Enjoy!
3 Likes
I did not understand if these events can be found in all countries or only in the UK. I play in Italian and the text of the new events does not appear.
1 Like
Russian Ships and Argentina in the Falklands are UK exclusive. Heat waves are for all countries.
I’m sure Cliff will add translations to these events as soon as possible.
1 Like
does black lives matter too?
1 Like
I don’t know if it’s for all countries. I think that it triggers if your country becomes more liberal. So, I think that it’s for all countries. But only if you make your country pretty liberal.
1 Like
Yup, the translations always lag a version or two behind English because it takes time for the translation company to do everything, but everything in the game will eventually be in every language.
Russian Ships and Falklands are currently UK only. Heatwave and BLM can occur in any country depending on the levels of liberalism, racial tension and average temperature.
2 Likes
Well, since you mentioned the event, I can think of some other countries who’s immediate neighbors aren’t going to nuke them either.
2 Likes
Well its not immediately nuke. Nothing in the game is exact, it is all symbolic, so you can think of a missile test as any kind of show of military strength, such as a military training exercise right along a border. It can also be not an immediate neighbor but one with the range to attack.
Such things are not common for many of the countries in the game right now, but then they all have reasonable military capabilities. A Germany that got rid of 95% of its current military, for example, would likely see a lot more saber rattling from Russia.
Ultimately these events are to provide political repercussions for reducing military expenditure (beyond the patriot hit, and the resulting unemployment and technology drop).
2 Likes
ok, fair enough. I was jokingly reiterating my point in previous posts that nobody looks at the Canadian PM when America does something nuclear.
I see that you are adding specific events so that under funding the militiary has more erratic penalties rather than consistent ones.
Some for Canada could be:
-A decades old military helicopter rescues it’s own emergency transponder after it fell off in flight.
-An ancient and decrepit naval supply vessle who’s crews had been warning for years that disaster was imminent finally burns.
-A Candian contingent is excluded from all the important parts of a NATO operation because our obsolete communication equipment doesn’t integrate with everyone else’s network.
Those all happened. Yes, even the helicopter with bits falling off in flight.
1 Like
I guess the long peace precludes the need for war. And war spending. Although that might have been caused by corruption, manufacture issues, poor maintenance, or weak oversight.
Following up further on ministers though, I understand your point about the minister’s effectiveness having a lot of effects, and those effects being important. What is problematic is how quickly things fall apart when one quits.
For example, in a UK run I played recently, when a tax minister quit I immediately lost about 30 billion pounds of revenue, and more ridiculously the obesity crisis came roaring back over night. It hadn’t been just under the line either, it was well under control. So while it is conceivable that realities of the world change, that an incompetent minister wouldn’t recognize or properly react to these changes, it would take time for these losses to bite. The policies up to the day the minister quit would still be well written and the civil service would keep doing their jobs. The incompetence of the new minister would take time to bite, and likewise a proficient minister would need years to clean up the mess left by an incompetent predecessor.
I guess what I’m getting at is that the results of a minister’s work need some inertia to make it less of a jarring game play moment when one quits.
2 Likes
I think that this is a good point.
Although I take your point, I do think that from a game design point of view, inertia is a NIGHTMARE. The game is already super complex for a casual player, and its really tough to get people to realize that A affects B, and B affects C, and C might then affect A…
We then have to shift one degree more involved and say that those effects… may have inertia, so even though you cancelled A, its still affecting B.
There are various UI devices in the game that hopefully make this apparent (although to be honest I am definitely not happy with them yet), but adding a new piece of inertia in a different area of the game might make things even harder to understand.
One of the worst things a player can experience is the feeling that they have no idea why they won, or lost and that they seem to have no impact on events. I’m quite wary of making that worse.
It might be that specifically for the tax and economy sections, we should lessen the financial effect of who the minister is…
1 Like
Yeah, it’d be great to see how you balance these competing interests. There’s also the issue of the debt crisis being essentially a doom loop. Or stagnant, don’t touch anything and let everything carry or it might suddenly implode. It’s kind of a knife edge, where you are just waiting for the country to slowly implode as your income keeps falling.
This is what I’m talking about. For context this is with one overhaul mod on, but it doesn’t touch ministers, and it is after a few terms. That sharp down tick on the green line is about 1/6 of my budget evaporating overnight because of one minister who quit. This is utterly nonsensical.
1 Like
Maybe there is a lesson here though… Sure, the effect is a bit much but…
Presumably this is a pretty experienced minister (+3% tax income) being replaced by a complete newcomer (-3% tax income). But the rest of your cabinet are presumably just as experienced. perhaps there is an argument to be made that you need to take the political capital hit at this point and reshuffle to keep experienced ministers in that job?
I reckon that probably is a thing in real life.
1 Like
6% income reduction corresponds to 10 Billion?