Democracy 3: Everybody Wants To Ruin The World

I’ve been playing an early, unfinished version of Positech Game’s government sim/political strategy game Democracy 3.

I really did want to make Britain a better, happier place for everyone. Trouble is, no-one else agreed. I compromised my own values and I punished people who were just like me, I scrimped and I saved and I took desperate actions. I tried to think long-term, but I also fought seemingly endless short-term fires. The middle-class hated me, the rich abused every tax loophole they could find, the poor took to alcohol abuse and crime. The socialists and greens cheered me, sure, but that didn’t matter a jot as the nation’s money haemorrhaged its last, and the public understandably voted for the other guy. I tried to help them all, and they all hated me for it.

Professor Brian Cox and his mates were dead wrong. Things can only get worse.

Perhaps the most immediately striking thing about Positech’s latest government sim is that it’s full of maths. I will presume it’s maths based on research rather than wild speculation, but in any case it’s game built upon a vast array of adjustable numbers, each of which has cause and effect on at least half a dozen other numbers. Raise luxury goods tax, for instance, and you’ll see the nation’s deficit reduce somewhat, the socialists and poor will cheer you on and, in theory, there’ll be more emphasis on domestic rather than international products. But the middle class will be furious that their iPads cost more, foreign investors might shy away and quite frankly it’ll all go to hell in a half-dozen ways you probably hadn’t expected.

Another example – hybrid cars and alternative energy sources are all jolly nice on paper, but what possible use are they if they can’t bandage up a nation’s bleeding budget right away? All these groups and sub-groups of people, all with their different needs, so many so contrary to what others desire. So much juggling. Can it ever possibly work, is there any balance, some perfect set of numbers? I don’t know, but I can’t very well just give up, can I?

That’s the maths, but the other and perhaps more affecting aspect of the game is the morality simulation. I went in with a pretty fixed idea of what I hoped to achieve and what I’d come to believe after years of reading liberal media and saying ‘if they’d only do this now then that’ll happen later’ from the comfort of my armchair/Twitter client. I was barely a year into my first term by the point I’d thrown most of my beliefs to the wind and was trying almost anything to appease the whinging middle and the greedy posh or worse, simply to pull more money into the implacable maw that was the national deficit. I even raised university tuition fees. In other words, I became…

Well, let me put it this way. Back before we rather ran out of retro tales, we talked often of our all-time gaming highs on RPS. Today, I suffered one of my all-time gaming lows. I became the ashen-faced, sad-eyed, word-breaking, forever compromising leader of the UK Coalition government’s junior partner. God help me, I became Nick Clegg.

I’d like to take this opportunity to put a few things straight.

Entirely understandably, the people voted me out at the end of my first turn, but while that spelled obscurity for that prime minister character, it grew my own determination. I would try again. Somewhere, in Democracy 3’s initially overwhelming but careful and slick matrix of numbers, sliders and modifiers, taxes and subsidies, policies and injustices, there was surely a way. A way to make things better, to get through the recession, to solve unemployment, to be popular enough to survive even though the rich had to forsake their fourth houses.

The power of Democracy 3 is that it’ll rip your soul right out of you, but without convincing you that your beliefs are actually wrong. What it will do is make you into a liar. Well, a politician, but same difference, right?

All snark aside, Democracy 3 is very much a game of its time. It evokes the panic and precariousness of the financial crisis in Britain (the US and other nations will be added later), the desperate sense that whoever winds up in Downing Street to try and fix it is very much inheriting a poison chalice. This isn’t politics as jolly hockey sticks, it’s politics as a fight against rapid entropy. It’s highly stressful, in all the right ways.

On a visual and interface front, I’m impressed by how it’s managed to prevent its numbers – for all it really is is numbers, and their meanings – from becoming overwhelming, and it doesn’t even need to do the one-note bobblehead gag of sometime, far shallower rival The Political Machine, in order to do this. It feels clean and shiny, a little bit Maxis in its interface. Things happen, in a pleasingly visual and sometimes almost tactile way, when I click on or hover over screen elements, rather than it being a matter of staggering through dry text boxes.

That said, I think perhaps the main screen, with its array of every socio-economic factor in the game, each presented as a clicky round button (only around a quarter of which are visible in the image above), does mean some visual overload, and perhaps would be better off split into one category (i.e. tax, economy, public services etc) per screen rather than trying to show absolutely everything at once, but then again I worked it all out after a time and it wasn’t long before I’d memorised what most icons meant. I also found my ministers to be distractingly inactive, essentially waiting for me to fire or hire them but offering no input on policy, but then again I should be grateful for a megalomania sim after all these years of being spoilt by Civ’s chatty advisors.

What I’m saying is that it hangs together very well: deep and detailed, researched and pitiless, but loaded with enough consequence and meaning to lift it into something much more than a numbers game. It’s very much a roleplaying game, as much about the curse of power as the strategic practicalities of running a vast business. I’m looking forwards to going back in and playing as The Nasty Party, seeing what happens if I privatise everything, ramp up the wealthiest’s wealth and destroy the welfare state. If it turns out I have an easy ride that way, I suspect I’ll reverse my opinions to date on the game, of course.

Democracy 3 will be out at some point soon-ish, probably. Keep up to date with its development on Cliffski’s blog.


  1. Magnusm1 says:

    A Tears for Fears-reference? RPS never ceases to impress me.

    • TheSplund says:

      I believe the reference was D:Ream.
      I didn’t take to BC initially as he was always talking soporifically from various locations in the world as so many of the BBC’s ‘science for Sun-readers’ programs do now, but listening to ‘The Infinite Monkey Cage’ podcast changed my impression of him (sorry, I know it’s well off-thread).

      • JimDiGritz says:

        No, the title is (probably) a take on the mid 80s hit “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” by Tears for Fears.

        • Charupa says:

          No, Its D.Ream things can only get better. Everyones favourite northern scientist Brian Cox used to be in the one hit wonder D.Ream

    • nowako05 says:

      my roomate’s step-aunt makes $71/hour on the laptop. She has been without work for eight months but last month her check was $21976 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site WEP6.COM

  2. nimzy says:

    Democracy in action: I propose a feature where RPS readers vote in the comments how RPS would run a country.

  3. Mathute87 says:

    Can’t wait to play the Egypt DLC.

  4. jimangi says:

    My group and I tried it out briefly at Rezzed. Very promising.
    It’s interesting that the initial reaction of a group of liberal types given a small amount of time was to try and quickly make a BNP-esque hell where racial profiling was encouraged and nothing was taxed.

    • AlwaysRight says:

      Did it work?

      • jimangi says:

        Fortunately not.

        • beekay says:

          If this game is (essentially) set during the GFC then you ought to be totally fucked no matter what you do.

      • Malk_Content says:

        Thankfully Sexy (the internet name of the man in charge of the station at the time) received threats of assassination by the end of his first set of actions.

      • AlwaysRight says:

        Phew, it would have been pretty crap if the solution to the Global Financial Crisis was terrible racism.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      It’s weird, but I think I saw the BNP policy platform one time and it’s almost Greens + horrible racism. I suspect the reality of it is

      “Oh wait we have to say what we’re going to do apart from hassle all the darkies, uhhh, where’s the closest real party pamphlet, copy and paste”

  5. pupsikaso says:

    Is there a demo?

  6. Crosmando says:

    I remember playing the last game. I ended up “losing” and being removed by my cabinet because debt got too big. It’s hard to restrain yourself from just putting taxes on everything

  7. aliksy says:

    Is there a “eat the rich” option? I vote for that one.

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Blech. Eating the rich is a heart attack waiting to happen. The middle class have the best balance of nutrition and flavour.

      • Hardlylikely says:

        Who wants to bet a Smingleigh family Trust owns a number of well populated middle class housing estates?

  8. cggreene says:

    I want this so bad, I bought the 2nd one a while a go and I loved it, I can not wait to play it, hopefully there is some sort of open acces

  9. Munin says:

    I just hope nobody ever trots out that game when trying to make arguments about whether a specific policy would or wouldn’t work…

    Anyway, I’d be interested in playing this if only to check how they DO model it and whether they managed to make a balanced game rather than a polemic.

    • AngoraFish says:

      I can say from earlier versions that Cliffski does make an attempt to be balanced.

      If past iterations, however, are anything to go by Cliffski’s balance is based on superficial impressions and stereotypes acquired entirely through one programmer’s mass media consumption rather than any actual political science.

      Religion, for example, is treated very superficially as a political motivator and tends to run on US-media stereotypes of religious voting behavior that are not objectively supported by much actual polling data.

      Cliffski’s models start looking particularly creaky and shallow when whole voting blocks start moving around counter-intuitively based on a single variable, such as where a single policy position on abortion, for example, swings a voting block to the opposition despite the bulk of the opposition’s policies being manifestly ‘worse’ from the perspective of that group.

      In the past, the models have also collapsed over time, as variables do not evolve with the community’s changing priorities. For example, solving homelessness and traffic congestion simply narrows the group of variables one is competing over, rather than causing other political cleavages to emerge.

      Hopefully this time Cliffski has spent a bit of time researching informed, objective analysis of voting behaviour, such as by 538.

      • iridescence says:

        “whole voting blocks start moving around counter-intuitively based on a single variable, such as where a single policy position on abortion, for example, swings a voting block to the opposition despite the bulk of the opposition’s policies being manifestly ‘worse’ from the perspective of that group.”

        Um..yeah. That would *never* happen in the real world. :)

        • AngoraFish says:

          I’m sure that you have a particular instance in mind, but I’m having trouble thinking of any. The abortion example is actually a particularly good one – in the United States, Republican voters are extremely unlikely to desert the party even when faced with a Pro-Choice Republican nominee.

          In practice, four in five voters are absolutely wedded to one party or another in predominantly two-party systems regardless of policy. Voters are quite capable of differentiating between policy positions taken for short-term political advantage and a party’s longer-term ideological leanings.

          Although it serves the interests of lobbyists to imply that they represent, and are able to sway, large blocks of voters on a single issue this just isn’t the case in advanced western democracies. The vast majority of voters are simply not that fickle.

          • Cinek says:

            Sounds like a US is the worst possible location for this type of game.
            It’s almost like trying to make in located in China. Equally absurd.

          • AngoraFish says:


          • Obc says:

            Because the two party system. E.g: In Germany i have the option to choose from up to 5 valid parties.

            if the CDU says they wont allow for the very important X to happen, the people interested in X or a similar Y option will have a choice in other parties. They’ll then switch over to those parties whose other policies lean more on their side like SPD/FDP/Grüne. If SPD does something they might switch over to Green or Linke or CDU. If the Green does something they might switch over to Linke/SPD/ or hell even the uncoordinated pirates. More Parties with varied campaining goals allow one to switch one’s vote more easily.

          • LionsPhil says:

            You can thank first-past-the-post voting for a lot of that. If you’re not voting for one of the big two, you may as well write “I like jam” on your ballot in crayon and post it into the nearest front-loading VCR.

            We did get an option to change to an alternative voting scheme, but the British public rose up as one and declared that they were too stupid to know how to put a list of things in order of preference.

          • Cinek says:

            LionsPhil – I don’t care who should I thank for that. What I care is a good setting for a game, and a country with bipolar democracy seems to be one of the worst from possible options out there.

          • iridescence says:

            It may be true that once they commit to the Republicans they stay with them out of a kind of inertia but I’ve seen many surveys where blue collar voters support the Republicans (who pretty much objectively almost never look after their economic interests) and when asked why cite issues like abortion and gun control. It’s pretty much the same with the Conservative Party in Canada (where I live).I don’t know if this is something that happens in Europe. Hopefully not. It’s a bad side effect of having right wing religious groups heavily involved in the political process I think.

          • AngoraFish says:

            @iridescence. The problem you are describing is based in part on a misplaced view that there is only one axis around which people’s viewpoints can be polarised.

            In practice, a more sophisticated model allows for both a moral axis (conservative/liberal) and economic axis (welfare/free-enterprise). In practice, in many two-party first world democracies the parties have tended to align conservative/free-enterprise vs liberal/welfare. In this case, if you happen to be generally supportive of liberal social values and also free-enterprise (eg a libertarian) you will be forced to choose between the ‘lesser of two evils’, and which party you end up supporting will generally come down to which of the two axes you feel most strongly.

            The ‘blue-collar’ voters you describe tend to be very strongly motivated by moral, conservative issues and are broadly happy with the economic status quo. Or at least, they are ‘aspirational’, that is, they feel comfortable in their personal ability to improve their economic circumstances through hard work. They also tend to have had poor past experiences with authority and an innate distrust of top-down, paternalistic control systems. Telling these people that they would be objectively economically ‘better off’ in a welfare state substitutes their subjective lived experience with your ‘objective’ view of what might be in someone else’s best interest.

          • Cinek says:

            AngoraFish – and this one-axis approach in US is precisely a reason why it sux as a game setting. In countries where there are multiple parties with different views you have by far more options to direct your party into specific groups of voters, and each factor will matter, cause the competition is bigger and you need to count each, even smallest decision – making the whole game of democracy by far more exciting. Voters always got a vast scope of options, and you really need to catch up with trends and fight against a competition. I imagine non-US game could easily be multiplayer (say: 4 players) with extremely interesting outcomes, while in US… you’re basically screwed right from a beginning. It’s as un-democratic democracy as it might be.

          • AngoraFish says:

            this one-axis approach … is precisely a reason why it sux as a game setting“, a sentiment with which I have some sympathy, although you can also see why it appeals to programmers as there are only two sides to worry about, no coalition building and readily defined win/lose conditions.

            A game based around a two party system makes more sense if you accept that you are playing as a political apparatchik, not as a voter.

            In a multi-party system, win-lose conditions are much greyer, potentially making an unsatisfying game where even brilliant play can end with a loss due to coalition building leaving you locked out of government due entirely to circumstances outside your control. Indeed, the act of coalition building itself can subvert the policy making side of things and complicate game mechanics because so many of the decisions that need to be made during a term of office remain subject to negotiation, sometimes with counter-intuitive outcomes due to small players having disproportionate influence (microparties can always threaten to leave the coalition, bringing down the government if their demands are not met, giving them influence far beyond their actual votes or electoral representation).

            Sometimes, such as with the Bloc Québécois in Canada, parties don’t even sit on the same political axes on which every other party is playing, thereby throwing a giant random spanner in the works.

            Still, I would love to see a game that allowed you to spend both time in opposition and time in government, experiencing a sweep of history and influencing policy intermittently, or by consistently setting the agenda through political debate, rather than simply copping as a “loss” the first time you fail to make 50%+1 in an election. No actual party has this short a political horizon – there’s a lot of fun to be had in undermining the government from opposition, and setting yourself up to be competitive at the next election.

            FWIW, Die Macher FTW!

          • iridescence says:

            @AngoraFish: I’m not disagreeing with anything you say here but just questioning the rationality of voting for a party based on things they have little power to actually change and voting for a party whose policies screw your economic class over time and again. Most of these “moral” issues are things that either a court will decide or things that are up to private individuals, Even if someone is against abortion, for example, they should realize that no government they vote for has the power to single handedly outlaw it. Of course some people vote for all kinds of irrational reasons but I don’t think it’s a good thing for democracy.

        • AngoraFish says:

          @iridescence 07/07/2013 at 13:13, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others”. The alternative, however, is what?

          On a related point, one more conservative Supreme Court justice and let’s see whether it’s possible to outlaw abortion again. In the US the court has already outlawed, then reinstated the death penalty. Indeed, maybe there’s the five votes needed sitting there right now. Regardless, in many other countries legal prohibitions against abortion are currently the law, or could easily be the law with a simple act of law, so let’s not get to US-centric, eh? It’s perfectly possible to outlaw.

          edit: ugh, accidental level change

      • cliffski says:

        Hi, just to defend the shifting of voting blocs point. It is much more obvious in D3 (I hope, through the focus group feature…) that individual voters in the game are NEVER just, for example ‘religious’. The game may well say that, for example, religious people HATE you over your abortion stance, and your popularity with them is 0%, but a lot of them will still happily vote for you, because their religiousness is just *one* aspect of their political makeup. Everyone is in about half a dozen different voter groups, to varying degrees of intensity, and if they have 5 reasons to like you, and only one (your religious policies) to hate you, you will still get their vote.
        This is a bit counter-intuitive when you play the game, but I feel it accurately models real life. For example, you can screw over environmentalists and still get their vote, if you give them plenty of other reasons to be happy with you.

  10. ScorpionWasp says:

    The problem with games like Democracy or Fate of the World is that their simulation engines are biased with the beliefs of the author. In Democracy 2, for instance, all problems are solved by ballooning the state and basically killing private initiative. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe it should be precisely the other way around. Not that politicians would have any motivation to dismantle the very machinery that gives them power, of course.

    • cliffski says:

      I’m the developer… yes it is true that this is a failing of democracy 2, but it’s not an intentional thing or my own bias there, it’s just there were problems properly measuring the trade off between state and private provision of services, so the simulation ended up a bit tilted towards a big state.
      Luckily this is all fixed in democracy 3, so you can shrink the state and rely on private everything if you want to :D

      • ulix says:

        Will you be overthrown by a megacorp after a couple of years, or will the private police forces at least take full control over certain areas and repress any opposition violently?

      • belgand says:

        Interesting. This was also my biggest problem with 2. Almost every option to me was merely “spend tax money on it” with very little option to do much of anything else. Running a more libertarian policy? Not really possible. It’s all just tax credits and government-funded initiatives.

        In the end it felt like most of the game was designed to be about trying to create a progressive, democratic socialist state and how certain voting blocks would make this very hard to achieve so that’s why we presumably don’t have that in the real world. A bit of agit-prop from the left about why things are the way they are.

        I’d rather have a crunchier game where I can do things like tweak tariffs in order to eliminate a protectionist foreign trade policy, negotiate the potential revocation of MFN status from China due to human rights issues, involve my country in the Syrian civil war (or just supply them with arms… either side), or slowly shift into a brutally repressive state with massive media censorship (sex, violence… or just games that let you question government policy towards media censorship).

    • Munin says:

      “As an anarcho-capitalist I believe that growing the state should lose you the game but that following my ideology should lead you to victory!”

      That’s precisely what a game like that doesn’t need. To be successful as a game it needs to have multiple paths to success, not IWIN buttons. Basically, to be successful it needs to have sufficient verisimilitude to be believable and enough possible solutions so that players don’t feel railroaded. Oh, and one more thing, whether a certain policy has the effect you want should depend on what your country is like and what kind of stuff you’ve done before. Trying to export your way out of a slump when global demand is high should generally be viable, trying to do the same when no-one wants to buy anything rather less so.

      As an aside, I don’t think a proper simulation of this kind of stuff is possible at this point. There are basically no successful theoretical models out there just a whole slew of variously failed or fundamentally flawed ones.

  11. TheDR says:

    I wonder if you can set up ‘Basic Income’. I’d love to try that out to see if it could work.

    link to

    • Takeda says:

      The thing with the basic income is that it would require a complete overhaul of the state which would probably result of the fall of the government before it can put it into effect. On the other hand if you were able to build a government from ground up without external interference (such as corruption and other countries meddling)it might work. But all in all it seems ideal at first glance but to me it’s more of an idealistic view.

      • The Random One says:

        Which is why it would be interesting to see how it’d go in a simulation. But I doubt this one is deep enough to do it well.

        • Munin says:

          The basic problem isn’t the depth of the simulation. It’s just that any effects or lack thereof would be pure speculation. A universal basic income has never been tried anywhere so we have no practical data on it. Many economic models have shown to have poor explanatory power, especially when taken outside the set of conditions they have been tailored to model.

          Basically, if you want to know “how it would play out” then a game won’t do so and economists are likely to give you more possible answers than the number of economists questioned.

      • Josh W says:

        I don’t think that’s true; a basic income is in terms of “engineering” very easy: Set it up so that everyone who is on the tax register gets a set of tax credits every month, which cover similar amounts to the payments currently given to people on long term disability schemes, as those are already supposed to be tuned to living costs.

        The problem is that it’s really really expensive, and because it’s universal, you can’t weasel out of giving it to people, so you need to match it to tax that is equally stable and substantial.

        The other fundamental problem of a basic income is it’s relationship to immigration; it says to everyone in the world, “If you live here, you will have enough money to survive, no ifs or buts”. That’s a pretty big prize to offer anyone thinking of jumping countries, and puts a lot of strain on border controls.

        For that reason, it may actually be better to implement basic incomes first in places where people have other reasons not to just turn up; alaska hands out free money to it’s citizens out of it’s natural resources, but despite every american being able to go there, most people don’t. Admitedly that payment is about a fifth or tenth of what a basic income would be, but I imagine that many people would think twice even if it was enough to live off!

  12. bladedsmoke says:

    Hmmm. I played this at Rezzed for just over alf an hour, and also tried to make my own socialist utopia.

    I sped through and finished my first term with a ridiculous 94% approval rating and got re-elected easily. I went away feeling like the game needed to be *more* challenging and realistic (94% approval is almost impossible).

    I guess what I’m saying is that maybe I’d make a better prime minister than Alec Meer???

  13. JamesMean says:

    I really want to try this, but I’m afraid it will be pointless if the developer has the same ideologies I have (as in, it will be fun to see my utopia come to fruition, but not very enlightening) and frustrating if they are different (I’m a leftist, I would love to live in a fair communist state), what if the game punishes me for nationalizing things to lower prices or doesn’t offer enough tools to deal with the problems that it will generate (lack of private funding, foreign investors running scared and all that).

    Also, I live in a country completely different from the UK and though I’m not completely ignorant, I can’t offer anything but worthless opinions on how to run their country.

    • lordcooper says:

      I’ve played a fair bit of Democracy 2 and it’s possible to have a hellhole/utopia as both a left and a righty.

  14. The Random One says:

    I played the demo for the previous Democracy game. I didn’t have the political capital to do anything and was voted out of office the first chance the people got because I didn’t change anything.

    A very realistic simulator then.

  15. Flavorfish says:

    Democracy 2 had a lot of potential, but it’s simulation was very biased towards a massive welfare state to the point where there really was no alternatives on how to play the game. High taxes and overbearing regulation had next to no impact on GDP growth rates, which incentivized the passing of every single tax and regulation possible.

    It’s as if the end all/be all political and economic model is the Swedish model of the 1980s. The problem is that that model collapsed and Sweden has been forced to rapidly liberalize in order to kickstart it’s declining GDP growth.

    The game was also very simplistic in certain respects. There was no accounting for:

    1) Defining changes in public beliefs based on random events. (9/11 and the housing crisis have both changed american politics.

    2) Economies and Diseconomies of scale (Big government is much more wasteful in a big country than a small one)

    3) Geopolitics and war.

    I liked Democracy 2, but it was too unbalanced to provide the strategic depth of Fate of the World. Fate of the World is similarly biased, but each choice made still provided an interesting trade off, which allows for a more challenging, dynamic, and choice driven game.

    If Democracy 3 learns from 2’s failings then I will buy it. It’s a very tough subject to get right.

    • cliffski says:

      This version of the game has far better support for changing opinions over time due to events, and showing these changes and effects to the player. Democracy 2 had limited support for people moving between the voter groups due to events, but it was completely hidden. Now there are graphs and data displayed to the player to show exactly hwy there are less socialists or more commuters etc…

      • Flavorfish says:

        Well, if public perception is given more depth, if the simulation is offers more alternatives, and if the interface is more intuitive than 2’s (Which definitely iooks to be the case :) ) Then I’ve got no problem with buying me and a few friends copies! I hope you have a demo!

  16. donmilliken says:

    These types of games aren’t really my thing, but I picked up Democracy 2 in some sort of bundle and felt compelled to give it a shot. I had a nice long run as US President/Dictator and I think I truly helped to make the world a better place. The economy was booming, life expectancy was way up, the US had Gay Marriage and Universal Health Care and thanks in no small part to Stem Cell Research, we cured cancer.

    Then I got blown up by mad fundamentalists.

    Haven’t looked at the game since, but I did have fun for that one playthrough.

  17. malkav11 says:

    The Political Machine and Democracy aren’t really the same sort of game at all. The former is an election sim (well, not very simmy but still), the latter a governance sim.

  18. frenz0rz says:

    Have you tried “Kill all the poor’?

  19. skooma says:

    “I’ve been playing an early, unfinished version of Positech Game’s government sim/political strategy game Democracy 3.”

    So it’s out already?

  20. Lacero says:

    I’m looking forward to continuing my war on the motorist from the first two. It’s surprising just how quickly you can make people abandon their cars with the right mix of policies.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      Is one of those policies “make public transport not awful”?

      • Lacero says:

        I don’t have democracy 2 installed anymore, but if there was a way to invest money in rail and cycling I did it. All paid for by eye watering petrol tax and vehicle excise duty.

        Apparently there was a petrol strikes event, I don’t remember it but as a one issue man I would’ve probably called them terrorists and arrested them. Putting motorists in prison reduces car usage :D

  21. cptgone says:

    In Democracy 2, legalising cannabis boosted crime. I sincerely hope the new version won’t be that silly.

    • Bishop says:

      Banning Alcohol worked too, crazy times.

    • The Random One says:

      Obviousy since criminal enterprizes rely on the sale of cannabis to boost their criminal budget, once it’s legalized they are forced to switch to other criminal crimes to meet their previous criminal estimates, therefore increasing the crime rate because they’re forced to commit crimes citizens are more likely to report.


  22. wodin says:

    Zombie apocalypse mod..

  23. LyskTrevise says:

    You think THIS is a good menu system, but you criticized Company of Heroes 2 very simplistic menu system with a total of THREE very large and clearly explained buttons a bad menu system? You guys are out of your minds at this site. Honestly, some of the worst games reporting around.

  24. Josh W says:

    Really hope this ends up with mod functionality, the interface and basic archetecture look really satisfying, but I’m just too much of a fiddler/too opinionated to want to leave it alone!

  25. lilly_watson says:

    my roomate’s step-aunt makes $61 hourly on the computer. She has been out of work for five months but last month her paycheck was $20774 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site…..b­u­z­z­5­5.ℂ­ℴ­m