Ideology tree discussion

I'm very much in favor of NOT restricting a player to just one Ideology tree, and, in fact, allowing them to "buy" from the various trees, based on their acquisition of Ideology points (via Event, building, etc.).

What I do want is the Civ5-type concept that purchasing specific ideology entries denies you the ability to ever purchase certain others in the other two trees.  E.g. the "Heroic Nature" and "Doctrine of Strength" are inherently incompatible.

Doing this would require that the Ideology groups be less pyramids (you currently have to buy everything on a level to get access to any of the stuff below it) and more trees (where losing access to a ideology entity only cuts off that branch).

And, yeah, I think they definitely should bring back the Mega Events for this; it was something I missed in GC2, since it went away after you researched the Ethics tech.  In GC3, you should constantly be faced with Mega events which test your morality.

1. I agree with you with the no conflict issue. It almost seems like I can just play the game and get everything, abliet with an immense universe filled with systems and planets and only one opponenet. A conflict needs to be in place, maybe something like you can go only so far down one tree if you are x far down in another tree/points. Just something off my head.

2. Like the events idea. It was something that was in GalCiv II IIRC.  Being given options of frequency/strength/potency would help with dealing with those that don't want it and those that love the thrill of chaos.

I'm not sure how exactly the point costs for each element of the ideology trees are calculated, but I believe the more you spend in one tree, the more expensive other trees become. This is, in some ways, a means of dealing with the differences in ideologies (i.e. the more invested you are in an ideology, the easier it is to go down that path and, conversely, the more difficult it is to go down the others).

I'm okay with this, to a point, but I do think (and have posted elsewhere) that some of the ideology elements are mutually exclusive.

I think this would make decisions much more meaningful--if you can have everything, it is less about which to choose, but rather which to choose first.

Sorry for the wall of text, but . . .

Another issue I have noticed relates to the improvements that are made available through the ideology tree. First, I really like that improvements become available as ideologies progress, and I like that the buildings offer points toward ideologies. This does create a ripple-effect though: as you gain a new ideology-based improvement, you can much more quickly progress through the ideology trees.

Even in a tiny map, you need only unlock the first level of each ideology through colonization events and anomalies, and then you can use buildings to progress in all three ideologies. And because points don't disappear when you destroy buildings, this is highly exploitable.

I realize something may already be in the works to improve this, and that the point values and other factors may be in place to help speed things up during alpha, but within about 150 turns, I've been able to unlock all of the available ideological elements. I think that either the buildings need to be less generous in the number of points they offer (and perhaps fewer unlocked element should grant new improvements), or the individual ideological elements need to cost more.

Also (and I'm not sure how this would effect gameplay--it may be a terrible idea), I think that destroying ideological improvements on colonies may need to also remove the awarded points, and any unlocked elements may need to become re-locked (in the order they were unlocked) if the points drop below the required cost to unlock. I don't think I would have a problem with this in terms of gameplay if I was notified before destroying an improvement that such an action would remove an ideological bonus.

So to summarize--

If a player can unlock all the ideological elements, ideological choices are pretty much meaningless.

If there is no loss of points when an ideology-based improvement is destroyed, players will likely destroy and rebuild these improvements to spam points in the desired ideology, thus totally undermining the value of making meaningful ideological choices.

I like the possibility of getting all the advantages, but it must come at a steep price.

Therefore the current solution with rising costs based on buying in any of the trees seems to be a very good direction. Buying in Malevolent should have a stronger impact on benevolent then on pragmatic.

Since unlike the statement above you only have to buy one ideology enhancement on a level to get access to the next level, having the contradiction exclusion would work and would also be appreciated. On that point I would prefer an extra cost of 100% on top for contradicting ideology enhancements instead of not allowing it at all. Alternatively an economic negative effect when doing something contradictory. A split leadership personality usually leads to inconsistent decisions with at least an economic impact

Using enhancements to get additional points is a very good idea, but obviously removing them should have an impact.

Therefore I would suggest projects instead of buildings for the purpose:

Educating a set of people to be benevolent, pragmatic or malevolent. In this case the effect of it will stay and there is no need for a complicated handling of pulling the buildings down again. This education project could double in cost for every time it is executed. After the completion of one of these projects on a planet, the planet would turn "malevolent", "pragmatic" or "benevolent" and only further education in that one direction on that planet would be supported. On conquering a planet it would be similar to a new planet for the new owner. The nation losing the planet would not have a negative impact as the fleeing people would keep up the philosophy as a goverment in exile. When the planet is reconquered by a previous owner. The exiled goverment returns and therefore the values are reapplied that were in effect earlier. (This avoids tricking the concept by having allies exchanging planets back and forth.)

I want at least six ideology trees, with more varied colonization/random events to compensate. 

Crazy idea:

I'd like to see ideology trees be purchased, then go down the trees.   Maybe a Xeno Ethics line of techs that allows unlocking more trees.

Maybe some trees require a bit of multiple types of points, like some pragmatic and some ruthless?

I agree that you should be able to partake of all 3 types (benevolent/pragmatic/ruthless), however, the less specialized you are, the less likely you are to get big positive events.

I do want to see the Xeno Ethics line come back, but in a very different form- maybe have the tree unlock higher-end stuff on the ideology tree, or enhance benefits from that tree.

I would rather your actions dictate what choices were available to you.

I don't like the idea that you could purchase a tech from the good tree when your a genocidal  nutter.

Your decisions during planet colonisation, your actions towards other civs etc. would effect your 'Ethic Swing'  (Think venn diagrams)

In Galciv2 you could pick all the Evil choices because of bonuses and then just purchase the alignment of your choice. Always hated this.

I agree that the "morality" should be decided by actions, I hated these static "trees" in Civ V as well. They feel very simplified, inorganic, and far from immersive, compared to actions that comes with implications. Even though "event based" choices represent an illusion, it is a huge step above a bunch of choices just nailed up in a convenient place. This is one thing that made Civ V feel "simplified", and it makes this game feel the same way. Because it is very much the exact same thing after all. Form filling comes first, and your actions take the form of that form. This has little to do with morality, outside of questionable book keeping...