Running into hard caps

Democracy 3 General Discussion
1

I find it too easy to flat line the graphs at the top, when it looks like I still have plenty of growth left to do. Here’s how it happens:

I tend to start the game off by capping out spending on university grants, state schools, adult education subsidies, technology colleges, libraries, science funding… you get the idea. I find that when combined with a generous amount of economic development and technology focus, these will pay you back very well. However, education reaches the top of the graph and flat lines well before all these programs have come to full effect. I wonder how much good these would do for me if they weren’t hard capped the way they currently are.

I once even encountered this with GDP towards the end of a VERY long game (no term limit, must have been at least 10 elections in). My GDP only dropped off the top of the graph during global meltdowns, but quickly came back up. This resulted in limitations on how much I could spend that really shouldn’t have been there.

Basically what I’m asking if the developer reads this is, can I have the ceilings on these raised please?

2

I hear what you"re saying, but I also understand why the caps are there to help make balancing all the variables a bit more manageable. Personally, I look at hitting the caps as an opportunity to review my policies in that area and determine whether some should be reduced or cancelled, freeing up resources for other priorities. I do agree that things could use some balancing though, although instead of just increasing the caps, I’d suggest making it a bit harder to hit the caps in the first place by reducing the positive policy impacts of the policies that are getting you there (especially in the case of heath, education and crime which are far too easy to cap in my opinion).

3

I could definitely see introducing a diminishing returns factor, that the higher you are on the graph, the more it takes to raise that factor.