Updated to build 1.3. Here are the changes!

Hope you like all these tweaks and improvements to the game!
Full list:


  1. Agreeing to the Freedom Of Information Dilemma now reduces Corruption.
  2. Resignation dialog now shows effect on voter perceptions of leader.
  3. State Broadcaster now takes a year to implement, and reduces impact of Media Monopoly situation.
  4. UK now has the English language correctly affect Immigration demand, not actual Immigration.
  5. Some UI improvements to the ‘update mod’ and ‘create mod’ screens.
  6. Cancelling driverless car laws after the situation triggers will now end that situation.
  7. Increased worst case main-screen performance on old integrated intel chips from 30fps to 71fps!
  8. Fixed bug where global interest rates showed up as a debt crisis input and would crash if clicked.
  9. Japan added!
  10. Added earthquake and tsunami events
  11. Added back-button to the customise mission screen.
  12. Fixed crash when starting a game, then a 2nd game and hitting the electioneering button.
  13. Adjusted ministers and donors so they are more likely to be sympathetic to groups your party has made relatively happy. (depending on difficulty settings)
  14. Fixed rare crash bug when looking at the financial history of a policy.
  15. Accepting a coalition offer now refreshes the report window to remove the offer.
  16. Fixed bug where the game could get stuck with an uncloseable window on the electioneering / perceptions screen.
  17. Lots of small changes to make maxing out education values harder.
  18. Increased impact of unemployment on violent crime, crime and obesity.

Why its not 1.30? :wink:
Its more like ip addres or date rather than regular number.

Nice changes BTW

Ha. i do sometimes panic that everything is parsed correctly and the missing zero isnt going to cause an error. :smiley:

1 Like

Excuse me Cliff, in the 1.30 poll there was a deportation policy if I’m not mistaken. Could you explain to me how would you do it please?


TBH I’m not sure yet, but I assume such a policy would effectively renounce citizenship for people not born in the country (at the extreme end) and maybe start off at a low slider deporting foreign-born people who commit various crimes etc.
I;m thinking that obviously this would reduce ethnic minorities membership, anger them hugely, and anger liberals, while perhaps pleasing conservatives, maybe even patriots?

This would probably reduce immigration demand at some level too, as people are less likely to move somewhere they could be deported from.

Possibly a hit to foreign relations, as you are effectively sending them citizens that you do not want.

I think it would be very controversial to include a negative impact on crime, on the basis that you are physically removing criminals from the country. I can see that argument, but I’m not sure that would really have a big effect in practice. This stuff is a political minefield!


I think at the extreme end there may be an argument for the reduction of crime, in terms of it being a potential punishment that immigrants in a country would have to consider before committing a crime. The argument is similar to the death penalty one, of extreme punishment for a crime being a dissuasive tactic. (Though the debate still remains whether there’s a dissuasive aspect to either of them in reality).

I also believe that there’s not a necessary link between ethnic minorities being upset by having a deportation policy. I can’t refer to sources since Google has a vendetta against me and will give me unrelated things to anything I ever search about anything, but I know that I have seen data and heard political theorists discussing data that says, in America, many immigrants were angered by the illegal immigration crisis and wanted strong borders and were supportive of deportations on those grounds.

Pure conjecture I know, but I feel like Liberals would be more upset than Ethnic Minorities in order to show this internal culture split within immigrant communities.


OK thank you :smiley: !!!

Actually its fine for us to make ethnic minorities in general dislike the policy, because a strongly conservative voter from an ethnic minority would then have these views balance out and mean they were still supportive of it.
When a policy is described as upsetting X, its really best to think of it as only upsetting X to the extent that X is a major part of a voters identity. So voters who see themselves as conservative/patriotic first and from a minority second would definitely be in favour.


I didn’t consider that, I suppose that works just fine then!

1 Like

If you were to have such a policy, it would need to dynamically change depending on strength. By that I mean that different levels of it are not simply more or less extreme versions of the same things.

At low level it would simply mean that people who had been convicted of a serious enough crime (theoretically without bias in the justice system) are being removed from the country. At minimum this probably wouldn’t upset ethnic minorities at all, but would slightly upset liberals, please patriots a little, and conservatives a lot.

At more extreme levels of this policy it would morph from being justified removal of people who have proven themselves to be a problem, towards looking for excuses to get rid of “those people”. For this reason any benefit in crime reduction would be flat. Removing convicted criminals from the country could produce a 1 or 2 % down tick in crime, but there would be no increase to the crime down tick as the policy intensified.

The impact to foreign relations would start at zero, and even stay there for the first 10% of the policy, but then curve downwards quite steeply towards the end. The impact on ethnic minorities opinion should also follow this patter. Liberal opinion would start with a negative, and slide down as well. Conservative opinion would be a significant bump for this policy existing at all, but the benefit would level off as the policy intensified. This would represent those who think they aren’t racist, and start sentences with “I’m not racist but…”. They would be pleased by the policy only so far as they can pretend it isn’t racist. Patriot opinion should probably also follow this leveling curve.

That’s my 2 cents on the topic.


@cliffski i’ve been plqaying with japan on the latest version (1.30) and noticed that you guys might have made a mistake, you see when you set the debt slider to the max it rolls over and gives you that ammount of money reserves instead, i assume this is probabley because it goes over the intager limit and rolls over.

1 Like

i’ve also noticed that you have made a mistake when it comes to modeling religion in japan, the in-game stats ouright say that it’s 70% shinto and 1.5% christian and yet the percentage of religious is only 1-2% when you play it. i assume you are only counting christians as religious here, that is a problem when it comes to simulating, i would reccomend that you instead divide religious into majority religion and minority religion or separate atheists from liberals at the very least. if you do decide to add this apporach you could model the minority religion as islam in the west and as christianity in japan, they would of couse have different values. another issue i’ve seen is racial tension, how can there be racial tension if there are no minorities, one time i managed to get ethnic minorities to 0% as the UK and yet i still had racial tension, you should make racial tesion scale off of ethinic_minorities_perc instead, i directly edited the game files and did this and it worked pretty well.

1 Like

again, if you’re already gonna add a policy to straight up remove ethnic minorities, then you should make racial tension be dependent on ethinc_minorities_perc (percentage) so that things that would normally cause racial tension don’t cause it if you have 0 minorities, make it scale as a dependency but not a source eg, if you have 25% minorities racial tension has the potential (upper ceiling) to be 50% but it will only go to 50 if you do policies that cause tension. make the maximum possibe tension to be percentage of minorites x2.


The discrepancy for religion is because they are measuring different things. One is the official census data on what religion people claim to be, but religious membership is more related to active practicing religious adherents who likely attend churches or temples.
This is similar to the UK where is almost considered a meme that people put down ‘church of England’ when asked to list their religion, even if they have not been to a church for a decade.

I must look into the integer rollover thing!


ok fair enough, but you must consider what the majority religion is in each country and what values it supports, in the context of japan the majority religion would be shinto or buddhism, not christianity.
at the very least you need to stop lumping in atheists with liberals and make those two separate.

1 Like

Aha I see what you mean, so your point is that when we are reflecting religious views in the game playing Japan, the religious views are basically wrong because they are based on Christianity?
This is a good point. I will make a note to add some changes in for japan so that we are not assuming this. Its not catastrophic because like you say, the religious percentage is low anyway, but its a fair point. I need to read up on shinto attitudes to all the things we have religious links for…


I’ve also been messing around a lot with the csv files lately, particularly simulation and i’ve noticed that
having a high Population only seems to have negative effects, this doesn’t really make sense either in terms of being realistic or in terms of gameplay, but if you do decide to keep it at least set it as HIGHBAD instead of UNKNOWN.

Having a higher population should decrease wages just like immigration does because more cheap labor is available.

Maybe also have a high population decrease working week because there are more workers (labor) so each unit of labor would be cheaper because of higher supply, therefore each individual works less because more supply of labor is available.

Mabye implement this by adding stats like labor supply and labor demand and when there is more labor demand than supply wages go up and vice-versa.

You should use population as an effect more often, it’s really underused,
make tax income and welfare cost scale with population, maybe even make the GDP scale with population.

But try giving at least some positive effects to having a high population.

Also why do wages decrease productivity? The equation you’ve added to simulate this is WorkerProductivity,0-(0.4x) this means that even low wages will decrease productivity and is horribly flawed.
Do you have any IRL statistics that back this up or was it a mistake?
How did you come to this conclusion?
Also why do wages increase inflation? in a system of fiat money, only the govt can produce inflation, the equation is this case is Inflation,0.21
(x^3) and from what i’ve seen ^ means that an effect is exponential rather than linear like most others.
Why did you put this in?

1 Like

Debt crisis is still completely irrelevant when playing as Socialist (socialism is when goverment spends 200% of its GDP :smiley: )
Also its less relevant for Capitalist playtrough, as you try to minimize spending.
Taxes do more damage than debt crisis to economy and popularity.
Playing as Japan on default settings

By the way it would be nice if there was spending and expenses as percentage of GDP shown too.

Also you should ignore data from modded games, as stuff is adjusted there :wink:


the game is at the moment is horribly unbalanced and inaccurate, it’s still in development afterall

1 Like

Still in much better state than some other grand strategy games, that are set in 2020 year :smiley:

1 Like