Politics

Discuss Supreme Ruler 2020 here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Politics

Post by BigStone »

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...
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
brukmann
Corporal
Posts: 6
Joined: Oct 27 2006

Re: Politics

Post by brukmann »

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. =)
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by Legend »

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.
User avatar
Rhysaxiel
Sergeant
Posts: 15
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Location: Near Bordeaux, France

Post by Rhysaxiel »

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...
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

In game if you loose the election you're out. You don't get to switch parties to stay head of state...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Paolo
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Apr 16 2005
Location: Rome - Italy

Post by Paolo »

It sounds like the politics here in Italy :wink:
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... 8_
The_Blind_One
Colonel
Posts: 388
Joined: May 28 2005

Post by The_Blind_One »

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.
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.

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? :D

Why would my army be any less eficient as before because some other ministry is in place? 8_
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by Legend »

... another minister in place???

One word - leadership. Different leadership. Poor leadership. etc. could be reasons for changes when you change your government.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - 2020”