A point about dilemmas


#1

Here’s a point about dilemmas.

I believe there is something flawed about the current use of the dilemmas mecanics.
The core of the gameplay in Democracy 3 is policy making and policy adaptation. However, dilemmas such as Ban/allow GM crops, gay marriage, gay adoption, oil drilling and so on rips you of that core mecanic. Dilemmas are policies you are forced to take, at a random time without any possibility to change it. It doesn’t help that the number of dilemmas is so low. At the moment, this feature isn’t fair to the player.

I think there are two directions that could be taken to solve that problem without removing that feature which remains cool.

First direction: public enforced policy making
In this direction, we maintain the mecanic but with this difference. Rather than implementing a simple effect (malus on GDP, bonus on political group, malus on criminality and so on), the dilemma introduce by force a new policy, policy which you may not cancel. Those dilemmas should be highly controversial to be fun and the balanced option being uncomfortable as well. You could still change the slider at a later time but the political capital cost should be greatly superior to other policies.
You could also choose to strike first and implement those controversial issues at a time when you are in a comfortable position. This would prevent the dilemma to occur. You wouldn’t be taken by surprise but the policy remains controversial and hard to balance.

Second direction: politics dilemmas rather than policy dilemma
This direction would remove all policy-related dilemmas and replace them with traditional policies you can implement (or not) and change to your liking (well, if you can afford them of course).
In this option, dilemmas should be redirected towards political choice and crisis management. This could include: more international matters, more national disasters and so on. All those dilemmas give you a temporary effect which affect your country but doesn’t change your policies.

Of course, a combination of the two or other options are possible because this is not a binary forced dilemma. =)

Thank you for reading. What do you think about it?


#2

Dilemmas are a deliberate way to shake up the game by forcing you to choose between supporting 1 of two groups, so they enforce tough decisions at a time not of your choosing. They deliberately interrupt the players long term plans as a way of forcing you to constantly adapt. Plus they replicate the unpredictability of real life politics which is often dominated by ‘events dear boy…events’.*

*http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan


#3

I agree. No-win scenarios and dealing with people who breaks havoc and your well-tought plan is great and I do intend to suggest/mod more stuff on that direction. I don’t suggest to remove the feature. However, it can prove problematic as there aren’t that much dilemmas and there is the problem that sometimes your political plan include stuff that is limited to dilemmas. For example, the LGBTQ rights mod is great because it allows you to deal actively with those subjects without having to wait for the dilemma to shop up. Plus, it’s annoying that those policies and dilemmas can’t “talk” to eachother. If you ban gay marriage through policy, you can still legalize it through the dilemma and vice-versa.


#4

Yes, more dilemmas is definitely something that would add to the game. I’m surprised so many modders have made new countries and not added many dilemmas, as they are very easy to add once you have an idea for some :smiley:


#5

I guess the first thing that comes to mind about modding this game is either “Ouuh, I do want to play my country/that country I’m really interested” or “Ouuuh, I really want to be able to do [Insert random stuff here]”.

I never thought about it myself. Maybe, I’ll give it a shot.