Yeah, and that's the reason @PrimalShadow talks about it in his example - even with relatively ineffective policy switching, we still get a "2 infrastructure progress left over, +2 Econ, +2 LTE, and +2 forestry innovation chances, all for the cost of being down a single secondary".Passives are not for rapid switching, they are for long-term effects.
And why we won't switch ut back? Because of 'oh one more turn wont hurt' effect - which is a bad idea if you are talking about passives, which are long-term.
But, like, if people value that "one more turn", surely they also value all turns before that, so they'll vote for switch anyway. Plus, we must remember that it won't be for long anyway.
How... dere of them.Thunder horse is safe on dependency, and actually over cap on loyalty