Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Coumarouna]

Hi,
Just a suggestion, but when the law changes towards liberal, would public opinion for that topic not decrease significantly? I'm thinking the mentality would be along the lines of "Yes, we made a difference! We don't need further change, things are much better now that "Law enforcement is regulated to prevent extreme misconduct" / "Taxes are moderate"".
Sorry if this is already the case, I'm fairly sure it isn't, but I'm not capable of checking the sorce code to be sure.

Also, just wanted to celebrate finally finishing a game . Now for Nightmare mode...

[Darvi]

Issues that are L+ already become too liberal to talk about when recruiting, and increase the difficulty to keep the subject interested.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

This is a sensible suggestion, and the reverse could also occur. I worry about two things:

1) Borderline cases, where the shift made the public swing in favor of repeal right after the public put a law into place. Ping ponging should be avoided.
2) Too much of a passive resistance/treadmill effect in the game, giving artificial difficulty by just giving you more work to do. Would have to make sure it fits balance-wise and is interesting from a gameplay perspective.

[EuchreJack]

I always thought that in an Arch-Conservative world, moderates should flock to the LCS banner.  This idea supports that dream.

Issues that are L+ already become too liberal to talk about when recruiting, and increase the difficulty to keep the subject interested.

If the reverse is true, then it plus the public opinion change pretty much fulfills how I would think moderates would react in an Arch-Conservative world.

However, with 365 days of liberal action and unlimited liberal action squads, public opinion is generally very malleable to the determined liberal's needs.  So even having public opinion shift by 10 or more points upon the law change would be fairly easy for successful liberal squads to fix.  Now, if the LCS recently almost got wiped out and currently consists of a solitary socially inept cripple, it might be a bit more permanent...

Perhaps what is missing from the public opinion mechanic is the public's desire for change.  The current system measures how the public feels about a law.  Perhaps adding the public's desire for change as a more static statistic might prevent the ping-ponging and the ease of pushing public opinion currently.

It is also more authentic to real life.  Take discrimination against minorities for example: Most people when asked directly agree that discrimination is morally wrong.  But few are willing to support any real measures to prevent it.  Contrast that with abortion: Whenever either side in the debate gains enough support in their favor, laws change immediately.  The only things that keep abortion laws static are the deadlock in public opinion and Roe v. Wade.

[usr_share]

I think, for that matter, the game should provide a better view of the Liberal and Conservative in-game parties.

Instead of just "n% support (current president)", the game should add two extra public opinion items: "n% support the Liberal Party" and "n% support the Conservative Party". The parties' positions wouldn't be "all Liberal" or "all Conservative", but relative towards the current laws and the public opinion.

For example, if the public suddenly starts supporting gay marriage (and the Conservative Party is lacking in support), the CP would start moving towards supporting it, too. On the other hand, if nobody supports a full ban on firearms, then even the Libs won't stand for it.

[ed boy]

I think, for that matter, the game should provide a better view of the Liberal and Conservative in-game parties.

Instead of just "n% support (current president)", the game should add two extra public opinion items: "n% support the Liberal Party" and "n% support the Conservative Party". The parties' positions wouldn't be "all Liberal" or "all Conservative", but relative towards the current laws and the public opinion.

For example, if the public suddenly starts supporting gay marriage (and the Conservative Party is lacking in support), the CP would start moving towards supporting it, too. On the other hand, if nobody supports a full ban on firearms, then even the Libs won't stand for it.

This post bears my seal of approval.

[Pesi]

*Emerges from under a rock*

There was an idea suggested earlier that would simulate such a thing, only it would probably require a massive rewrite.
It was that instead of public opinion being a number from 0 to 100, each issue would be a size 5 array (or size 4 with the last value derived) the sum of which would be 100.
Each 'unit' was the % of people who were [C+;C;m;L;L+] on that issue. On moving from C+ to C, only the C+ people would be against it with everyone else agreeing. Going to L+ would only be supported by the L+ people.
Activism could me made such that certain things only affected those with already liberal leanings, other things would move both extremes towards [m]; and such.