Tobacco Tax and it's Effects

Howdie ALl

I have a quick question, I was hoping someone could help me with ?

I have only just purchased DMEOCARCY 3 and have been playing around with the tutorial for an hour or so and had a query regarding the TOBACCO TAX (which I am assuming the answer to may additionally aid my understanding of some other mechanics :slight_smile: ).

From the in game screens it shows that an INCREASE in the TOBBACCO TAX affects the GROUP of EVERYONE in a NEGATIVE way ?

I find this difficult to fathom personally ?

I realise the GREEN/RED mechanic is just meant to represent a numeric INCREASE/DECREASE not a GOOD/BAD value judgement, but I fail to see how an increase in TOBBACO TAX will DECREASE the HAPPINESS of the EVERYONE GROUP ; especially considering that an INCREASE in the ALCOHOL TAX only affects the YOUTH HAPPINESS.

Is this based on some hidden percentage, ie 90% of YOUTH consume enough ALCOHOL to be affected by a TAX increase, so the entire group goes up/down ? SO in other words is the TOBBACO TAX affecting everyone because the game places a high percentage of the electorate in the smokers category or some category that is dependent on the patronage of smokers ??

BTW I am attempting to govern AUSTRALIA ATM.

I am confused :slight_smile:

Can someone please help me out here ?


Lots of views, no replies. :frowning:

Cliffski any input to offer ?

Is it just done for game balance, or is there some meaning behind it ?

I would be grateful if you found the time to respond. Thankyou

I’ve not got the game code in front of me, but AFAIK there’s no hidden groups. In Democracy 2 smokers and drinkers were voter groups; they’ve now been replaced by Youth and Ethnic Minorities. Given that smokers will be scattered among the electorate, a minor negative effect on everyone is fine.

I think a strong argument could be made that the alcohol tax should also negatively impact everyone, as drinkers are also scattered throughout the electorate. I do think a direct effect on youth is justified, in addition.

Hope that helps.

Yes that’s what I meant. I could understand if alcohol was modelled this way, in addition to smokers. That makes sense, but its only smokers. That said it would also mean that any delineation of society not modelled by the main cluster of 15 or so groups would affect everyone as well, which might lead to game balance issues. IDK.

I guess it comes down to not just considering if something affects society as a whole but whether it would affect any segments more than any other segments. Personally I think CIGERETTE TAX should affect the happiness of the poor more, as they will feel the affects of any tax of addiction disproportionately. I have no idea how smokers in general break down into socio-economic groups. I imagine there are some industries which purport a greater percentage of smokers then others (building industry would be my ill informed guess). I guess there might be an argument between productivity and cigarette tax, especially if the tax inherently reduces users (as modelled in game) then would it not also boost productivity by a small amount (not thinking of the health affects here as this would be modelled through the smoker usage, but rather time spent on smoko’s, which for a compulsive smoker in any country where smoking is illegal in the workplace, would be considerate IMO).

CAVEAT : Not having a go at smokers here BTW, merely exploring the affects as I naively see them.

Thanks for the reply, sorry for the rambling Segway (how do you spell that ???) :slight_smile:

Right then…

yes the last game had smokers and drinkers as groups, and that has now changed, but they are effectively represented by 2 new (blue) simulation values for alcohol and tobacco usage. These are used, in conjunction with the everyone group to determine the effects.
The effect on everyone is -40% Multiplied by actual tobacco usage. if you get usage of it to zero, that effect will also go to zero.
The fact that the poor are more affected by the tax is also modeled, as it affects poverty rate and equality (again, scaled by the extent of actual usage) so it is having an effect on the poor, although it is indirect and possibly not that clear. Arguable it should affect poor income instead, which might have been a better method.

But yes, it is being modeled in a different way to the previous game, and hopefully much more accurately :smiley:

I can’t see an effect from alcohol tax to the young, only from alcohol law, because some of them would eb directly prevented from enjoying alcohol by it at the higher settings.

Sorry Cliffski, you’re right - Youth only care about alcohol law.

I understand the link between the tobacco tax, usage, and the effect on everyone’s happiness. Is there a reason you chose not to implement a similar relationship for alcohol?

I agree that the new model is much improved on the whole.

Cliffski and Rick

Not sure I agree on the YOUTH only caring about ALCOHOL LAW as that is inferring that the YOUTH do not really have money issues or the will/desire to reflect this disaffection politically. I would say it depends on SOCIO-ECONOMIC groups, I think HIGH/MIDDLE CLASS Youth would not care one bit (so long as the tax was not too ridiculous) but POOR YOUTH likely would. Whether this disaffection would manifest its self as a decrease in political happiness for that GROUP or in other ways ie CRIME is unclear to me.

Does HAPPINESS refer to ACTUAL HAPPINESS or HAPPINESS WITH A POLITICAL PARTY ? If it is the later then perhaps I would recant my argument, but still I am unsure …

Anyway thankyou both for clearing that Up.

@Cliffski : So the smoker formula is using the 40% as an approximation of the percentage of smokers in society, and then scaling any cigarette affect by this proportion ? That’s quite clever and now makes more sense to me.

In a delightfully Machiavellian way, “the happiness of the people with your government is the happiness of the people”.

All those bars are measuring is the opinion of a given demographic towards your government. The reason Youth don’t like you raising the drinking age is because it means some of them can’t legally drink any more!

I withdraw my argument for a negative impact on Youth happiness from the alcohol tax, but I do think that taxing booze should directly impact the happiness of everyone (level dependent on booze usage) exactly as the tobacco tax does.