Tweaks to existing data

Just a post that’s pinned so people can suggest changes to existing data to improve realism and balance.
For example, I’ve noticed that small business grants turn people into capitalists, but don’t water down the number of socialists. i think they should, as its a similar effect. Anyone else got any missing effects / too strong/weak effect suggestions?

what about that the more capitalist and consertive a sonity is the more politicaly inncorrect it is… so why do they keep winning elections… :laughing: jk jk…

anyway, what about the stuff like state schools and other stuff that socialists love that has no effect on capitalists also tuff like jury trail has no effects on consertives.

Hello Cliffski and thanks for such a great game !

I found some stuffs :

  1. Liberal voters proportion stay always at around 30% even with 100% Religious voters,
  2. Conservative voters are always at 24%,
  3. Considering those voters and Socialist voters : Logically a Socialist can’t be Religious, Liberal or Conservative. For example, I think Soc + Rel + Lib + Cons > 100% is impossible (only my first thought, I’m realizing it’s more complicated than that ^^),
  4. Even with a very high augmentation for the low earns, the Poor voters proportion stay around 20% (maximal I saw was 25% or something),
  5. The population never changes : immigration and death penalty don’t influence the demography.
  6. The pressure groups don’t seem to be influenced by “police-state-like coercition” or lots of party adherants (thinking to one-party state). Even with ID cards, phone tapping, death penalty… those groups recruit militants but rarely lost them.

That’s I have on my mind for now.

PS : I’m French, so my English may have some lacks ^^.

Edit : Added 6.

yes then can… for instence a anarcho-communist would be liberal and socialist and a leninist would be socialist and conservitve

A few for the moment:
The Speed Cameras policy seems to have positive reason to use it. The income level seems small and its only effect is to upset motorists. Maybe it should slightly cheer up parents and have a minor effect on lifespan, due to there (theoritically) being less road accidents?

Carbon Tax doesn’t upset anyone or have any other negative effects. You can crank it upto full and it’s basically free money!

Citizenship Test do not have any negative effects except for the tiny monetary cost and a very slight loss of GDP via lower immigration. Would they upset Liberals? I’m not sure but the policy currently seems an easy to cheer up the patriots.

This is all good feedback, thanks.

I agree that carbon tax is very much unbalanced. The amount you can receive for using it far outweighs the minor negative effects. I always introduce it at near maximum, because, like DMA said, it’s basically free money at the moment.

Another thing is that I am currently playing a game where I have both the Techonological Backwater and Technological Advantage situations active.

I think is because the inertia of the Techonology Grants policy is still lowering backwater while that and tax shelters have upped the advantage one faster. Backwater will probably disappear in a few turns but these two probably shouldn’t appear at the same time!

Yes, and there is a similar problem with the possibility of having High Productivity and Wasteful Economy at the same time,which seems illogical.

Maybe Wasteful Economy should have an additional negative effect on High Productivity, and vice versa. In this way they would cancel each other out.

Yes that’s a good point, I’ll make sure those get tweaked too.

Wasteful Economy and High Productivity can go together; you could be churning out a ton of new and improved goods which are relatively worthless, and so people change mobile phones every month, and there are lots of people employed doing very little, and so on.

Election commitments. They seem to be a big deal, but they’re quite a blunt instrument. Maybe in the last couple of turns before the election the reports can more prominently note that you’ve met them or warn that you haven’t.

The problem I had with them is that at one point I saw the asthma epidemic and pollution problems so I decided to really tackle it - then came the election and I promised to improve air quality - the problem was I was trying to improve it from a high base because I’d already implemented most of the measures necessary. Maybe there should be some objective standard.

Also, I think there should be more positive states of affairs - I haven’t achieved one yet but I understand there are only a couple - maybe some more green symbols on the screen to indicate that you’re doing particularly well in one area or another.

Good evening.

When I am doing a good job (99% of all votes) the number of members of my party is shrinking to zero. Noone wants to sleep to the top in the nation’s leading party? That’s a bit unrealistic.



people can support you, and vote for you, but not like you enough to join the party. It depends how things are distributed. if everyone in the country rates you at 50.1%, you will get 100% of the votes (landslide!), but have nobody in your party. If 5% of them rate you at 99% and 95% at 0%, you will lose the election but have lots of party members.

I second these points, especially 5 - surely immigration should push up population? And citizenship tests seem to be all good, no cons - maybe liberals would object to it slightly?

good point on the citizenship tests. surely you can be a socialist and religious though? a lot of UK socialists are very religious. It’s only in the US that people seem to equate religion with being right wing.

That is a point - a socialist could even be based upon religion (all equal in the eyes of god, that sort of thing) and most certainly they could be a liberal. I wouldn’t think a religious liberal is possible, very few religions seem to say ‘do as you please’, obviously liberals and conservatives are opposites, and I wouldn’t think a socialist conservative is possible - I’ve never heard of one.

BTW, I am from the UK (I should add that to the profile), but I wouldn’t say there are many religious socialists around. Besides, at the last count, didn’t only 38% of Britons profess a religious belief, with all others atheist or agnostic? (Fairly ironic really, considering we still technically have a state religion and blasphemy laws)

I agree that these days socialism and religion have drifted apart, but go back 50 or 60 years and you will find a lot of religious people in socialist parties in the UK.

Religious liberal is very possible. In terms of christian religions, the UCC and the Episcopal church (well most of it) here in the US qualify. I’d add Buddhism to the list as well.

Socialist conservative. Well that pretty much sums up Leninism and to an extent Stalinism.

Also, car and petrol taxes efectivly get rid of motorists (if they are in place, and taxing as high as possible, and probably 'cause I put other transportation means in place)

I’m not sure, but why doesn’t that happen with drinkers and smokers? (or does it happen, but I haven’t ‘eradicated’ them?)

(not that I would want to in real life) but why can we outlaw the other “drugs” but not cigarrettes and alcohol?