In my first game I went ultra socialist liberal
And now everyone is really rich with 96% of the population being classified as wealthy.
Also I am winning every election with 100%.
Is this a bug?
In my first game I went ultra socialist liberal
oh my that’s crazy. How did you do it?
Nationalize everything, high taxes, max welfare, massive economic intervention and lots of public services.
However not everything is perfect and the country suffers from tax evasion, an uncompetitive economy, a black market and corporate exodus but some how despite this the GDP is at maximum most of the time.
My party is so far to the left Bernie would be on the right wing of party.
A small price to pay to own the trads.
Interesting. I know another player has managed the same feat. It could be we have a balance problem there, I would need to try and replicate this and look at how all the equations pan out at this situation.
Would you generally say you found doing this too easy? or were there pitfalls along the way? We don’t try to make any outcome specifically hard, but we do try to make everything realistic.
We are currently more focused on tracking down rare crash bugs and big UI issues, but balance is something we will address a lot during alpha, especially as we get more playthroughs and more players.
Yes, I would say this was too easy, it’s a strategy I discovered in Democracy 3. However I found balancing the budget harder in this game as carbon tax and petrol tax end up giving nothing. (Unlike in Democracy 3).
In this other post I mentioned a couple of the problems my country had: Problems With Coporate Exodus and Uncompetitive Economy + Other Suggestions.
If you would like a copy of the save I can upload it to google drive or something. But the basic strategy is as follows:
If you act quick enough you basically don’t have to worry about assassinations or anything like that.
I think in my game this was as a result of government subsidies for unions and everyone was a member of a trade union.
It does make sense, though I would submit to Cliff the idea that the disposable income scale should simply be made larger. We should be able to distinguish billionaires from people making around $125k or so.
I’ve just done a socialist play through and then a fascist playthrough, I wouldn’t say one is easier than the other, just that the fascist one takes longer because you start with a low number of religious people and you also have to dismantle democracy. I was also getting 100% of the vote. It’s just what happens once you pull everyone in the Overton window into your orbit.
Very interesting. i guess the UK leans slightly socialist in some respects (or at the very least liberal) so in theory a totally socialist/liberal society should be quicker than a capitalist/conservative one.
It sounds like what we really need to home in on is any policies that feel a bit too overpowered…
Enterprise investment can boost GDP in the long run by 6% for a base cost of 500
Science funding costs 1180 to boost GDP by 8%, although it also boosts some other positive indicators…
I think that enterprise investment should maybe have a much larger impact on reducing socialism, as its literally a ‘make everyone an entrepreneur’ fund. If people trying to build a socialist society are happily using this policy, its probably not a strong enough effect
Rural development may also be a bit of a ‘good deal’, giving 6% GDP for only 100!(madness!).
I don’t think it’s broken, but then again I usually play on 200% difficulty. I find that compared to Democracy 3 it is harder to raise enough revenue to implement all the socialist policies and maintain a balanced budget. In D3 I could do it with Income Tax at 45%-50%, here even with Income Tax at 62% I can’t max out all the big ticket items like the military, state health, public housing, pensions, and state schools. Income taxes past 62% are not feasible due to tax evasion, brain drain, and corporate exodus.
I did the exact same thing but with the most capitalist and liberal u can be my pin was at the bottom right corner and i kept winning with 100% vote and everybody was wealthy
With rural development grants I would suggested making them cost less PP, cost more $$, increase car, bus and train usage and reduce productivity (due to everyone being more spaced out)
Making everyone atheist is also far to easy, I would suggest making the policies that effect membership do it to a lesser degree and over a longer period of time (maybe even decades) and making it so that the year effect also decreases membership (showing the religious divide between generations)
Also electric car transition should affect the cost of policies such as clean fuel subsidy, bio fuel subsidy, car emission limits, ban low mpg cars, etc.
I’m playing on the default difficulty so that is probably why I’m having an easier time. My income tax is at 62%, sales at 50%, corporate tax at 25% and cgt, automation, superstore, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, frequent flyers and internet are all at maximum. (I have tax evasion, black market and corporate exodus) I can afford most of what I want with only a few exceptions and when the global economy tanks really bad I go into deficit (though I can take medium sized global recessions).
I eventually did reach the bottom left corner.
There is a reason I suggested making unions (and especially government supported unions) a lot more problematic over in my suggestion thread.
Good ideas Cliff, though I would say that if you’re taking the best economic development policies out of the toolbox for socialist players there should probably be socialist alternatives, like a New Deal sort of works progress agency perhaps? Also perhaps the idea of a National Investment Bank, which was the cornerstone of Labour’s 2017 manifesto.
There are actually quite limited economic development policies that are strictly left wing. IMO the game should be able to model the Nordic model based on Rehn-Meidner economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn–Meidner_model
Perhaps another idea is that if you’re nerfing those economic policies you might have to add GDP effects to infrastructure investment levels, including health, education and housing sectors to reflect Keynesian economic multipliers.
I would agree and say it is actually harder than D3 for these reasons