I noticed there are a few policies where it might make a lot of sense to modify them with a second input when it might be a waste to introduce a second policy for this.
A change to every single slider would separately count as costing political capital, just as it does now, although there might be some argument that modifying multiple sliders under a single policy at once would potentially give you a slight discount. Not sure about that.
Currently I have four examples in mind:
- Income Tax / Flat Tax
Instead of two versions of income tax which ought to be mutually exclusive, add a second slider to income tax which denotes the progressiveness of the tax plan.
The first slider, which is a percentage, would simply be what percentage you tax middle income.
The second slider, progressiveness would adjust poor and rich taxation thus:
- at 0 it’s extremely regressive (rich actually pay less taxes than middle income)
- at 1/3 it’s precisely what the current flat tax is (everybody pays equal portion of income)
- at 2/3 it’s precisely what current regular income tax is
- at 1 it’s a generous negative tax (poor actually get bonus money instead of paying)
(NOTE: On another post I gave the exact opposite behavior but I think “progressiveness” makes more sense than “regressiveness” as a modifier on taxes)
This would simplify income tax calculation, get rid of some of the weirdest behaviors in the game today, and actually make things more flexible for players.
- Every single state company
Right now, these conflate two effects, namely
- how much you spend on the infrastructure
- how much you charge for usage
These should be separate sliders. You could extort people while barely even providing basic maintenance, you could fund massive infrastructure expansions and give away access entirely free, or you could just take a measured approach near the break-even point. But that break-even point could be reached both by massive expansion and massive access prices, and by basic maintenance almost for free.
This would also fix weirdness concerning the rail strike right now. Just because I charge my people for rail usage doesn’t mean I do this while letting the infrastructure go to crap!
- Prison funding
You added an uncancelable policy that concerns how prisoners are treated. Effectively, this is a tradeoff about how prison funds are actually being used. So it should just be subsumed as second slider into the prison fund policy!
These changes provide extra flexibility, keep directly related things together, and actually reduce clutter on the main screen, where individual policy symbols can get quite small if you implement lots of policies.
There’s actually at least one more candidate, though I’m not quite sure how to correctly pull that one off:
I know you implemented Selective schooling as a way to disentangle those effects from others relating to Tech Colleges.
However, actually it’d make sense for this policy, as well as the creationism vs. evolution debate, to be put as sliders into public school funding.
The only problem is, that you might want those two policies to also apply to school vouchers. So the only way I could see this working, other than keeping them separate as now, is to actually have a schooling policy with four separate sliders, combining public and private school spending, and schooling policies. And on top of that you’d need to be able to deactivate some of those sliders entirely.
Unless you want those two polices not to apply to private schooling which, actually, that could be fair. Private schools won’t have as strictly state-mandated curricula as public schools, usually. Iunno.
I am rather certain that the two-in-one policies above would be a solid improvement.
Less sure is, that the four-in-one variant is reasonable, but it might at least be worth trying out.