After some discussions about diplo and religion i was thinking that -internal- affairs are not much highlighted.
So i want to start a discussion here.......
When playing as a democracy we've to face every 4 years elections.
The party's are: Indenpendence (player)/Democratics/Conservative and Other.I would like to add a -religious- party to that.
When you loose you'll kickedout of office/game over or you can continue as a dictator.
I would like to have another option:
Depending how much you loose you have to give up one or more departments.Your minister will be removed and replaced by one that represents the winner.You'll have absolutly NO controll about that department till next elections.
How will the program know which party will win?
That depends totaly on your actions.For example neglecting social spendings,enviroment etc.Research certain techs.Dealing with other -radical- regions.Military spendings
Please note this is probably far beyond the scope of 2020 so you might consider it for future devolpments...
Politics
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Oct 27 2006
Re: Politics
BigStone wrote:After some discussions about diplo and religion i was thinking that -internal- affairs are not much highlighted.
So i want to start a discussion here.......
When playing as a democracy we've to face every 4 years elections.
The party's are: Indenpendence (player)/Democratics/Conservative and Other.I would like to add a -religious- party to that.
When you loose you'll kickedout of office/game over or you can continue as a dictator.
I would like to have another option:
Depending how much you loose you have to give up one or more departments.Your minister will be removed and replaced by one that represents the winner.You'll have absolutly NO controll about that department till next elections.
How will the program know which party will win?
That depends totaly on your actions.For example neglecting social spendings,enviroment etc.Research certain techs.Dealing with other -radical- regions.Military spendings
Please note this is probably far beyond the scope of 2020 so you might consider it for future devolpments...
first off i don't think this would be something that is necessarily out of scope. i really like this idea. my 2 cents would be that you might not be locked out of everything, just the lower levels of funding. a social-needs party might start increasing funding in social spending trying to starve military spending. if you retained sufficient control you could starve them in return by locking out growth in social spending with a top level lock. this leads one to consider something that would be harder and more towards the 'out of scope' consideration: what about congressional control via votes? what if a democracy was fundamentally different in the game as it is in real life compared to a dictatorship? your congressional votes (changing every 2 years to use the u.s. paradigm) would determine the amount of percentage increase or decrease of funding for EVERY department all the time, adjusted for inflation. (ignoring by using inflation numbers because a democratic system, being controlled by the people, in theory, uses public opinion numbers, public opinion being the public will, public will being determined by public consumer confidence and the value of the currency--leads us to believe that in situations outside of out of control inflation: the public would percieve what is 'affordable' for the governement as being what would be reasonable to them in recent history if they had the money.)
i'm aware half my post was in parenthesis. =)
- Legend
- General
- Posts: 2531
- Joined: Sep 08 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
I like "parenthesis" (and double quotes too).
I like the idea of adding another choice... a thought that comes to my mind is more of a penalty. For example, your military could take an efficiency penalty and you would have to spend more money to keep it as efficient as before. Or it could be harder to keep your DAR where it is. ... maybe we thow in a chance of success for becoming a dictator. Which become less if other dictatorships have been set up over a month earlier.
I like the idea of adding another choice... a thought that comes to my mind is more of a penalty. For example, your military could take an efficiency penalty and you would have to spend more money to keep it as efficient as before. Or it could be harder to keep your DAR where it is. ... maybe we thow in a chance of success for becoming a dictator. Which become less if other dictatorships have been set up over a month earlier.
- Rhysaxiel
- Sergeant
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Jul 13 2006
- Location: Near Bordeaux, France
Another thing : loosing elections could bring "limits" to the fundings we can allow (like in Victoria from Paradox).
Eg : a Socialist party could force the player to spend XX percents in social reforms, put a limit at XX % of global taxes and another limit to the military fundings; whereas a Conservative party would limit the research capabilities, etc...
Eg : a Socialist party could force the player to spend XX percents in social reforms, put a limit at XX % of global taxes and another limit to the military fundings; whereas a Conservative party would limit the research capabilities, etc...
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22082
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Apr 16 2005
- Location: Rome - Italy
It sounds like the politics here in Italy
Tens of parties, but two coalitions to govern.
I can think about a "second level of diplomacy", just for internal affairs: i.e., when there are less than 90 days to election, if you want (depends on your DAR) you can start to talk with the other parties to form a coalition (you can promise ministers, or particular attention to social or military or else politics). If your coalition wins the election (just sum up the votes of all the parties), the party with relative majority has the prime minister, and the other party (parties) can have other ministers (according upon their previous talks).
The prime minister can change all the ministers (for example, if their approval rating goes below a certain level for several weeks, or months); each party can change only its own ministers.
But, maybe it can be quite difficult to balance all these mechanisms...
Tens of parties, but two coalitions to govern.
I can think about a "second level of diplomacy", just for internal affairs: i.e., when there are less than 90 days to election, if you want (depends on your DAR) you can start to talk with the other parties to form a coalition (you can promise ministers, or particular attention to social or military or else politics). If your coalition wins the election (just sum up the votes of all the parties), the party with relative majority has the prime minister, and the other party (parties) can have other ministers (according upon their previous talks).
The prime minister can change all the ministers (for example, if their approval rating goes below a certain level for several weeks, or months); each party can change only its own ministers.
But, maybe it can be quite difficult to balance all these mechanisms...
-
- Colonel
- Posts: 388
- Joined: May 28 2005
Wouldnt a more sensible solution be a cap on military funding because this department is taken over by another ministry? as u lose votes and go below 50% and the rest of the people have a very low appeal of ur military policies, these would be most likely taken over.Legend wrote:I like "parenthesis" (and double quotes too).
I like the idea of adding another choice... a thought that comes to my mind is more of a penalty. For example, your military could take an efficiency penalty and you would have to spend more money to keep it as efficient as before. Or it could be harder to keep your DAR where it is. ... maybe we thow in a chance of success for becoming a dictator. Which become less if other dictatorships have been set up over a month earlier.
The party usualy caps the funding, and so this should be the bottleneck, with less funding u also suffer from prioritizing more, suffer efficiency? or reduce army?
Why would my army be any less eficient as before because some other ministry is in place?
- Legend
- General
- Posts: 2531
- Joined: Sep 08 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
- Contact: