- Dec 11, 2015
I've said enough here: "The political system as it is right now lacks granularity and detail in some aspects, and proactive ways to interact with the Law-Clout-Approval Chance dynamics, while being very fluid and granular in others, leading to some discrepancy. It can't represent the type of deal-making that happened in these democracies (Both partial and full), save for random events"
You said that yes. And I read it. And it didn't answer any of the questions. If I am honest all of this seems like meaningless buzzwords that don't give anything concrete about game mechanics.
But let me elaborate further: as of today, there isn't much you can do to interact with how laws are passed. You have a base success chance based on whether an IG approves of that law + his clout. Then you have success, advance, debate and stall % chances. Every X months you roll a dice. Depending on the results, the %s change. And that's it. It's the Stellaris Archeological Site excavation system. Not a really deep system for legislation in a political game. It lacks ways of interacting with it. A parliament with more complex mechanics would add granularity and detail.
Clout would be there to determine base chances on a given time, as it is today. But further interactions would be there to allow for further interactions not based on dice rolls and events.
I see. Finally something more concrete.
I agree that there could be more opportunities to influence the political process. But adding a parliament is still counterproductive. As we've gone over, the parliament isn't really the sole decision-making authority, even if they claim to be. All the actual power to make change happen (Including but not limited to the parliament) is already represented. Most of the reforms you will be making in-game are the sort of grand, sweeping national reforms that there really isn't a place for granular deals involving individual deputies like you are passing some meaningless pork legislation.
If you have a country where it is politically unfeasible to completely reform the army or the bureaucracy, then bribing or convincing one or two deputies is not going to change that. You would need support from broad, influential interest groups in your country, such as the aristocracy or the church or whoever, is already present in the game.
You assume that just because I suggested mechanics for democracies, that they should receive special attention this way. You assume I wouldn't be in favor of more in depth dynamics for absolute monarchies. Simply because I made a suggestion for one and not for the other. This is simply a suggestion thread, if I had to think of ways the political game in absolute monarchies could be represented in more depth, I could. Just didn't have any ideas as of today.
Either way, in the long run, I don't think what we'll have for vanilla should be maintained as it is and not expanded upon. For all sorts of governments.
I assumed nothing. You just seemed to completely misread what I was saying. I didn't say that Absolute monarchies should get a similar level of attention to what you are proposing for parliamentary democracies. I gave an example of what giving such a level of attention to absolute monarchies would look like, in order to show why it is a bad idea. I don't know how you could have read my post and come to the conclusion that I was somehow in favour of simulating the brain of the absolute monarch for absolute monarchies. I obviously think that would be ridiculous, as is adding parliaments.