Policy Cards Jumble

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#46 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:28 am

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:27 am
keep in mind that Hierarchical species will always like ECP and dislike IEU, while Horizontal species will always like IEU and dislike ECP.
You're right. That is already a nice distinction.
So one question will be weather or not you can afford to do that at the time.
So another question would be how would work species values, in detail. To know what would be the actual and specific consequences of pissing off some of your species.
Also ECP and the other Centralization policies are focus-independent, allowing you to take all at once to get research and influence out of your capitol as well.
Not relevant. That just shifts the point at which you prefer to switch policies (intead of at 50%, at 66% or whatever).
Something we could do is take the idea of techs that boost policies and apply it to Centralization Policies, maybe boosting them to 0.4 per pop in the mid game and 0.8 per pop in the late game. Maybe even bigger boosts? I don't think that Decentralization policies need tech boosts, as you can always get more out of them by colonizing more planets.
Instead of keep increasing the capital bonus, I'd like to get more population (or better provided) on your capital (or central planets): An Arcology building that can only be built in the capital and doubles its maximum population (building that requires certain centralisation policy in place), over-dimensionated orbital habitation in the capital system (policy), a Dyson ring (building), a Dyson bubble (building and policy), all with some kind of drawback that makes them suffer (e.g. step decrease of population in the capital, loss of production in the colonies) when supply from the "hinterland" of the capital is cut.
Pleasepleaseplease, join fifth multiplayer slow game!

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#47 Post by labgnome » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:07 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:28 am
]So another question would be how would work species values, in detail. To know what would be the actual and specific consequences of pissing off some of your species.
Firstly species values will determine opinion, and opinion will effect stability and planets with low enough stability will be lost, probably following something like what was brought up in the topic here. Basically the worst-case scenario would be that you would loose your planets with that species. Working this out in detail is certainly something we should do.

Instead of keep increasing the capital bonus, I'd like to get more population (or better provided) on your capital (or central planets): An Arcology building that can only be built in the capital and doubles its maximum population (building that requires certain centralisation policy in place), over-dimensionated orbital habitation in the capital system (policy), a Dyson ring (building), a Dyson bubble (building and policy), all with some kind of drawback that makes them suffer (e.g. step decrease of population in the capital, loss of production in the colonies) when supply from the "hinterland" of the capital is cut.
Boosting the population at the capitol is certainly more interesting. I'd primarily go for technologies though. How about "Central Planning Complex", "Capitol University Dormitories" and "Galactic Broadcasting Studios" for technologies that add a 2x population boost to Economic Central Planning, Capitol Research University and Galactic Broadcasting Corporation respectively. That way having all three policies active would give an 8x population boost to the capitol planet.

I do like the idea of an Arcology building. Maybe just have it require any centralization policy active. I'd go for "Capitol Immigration Controls" for a policy name. If we were going to do a multi-stepped Dyson structure, I'd do the policy at the beginning, and have the building boost for all planets in they system.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#48 Post by Oberlus » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:43 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:07 pm
planets with low enough stability will be lost, probably following something like what was brought up in the topic here. Basically the worst-case scenario would be that you would loose your planets with that species. Working this out in detail is certainly something we should do.
Certainly.
If going IEU gonna piss off your hierarchical species (that are 30% of your empire) by -10 Stability, meaning you'll get -25% production on such planets (and -25% resistance to foreign influence, etc.), which in turn means 1.2*0.7+0.95*0.3=1.125 overall production, you can do it. And if you can't, maybe what is good for you is concentration camps for those horizontal jerks.

This makes me think, do we considerer relatively "complex" mathematical problems to find optimal strategies as funny games or boring ones? I myself like them.

Boosting the population at the capitol is certainly more interesting. I'd primarily go for technologies though.
Technologies to boost only the habitability of a single planet (or system) seems weird.
In any case, to get to build the Arcology or Dyson whatever, or to apply any policy, you first need to research certain tech. I mean, techs are for granted.
If what you suggest is to provide permanent boots like the ones we are talking about tall vs wide empires just from researching a tech, then the answer is no. We want to add situational choices, to enrich strategies. Bonus from techs alone can't be switched, just stacked with the rest. In the example about big capitals (vs wide empires), if you impose requirements with drawbacks and give the player the ability to remove (and reapply later) the effects of a tech, via buildings and policies, you let the player decide if he wants to go wide or tall. If getting the extra big capital only takes some research, the only question is when to research it (sooner or later you'll want that permanent bonus, when there is no other more important to take first), but not whether you want to research it or apply it at certain moments.
So I would go only for buildings and policies when it's about stuff to diversify strategies.
Actually, many of the current permanent boosts in the tech tree are expected to be moved to policies.
"Central Planning Complex", "Capitol University Dormitories" and "Galactic Broadcasting Studios"
Economic Central Planning, Capitol Research University and Galactic Broadcasting Corporation
Side note: some of the items might not be clear to everyone. I'd ask you to add brief fluff explanations (or notes helpful to grasp the concept and inspire someone else to write a nice fluff description).
Side note 2: GBC looks like an interesting thing to relate influencing foreign planets or resistance (or vulnerability) to espionage.
If we were going to do a multi-stepped Dyson structure, I'd do the policy at the beginning, and have the building boost for all planets in they system.
Yes. They would be the ultimate population boost structures (and maybe defence boosts), require quite a bit of upkeep and certain policies in place that also impose some restrictions on the colony systems that are supporting the gargantuan Dyson structure.
Pleasepleaseplease, join fifth multiplayer slow game!

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#49 Post by labgnome » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:06 am

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:43 pm
If going IEU gonna piss off your hierarchical species (that are 30% of your empire) by -10 Stability, meaning you'll get -25% production on such planets (and -25% resistance to foreign influence, etc.), which in turn means 1.2*0.7+0.95*0.3=1.125 overall production, you can do it. And if you can't, maybe what is good for you is concentration camps for those horizontal jerks.
I was thinking an even stronger reaction to policies. Basically policies would be the main way that opinion is impacted with influence projects being secondary. Maybe a growing effect like -5 opinion per turn per policy.

I think having "resistance" to foreign influence might be a little over-complex, and maybe just have the influence projects directly interact with opinion.
IE: Project Cost = Base Cost - ( Constant * Opinion )

This makes me think, do we considerer relatively "complex" mathematical problems to find optimal strategies as funny games or boring ones? I myself like them.
If you consider it fun, then that counts for something. Personally I'm more into having ways to role-play my empire.

If what you suggest is to provide permanent boots like the ones we are talking about tall vs wide empires just from researching a tech, then the answer is no. We want to add situational choices, to enrich strategies. Bonus from techs alone can't be switched, just stacked with the rest. In the example about big capitals (vs wide empires), if you impose requirements with drawbacks and give the player the ability to remove (and reapply later) the effects of a tech, via buildings and policies, you let the player decide if he wants to go wide or tall. If getting the extra big capital only takes some research, the only question is when to research it (sooner or later you'll want that permanent bonus, when there is no other more important to take first), but not whether you want to research it or apply it at certain moments.
That is why the technologies I proposed are tied to acting on policies. I do think

Actually, many of the current permanent boosts in the tech tree are expected to be moved to policies.
That's the philosophy I was going for with the policies I proposed. My hope is that this move will be successful.

"Central Planning Complex", "Capitol University Dormitories" and "Galactic Broadcasting Studios"
Economic Central Planning, Capitol Research University and Galactic Broadcasting Corporation
Side note: some of the items might not be clear to everyone. I'd ask you to add brief fluff explanations (or notes helpful to grasp the concept and inspire someone else to write a nice fluff description).
Will do:

Central Planning Complex
The central planning complex is born out of the necessity of managing central economic planning on a galactic scale. This massive planet-spanning complex houses the bureaucrats necessary for managing the centralized economy.

Capitol University Dormitories
The capitol university dormitories are born out of the success of the research done by the capital research university. These massive planet-spanning dormitory complexes house the researchers and students of the great university.

Galactic Broadcasting Studios
The galactic broadcasting studios are born out of the growth of the galactic broadcasting corporation. This massive planet-spanning studio complex houses the technicians and performers necessary for the multimedia productions of the Galactic Broadcasting Corporation.

Side note 2: GBC looks like an interesting thing to relate influencing foreign planets or resistance (or vulnerability) to espionage.
I would think it would interact with propaganda more.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#50 Post by The Silent One » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:01 pm

Didn't have time to study your draft in depth, but some first skim-through comments:

Resource Distribution Programs, Energy Credit Accounting, Reputation Currency: effect is negligible, discard imo.
Equitable Redistribution, Science Directorate, Social Credit System look good. Cultural Repression, Intellectual Regression, Industrial Stagnation may not be different enough from the policies above, though.

Why the special policies for telepathic species, that do not have negative effects?

Fighter Corps: -50% hull seems too harsh. -25%?
Why is citizen service better than Grand Admiralty? Same for Star Fleet, Defense Force, and the detection and stealth policies below - why is one policy better than its opposite?

"Civil engineering" policies should have some disadvantage. Maybe at least a pop malus for species which are of different metabolism. Or some resource malus.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#51 Post by labgnome » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:44 pm

The Silent One wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:01 pm
Resource Distribution Programs, Energy Credit Accounting, Reputation Currency: effect is negligible, discard imo.
The effect can always be increased, maybe +5 / -2.5 would be good. We can also have techs that boost the policy's effects. This is just a draft. Namely I wanted to include both flat and pop-based boosts, so I am hesitant to get rid of the only flat boosts.

Equitable Redistribution, Science Directorate, Social Credit System look good. Cultural Repression, Intellectual Regression, Industrial Stagnation may not be different enough from the policies above, though.
Equitable Redistribution, Science Directorate and Social Credit System all give larger bonuses in one area and smaller malus in two areas while Cultural Repression, Intellectual Regression and Industrial Stagnation all give smaller boosts in two areas and a larger malus in one area. They are structured opposite each other.

Why the special policies for telepathic species, that do not have negative effects?
Because they are situational boosts, not across-the-board for everyone. That is also why they are smaller. Maybe we should make the differences between them and the regular boosts larger?

Fighter Corps: -50% hull seems too harsh. -25%?
Why is citizen service better than Grand Admiralty? Same for Star Fleet, Defense Force, and the detection and stealth policies below - why is one policy better than its opposite?
The boosts are supposed to half or double the values in their effects. They are supposes to be symmetrical with each other. I wanted to make the effects big enough to have a strong impact. I can change the boosts to all +/- 25% if you think that would be better.

"Civil engineering" policies should have some disadvantage. Maybe at least a pop malus for species which are of different metabolism. Or some resource malus.
I don't want to give them mutual pop-maluses, as I want to give the player the opportunity to take some of them together. I'm also hesitant to mix-and-matech bonuses and malues from different policy categories. The main disadvantage is not being able to take them together with the respective "Environmental Adaptation" policies. Basically do you want to get more population on the planets you have, or do you want broader access to planets with the species you have? Here the disadvantage is in the mutual exclusivity. I am not sure how to properly balance it against other effects or how to wrap those effects into the Environmental Adaptation policies.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#52 Post by labgnome » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:10 am

I am thinking that Resource Distribution Programs, Energy Credit Accounting and Reputation Currency should remain with flat bonuses and maluses, but I will up them to +10 and -5 respectively. This should make them relevant.

For Divided Attenuation Labor, Distributed Thought Computing and Subconscious Dream Network I think will include a malus for non-telepathic species, making them only advantageous if you have majority telepathic species in your empire.

For the Civil Engineering policies I am thinking of making them a +25% max population bonus with an infrastructure malus. Conversely I am thinking that the Environmental Adaptation technologies should get an infrastructure bonus in addition while taking a -25% max population malus. This might become more even more relevant if we make some buildings consume infrastructure.

I am going to follow the suggestion of making the numerical bonuses and maluses for the military policies +/- 25%.

I have been thinking of some additional policies that I wanted to run by people here first:

I know there has been some talk about how to balance the various drone/fighter parts. One idea that occurs to me is to make the drone-types policy dependent. Namely what I am thinking of is having a "Fighters" policy and an "Interceptors and Bombers" policy that would be mutually exclusive and necessary to use the fighter parts. This would replace the current fighter-based policies and instead I would work-out troop-based policies for the Offensive and Defensive ideals.

I like the idea megastructures and making them policy dependent. I think a "Celestial Engineering" policy would be an interesting idea but I think that the megastructures themselves and their mechanics need to be fleshed out first.

On another note one thing I have been thinking about lately is the how policies would fit into the new tech-tree. My general thoughts are that policies and their opposites should be in the same tech theme as each other that way focusing on a tech theme doesn't necessarily lock you into a particular strategy. Namely borrowing from my idea about "dichotomies" in one of the Tech Tree topics.

On the other hand I don't think that policies and their opposite policies should necessarily belong on the same tier. Different strategies become more or less feasible at different points in game-play, and thus the bonuses might become advantageous at different points. Thus those bonuses should become available when they become advantageous to have.

On another note, I really like the idea that technologies can improve on policies. I think that it solves the issue of wanting to reward the player with "better" policies later in the game, while allowing policies to have disadvantages or remain situational. Resource Distribution Programs, Energy Credit Accounting and Reputation Currency are prime candidates for policies that get tech improvements. Similarly both the Civil Engineering and Environmental Adaptation.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#53 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:11 am

labgnome wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:10 am
up them to +10 and -5 respectively. This should make them relevant.
Even maybe overpowered at start, but long term not necessarily relevant. Bad thing about flat bonuses is that they don't escalate well... Unless you make them small at start and give techs to upgrade them later.
+25% max population bonus with an infrastructure malus [...] This might become more even more relevant if we make some buildings consume infrastructure.
So having low infrastructure means you can't build many/certain buildings on your planets, right? Infrastructure mechanics need to be fleshed out first.
make the drone-types policy dependent [...] having a "Fighters" policy and an "Interceptors and Bombers" policy that would be mutually exclusive and necessary to use the fighter parts.
Quite "ew". No.
policies and their opposites should be in the same tech theme as each other that way focusing on a tech theme doesn't necessarily lock you into a particular strategy
Should we do the same for everything? Put every di/trichotomy in the same tech theme? So Multi-shot weapons with single-shot weapons and bombers, armours with shields and interceptors, research bonuses with production and influence bonuses...
My first impression, I don't like that idea (even if limited to pairs of policies), it removes the strategic value of choosing your research paths.
On the other hand I don't think that policies and their opposite policies should necessarily belong on the same tier
Should we place them in the same theme, then I think they should be in the same tier, so that the player must sacrifice something in order to have both of them.
Different strategies become more or less feasible at different points in game-play, and thus the bonuses might become advantageous at different points. Thus those bonuses should become available when they become advantageous to have.
What becomes available and when depends on your research strategy, how advantageous it is depends on the circumstances of the current game.
technologies can improve on policies
Policy refinements, like app refinements. I take that for granted.
In general, any kind of improvement for anything comes from researching a tech (or from building something unlocked by a tech, so also from researching a tech).
Pleasepleaseplease, join fifth multiplayer slow game!

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#54 Post by labgnome » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:45 am

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:11 am
labgnome wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:10 am
up them to +10 and -5 respectively. This should make them relevant.
Even maybe overpowered at start, but long term not necessarily relevant. Bad thing about flat bonuses is that they don't escalate well... Unless you make them small at start and give techs to upgrade them later.
I was thinking about what was said about making policy effects strong. So would +5 and -2.5 be better values to start off with? They should definitely have techs that upgrade them. Also keep in mind population boosts are also moved to policies as well, so more conditional.
]So having low infrastructure means you can't build many/certain buildings on your planets, right? Infrastructure mechanics need to be fleshed out first.
Yes Infrastructure does need to be fleshed out. I will start a thread on it, but my general thoughts in brief is that all buildings that cannot be built at outposts should cost infrastructure.
Should we do the same for everything? Put every di/trichotomy in the same tech theme? So Multi-shot weapons with single-shot weapons and bombers, armours with shields and interceptors, research bonuses with production and influence bonuses...
My first impression, I don't like that idea (even if limited to pairs of policies), it removes the strategic value of choosing your research paths.
I was thinking about addressing concerns about being forced into a particular social philosophy by your choice of theme, so just policies. However I see your points about strategic value. I do think that at the least maybe the techs for Civil Engineering policies and Environmental Adaptation policies should be paired-up and the metabolism types distributed across different themes: Organic to Biotechnology, Robotic to Cybernetic, Lithic to Crystal, Phototrophic to Energy and Self-Sustaining to Void.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#55 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:02 am

labgnome wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:45 am
So would +5 and -2.5 be better values to start off with?
Depends on when (tech tier) you can get them. They must be balanced with the alternatives at similar tech tiers (i.e. they must not be OP or UP with respect going for pop-based boosts, on average).
Pleasepleaseplease, join fifth multiplayer slow game!

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Policy Cards Jumble

#56 Post by labgnome » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:06 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:02 am
labgnome wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:45 am
So would +5 and -2.5 be better values to start off with?
Depends on when (tech tier) you can get them. They must be balanced with the alternatives at similar tech tiers (i.e. they must not be OP or UP with respect going for pop-based boosts, on average).
Well you are working on the tech tree. I would default to your judgement as to where to place them. I was originally thinking of making them the first boosts you get as flat bonuses are more valuable early in the game. So maybe Tier 1, with boosting techs at Tier 3 and Tier 5. However if we want to stick with a stronger +10 boost I could see it being a Tier 3 technology.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Post Reply