Gameplay balance?

[Residuum]

While I have enjoyed the demo, and I think this is a great game, I must say that the premise behind the economic model is flawed. Social spending is not always the key to domestic approval, not anymore, and redistribution schemes aren't good for an ecomomy either. Another thing, military spending is said to hurt the economy in this game? Why? Military spending, in reality, doesn't damage an economy, it can only spark an economy. WWII anyone?

I find that this game, or the demo at least, pigeon holes the player. Now this isn't so bad except this game is supposed to allow the player to reach a goal in numerous ways. I find this is impossible in a democracy. If social spending is cut, guaranteed, your domestic approval falls - so - you are forced to spend and bloat the budget on social spending. If approval falls too low, game over. Now, my social spending is 54% of my overall budget.....54%!! That is just ridiculous. The situation ended up the same in both scenarios I played. To attract businesses and people to my region, I lowered corporate and small business taxes, lowered income taxes, and lowered import/export taxes - and locked those choices. However, approval was plummeting - raised social spending just a hair past the recommended amount. I also invested in research and the military. What happened? Well, I had a deficit, of course.

So I decided to make spending cuts. I closed a military base, sold some units, had the minister make lower spending his priority, and cut some military projects. Still not enough, still a deficit. Then I raised taxes...still not enough...slashed some research...the only thing left to do was to cut some social spending, but I can't touch it. It's frustrating because the social programs are what is causing the deficit. There needs to be a bit more balance in the game.

[spiritofatlantis]

I guess it depends on how big of an arms race you are going to get yourself into.
I was able to play a game and spend alot while having a growing economy.
I guess it's also a matter of practice, it's good that it can drain your economy, then in a game it can be the player which manages his economy the most efficient way which will take the upperhand.
Maybe you're looking too much at being able to pump units like mad without a hit on your economy.
While this is fun when you are a starting player, once you advance you like to be able to take upperhand in a game by being the best in managing your economy and other aspects of the game.
Winning a game that way can be much more fullfilling then just pumping mass units like there is no end.
A drain on the economy makes the game much more dynamic, though when you do it right i guess it doesn't have to hurt your economy that much.

Also when you are short on resources, it's key to expand your territory and capture those hexes which will add value to your economy.

And by the way 54% in social spending, if you were playing on the European map that's not totally incredible, European countries are known for spending alot in social areas like social security, healthcare, state funded pensions, subsidies, education etc.
54% is not that crazy to be honest if you ask me, i think one can even find more extreme examples in Europe.

[Bluesman]

Well it is very realistic. At the beginning approval would plummet if you removed benefits (like pensions etc).

But just like in real life and game you gain long term with lower taxes. You just have to take the "plunge" first.

As for the military vs civilian. Well there's a reason why it's called guns or butter . I see no faults with that.

BM

[RCBricker]

While I have enjoyed the demo, and I think this is a great game, I must say that the premise behind the economic model is flawed. Social spending is not always the key to domestic approval, not anymore, and redistribution schemes aren't good for an ecomomy either. Another thing, military spending is said to hurt the economy in this game? Why? Military spending, in reality, doesn't damage an economy, it can only spark an economy. WWII anyone?

WWII is not a good argurment for military spending. A country that spends lots of money on military goods will actually hurt their economy when compared to other areas that have better long term returns. Social spending is the investment countries can make as they extend life, improve the skill of workers, and increase stability in the masses.

As for 54% of the government budget? I am pretty sure that except in times of trouble that even in America social spending is near 50%. Now and during the cold war one can see social spending as taking a back seat to the military.

here is a link that will help you to calculate the percentage

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html

Just add up all the social entries and divide by the total.

[Bluesman]

Well the game does simulate it in one way. When you produce military goods you can sell the surplus storage, plus you can make a nice profit from selling actual hardware. Just like in real life. Though within the smaller maps it wont be as notable because most have similar tech/hardware, maybe in the larger areas?

For obvious reasons Germany didnt make much profits from WW2 . US did however because they sold alot of stuff to UK and USSR as well. Plus lots of minor allies, guerilla groups etc. Sweden also made nice profits due to being "neutral". You can emulate this too by the option "sell military units to neutrals/allies".

SR2010 is amazing.

BM

[RCBricker]

In the instance of a Large war and your country being a neutral, yes you can make some money. However, that money (since you are a neutral) will still have a better return if you spent it on improving the education system, transortation system, social services, and courts systems in your country. The social services usually have a quality of life results that can last generations where as military spending is short lived whether one is making equipment for sale or use.

[JaguarUSF]

Now, my social spending is 54% of my overall budget.....54%!! That is just ridiculous.

If you look at the US Budget page http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/hist.html and go down to Table 5.3, it breaks down the budget according to agency.

In the 2005 budget, the department of defense gets 16.2% of the overall budget. Now, let's see what we would count as "Social Spending":
Education 2.9%
Health 23.5%
Housing 1.4%
Interior 0.4%
Labor 2.0%
Transportation 2.5%
EPA 0.3%
Social Security 22.5%
(you can argue that there are others, but you can decide that for yourself)
Let's add it up: 55.5%! Hey, will you look at that! Looks like you're right on track!