I agree with the importance of ministers, certainly having somebody writing policy who recognizes changes in the world and implements correct responses is vital. But having an entire arm of society collapse overnight because of one resignation is silly.
Reducing the tax minister’s impact on tax revenue reduced the worst effect of this problem, but did not target the main problem.
Huh? I didn’t understand. Are you saying that when the transport minister resigned, the gridlock got better or worse? Because this graph has more than one spike and trough.
So, I’m wondering whether you’re talking about a glitch or a balance issue.
But if it’s what I think you’re saying, then they all should be balanced as well.
I agree to what was mentioned in the original post and share the same concern. While I don’t really oppose the notion of minister impacts on policy effectiveness & efficiency, I’d expect some delay on their effects not only over their term of office but also in the case of resignation. Democracy is about transfer of power and the system should be prepared for it happening at least once per 4 or 5 years. In my opinion, inertia of 3 or more turns should be in place for minister impacts on cost, income, and influences (it might be okay for implementation time to take an immediate blow).
Hmmmmmm…yeah. It could be a small dip and then a gradual decline. So it would avoid these huge spikes.
Or small rise and then a gradual increase if it is a negative situation like the one above.
Interesting idea to add inertia to this. It does make sense. When a new minister takes on a job, for the first few months its likely the ministry is running on ‘autopilot’ with the hangover of the previous ministers decisions, so this makes sense. I will see how involved this will be…
Thank you for considering this. To me at least ministers are the primary pinch point in this game. There’s a difference between a fun challenge and an irritating challenge and these buggers are very much the latter.