Ahriman
Tyrant
I would rather have the existing policies. I don't see why for me to play a coastal civ with a navy and naval trade routes I should have to also be doing late game expansionism.
Upgrading the Settler to a "Colonist" at Astronamy
- Thread starter Bridger
- Start date
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I design trees so we have more options and fewer links. If you want to just expand, or just build a navy, you will be able to pick from one half of the tree. You won't have to get both. 
Most near landmasses are already settled by the late game, so late expansion and navies are naturally connected.
Most near landmasses are already settled by the late game, so late expansion and navies are naturally connected.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Sure I will, or I have to give up on a finisher. I really don't think we want policies to be too narrow: save the niche/narrow policies for tents, where you don't need to get them all.
Coastal settlement and expansion are no more connected than non-coastal settlement and expansion. There is no reason why your existing empire or your new cities would necesarily be coastal oriented.
mitsho
Deity
I'm not sure Settlement is too niche, even if you only use it once, you'd gain something. Nobody forces you to go for the Finisher, those should be nice. But either you really want them, and you're okay with taking one more, or you become a better player and reach your goal without it 
I'd say that's one reason we don't want to keep the number of policies per game too low. Otherwise it becomes logical to never take it.
If it's the other way around, and you'd only want that policy out of the Exploration tree, you will not get to finish the tree anyways and you're cherrypicking. So it's not a problem from that perspective (a Land Empire wanting the settlement policy). The opposite (Sea Empire not wanting the settlement policy, but the finisher) only tackles one (or two) policies in total.
If we put it into a ideology, we limit it to ~1/3 of the civs after all, and that's not really the idea behind it...
I'd say that's one reason we don't want to keep the number of policies per game too low. Otherwise it becomes logical to never take it.
If it's the other way around, and you'd only want that policy out of the Exploration tree, you will not get to finish the tree anyways and you're cherrypicking. So it's not a problem from that perspective (a Land Empire wanting the settlement policy). The opposite (Sea Empire not wanting the settlement policy, but the finisher) only tackles one (or two) policies in total.
If we put it into a ideology, we limit it to ~1/3 of the civs after all, and that's not really the idea behind it...
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I want tree finishers to feel optional. They were only required in G&K for culture victories. The feeling of "finish every tree we start" should dissipate in BWN.
ExpiredReign
Deity
I'm not 100% sure if the two are related, but my dislike of late-game settlements and the AI's stupidity in late-game settlement choice is really annoying.
It might be just me, but it bugs me to have another civ 'rock up' and found a city on some stupid little island just outside my territory when the only resource it has in the whole area is 1 fish!
Why does it do that? It's whole nation maybe on the other side of the map and might even be at war with a civ between it and the new city!
As for me I don't like having to found a city in an area just to stop barbarians from spawning or in the hope some future resource will be available. If oil or aluminium show up then I'll make the decision.
Which brings me back on topic.
The decision to found a new city late-game for me is a weighty one. I like to include the whole building from scratch dynamic in that process. Cities shouldn't be founded in the later eras without a very good reason to do so. I think the comments about penalties to
and 
show that. It might be quite possible Firaxis actually got that mechanic right.
It might be just me, but it bugs me to have another civ 'rock up' and found a city on some stupid little island just outside my territory when the only resource it has in the whole area is 1 fish!
Why does it do that? It's whole nation maybe on the other side of the map and might even be at war with a civ between it and the new city!
As for me I don't like having to found a city in an area just to stop barbarians from spawning or in the hope some future resource will be available. If oil or aluminium show up then I'll make the decision.
Which brings me back on topic.
The decision to found a new city late-game for me is a weighty one. I like to include the whole building from scratch dynamic in that process. Cities shouldn't be founded in the later eras without a very good reason to do so. I think the comments about penalties to
and show that. It might be quite possible Firaxis actually got that mechanic right.
Ahriman
Tyrant
But you wouldn't gain a full policy's worth.
If finishers are really to be optional, then they need to be weak effects, and we need to make sure that the strong effects are in the trees.
That means, for example, that +1 gold from trading posts is not in a finisher. It means that gold from enemy kills is not a finisher.
If you want highly niche effects in the main policy trees, then it has to be not too painful to choose not to take them.
When the finisher is at least as powerful as the picks in the tree, maybe even more powerful, then it does not feel optional.
ExpiredReign
Deity
How does that logic apply to picks in a tree that are on the 2nd level?
Could it not also mean if the opening pick is 'meh' but you must choose it to get the next level you just go and pick it?
If I am understanding finishers now as they are used in BNW they are really nothing more than the last level in a tree! You get no extra benefit for completing that policy other than the combined effects of each selection.
There is no longer any extra reason to complete a tree.
So instead of each policy having 7 picks (opener, 5 choices, finisher) and the tally towards cultural victory closer. Now it is just 7 picks of a specific policy.
Do you like that finishing benefit; then work towards it.
If you don't care for it; then no penalty to you if you omit it.
The relative value of each benefit inside the policy could be made for anywhere in the tree.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes - which is why we have made an effort to remove weak and narrow compulsory pre-requisites in policies too. In GEM, all policy pre-reqs were removed.
They're not quite the same, finishers don't require a separate policy pick. They require you to pick all the other policies, but then cost nothing extra. So if it's weak, it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't cost you. What costs you picks are the main policies, that you want.
If there are say 3 policies in a tree you want, and a powerful finisher, then you can't get the finisher without getting 2 duds. Whereas if there are 4 powerful things in the tree, one you don't really want, and a weaker finisher, then you can just get the 4 you want without having to give up anything powerful. Putting powerful effects in the finisher means you lose a lot of the value of a tree unless you get all the policies.
ExpiredReign
Deity
So what that effectively means is:
Whatever the finisher bonus is, is just that, a bonus.
You like 4 of the policies but think the last one is 'meh' but by taking it you also get the finisher.
Let's imagine a policy tree with no pre-reqs. 4 of the picks are 'good' and 1 'not-so-much'. The finisher is 'so-so'.
You pick the first 4 'good' ones and think why choose the last, it isn't worth it. However the last pick is now 1 'not-so-good' + 1 'so-so' which might make 1 'all right' pick.
Now if this tree was rearranged so that the 'not-so-good' pick was a pre-req for a good one. Would you hesitate to pick it? No! You then pick all the rest, because they are 'good' and the end result is the same.
What we choose and in what order, is determined in part, by the pre-reqs.
Not only within that tree but by what we want in other trees. Having a desirable finisher in a tree that has 1 or 2 not-so desirable picks is just another order of decision.
Sometimes I would really like to get all of one policy but circumstances dictate I choose something from another policy to face a new situation. Now that I am not forced to complete policy trees, 'Finishers' stand up on their own merit. If it is really good and I need 1 or 2 weaker picks to get it, it just makes my choice more involved.
Making policy picks or finishers better or worse based on how soon or early we can get them is a trade-off system. Are we willing to invest our picks to get the desired result.
Whether it is "painful" or not is subjective. IMO some of the in-tree policies are painful to reach. We can't move all the 'good' ones to the front.
Having not so good picks in the tree in the first place isn't desirable as if we can acquire many social policies in different trees because of the changes to culture victories, it would be best to be able to be flexible about what you can get and to have interesting or good things to choose from.
There are strategic reasons why you might not care about a particular pick in a given game and will skip it where it might be essential to a different game. I think this is fine if that happens that not every policy is great for every game, but every policy has some greatness in it.
If it is a routinely ignored or undesirable policy though it is a dud. Making it a pre-req for something really good isn't a solution. All that does is "weaken" the rest of the tree by requiring you to get something less useful to get to anything important. It needs to be at least marginally useful on its own before considering what else it allows you to get because it is competing against other alternatives. The pre-reqs I would prefer still exist (unlike GEM, or at least keep more of them), but mostly to stash the really good cherry picks of a tree (happiness or golden ages or free techs or free GPs), not to balance existing policies.
The openers get around this by either being effective policies and/or attaching wonder construction. Finishers can get around this by allowing for GP buys, but actual policies shouldn't be duds.
There are strategic reasons why you might not care about a particular pick in a given game and will skip it where it might be essential to a different game. I think this is fine if that happens that not every policy is great for every game, but every policy has some greatness in it.
If it is a routinely ignored or undesirable policy though it is a dud. Making it a pre-req for something really good isn't a solution. All that does is "weaken" the rest of the tree by requiring you to get something less useful to get to anything important. It needs to be at least marginally useful on its own before considering what else it allows you to get because it is competing against other alternatives. The pre-reqs I would prefer still exist (unlike GEM, or at least keep more of them), but mostly to stash the really good cherry picks of a tree (happiness or golden ages or free techs or free GPs), not to balance existing policies.
The openers get around this by either being effective policies and/or attaching wonder construction. Finishers can get around this by allowing for GP buys, but actual policies shouldn't be duds.
ExpiredReign
Deity
That is true and I agree.
If that is what @Ahriman was saying then I apologize. I thought it was just finishers/policy picks just being 'good' or 'bad' in the context of each game.
If we don't need the finishers anymore, as BNW makes the setup, then they don't need to be very good policies as they're basically just a bonus effect that you get with some other random policy when finishing the tree. I think that they allow for GP purchases or provide them is probably sufficient along with some other modest bonus and we can move more impressive or useful finisher bonuses into the trees to help out as needed (like the commerce +1 on villages).
The one exception is exploration I believe to that, as it just gives you admirals for a GP, which aren't very good.
I'm not sure how this came out of a debate on improving later-game settlers.
The one exception is exploration I believe to that, as it just gives you admirals for a GP, which aren't very good.
I'm not sure how this came out of a debate on improving later-game settlers.
mitsho
Deity
It started with the question whether a "free buildings in new cities"-policy is okay in exploration. Ahriman says no, since he doesn' want to mix naval and late-game expansion. And our counterargument was that you don't need to finish the tree if you don't want.
So imho the term of 'dud'-policies used in this discussion is wrong. Nobody wants dud-policies included, but I'm perfectly fine with situational ones. These can be 'dud' in some situations, but still needed for the finisher you absolutely want. The system can't be perfect after all, and maybe shouldn't really.
So imho the term of 'dud'-policies used in this discussion is wrong. Nobody wants dud-policies included, but I'm perfectly fine with situational ones. These can be 'dud' in some situations, but still needed for the finisher you absolutely want. The system can't be perfect after all, and maybe shouldn't really.
void_genesis
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 429
One suggestion......
When we accumulate faith for example we have to decide between getting a weaker unit now or a stronger unit later on when more faith accumulates. This adds an interesting gameplay dynamic. The same happens for deciding between a cheap/rapidly built unit that is generally weaker or a stronger one that will cost more or take longer to build.
Why can't social policies be the same? No prerequisites, but the generally stronger ones cost more culture to purchase. This could even remove the era requirement- e.g. rationalism SPs are available from turn 1, but they cost so much culture they probably aren't worth selecting early on. This approach may open up a much wider variety of social policy strategies to experiment with.
When we accumulate faith for example we have to decide between getting a weaker unit now or a stronger unit later on when more faith accumulates. This adds an interesting gameplay dynamic. The same happens for deciding between a cheap/rapidly built unit that is generally weaker or a stronger one that will cost more or take longer to build.
Why can't social policies be the same? No prerequisites, but the generally stronger ones cost more culture to purchase. This could even remove the era requirement- e.g. rationalism SPs are available from turn 1, but they cost so much culture they probably aren't worth selecting early on. This approach may open up a much wider variety of social policy strategies to experiment with.
Navigation perhaps? And if it is still problematic colonist could be a separate unit. Packs more punch but costs more & can only found cites on other continents. And why not make it available with some exploration tree policy.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
There are two types of policies: narrow and wide.
Science is a wide need. Everyone uses science, so anyone can benefit from a science-boosting policy. Narrow involves an optional part of the game like alliances, specialists, or navies. People don't have to use those.
I balance wide-vs-narrow for each tree. If a tree's filled with narrow bonuses, I might give it a widely-appealing finisher, and vice versa. It encourages us to seriously look at every tree. This expands our choices, and deepens our strategy.
Note that "narrow or wide" is different from "strong or weak." Getting +1 capital science is "weak-wide," while zero-cost specialists would be "strong-narrow." Every combination is possible. Narrow policies are usually designed a little stronger, since they have more specialized uses.
Science is a wide need. Everyone uses science, so anyone can benefit from a science-boosting policy. Narrow involves an optional part of the game like alliances, specialists, or navies. People don't have to use those.
I balance wide-vs-narrow for each tree. If a tree's filled with narrow bonuses, I might give it a widely-appealing finisher, and vice versa. It encourages us to seriously look at every tree. This expands our choices, and deepens our strategy.
Note that "narrow or wide" is different from "strong or weak." Getting +1 capital science is "weak-wide," while zero-cost specialists would be "strong-narrow." Every combination is possible. Narrow policies are usually designed a little stronger, since they have more specialized uses.
