Just did a test game with the UK, and I must say, Iâm very happy with this update. Most additions are nice and it finally put the problem of uncontrollable immigration at rest, for now.
Thereâs a few âbugsâ here and there, hereâs what I found:
Illegal Immigration increases healthcare demand, even though it shouldnât (it describes how many people wants to get in the country illegally, not how many actually manages to. So, intentions shouldnât have any impact on the healthcare system).
English Language should affect Immigration Demand, not Immigration. Peoples want to immigrate because itâs an universal language, it shouldnât affect how many people actually get in.
And finally, I donât think that itâs new (not even sure if itâs a bug), but while you can only get the situation if you pass the Driverless Car Law policy, if you decide to cancel the policy, the situation doesnât disappear. And since its âStop Triggerâ is at zero, itâs virtually impossible to get rid of it once itâs there.
For illegal immigration, the description says âA measure of the number of people who are managing to enter our country . . .â so I think that it affecting healthcare demand should be correct here, since its a measure of how many people are actually illegally immigrating, not the number of people who want to illegally immigrate.
For immigration, I would assume that a country speaking English as their primary language would receive more immigrants since a higher proportion of the world population can speak English at least as a secondary than any other language, which means the physical immigrant pool (all possible immigrants) is higher.
And finally for driverless cars, its more of a one off policy. If they exist, then they exist. Cancelling the Driverless Car Law policy wonât magically make all existing driverless cars go away, so the situation is impossible to remove as a feature, not a bug.
I actually agree with most of what you say, but it doesnât invalidate what Iâm saying. I think thereâs just some confusions about the terms. So, as far as I understand from my test game:
Immigration Demand = How may wants to get in (good economy +, high poverty -)
Illegal Immigration = How many will manage to get past all filters (Border Controls, Wall) to get in.
Immigration = How many people (legally and illegally) manages to actually get in.
Immigration Rules = What proportion of Immigration Demands goes to Immigration and Illegal Immigration (Open Borders = 0% Illegal , 100% Immigration / Strict Regulations = 100% Illegal , 0% Immigration).
Since itâs Immigration that has all the effects (Wages, Population, Healthcare Demand, etcâŚ), it doesnât make sense that Illegal Immigration impacts Healthcare Demand, since it already impacts Immigration. Itâs a duplicate effect problem.
For almost the same reasons, English Language makes a country more attractive to immigration (Immigration Demand), and shouldnât affect the number of people actually getting in. If my country is closed to legal immigration, speaking English doesnât matter. And if you want to enter illegally, itâs not speaking English that will help you get past a wall.
And on the subject of the Driverless Car Law policy, i would argue that cancelling the law is that same as making it illegal again to have a car driving itself. So it should reverse the effect back to before you made it legal.
Ah I see, thank you for clearing up the issue on immigration, that was my mistake. What I meant when I was talking about the English language was that it expands the number of people who are able to enter. Having English be the dominant language in a country increases the total pool of immigrants (skilled or not) and will thus increase both legal and illegal immigration (More people who can enter mean more people will enter through both legal and illegal means). The english language wonât affect the difficult of getting into a country, but it will affect the total number of people who try, which makes the difference.
As to your point on driverless cars, I see your point that cancelling the policy should decrease adoption. Personally though, I think cancelling the policy should be made expensive, as converting all cars to be driverless and then converting them all back to manual driving will be expensive, unpopular, and difficult.
I agree that the English language one should point at demand, not immigration. I will fix this.
But yup, illegal immigration is successful illegal immigration. it gets inputs from the same demand pool as legal immigration, so it think this effect is correct.
I agree the driver-less car one is tricky. I guess we could nuke the situation if you remove the policy, as theoretically you may want to ban driver-less cars top get the jobs of drivers back. I will add this to my todo list.
I love the Driverless Cars situation, although Iâm quite bemused that itâs ultimately a net-negative due to the unemployment it creates. Perhaps if it increased Human Development or Everyone appeal (as Private Spaceflight weirdly does) thereâd be a reason to want them.
Or better yet, a Quality of Work simulation, influenced by Labour Rights and high paying opportunities like Climate Adaptation, Nuclear Program, or Science Funding which in turn inflates the Skills Shortage.
If people arenât required to pilot machines up and down roads all day anymore, that can be an opportunity as well as a hindrance, since it opens them up to more fulfilling work.
Machines consuming low-paid jobs has always meant better opportunities for gainful employment in human society (in the long term. In the short term itâs meant hellish rioting, already modelled by Luddite Riots).
Also, illegalising driverless cars ought to stop driverless cars. Are we to believe they went rogue and formed their own car mafia? If so, thatâs awesome. Carry on.
Wait, now Iâm the one whoâs confused.
If Illegal Immigration is how much people manage to get into the country by illegal means, then not only should it impacts Healthcare Demand, but also Population, Unemployment, Wages, Ethnic Minorities Membership and all the rest.
But if itâs how much people will manage to get into the country by illegal means, then it should only affect Immigration (and the crisis) and not anything else.
I was under the impression it was the second one.
Is this a correct representation of how the system works?
Ooops sorry Iâve explained it terribly. Yes, illegal immigration is how many people âget throughâ but its handled by boosting actual immigration.
Yes your chart is perfect.
Yes so true. I donât know how it would work, but can definitely see some employers expecting office workers to work en-route and on the way home seeing as they now can⌠probably depends on whether thats made illegal or not, and relative wages/unemployment etc.
Minor annoyance: if you make a manifesto promise to cut taxes by 25%, win an election, then cut taxes the turn after you win that election⌠you gain Cynicism for changing taxes so soon after an election.
Please add in a line in the cynicism code that checks if the change is related to a manifesto promise or not.
The immigration problem seemed to be solved, but by experimenting with various countries I discovered that even having put all anti-immigration policies to the maximum as usual, ethnic minorities still remain, depending on the country played, oscillating between 8 and 10%. Another problem encountered is that you cannot maximize internet speed, so I propose to add a link with the ârural internet subsidiesâ policy.
Actually regarding the tax cut cynicism thing, I might argue that it should still be seen as cynical. Voters who opposed the tax cut might have been pleasantly surprised to see you had not done it, despite pledging to, and voted for you anyway. Finding out that you made the cut immediately after you won would likely be seen by them as cynical, even if the pro-cut voters who you won over were happy about it.
