Maybe make pretty much every decision way more extreme

So right now the gameplay kinda suffers from almost everything (there are some exception including some but not all taxes) being quite binary decisions: Other than cost, there is very little downside to cranking a slider all the way to the right (or, in some cases, left), and that’s pretty much optimal (unless you hold yourself to very strict taxation limits and still want a balanced budget)

Maybe part of the solution could be to like double or triple the maximum spending but introduce diminishing returns to most policies. Plus adverse effects. Like, the sweet spot should:

  • depend on other policies and thus the overall playstyle
  • almost never be at min or max

Even if you go for, say, an extremely socialist government, if that is your goal, the optimum shouldn’t necessarily be to crank everything socialists tend to like to max.

The justification for this is, that policies exist to solve problems, right?
At some point, a given problem is gonna be sufficiently addressed. So more policies are not needed to address that problem. People are already happy with it. More spending will not really affect their lives much anymore. They’d at that point rather have you focus on a different problem that still bothers them. Only once everything else feels less urgent, doing more about this one problem might be more beneficial again. And over-focusing would potentially maybe marginally improve a problem a bit but cause a different problem in exchange. - Some policies already do this, but I’m not sure enough of them do.


What do you think of the game as it stands now? With the laffer curve and all?