Short suggestion thread

Hi, I am enjoying the game very much, but I noted some improvements that would potentially make the game even more enjoyable. Apologies if these have already been suggested.

  1. General
    a) Maybe I am wrong, there seems to only be 1 or 2 ways of achieving certain “things” (given that you don’t want to break the game model). I present two examples:
  • To reduce illegal immigration, policies like amnesty and opener borders will decrease illegal immigration, and increase employment, but it seems like the only way to reduce illegal immigration is to enact conservative policies.
  • During a crisis, the only way you seem to be able to effectively escape it by cutting spending and increasing taxes, which is a fiscally conservative view point. Social policies such as the new deal back in the 30s actually helped the economy and cutting government spending can actually harm the economy, at least temporarily (e.g. Portugal in the 2009 crisis).

b) As I saw on another threat, country specific policies would be really cool.
c) I personally would like to see more interactive internal politics within your party, such as your Chief of Staff, key visits (eg visiting a factory) etc. Not sure if this detracts from the focus of the game and how this would actually look like but it may be cool.

  1. Taxes
    a) already heavily requested - Maybe this is already in the Trello board, but being able to control who the taxes apply to. For example, reducing income tax for the middle class/poor and increasing for the wealthy. This makes managing taxes very difficult.
    b) It seems like there’s a weird disconnect and lack of intersectionality between most groups. I know you can increase the amount of religious membership, but can’t someone belong to the middle class AND socialism group? It seems like you have to be one or the other. This is less of a suggestion and more of a slight annoyance at how separate each group is.

  2. Ministers
    a) Like in Civ, it would be cool to be able to ask your ministers for advice.
    b) Ministers could also propose policies they like, not just when they want to quit.
    c) already implemented, my bad - The minister you appoint should affect your government’s popularity among certain groups, eg hiring a big business minister would anger socialists/liberals.

  3. Campaigns
    a) A bigger focus on campaigns would be neat, such as conducting interviews, like in Football Manager. This would make campaigns a lot more tactical.
    b) Some form of debates would also be really interesting - this could be as simple as presenting pledges and viewpoints that would influence how much certain groups like you or the opposition. I know this can be done but presenting this in a debate format could be interesting.
    c) Each system has its own voting system - maybe implementing a simplified version of each country’s voting system would be interesting (e.g. winner-takes-all in the UK, the idea of rounds in the French election etc)
    d) Talking to representatives of each group on their specific demands would be very interesting (e.g. conservatives say that they want the military budget to increase by 10% in 2 quarters). Giving in to their pledges would motivate them to go vote and demotivate others. Again, I know pledges technically do this alreadyz but presenting this mechanic in a more interactive setting would be neat.

  4. Congress (and in the US, senate)
    a) Introducing congress and senate, which would add or remove political points or increase the probability that a policy proposal gets accepted. This would introduce a whole new dimension to the gameplay.
    b) Being able to meet with the opposition and discuss “stuff” with the opposition. The more you agree, the more political points or the increased probability a policy would be passed through.

  5. UI
    a) Maybe I’m just dumb but I sometimes get confused with the up and down arrows. E.g., for the doctor’s strike, does increasing labor laws make it worse or better? It shows a downwards red arrow. Some policies have a downwards red arrow for poverty. Does it decrease poverty or make it worse? Colouring the arrows as to whether their effect is “good” or “bad” is very useful. So for example, a green downwards arrow for “poverty” is a lot more useful in my opinion

  6. Foreign interactions
    a) Just like talking to minster and demographic groups, being able to talk to foreign governments would be interesting. Whilst the outcome of this can technically be achieved with policies, presenting this in a new way could be very interesting (e.g. US wants a trade deal with Germany and by saying no, US-Germany relations would sour and this could affect capitalists)

1 Like

1a. has been requested since forever.
2c. is kind of already there, hiring a capitalist makes capitalist voters happier.
3c. is probably impossible.
5. Try right clicking a policy effect.

It shows pretty clearly that pushing labor laws to the right (pro union) increases doctors strike.

1 Like

1a. Fair enough, thanks for the feedback
2c. You’re right, my bad - I’ll edit that our of the original post
3c. I’m not so sure, if you have 2 parties, France’s system is the same as winner takes all. If you have 3 parties and in the first round, no one gets ≥50%, the lowest candidate is eliminated and a new round or voting begins. It could really spice up the election process. Granted, I am am less familiar with other countries’ voting systems.
5c. Fair, I still find the colours confusing - for example, things that increase unemployment are green because it’s an increase - it just seems a bit counterintuitive. At least in my view (may not be shares by the majority) the colour should be whether its effect it good or bad for a particular issue (e.g. a high corporate tax would add on to unemployment, which is not good hence an upwards red arrow or bar rather than green.


3c.Depending on which coutries are to be added in the future, there could be a uniquely coded election process for every country, but I doubt it would be worth the effort. Somethings like the German system with proportinal representation just can’t be implemented unless the number of parties allowed is drastically increased which isn’t supported. Most countries in the world have more than 3 relevant parties, it’s only really the Uk and former colonies that use the first past the post and end up with rigid 2(/maybe 3) party systems.
5c. I had the same opinion a couple of months ago and tried to lobby @cliffski to change all the effects to only go in the right, logical direction but he gave us the right click-tooltip instead so we will just have to live with that.

1 Like

In terms of the voting, fair enough, makes sense.

For 5c, it would be nice to at least be able to customise it somehow with something like monochromatic arrows so it doesn’t confuse the player as much…

All even remotely sensible voting systems reduce to being identical if there are only two or fewer choices.