Should the Economic Policy be restricted by ethics?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Currently, Economic Policy has three settings, with the following descriptions:

• Civilian Economy
  "The needs of the populace must come before the business of war. Economic might, not military prowess, is what our empire will be founded on."
• Mixed Economy
  "To commit ourselves fully to either war or peace is to restrict ourselves to a narrow view. We must be ready for whatever the future may hold."
• Militarized Economy
  "To neglect our defense is to neglect our survival. Trinkets and baubles are scarce comfort when the enemy is battering down the gates."

At a superficial glance, this policy seems like something that Pacifists and Militarists should have strong opinions about. However, not only do they allow policy choices completely contrary to their stance, but their factions do not seem to care at all.

How would it affect the game if this policy was treated the same way as the War Philosophy policy?

 

[Lanferite]

Game got 99 problems but this thing aint one.

 

[Ryika]

I don't really see the benefit of restricting them.

Gameplay-wise, it just removes player agency without any emerging gameplay. Flavor-wise, I really don't see why a Pacifist wouldn't gear their economy towards fleet production when faced with an existential threat, or why a militarist would necessarily insist on producing a navy when there is no threat or target to use it against.

 

[methegrate]

I don't really see the benefit of restricting them.

Gameplay-wise, it just removes player agency without any emerging gameplay. Flavor-wise, I really don't see why a Pacifist wouldn't gear their economy towards fleet production when faced with an existential threat, or why a militarist would necessarily insist on producing a navy when there is no threat or target to use it against.

That makes sense, but I feel like it also makes sense to manage this through faction approval. A pacifist might need to gear their economy towards war, so the option isn't disabled, but that doesn't mean their people will like it. No matter how necessary, the population will get steadily more unhappy the longer these unpopular-but-necessary measures are in place. Same goes for a collapsing militarist economy. Your warriors might get angrier and angrier if you shift focus toward comforts and decadence, but if you don't do so there might be no empire left to defend.

I think you're right that this opens up questions about emergent gameplay, but I feel like that's more a flaw of the faction/pop system as a whole. It makes sense to me that a militarist pop would be unhappy to produce iPhones instead of guns. The problem is that no effective gameplay emerges from making that pop unhappy, nor is there any effective gameplay around balancing the factions' wants and needs. That feels like the big fix here.

 

[HFY]

The policies could be made more interesting and the more interesting ones could be restricted to less-powerful Ethics.

What we have right now does not need any restriction, but I could see a design space for new policies.

 

[TempestM]

Lmao, yeah let's block Pacifist from alloy producing policies, they are getting to powerful, we need to protect militarists from them