Story Teller Suggestions

[Ulthar]

I probably don't have to tell you if you are reading this forum because you likely own the game and played it - but I am so in awe of the story teller.

I love the twists and turns. The constant "Guns or Butter" decisions. However, what I also like is the storytelling in the form of choices that create a story arc in branching ways that can be very different - so much so that I am shocked when I play it again and go down a completely different rabbit hole.

There is also a very realistic and authentic writing here - with the "Choices matter" aspect of the game, that let's you take pride when things go well, or feel a sense of loss when they do not.

I would say though that the game designer, tends to err on the side of "Everything turns to crap" to the point that I find myself thinking everything is a set up to cost me resources.

As an example, I am in an old yacht, and that's awesome. I watch a wonderful event on the water, and then ka-boom

Game: "Okay, you either have to pay 1 fund, or 1 authority"

ME: "What if I want to do nothing?"

Game: "STFU, there are two choices. How do you want to lose resources today?"

ME: "1 currency is enough to fund a police department sometimes, why is it equal to fixing up a yacht that I am not sure I want?"

GAME: "STFU, there are two choices. How do you want to lose resources today?"

Fairly brutal.

What I would love to see in this game, is that there is a little more balance to events, and possibly using RNG in combination with player choices, to allow the possibility that not everything has to be this constant black rain cloud over my head like a virtual Charlie Brown.

Another great example is you are about to get ancestral land returned to you.

GAME: "Nope, three years and then maybe"

ME: "Okay War!"

GAME: "Nope, I am not going to ask you about that yet. Instead, here is a whole nother subplot that has nothing to do with this."

"ME: Wait, what about my lands?"

GAME: "Shut up, dummy. Do you want to cede all your resources in this completely other country or not?"


So here are some suggestions in general for future:


A. Have an "Easy Mode" that eliminates a few events and rewrites a few for people who just want to learn the game. The same general flow happens, but it's not brutal AF.

B. If not that, consider in story telling that one thing you could tell a Rizian Narrative arc like this:
1. Player gets Coronated, Pomp and Ceremony.
2. Glory Days - in this phase of the game, everything just works right. People are happy, things are good. Everyone loves the new King. A whole chapter where *NOTHING* negative happens.
3. Then clobber us across the head with -1 currency just for taking a boat ride, and the same events.

Think about a time in your life that you may consider your golden age. For many it was their high school or early 20s. The heady "Good old days" that you will remember as you go forward where everything was easy (by comparison). Things clicked, and you were able to do no wrong (or so it seemed)

THEN bite us in the butt with all the stuff you do so well in your story.

C. Consider some RNG for a few events where based on a variety of factors the player has two or three possible outcomes to SOME events, that lead to other events. This will add to replayability. It doesn't require extensive rewrite. The same narrative can be told, but as an example:

The yacht that I described earlier. You could determine 1-5 fair weather, 6-10 storm. Then give us an event that was written around that, and it could change the game slightly. It might even kill an NPC.

Assasination attempt? give it a percentage change based on the quality of assassins and intel levels. If it fails, take the game one way, if it succeeds take it another. It's a pivotal point that creates a branch the SAME way as making a choice would have.


D. Consider creating events that players can do at any time, but they only have so many per chapter, or they can skip it entirely. There may be five scattered around the map and you can pick 2 in a chapter, and as certain events happen, a few may disappear a few may appear. These can be fairly simple events like visiting with the Duchess for a rendevouz - or attend a session of your congress, doing charity work, attending church, think of it as side quests. Instead of the game always driving the narrative, the player gets choice.

E. I love how in Rizia you expanded the resource types. Personally, I would rertrofit the Sord campaign with this system, but that may be difficult. However, one thing you may consider for a future campaign is the following:

Multiply the current currency by 4. Instead of Max current = 25, make it equal 100. Make 1 current currency = 4 new currency.

In other words, if I a player was going to get 3 currency a turn, now it's 12.
The reason for this is simple. You can get more granular with how much things cost. One of the big pain in the butts to me is that the cost to refurbish a yacht I may never use again is about 1/3rd the cost of building a university. WTF. However, if you did this system, 1 currency is worth less overall, and you have more flexibility in how things cost.

If it cost 3 currency for a university, now it could cost 12. Why that is meaningful is that a small tip to your honor guard so their son can attend college, doesn't cost 1/3 as much as the entire college.


4. I love the concept of manpower, tanks, equipment, etc and you could go crazy adding more resources to the game.

I wish you would have, because imagine if there was a finite amount of manpower but based on the quality and type of education every turn new workers entering the workforce become "Enlisted", "Officers", "Workers", "Craftsman", "Scholars", "Capitalists" or "Nobles" "Medical".

Nobles might not be a notable NPC, but rather lesser nobles that perform administrative tasks within the government. Enlisted or Officers could become police or soldiers.

Or you could just go with Low income, medium and high income and assume that from the low income manpower you are drawing workers or soldiers.

The same amount of new workers every turn, could have a very different mix depending on policies and opportunities. Each of these contribute taxes in different ways


5. The UN has a rating system they give every country. You could invent your own "IEO" used by your version of the alliance of nations that ranks every country on a scale of 1-10 in the following categories:

GDP
Trade Imports (As percentage of GDP) - how much is brought in to consume
Trade Exports (As percentage of GDP) - how much is sent out of the country
Government Funding: How well is this government funded compared to it's expenses.
Healthcare Access
Law Enforcement
Education Access
Worker Prosperity

High Trade Exports with low imports, could be very healthy for the economy, or it could potentially mean that the people starve while the oilgarchs ship the goods they produce elsewhere. I never see "GDP" in the game, maybe I am not looking but in Rivia it seems like GDP and Currency are connected. When in reality, my currency is my government's ability to generate revenue which is not the same as my countries ability to produce goods.

I was flabbergasted in Sordland when I Nationalized industries and immediately LOST revenue (taxable) because I assumed by providing those services I could generate at least enough money to support the cost of operating. I think some thought could be put into how privatizing or nationalizing harms/hinders the government's ability to generate revenue regardless of the GDP impact - same people doing the work/producing the goods regardless of the profit/taxes.

You get the idea from the others listed.

These scores represent the countries current ESTIMATED ranking in those areas -which the game is already doing behind the scenes. There is a lot of nuance here, because with healthcare, you already correctly identify that rural and urban access is very different, and given privatization might make healthcare more plentiful, it's only for those who can afford it.

None of that would change and all of that would be represented in the endless briefings the leader must attend. However, at ANY time they could look at their country or other countries and compare them in a single chart that shows a line graph by year of the games "average" score for that nation as determined by the Alliance of Nations - in other words, it's a very broad and not specific ranking so you could see where Lespia sits on Worker Prosperity compared to yours.

You could go crazy here and model everything like religious freedom and press, but I think just having these on a chart somewhere in the game for future iterations would allow the player an at a glance estimate of capabilities.

I mention this in a story teller thread, because the numbers help tell the story. A lot of times, I do something for my country and nothing - i see no improvement. Granted, things take time to shift, but at least seeing a rise in rankings will motivate me to scrap my boat. What good is authority if all it becomes is another form of currency I pay for goods and services with. I want to be able to see how spreading my authority into those sectors - I have some improvement.

6. I am hoping that the game devs have plans to build more story packs. I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to see modding and the ability to use a GUI for players to create their own story packs. If you do this, more people will play the game because they now have endless story packs to choose from.

I think I have the capability to be a good story teller like the devs, to build good characters, and do call backs to the world.

The game currently has limited application, because at a certain point, you've seen and done it all. Naturally, I did a run as "What I would do in that situation" and then I tried it as a fascist, and tried to have a Utopia run where I brought harmony to the people.

This is tough in a game of economics. There is always bias because a Libertarian type will think that free market is always superior and reward players for deregulating and allowing oligarchs free reign. A socialist would do the same for their ideology.

I found my greatest success in Sordland as something of a bastard and continuing Alphonso's economic policies.

Part of that is storytelling though - by not allowing in the immigrants, the game rewarded me with more harmony and productivity than I would have gained from the workers that were needed to plow the fields and work the machines, so the other aspect to storytelling is that even with a GUI you have to understand that the player events need to be balanced so that while choices matter - the ideology of the storyteller doesn't bias the outcome.

Gay Warrior Monks are pretty cool to me, and so I might make a story pack where allying with them allows you to easily defeat your enemies when you call them in. Someone else telling the story may be less inclined to go that route, and so by comprimising in collaboration - discussing outcomes, you can probably create a more balanced game and remove personal bias.

My final thought on the matter is that I would say that collaborating with people who do not share the same opinions of how things work in the world - would make your stories resonate even more.

The perception of Socialism and communism in this game is definitely in synch with how capitalists view it, but I found very little value in going down that path compared to the costs. I suppose it should be radical for Sordland. I would just ask that maybe you have two designers review the flow of the game independently and see if you both arrive at the same chain of events.

[Star Fetcher]

The perception of Socialism and communism in this game is definitely in synch with how capitalists view it, but I found very little value in going down that path compared to the costs. I suppose it should be radical for Sordland. I would just ask that maybe you have two designers review the flow of the game independently and see if you both arrive at the same chain of events.

I do not concur at all with this postulate.
The game takes a fair shot at several interpretations and applications of the system. The Codex entries and the newspapers reports both expound on the nuances of KKarlos Marcia's ideology fairly well.

My Sordland headcanon is a National-Malenyevist CSP Sordland with liberal specifity and whilst it is a bit more difficult than aligning to the Arcasian West for sure, the perception of cost vs profit is not applicable.
In the context of this universe and that specific spacetime subcontext, aligning East is simply a grander undertaking. I fail to see why opting one or the other ought to be balanced. Politics do not work that way.

[MoreEvilSquid]

One thing I would like, and which should be possible since it already happens in many cases - is that all of these events, instead of instantly requiring an action, instead allow you to defer the action.

Deferring the action would effectively make the event behave like a decree, and could appear under one of the headings in the decree section - similar to how some decrees appear after certain events (in some cases based on the decisions in those events, I believe).

The only caveat is that most of these events do require a decision relatively soon, so it definitely makes sense for all of them to time out at the end of the turn - if you still haven't decided on them by then, then they should pop up again and this time force you to act.

While most of the time this isn't a huge issue, sometimes events also give you additional resources during a turn - which could allow one to make better decisions later in the turn than at the exact time an event pops up.

What makes this even worse is that sometimes we're given a choice of which event to address first, but we don't know the contents of the event until we've selected it - and at that point we're forced into making a decision. In my case, whenever this happens and I don't have enough resources, I tend to restart the turn and then do things in a different order, because this is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ way to mess with the player.

[MoreEvilSquid]

Originally posted by Star Fetcher:

The perception of Socialism and communism in this game is definitely in synch with how capitalists view it, but I found very little value in going down that path compared to the costs. I suppose it should be radical for Sordland. I would just ask that maybe you have two designers review the flow of the game independently and see if you both arrive at the same chain of events.

I do not concur at all with this postulate.
The game takes a fair shot at several interpretations and applications of the system. The Codex entries and the newspapers reports both expound on the nuances of KKarlos Marcia's ideology fairly well.

My Sordland headcanon is a National-Malenyevist CSP Sordland with liberal specifity and whilst it is a bit more difficult than aligning to the Arcasian West for sure, the perception of cost vs profit is not applicable.
In the context of this universe and that specific spacetime subcontext, aligning East is simply a grander undertaking. I fail to see why opting one or the other ought to be balanced. Politics do not work that way.

Agree that not all choices should be balanced, that would be completely boring.

Although I personally wished to be able to go full-Pinochet (dictator, SSP, privatize everything), I don't think that's actually possible - and that's fine, since this is due to the specific situation of Sordland (politics, people's views, who holds the power, what their leanings are, etc.).

We are thankfully given a LOT of leeway in how to shape the country, so it's definitely possible to go hard-core communist if you want to - and strangely enough, a planned economy can do surprisingly well in this game - however going that path does mean you're limited in certain other things, which makes sense.

The one thing that makes less sense is that your cabinet cannot be reshuffled to suit your leanings. Simon for example is a hard-core capitalist, and while he resigns at the end of your term if you go planned economy due to this being against his beliefs, it makes little sense that he would wait this long to do this - and possibly makes no sense he'd resign at all given that he can get the economy improved to the same level either way...

[Ulthar]

Originally posted by MoreEvilSquid:

What makes this even worse is that sometimes we're given a choice of which event to address first, but we don't know the contents of the event until we've selected it - and at that point we're forced into making a decision. In my case, whenever this happens and I don't have enough resources, I tend to restart the turn and then do things in a different order, because this is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ way to mess with the player.

The developer went to great lengths in "Torpor Mode" to prevent save scumming, and yet I do the same thing when the game unfairly punishes me with a choice that I could not have predicted and will never get again. I literally have to make a decision about my boat when I do not have the resources to make it.

I use that example again and again, because it's a fairly small event that seems designed sadistically to punish me for daring to have been a king. the game strips away resources as it plugs along almost as if the intent is that no matter what you get 5 chapters and then vamoose - game over.

Like a GM in a RPG that has decided you over stayed your welcome and wants to wrap up the session. "Okay, a Balrog appears"

"What? I am only 2nd level"

"Okay, 3 Balrogs appear. "

I think what I was trying to say with my post most of all (and I probably muddled it with too many ideas at once) was three things.

1. Build us up in a "Glory Days" scenario before you beat us down. This game definitely beats you down and pulls no punches. There was a TV show called "Sons of Anarchy" that could have been GREAT if it just gave you an episode where they enjoyed themselves, went to a BBQ and had a great day.

Instead, every day is a constant s-show, and there is absolutely no benefit for all the crime they do, because they are constantly trying to hide/getting killed and betraying each other. Just remind them there was once "Good times" and a reason for all of this, so they can build a future - before you shoot it all down.

2. The bias in the storyteller is going to be a given. No one can be fully objective. I suggested increasing the resources (but materially charging the same amount for in game things) because it would allow the storyteller some flexibility in adjusting costs. "Oh, your son wants to go to college, Serge? Here, have as much as it would take to fund all the iron lungs in the region for your son"

BTW - I never got impeachment inquiry for sending serge's son to college, but for mine? Wtf, is state college for if the president's son can't attend? I paid for it from my personal funds.

That's what makes me believe that while the storyteller does a pretty good job of making everything "Viable" there is certain biases in the definition of freedom that "Oh you want worker's rights? You must be against freedom" and "You want government revenue? Well you must have corrupt oligarchs then! Only Space Billionaire's like Elon Kronti know how to sit on huge amounts of wealth"

That's harsh, but my point is perhaps a nuanced development staff of diverse story tellers would review each event chain, and if they all come to same conclusion - no problem, but perhaps more balance should be included.

3. Please make it so we can mod the game and build our own stories. New Players will buy the engine to get to those stories without the devs having to do additional work, and the game will continue to update itself. That includes letting us design our own set of game starting questions, setting internal values, and creating the epilogue.

It would be great if we aren't limited in chapters either. I'd definitely go beyond 5 and let the player's heir take over.

I suggested some "RNG" which effectively makes the player's choice for them in certain cases behind the scenes, and that will lead to infinite replayability.

The player wouldn't know the game rolled behind the scenes and it would seem like this is clear weather is just what was in the cards that day (unless you played before and didn't get fair weather).

I do not know how to address restarting from a good save. I definitely wish I had such an option for real life. "Uh oh, I probably shouldn't have done that". However, one of the ideas you hit on is just let me back out of that decision if I do not have the resources to make it right then, and give me time to secure them. The game may even offer you a way to float the value until the next turn - which is all I ever wanted. I travelled all the way to deridia only to find out I was short 1 authority to make a deal, and now I can never just call him in a few months and say "Okay, we are on" or "I promise to make the decision soon" and then it works like an edict I can pass, where I can "Contact Deridia after passing their legislation"

So yes, that's how those minor events on the map could work. The reason they are different is they could be optional and some you could do more than once. In a single chapter, maybe I can do three things out of five possibile activities, and so I go to the beach with family, go to church, and volunteer for charity, or maybe I study Acasian, go to church, and inspect the troops. It's sort of what do you choose to focus on, rather than only what the game forces you to participate in.

[Ulthar]

Originally posted by MoreEvilSquid:

Although I personally wished to be able to go full-Pinochet (dictator, SSP, privatize everything)

You hit it on the head. I wanted to be a benevolent dictator. Any chance I got, the government invested, removed oligarchs, nationalized. It worked great, but naturally the economy tanked in later chapters and everyone was unhappy in the great depression. I invested in better housing, transportation, education.

I couldn't help but think from a balance perspective, the designer was biased against socialism. Naturally, if you've played this way - you know it's a one-way ticket for the entire family to the CSP at the end. At least I got to live out my life in a tiny cottage in the country.

So I did a Pinochet run like you said. I screwed workers and the environment anytime I could, made deals with oligarchs, kept taxes low, rarely invested in anything that wasn't for profit, and spent huge money on secret police and military.

Ka-boom, the economy prospered, and we conquered all Rumserg like it was butter. I could have easily gone on to take out Vagsland - and if i could have bought Alphonso's helicopter, I could have given socialists rides of their lives.

I didn't bother with a "Utopia" run where I made lives better for my citizens, because the fascist run probably is the best I can do. Soll loved me. Alphonso respected me. I seemed like I could do no wrong - even though I trampled women's rights, workers rights, undercut education. create a national emergency for no real reason other than I didn't want to change Soll's constitution, I did stop the infection of polio but purely for selfish reasons.

I was frankly shocked that I couldn't just replace cabinent members and had to leave the positions opened. I would have hired the Iron Wall, and the hardline Sord nationalists.

It was infinitely easier, and Monica even tolerated me despite being unsupportive.

So that's where my "Maybe someone with a different political outlook, should at least review these and discuss with you" or you offer some RNG so that there is a chance that the same behavior won't work next game. I now know the best strategies for a lot of favorable outcomes and who is going to win the football game everytime.

[Iforgotmynames]

Originally posted by Ulthar:

You hit it on the head. I wanted to be a benevolent dictator. Any chance I got, the government invested, removed oligarchs, nationalized. It worked great, but naturally the economy tanked in later chapters and everyone was unhappy in the great depression. I invested in better housing, transportation, education.

I guarantee that you can fix the economy in a socialist or planned economy run. You might want to have another go now that you know the mecanics a bit better.

[Star Fetcher]

Originally posted by Iforgotmynames:

Originally posted by Ulthar:

You hit it on the head. I wanted to be a benevolent dictator. Any chance I got, the government invested, removed oligarchs, nationalized. It worked great, but naturally the economy tanked in later chapters and everyone was unhappy in the great depression. I invested in better housing, transportation, education.

I guarantee that you can fix the economy in a socialist or planned economy run. You might want to have another go now that you know the mecanics a bit better.

Not only you can, it's actually easier.
I am reckoning a bit of a skill issue, mayhaps.

[Star Fetcher]

Originally posted by MoreEvilSquid:

The one thing that makes less sense is that your cabinet cannot be reshuffled to suit your leanings. Simon for example is a hard-core capitalist, and while he resigns at the end of your term if you go planned economy due to this being against his beliefs, it makes little sense that he would wait this long to do this - and possibly makes no sense he'd resign at all given that he can get the economy improved to the same level either way...

I get where you're coming from. I do. And I concur.
Alas, being essentially a visual novel with more flair and player input to it, it is not easy to implement a cabinet and ministries system with the dynamism that you posit.
We could also say, playing devil's advocate, that maybe they're constitutionally mandated to fulfill a certain amount of time in office before leaving (barring force majeure circumstances?) I dunno, just a bit of easy gratuituous speculation that serves no purpose. Or maybe they tried to hinder you before seeing it was not possible. Possibilities are endless.

Still, I tend to go socialist with stronger powers in my constitution in most of my runs (which necessitates allying to NFP) so it is a VERY difficult tightrope to balance in.
Nia and Ciara ALWAYS resign on me, and sometimes Paskal and Symon too.
But on my latest run Paskal and Symon stayed, even though I went planned economy AND CSP alignment. I allied myself to HOS and didn't nationalise them, and whilst the general policy of my cabinet was socialist and nationalist, I also gave media more freedoms and tax benefits for businesses. I strongly suspect those decisions had influences on why Symon stayed. That and I fixed the economic disaster of Alphonso.
I suspect there's a weighted system to your decision counter in the game's code, and if you don't surpass a certain number, the trigger for the resignations does not happen.

[Ulthar]

Originally posted by Star Fetcher:

Originally posted by Iforgotmynames:

I guarantee that you can fix the economy in a socialist or planned economy run. You might want to have another go now that you know the mecanics a bit better.

Not only you can, it's actually easier.
I am reckoning a bit of a skill issue, mayhaps.

The classic "Git Gud"

OR, the game might be a bit unabalanced and punishing unless you can read the developers mind and pick precisely the same path of events they wanted you to pick.

I Am sure there is a path that you've learned leads to a positive outcome, but for every play I've done, the game has overly punished me. I nationalized profitable business and as a result the game basically dragged me into massive debt. There should have at least been a way for me to assess before doing it that there would be no positive outcome if I chose that path.

[MoreEvilSquid]

Originally posted by Ulthar:

Originally posted by Star Fetcher:

Not only you can, it's actually easier.
I am reckoning a bit of a skill issue, mayhaps.

The classic "Git Gud"

OR, the game might be a bit unabalanced and punishing unless you can read the developers mind and pick precisely the same path of events they wanted you to pick.

I Am sure there is a path that you've learned leads to a positive outcome, but for every play I've done, the game has overly punished me. I nationalized profitable business and as a result the game basically dragged me into massive debt. There should have at least been a way for me to assess before doing it that there would be no positive outcome if I chose that path.

I've managed to have a really successful economy + reelection doing: capitalist dictator; communist dictator; corrupt capitalist reformer; mostly-moderate reformer (that narrowly avoid disaster at the end due to Bludish terrorism and unrest).

There are other variants in addition to those I'm sure.

BTW when I mean "dictator run" I mean a stronger constitution - NOT the same constitution with a state of emergency, since in that you're not a dictator but just Orso's puppet.

I do 100% agree that the game really should provide more information in some cases. While I understand the decision to obscure it in most cases - e.g. public opinion isn't something you will ever know with 100% certainty, even if there were continuous polls going on which there aren't - in some cases it makes little sense.

The nationalisation/privatisation is a good one - while the overall effect of these policies would rightfully not be known (e.g. public opinion etc), what SHOULD be obvious and known up-front is exactly how much you stand to gain (or have to pay) to sell/buy parts of these companies. The fact that when selling them, you only find out after the fact how much you get, is a bit ridiculous - even taking markets/deals into account, we should at least get a ballpark figure.

And on that note, it's completely ridiculous that the difference between selling all of Nedam vs selling most of Nedam is... 0. Like WTF?! I have no idea if selling all of it actually affects negative opinion more than selling most of it, but if so then that's even worse.

And while I get that SSC is larger and therefore worth more, it should be specified up-front what we stand to gain from selling bits of each of these.

Also: selling these companies doesn't seem to affect Government revenue at all - most likely due to the bizarre "single budget for the entire term" thing; however I recall that when nationalising these, some time after that (the same turn? Next turn?) I received some more cash from something (which I thought was due to revenue from the nationalised companies, but could have been anything - it just happened with no explanation, though this was prior to v 2.0.0 so might be different now).

That's one thing Rizia does do much better, the in-your-face resource demanding events notwithstanding: it actually has a yearly budget, so buying a larger stake in a company increases your income.

[MoreEvilSquid]

All that said, as far as political bias goes, if anything I'd say the bias is in favour of socialism more than anything, given how all the socialist leaders are actually NOT authoritarian and actually all leaning heavily towards anarchy, which is odd to say the least. That and as others have stated, it's surprisingly easy to have a good, planned economy... the only negative thing is you miss out on personal investment opportunities later on.

Semi-related: the way the economy is depicted has some issues I think. For one this, It's kind of odd suggesting an economy is "lassaiz-faire" iwhen the Government has heavily invested into a number of large-scale projects and provided funding assistance to companies. While the Government may have indeed been very "corporate focused", this is much more interventionist than lassaiz-faire, especially since some of these have explicitly stated that subsidies were involved.

It's also strange we can't choose a "mixed economy" as a specific goal (though we can potentially end up as one), given most nations in the world today are mixed economies.

[votadc]

In suzerain too you had enough resources to do both highway and railroad but you couldn't.
Rizia gives you more choices if you balance resources. You can enact everything from the beginning (you have to wait some turns to get them, but when they are you can pick them all). In suzerain you can't, even if you cheat the Money (you can have both railroad and highway with save editing but Is more complicated and less recognized)

[Ulthar]

Originally posted by MoreEvilSquid:

All that said, as far as political bias goes, if anything I'd say the bias is in favour of socialism more than anything, given how all the socialist leaders are actually NOT authoritarian

Whelen is "Socialist" and allied to the Communist regimes, since he is basically Hitler - that tracks to a form of socialism that is authoritarian (fascism).

One of my advisors even points out that his socialism isn't like the other versions but he calls himself socialist...

[Star Fetcher]

Originally posted by Ulthar:

Originally posted by MoreEvilSquid:

All that said, as far as political bias goes, if anything I'd say the bias is in favour of socialism more than anything, given how all the socialist leaders are actually NOT authoritarian

Whelen is "Socialist" and allied to the Communist regimes, since he is basically Hitler - that tracks to a form of socialism that is authoritarian (fascism).

One of my advisors even points out that his socialism isn't like the other versions but he calls himself socialist...

Smolak is based off Saddam Hussein's and his Party of Nurist Socialism is obviously based off Hussein's Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party.

Moreover:

I've managed to have a really successful economy + reelection doing: capitalist dictator; communist dictator; corrupt capitalist reformer; mostly-moderate reformer (that narrowly avoid disaster at the end due to Bludish terrorism and unrest).

There are other variants in addition to those I'm sure.

BTW when I mean "dictator run" I mean a stronger constitution - NOT the same constitution with a state of emergency, since in that you're not a dictator but just Orso's puppet.

It truly is a git gud issue.
There is, alas, little to be done in that particular frontline...

[Ulthar]

Saddam Hussein didn't live in the time of Eisenhower, and Hitler and Wehlen have a lot in common with the Bludish invasions, but git gud yoursself, you condescending git. I don't need your passive aggressive "Advice"

You are an example of why people run from the forums.