Why are the issue options so radical? I just picked what I thought would result in a more progressive tax rate, but turns out what I actually picked was a 100% tax rate for high-income earners. Why the fuck is it so radical? And why didn't it say that high-income earners would be punished so severely for earning more than someone else. I could have tolerated a 99% tax rate, because then they would actually earn something, but with a 100% tax rate they're not earning anything.
So I have two propositions for the programmers of this game:
1. State what will actually happen before the legislation is passed, giving players a chance to know what they actually pick.
2. Give players a chance to go back on their choices should they happen to change their mind.
The second one is largely optional. If the finiteness of the player's choices is an intended gameplay aspect then I completely understand. What I really don't understand is the first one. Why in the world should the government not know exactly what legislation they pass? I would much prefer a more Democracy-type gameplay (Democracy is a series of games where the player acts as the governing party, but it's a strictly single player game, and it's largely based on internal politics, with only fragments of international politics here and there, which should probably be changed should NationStates adopt a more Democracy-type gameplay), where players can alter legislation in various areas at their own pace, but I'll understand if that's not an option. The current gameplay is largely fine, aside from the fact that legislation is definite and absolute, and that players don't know exactly what the legislation will be.
