Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

#1 Post by Oberlus »

Environmentalism is too good (not exactly OP because of the -5 PP), the most powerl policy to enlarge your empire beyond your base influence, very powerful for non-focused reserch, and the fluff doesn't go very well with the effects (IMO).
Currently it is a form of old-NascentAI-on-steroids: +3 RP, +2 IP, and +10 stability, all unfocused, but only if not terraformed. -10 stability if terraformed and no bonuses. And it does not apply to belts or GGs, so belt/GG-dwelling species can't be environmentalist, which is a bit odd but OK for me. It also gives a freaking -5 PP that is too much, equal to GGG or both Automation empire-wide flat bonuses, it restricts too much what to do with your planets or when to be able to adopt the policy (must wait until that -5 PP is not that much compared with your industry-focused planets output, and the rest can't be set to industry because they just give 0 PP).

I propose this:

Make it exclussive with Industrialism and change the -5 PP to -25% PP. So an Industrialist empire has 1.25*industry, an environmentalist empire has 0.75*industry, and the rest have 1.0*industry.

If non-terraformed:
+5 stability (it's nice to live on natural environments, but not has nice as to give it +10, you can die eaten by something when on a walk, and disposable envelops are forbidden which is a nuisance).
+0.2*pop RP research-focused (keeping great biodiversity is good for research, but only if you study it, Mother Nature won't serve the results on your desk on its own; better for fluff to leave the flat bonuses to stuff more related to infrastructure, AI, and automatization).
-25% influence upkeep (it's easier to maintain the society and economic system when it is based on natural way of life). Together with Isolationism this would be 0.375*base_upkeep (not 0.25).
+2 IP when influence-focused (desk work is much more pleasant when you can hear the birds sing outside the window of your wooden office on top of a tree, and the public gets impressed when they see you go down the tree using a vine).
+1 IP if stability > 15 (you keep people so happy and well attended that they get really loyal to you and help you carry out your deed).
-1*HabitableSize population if it does not make the planet uninhabitable (Environmentalism has a toll: leave more space to nature, less for the species).
-10 infrastructure (no changes here).
+10 planetary stealth (industry is blended with nature, being harder to detect).

if terraformed:
-5*(distance to original env.) stability.


Comments? Conflicts with other policies or techs that I'm overlooking?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

#2 Post by Oberlus »

Bonus track:

- Make some Growth techs cheaper to research (-20% cost), and/or Organic hull techs faster to research or to build (-1 turns) with Environmentalism.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

#3 Post by wobbly »

I like the idea of environmentalism having some planetary stealth, from the lack of industry.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

#4 Post by Oberlus »

Granted. I edit the OP.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Environmentalism rebalance (0.5)

#5 Post by LienRag »

Interesting. Will need testing, obviously.

I'm a bit wary of a feedback loop 'influence brings stability and stability brings influence" though.

But the mechanism where Environmentalism will bring Influence Points only when the people are happy is both immersive and interesting (yes, I'm contradicting myself with the previous phrase, in a way, but I said "I'm a bit wary", not "this is bad").

Post Reply