Angry mob - Perfect stability/no opposition?

[Anti-Personic Bullet]

What am I missing here? Shouldn't angry mobs demanding reforms NOT happen if there is no opposition, stability is 93, and the intellectuals are perfectly loyal?

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925953419
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925953402
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925953369

Enraged by radical opposition every turn? What opposition?
This is while trying to be a reformer and slowly going to fractional democracy, religious propaganda, party laws etc. I can understand people not wanting change, or change happening too quickly causing unrest, but shouldn't that be reflected by stability being low, loyalty being low, and the opposition existing? Right now it feels like an angry mob is rioting and destroying Red Square while carrying big portraits of my face and singing about how great I am.

[Anti-Personic Bullet]

Also, why do they riot and call me a totalitarian dictator when IM the one changing things to be more democratic? Generally people who want something are at least temporarily grateful if someone helps them get it, right?

If you gave people a taste of freedom and then took it back or refused to give them any more, then perhaps they would get angry after some time, when they realized you aren't going to help them anymore. It wouldn't happen right away unless they had no memory at all.

Perhaps instead if you are the one causing freedom/mind liberalization the events should be worded more along the lines of people marching to support your policies, and then giving you the option of continuing until you basically have no power left or stopping and incurring their wrath as they feel you betray them.

[DasMudPie]

Is mind liberalization high? If not, then I don't know either

Originally posted by Bob Hugehands:

Also, why do they riot and call me a totalitarian dictator when IM the one changing things to be more democratic? Generally people who want something are at least temporarily grateful if someone helps them get it, right?

If you gave people a taste of freedom and then took it back or refused to give them any more, then perhaps they would get angry after some time, when they realized you aren't going to help them anymore. It wouldn't happen right away unless they had no memory at all.

Perhaps instead if you are the one causing freedom/mind liberalization the events should be worded more along the lines of people marching to support your policies, and then giving you the option of continuing until you basically have no power left or stopping and incurring their wrath as they feel you betray them.

Well, judging by the fate of Gorbatchev, there's not much love to be expected from the people whether you make reforms or not :p

When the people's minds are liberalized, they discover what terrible things the government, of which you are the leader, did in the past and will lose faith it and in its ideology. It is only natural for the people to be wary of the government and of yourself when they realize that. Also, the USA is probably trying to take advantage of the situation to eliminate its only rival superpower.

[Anti-Personic Bullet]

Originally posted by DasMudPie:

When the people's minds are liberalized, they discover what terrible things the government, of which you are the leader, did in the past and will lose faith it and in its ideology. It is only natural for the people to be wary of the government and of yourself when they realize that. Also, the USA is probably trying to take advantage of the situation to eliminate its only rival superpower.

That is certainly true, but if you've just introduced elections I still don't think it makes sense for them to call you a dictator, its completely and obviously a contradiction if they haven't been forced to do it at gunpoint.

[DasMudPie]

In the context of the USSR in this game, I am under the impression that the people's primary concern is their quality of life and the end of goods shortages. If your policies fail to provide them a nicer life, they still won't see any point supporting you.

Also, since elections would be a recent thing for them, as opposed to being a well established and stable intitution, for all they know, you could become a dictator who could revert to authoritarianism at any time, but who uses democratic mechanisms at the moment to your own benefit as a weapon against the hardliners...

[Anti-Personic Bullet]

Originally posted by DasMudPie:

In the context of the USSR in this game, I am under the impression that the people's primary concern is their quality of life and the end of goods shortages. If your policies fail to provide them a nicer life, they still won't see any point supporting you.

Also, since elections would be a recent thing for them, as opposed to being a well established and stable intitution, for all they know, you could become a dictator who could revert to authoritarianism at any time, but who uses democratic mechanisms at the moment to your own benefit as a weapon against the hardliners...

So they think you COULD be a dictator someday, and they want more goods. Which explains why they are calling you a dictator now how?
Shouldn't they be voicing their actual concerns instead of imaginary ones? This would also help the player understand why riots/protests are happening.

[DasMudPie]

Well, I find it a bit much to expect some kind of instantaneous implementation of a stable democracy with stable institutions and democratic culture fully ingrained in society just mere weeks after some electoral reforms took place. The rule of law doesn't necessarily apply immediately in a system where individual political strength is above the law.

I'm not the developper of this game and I'm only trying to make sense out of what happens as much as any other player. These are just my thoughts about why things happen the way they do in the game, so there's as much chance about me either being right or being wrong.

An indicator i'd like to see in the game would be one for law and order since we have no other way to know how efficiently we fight against crime other than when we get the street riots event. [EDIT: I found it! It's not easy to find what you're looking for, there seems to be no logic behind the indicators' arrangement...]

[Anti-Personic Bullet]

I'd say I'm basically in agreement, I just think its worded weirdly or perhaps too vaguely since it refers to things happening that other parts of the game says don't exist at the moment.

[DasMudPie]

I tend to forgive the developpers for this kind of stuff, since they're not native English speakers anyway (and neither am I)