I’ve just bought Democracy 2 today, and have been enjoying playing it for the last few hours or so. There is one issue that I do have with the game, though - why does it take the same political captial to introduce, abolish or change a policy? For example, if I want to abolish corporation tax, it will “cost” me 25 political capital. If I wish to triple it, it will cost me 25 political capital. If I want to make a very small increase it will cost me 25 political capital. Surely this cannot be right - it surely requires far more political capital to make a vast change to a policy than a tiny change? For example, I agree that bus lanes (9 political capital) would require less political capital to introduce, abolish or change - but surely a massive increase in spending on them is going to require more political capital than the slightest of changes to corporation tax?
Also, with some policies, surely decreasing them will require less political capital than increasing them (or visa versa)? For example, it’s surely politically easier to decrease tax than increase it.
Another thing relates to this is why when I introduce a policy do I have to use twice the political capital if I do not wish to stay with the default value? For example, I wanted to introduce married tax allowance, but only to a small degree. It cost me 18 political capital to introduce it, and then another 18 to cut it. Surely introducing a policy on a small scale would take less political capital, rather than more? It seems bizaare that it takes one lot of political capital to introduce a policy at “default” value, but if I want to use a different value, I have to “pay” again, even though it is not a “change”, as I never wanted to introduce it at default value in the first place!
Surely political capital should be calculated on the basis of the amount of the change - thus the larger the change, the more political capital would be required. This would reflect real life - while the Government may have little problem making a 1% increase in income tax, a trebling of it would cause outrage and cost vast amounts of political capital. Also, the introduction or abolition of a policy is always likely to need more political capital than simply changing it when it is in effect. As an example, I abolished the state pension. I should imagine that this would need quite a significant degree of political capital - yet a modest increase in the state pension would have been an entirely different question. Also, when I introduce a policy, should I not be able to choose to what degree I introduce it without needing to “pay” again, and it is nonsensical that it costs twice as much political capital just because one does not wish to go with the “default” value.
Apart from this I am really enjoying playing the game - good work! Ah, well, must go now - my country needs me!