Be careful when you make arguments. 1. This is NOT an example of "completely eliminating risk". If you can't see that, your concept of economics needs a lot of work. It does reduce risk, but that's not what you said. 2. "Controlling" the tech tree requires some investment into things you do not need as a priority. To be worth it, the resulting techs have to overcome that investment and bring good return. 3. RA takes resources that have alternative uses. Also, to do this you have to have enough money in the first place. I hate when people who don't play games to their potential cry "exploit" over every little thing. It leads to crap like "no social policy storing", despite that no person in the WORLD has ever, even once, demonstrated that said strategy was overpowered, or even consistently the best option. Nobody ran numbers on it. Nobody showed that the later policies were worth the delay in benefits from earlier policies, yet the change was still made. If anything, steering RA seems to be stronger than SP to me. That said, you're talking about money that isn't going into maritime to spam settlers and uses of resources to get that money instead of something else. It's hard to justify something as an exploit when it isn't even the best option, but most of these exploit crybabies make no effort to determine whether that is the case. Then we get garbage in patches and the UI is still broken (and in the honor tree, wrong too). Maybe the guys in charge think too much like the exploit crybabies; changes in a game should be justified carefully.