Suggestion: military patrols policy

Hi Cliff,
I think it would be interesting to see this policy added. Here in Italy this policy has existed for several years now and has given good results in the cities, in the towns and even in areas controlled by crime (for example the mafia). It is a great deterrent to drug dealers, drug addicts, alcoholics, thugs and mean people in general. If you want more information you can go here
Thanks a lot

1 Like

Interesting. I thought that the Carabinieri was basically already that, but apparently not :smiley:

I think it is about time for this.

Very interesting… So the general policy (rather than specifically the Italian implementation) is basically ‘use the military as police’ under certain circumstances. With a slider this could presumably go all the way from ‘backup for ultra-violent drug gangs’ right up to ‘routine patrolling streets with soldiers’. So the big question is what are the impacts.

  • I’m just thinking out loud, but obviously a noticeable drop in violent crime, and organised crime, as these are the crimes most deterred by armed soldiers everywhere.

  • Possibly an upset state employees group…as this is the police losing their job to the army?

  • Upset liberals, as this is the de-facto militarisation of the police force?

  • Happy conservatives and patriots, who like seeing the military more often?

  • Could this affect foreign relations or tourism? or even democracy? it implies a sort of military state, which is often perceived very badly.


I think this would definitely affect the Strong Leader perception, alongside being a huge affector of all public unrest situations, (with a smaller affect on strikes since all they can do is intimidate those).

It would definitely affect Foreign Relations. We don’t have Democracy 3 Africa’s Dictatorship value anymore, which would be relevant, but if we’re to understand the low end of the Democracy value as the current build’s way of illustrating dictatorship, then yes it ought to lower democracy, despite not actually affecting people’s ability to vote. Perhaps an increase to corruption as the state is employing de-facto intimidation against it’s populace, essentially condones similarly underhanded behaviour.

Outside of the Security Report tab, the game doesn’t model clandestine dissent with on-screen values or situations, but I’d definitely say that doing the exact thing dystopian, fascist states usually do with their military would convince many people to exercise dissent covertly. Like with other authoritarian policies, you’re crushing public dissent so inelegantly that it’d understandably crop up underground.

1 Like

Very good point regarding strong leader. its a classic ‘strong man’ tactic…


Idea for the name of the policy: “Military aid to police” (though I think other names could work fine too).

Here in the Netherlands there is a unique thing where the special police units that are used against terrorism and the like mostly consist of military special forces (but they still fall under the authority of the police, at least when deployed domestically). There are also other cases of the military helping the police, such as bomb disposal, or providing manpower and technology when searching for a missing person. (We also have a gendarmerie force like in Italy, but they’re a bit different from normal soldiers of course.)

So maybe it could be something along the lines of: specialist support, against terrorist threats, against organized crime, in high crime areas, omnipresent.
With the lower end basically being where I live, and the upper end being more like Myanmar.

(Also if this is implemented it should probably increase security, like make you more protected against assassinations.)

These are all very good considerations, but probably five more could be added: the policy is being applied to the security briefing and it have an extremely negative impact with regard to illegal immigration, riots in the city, class warfare and general strike.

I don’t know if street soldiers would equate to rooting illegal immigrants out of their homes, but answering domestic terrorism makes sense to me.

Again, that’s all primarily contained in the Security screen as far as I’m aware. Ultranationalism is a situation, but terrorism caused by actors from destabilised states as with jihadi militants in the west aren’t modelled as far as I’m aware.

All very interesting. Reminds me of the ‘special patrol group’ in the UK when I was a teenager, which was a forceful (but no quite militaristic) version in the UK:

I think this would make a decent policy.

1 Like

Other policy that may be included is gendarmerie, those police that are military and serve mainly in rural areas.


In D3 I found it rather strange that France had no armed police.

I don’t think gendarmerie would really make sense as a separate policy, because gendarmerie are generally doing the same work as normal police officers. Sure they might have different training, weapons, or authority sometimes, but the same goes for different police forces.

(Also serving in rural areas is the French version, the Dutch version for instance focuses on high risk security and border security, in addition to regular military police duties.)

Serving in rural areas it’s also the Spanish version.
The main point here could be a police force slighty more cost effective that angers liberals.

1 Like

But what if the militarized police is still under civilian control, or they have restrictions on how much force they can use, so it’s more of a show of force (a paper tiger) rather than an actual in your face policy? So you’d have to remove constraints even from the militarized police force for them to be truly powerful.

1 Like