Policy Effect change proposals, and your thoughts


I thought it might be worth a sticky post where we can talk about what policy effects are “wrong” and how they should be changed in later patches. Either new effects, removing existing ones, or tweaks to the equations.
here are two I’m thinking about:

  1. The amount of military spending should effect membership of the patriot group over time.
    This is because military families tend to be more patriotic, maybe due to the fact that its patriotic voters who give them the most support.

2)Legalising prostitution should reduce crime. Because the activity is no longer underground, it can be regulated and given police protection etc.

Thoughts? suggestions for others?


I managed to have a Crime-free Utopia with an Organized Crime problem earlier. Organized Crime was hovering just barely above the cut-off line while Crime and Violent Crime were 0. Perhaps its because it takes time for Organized Crime to catch up on the other two?


I don’t think 1 should be changed. There’s also some hatred sometimes toward military by military families due to their children, husbands, etc being sent off to war.

2 should probably be changed to lower the crime level, this would probably show the debate of ‘if murder were legal would it be an offense?’ type of thing. So while the ‘crime’ would be the same, it would be legal crime. :laughing:


I still think that there’s no point in having drug legalisation as an option if all it does positively is please liberals a little. I can understand that your view may be that there are no good effects, but what’s the point in including it in the game if it’s virtually useless?


Shouldn’t free school meals affect capitalists/wealthy like its counterpart free eye tests?

Or is it just because I only have the beta version?

And possibly increase how much the liberals like you with the legalisation of drugs. And also, increase GDP by a tiny little bit. Because, after all, it means that companies can mass produce those things and help the economy. But drug addiction would reduce productivity so it ends up counteracting each other which isn’t the case as is.

And possibly not make it so that every country has hospital overcrowding, contagious diseases, AND asthma epidemic. Nearly. (Gaiatopia doesn’t have the asthma epidemic. Guess why. :stuck_out_tongue:)


You make a good point. I assume you are suggesting that crime should drop if drugs are legalised? Currently legalising drugs makes organised crime less likely. What do we think about legalised prostitution reducing organised crime too?


I think the drop in crime due to legalizing prostitution and / or drugs would be a good idea. Keep in mind that both may also affect forign relations as well. (Either because they support said policy, or were profiting from smuggling). An option about prisons might be an idea as well. I was thinking of say, prison sentences only for certain types of crime. However i can see how that might not be an easy thing at all.
Here’s a thought: An event that allows abortion to be covered by State Hospitals?
And i still think the idea of creating our own parties would be good, or at least something that lets us know what our core voters are. As it is, what sort of ministers you get seems kinda random. I just tried playing Conservatives and two of my ministers were Liberal, with one of them being Liberal and parents.


The cost to regulate and provide protection, however, should be pretty steep. And once you’ve legalized it, there should be a good chance that at some point prostitutes begin a press and legal battle for unionization and worker’s benefits, which requires you to make some pretty important choices.


Perhaps a well-funded military would boost patriotism membership - I would go so far as to say that some military families are practically indoctrinated into patriotism, through constant, heavy exposure to patriotic ideals and events - whilst a poorly-funded one could reduce it due to a higher proportion of families losing loved ones, or fearing that they will do so through poor equipment and training.

Legalising prostitution would reduce crime (particularly organised crime, perhaps?) not only directly because there is one less crime to commit, but also by reducing crimes connected to it, such as assault, because the environment is more regulated. That said, whilst the actual level of crime may go down, the reported level of crime may in fact go up, as more prostitutes are willing to report crimes committed against them. To do so previously would be to face arrest themselves.

Legalising drugs could also result in less organised crime as there is less drug dealing, although the black market would grow bigger. Perhaps legalising drugs should reduce demand on hospitals and the health service in the short term, as people are using drugs in a more-informed manner, but over the long term the demand on the health service (and possibly the crime level) grows steadily as more and more people become addicted. And simply banning drugs again should not undo all of this damage!

I wonder if there is any scope for new policies related to monarchies, in certain nations at least, whereby the level of money spent on them could be reduced or even the monarchy ousted altogether. Patriots may dislike this and it may have a negative effect on tourism (GDP?), but socialists and the poor would probably prefer it.


We could have a monarchy slider to adjust how much they cost :smiley:
People always say that the UK monarchy boosts tourism. it could also maybe boost patriotism. the thing is, funding for the monarchy isn’t something that’s trivially changed. maybe a slider where it takes 5-6 years to take effect?

Regarding drugs, I think that this is modelled to some extent by the drug addiction situation, although I should revisit this stuff and check I’m happy with all the connections there.


Why would the black market grow bigger if organized crime and such got smaller???

Oh and maybe drugs should be taxable too. :smiley:


Okay, good point…

The really bad organised crime of drug dealing would no longer exist, but there would potentially be more black market activity if the drugs are taxed heavily - which may or may not be organised crime.


Better funding of the monarchy could also have a positive effect on the conservatives.


because of its long term nature, maybe a dilemma on monarchy funding would be a better way to handle the issue?


I propose a series of nationalization policies. Make it possible to nationalize assets such as Public Transport, Rail Networks, Telecoms, Banking you name it!

The policies would take years to implement, during which time they would be a drain on your economy. The slider would dictate how profitable you want the asset to be once the transition period has ended. Lowest representing no accountability, effectively state subsidized, a midpoint of breaking even and a high point of maximum profits (while still maintaining high standards of course) with profitability and customer satisfaction determined by the efficiency of the minister in charge.

Obviously this would annoy capitalists and the wealthy with more controversial enactments such as nationalising the oil or banking sectors causing considerable international tension.

What d’ya think?


I love the idea of nationalisation and privatisation, but I need to make sure it’s done right. I’m not sure the best way to handle it. Ideally, you would have countries starting out with a private / public system and have the option to change it. maybe it is possible to just have this as a policy. I need to give it careful thought.

I do love the idea of being able to privatise the railways to make some quick cash, but then suffering from higher rail travel costs and angry commuters…
I need to think about public private partnerships too. And the setup where you privatise an industry but then subsidise it, which is the way we seem to enjoy doing it in the UK ;(


I was thinking about this. How about a slider going from Privatised to Private-Public Competition to State Monopoly?

Then you’d have a separate slider for subsidies; state monopolies don’t have to receive government funds if they’re surviving without them, and it’s still called a subsidy when they do.


The cost to regulate and provide protection, however, should be pretty steep. And once you’ve legalized it, there should be a good chance that at some point prostitutes begin a press and legal battle for unionization and worker’s benefits, which requires you to make some pretty important choices.

That could produce a few interesting spins. First a bill to legalize prostitution, then a bill to tax it, and another to add them to worker’s benefits.


I think that the University Grants should reduce productivity if set above a certain point, and perhaps even reduce scientifc capability at the highest ends…

In the UK, where until recently education has been free and students have received substantial grants, people have been shying away from the scientific courses in favour of the arts, resulting in lower production in the short-term (people that would be out working are instead studying) and little-to-no benefit to production in the long-term (the skills people have learned at uni are of little value in the workplace). In a setting where people have to balance the costs of studying with the potential benefits (that is, one where students are given less financial help), more people choose to study subjects that are likely to bring them higher wages, such as science, maths and engineering.

As it stands, I think most of the game’s policies for increasing the country’s scientific capability are no-brainers in that they have too little negative impact.


Zild; I agree on principle that there should never be any no-brainers in Democracy, but I think it’s a bit conjectural to say that free universities lead to a reduction in the amount of science and maths being studied.