduced for wide fealty civs.
 
A Great Musician's Concert Tour also scales on output of your Tourism which is significantly reduced for wide fealty civs.
I agree that this is a pretty big detractor, especially since it scales off TpT and not combined TpT and instant yields (?).
 
I agree with @Mad Madigan that G Artist belongs in the Artistry tree, and that the G musician should be moved to fealty.
I dont know, one of the reasons of why the great musician is in Artistry is because people that go for that policy tree normally wants a cultural victory, and in order to get a cultural victory you need to generate tourism in others civilizations, hence the great musician.
Sorry for my english.
 
Back
Top Bottom