What Democracy 3 Needs \\ Political Simulation

Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:22 am

What Democracy 3 Needs \\ Political Simulation

Postby Syntaxpiggum » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:24 am

I bought the game, and its fun. Really fun. But I feel there needs to be more depth... especially with opposition to your policies. Currently, you can simulate the fall of your hold on control (not too dissimilar to the Australian Constitutional Crisis, or the Australian Labor Party in general, and the recent midterms in Yankeeland) where your ministers no longer have faith in you and you have less political capital... that's pretty much the extent of it, I feel.

It would be interesting if unicameral- and polycameral-type systems were added into the game, and contained a different a number of unnamed seats/electorates (all of this can be randomised, if selected, before the game begins on the country selection screen), and the seats each have different priorities and political views (similar to voters). Electorates might also resent something the player has done (introduce new taxes, for example) that they will hold against the player and elect a person to the seat if they promised to do everything they could to reverse it.

If the player was trying to push a 'major change' (something that costs more than 'x' political capital), then it would be run through the cameral/s where it would be put to vote by the senators. This way, if for example, you held the lower cameral (eg: house of representatives) but not the higher cameral (the senate), then your proposed changes wouldn't be put into effect. This adds actual deliberate blockades, and represents a challenge for the player to overcome. For the sake of simplicity, seats would change during elections instead of running on its own election terms.

But what about unicameral systems, like the UK? Where if one party holds more seats than others, they're in power anyway?
Prepare yourselves for this: Multiparty systems!

The UK, Australia, etc have multiple parties, each vying for their seats in parliament. Similar to individual seats, parties have different priorities that appease voters and electorates - a mostly conservative electorate is more likely to vote for a mostly conservative party, even if your liberal motorist party appeases their motoristic ideology, mostly because they are more conservative than motorist and that's what matters to them the most. This means, even though you might have more seats than any other party, parties who share similar interests are more likely to band together and form coalitions against you, which brings me to my next suggestion:

COALITIONS. A multiple party system would be no fun without them.
Basically, if the controlling party attacks the (similar) interests of several smaller parties, they may feel more compelled to join together so they have more representative capital in the capitol. If the two parties have wildly different identities (eg: one might be Liberal Socialist, the other Liberal Capitalist), it might upset their electorate enough to force them to vote for a new party (!) to the parliament.

Of course, the player can form coalitions as well with parties with similar views, though they might alienate the voter base if they're not careful with who they join forces with. Coalitions can be broken with political capital. Parties are more likely to form coalitions if the current government is seen as 'extremist' or 'radical' (on the political compass), putting their minor differences aside to stop radical change that threatens .

In the above paragraph, I mentioned the player can form coalitions, which might sound like an exceptional case (since the player is already in control, they might not need to form coalitions with the others unless its an extraordinary situation), whereas I would like to propose an entirely new gameplay side to the game:

A state where the player is not in control, and uses their seats in the cameral to oppose the ruling party - shaking hands, kissing babies, forming coalitions, bribing election officials (not really, tho this should be an option :D with severe penalties if you get caught), opposing all changes the ruling party makes because its not your party, or forming a coalition with the ruling party (if they accept) that brings you into power again.

Suddenly, it becomes harder to lose - almost impossible unless you literally call yourself Hitler and threaten to max all tax rates and cut all social spending, though this can be seen as a good thing - the game goes on while you try to make up for the mistakes that made you lose an election in the first place... or did you start out not being in power? Let me expand on this.

In the start game screen, where you pick your country, there would be the following expanded options:

Disable Camerals [x] (Basically a normal democracy 3 game as it is now)
Randomise number of Camerals [x] Custom number (max n) [x]
Randomise number of Seats in Camerals [x] Custom number (max n) [x]

Party Creation
Party Name:
Party Primary Priority: (Eg; Socialist, locks out Capitalist)
Party Secondary Priority: (Eg; Unionist, locks out Self-Employed)
Add Secondary Priority: (If you couldn't tell so far, picking one voter group will lock out its opposite voter group)
Random [Play as a random party and play as they would... sounds fun, right?]
Compass (Optional): Pick a spot on the political compass that represents a rundown of where you stand (of course, certain voter groups might cancel into sections of the compass for picking)
Position: (What playstate you start in)
- No Seats: win them next election, gain popularity, rise to the top!
- Some Seats: you are a minority party in the game, play your cards right and become the new majority!
- Most Seats: You are major party in the game, but not yet in power; usurp power from the current administration!
- In power: You just won an election. Try to keep power in the face of the opposition parties.

I had a tonne of other ideas, like random political crisis or international crisis that happens in a random country (like change to a radical new leader harms international relations)... I guess I'll post them as time goes by.

What do ya'll think? Ya'll are experts at this? :D
Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:22 am

Re: What Democracy 3 Needs \\ Political Simulation

Postby Syntaxpiggum » Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:46 am

I also realised after I finished posting:

Population mechanics like Immigration, Emigration, Births and Deaths and avoiding overpopulation disaster.
Also, the ability to 'redraw electorates' where a number of electorates is added according to population change, and their priorities changed.

Electorate priorities will change with time, of course, similar to the minds of the people supposedly living in the protectorate.
Also, electing a voter who best represents the voter.

And a small expansion to the international trade system. I'll expand on these when someone responds. :D
Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:22 am

Re: What Democracy 3 Needs \\ Political Simulation

Postby Syntaxpiggum » Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:41 pm

Bear with me on the following; they only thing stopping me from going mad-max is the fact I need moderator approval before I post. xP

Note also that these ideas are in corroboration with the above postings.

I would also like to expand on Disorder in the game.
Sure, there is some disorder now - small radical groups, quietly sitting in their damn churches on the fringe of society (says a lot about how I play the game c:) waiting for the moment where they can just drive a van up to one of my speeches and gun me down... it's not very frightening, is it?

Firstly - you should start the game with 50%+ popularity, with your core voter groups having voted you in rather than 0% popularity (how does this make sense if you were just elected?) and working your way up. As you push along your great works while in office, there's no doubt you are going to annoy or antagonize people. In fact, it's rather inevitable - which is why there should be a change in the system to make it more dynamic and interesting.

Here's how it should work:
You still have the political pressure groups - the communist party, patriot party, etc., except that they now endorse your political opponents. This persuades voters to put people in electorates or the voters place pressure to oppose your actions and vote against them in the cameral (leading to widespread disorganisation where senators would be too afraid to be seen in public with you), which if you do not reform quickly could quickly lead to your expulsion from office...or worse.

When people don't like your policies, they may join political pressure groups and they may radicalise - but once in radical form, all they do is terrorism. I think as people realise you are attacking their interests, they should 'permanently' radicalise: as in, no matter how much you attack their group membership, they won't ever back down until you do. These permanent radicals, as they would in real life, shouldn't contribute to the economy and have a negative factor on the GDP. This would be negligible at first, but as the parties gain traction, try to paint their movement in danger, they may take on radical ideas.

A wider range of terrorist attacks may scare your population (poisoning water, gun spree, car bomb/bomb, etc) into submission. Submission of the people, which will relate to how much power you have, reflects the policies these groups are against will lose popularity (e.g., a fringe capitalist society uses terrorism to bring attention to welfare, as a result the popularity of welfare goes down) unless you enact policies that can counter them: either peaceful ways, like positive campaigning; or the outright dystopian, "silence all opposition with secret police" ways.

Once enough people have become permanent radicals, and enough have given into submission/neutrality/opposition from attacks, a disastrous civil war will break out. Outright civil war is disastrous to the country, as you can imagine. Mass emigration, business exodus, lethal hits to GDP and taxation... these can be counted with Conscription policies and increasing the military budget. Civil wars are constant stalemates otherwise. Just draining your GDP as you try to solve them quickly. Of course, the risk of a civil war can be lowered by enacting policies that advocate peaceful resolution to problems, increasing the education budget, offering amnesty to permanent radicals (at a loss of relations with the group it opposes: e.g., you offer amnesty to Socialist Radicals but the Capitalists will dislike you for it) or increasing support of your policies to offset those of terrorist attacks.

If a group's support is low enough, they shouldn't target *just you* alone. They should also target ministers, or senators of your party who control their electorates (citizens are randomly divided between each Senator). This also adds to how no one in your own party would want to associate with you.

Of course, if things got too bad, you could just declare martial law and cancel all elections - although it might work at first, the longer it goes on, the more support for revolt against your government...

Thanks for reading.
My next post is going to be about expanded diplomacy. c:

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests