Actually, I'd say it was either Cities Skylines or Democracy 3.
Cities Skylines can be pretty rough because it kind of ushers you towards a NeoLiberal Corporatist hellscape, especially with it's industries mod (where you, as the state, run entire industrial corporate colonies). Additionally, there's a lot of crazy controls over movement you have, and a lot of subtle mechanisms that make your horrific infrastructure plans profitable. This includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work, without anyone getting super pissed off. Or the fact that people will actively go hours out of their way to go to overly expensive parks.
Democracy 3 is a ridiculous game because of so many Neoliberal pre-suppositions. Increasing Armed Police doesn't decrease crime; it actually increases ARMED ROBBERIES. You know what increased armed robberies at a 1:1 scale? Lax gun control. Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
I got the Africa expansion to try out, and I took over some former communist, currently islamist, hellscape. In 7 years, I went from having coup threats, extreme crime, active race riots and sectarian murders, total poverty, and an AIDS crisis to: no crime, riots, sectarianism, or coups, but a continuing problem with AIDS... in Africa. Literally no crime. In 7 years, my approval rating went from 0% to... 0%. I SOLVED CRIME AND TURNED YOU INTO A MIDDLE-CLASS COUNTRY AND YOU WANT TO ASSASSINATE ME?!!
Fucking Duterte became massively popular with his "kill all the drug dealers in the street" program. Fucking Idi Aminate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Now I understand why Neo-Liberals are like "oh just let out all the criminals out!" It's because they literally can't imagine that rampant crime would effect their popularity.
On the other hand, it can be fun to go full gremlin mode and create a city in such a way that it would make your average Modernist NeoLiberal city planner want to pull his hair out (as much as the game will let you anyway).
My typical cities consist of:
Almost everywhere that can be accessed by mass transit can also be accessed by car. And any that cant will at least let you get close. And of course, the road network will not be hostile to motorist (multiple lanes, highways, good access, no reserved lanes, etc).
Extensive suburban and single-family housing for those who dont want to live in downtown apartments with the Bugmen.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be an office drone downtown.
Power provided by reliable means, which means a mix of both "traditional" power (coal and oil), as well as reasonable renewables. This then goes out the window once Nuclear is unlocked and the grid becomes 100% nuclear.
Harsh enforcement of laws by an aggressive police force to keep the criminals in the slammer where they belong.
The main funded and endorsed universities are a Research University and a Trade School, because they are actually important.
If any of the above offends you, you can either live downtown with the Bugmen, or live in the district I dubbed the "Hippie Ghetto", where non-electric vehicles are banned, roads are hostile to motorist (take the tram you smelly Hippie!), housing is "eco-friendly", businesses are organic and social justice-minded, and its also where we dumped the Liberal Arts college. Oh, and I hope you like the additional 2% tax on your business and home for the trouble of stinking up my city, assmunch.
= literal libtard delusion simulator. The developers of that "game" are open about their left wing politics and rig their game so that unless you play it like you're AOC or Bernie, you'll fail.
I have to agree with you on this. Dealing with AIDS is the only time I got close to having any amount of popular support. Race riots, ethnic violence, and poverty were utterly rampant, but as long as I funded The Science enough, my approval went up. Nonsense.
includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work
I never actually played the Pete Buttigieg DLC.
Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
Guns cause crimes. What's so hard to understand? That's almost the entirety of the argument I get from anyone saying we need more gun laws. Guns kill people.
Fucking Idi Amin ate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Well... they say 20% of any population will always be cannibals. Give or take.
Yeah, the game literally has mechanisms to allow you to do that without destroying the city. It has to make everyone retarded to do it, but it does do it.
Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.
Actually, I'd say it was either Cities Skylines or Democracy 3.
Cities Skylines can be pretty rough because it kind of ushers you towards a NeoLiberal Corporatist hellscape, especially with it's industries mod (where you, as the state, run entire industrial corporate colonies). Additionally, there's a lot of crazy controls over movement you have, and a lot of subtle mechanisms that make your horrific infrastructure plans profitable. This includes bulldozing all the roads and making literally everyone cycle from home to work, without anyone getting super pissed off. Or the fact that people will actively go hours out of their way to go to overly expensive parks.
Democracy 3 is a ridiculous game because of so many Neoliberal pre-suppositions. Increasing Armed Police doesn't decrease crime; it actually increases ARMED ROBBERIES. You know what increased armed robberies at a 1:1 scale? Lax gun control. Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
I got the Africa expansion to try out, and I took over some former communist, currently islamist, hellscape. In 7 years, I went from having coup threats, extreme crime, active race riots and sectarian murders, total poverty, and an AIDS crisis to: no crime, riots, sectarianism, or coups, but a continuing problem with AIDS... in Africa. Literally no crime. In 7 years, my approval rating went from 0% to... 0%. I SOLVED CRIME AND TURNED YOU INTO A MIDDLE-CLASS COUNTRY AND YOU WANT TO ASSASSINATE ME?!!
Fucking Duterte became massively popular with his "kill all the drug dealers in the street" program. Fucking Idi Amin ate people and had support from at least 20% of the country!!!
Now I understand why Neo-Liberals are like "oh just let out all the criminals out!" It's because they literally can't imagine that rampant crime would effect their popularity.
On the other hand, it can be fun to go full gremlin mode and create a city in such a way that it would make your average Modernist NeoLiberal city planner want to pull his hair out (as much as the game will let you anyway).
My typical cities consist of:
Almost everywhere that can be accessed by mass transit can also be accessed by car. And any that cant will at least let you get close. And of course, the road network will not be hostile to motorist (multiple lanes, highways, good access, no reserved lanes, etc).
Extensive suburban and single-family housing for those who dont want to live in downtown apartments with the Bugmen.
Manufacturing jobs available in abundance for those who dont want to be an office drone downtown.
Power provided by reliable means, which means a mix of both "traditional" power (coal and oil), as well as reasonable renewables. This then goes out the window once Nuclear is unlocked and the grid becomes 100% nuclear.
Harsh enforcement of laws by an aggressive police force to keep the criminals in the slammer where they belong.
The main funded and endorsed universities are a Research University and a Trade School, because they are actually important.
If any of the above offends you, you can either live downtown with the Bugmen, or live in the district I dubbed the "Hippie Ghetto", where non-electric vehicles are banned, roads are hostile to motorist (take the tram you smelly Hippie!), housing is "eco-friendly", businesses are organic and social justice-minded, and its also where we dumped the Liberal Arts college. Oh, and I hope you like the additional 2% tax on your business and home for the trouble of stinking up my city, assmunch.
= literal libtard delusion simulator. The developers of that "game" are open about their left wing politics and rig their game so that unless you play it like you're AOC or Bernie, you'll fail.
I have to agree with you on this. Dealing with AIDS is the only time I got close to having any amount of popular support. Race riots, ethnic violence, and poverty were utterly rampant, but as long as I funded The Science enough, my approval went up. Nonsense.
I never actually played the Pete Buttigieg DLC.
Guns cause crimes. What's so hard to understand? That's almost the entirety of the argument I get from anyone saying we need more gun laws. Guns kill people.
Well... they say 20% of any population will always be cannibals. Give or take.
Yeah, the game literally has mechanisms to allow you to do that without destroying the city. It has to make everyone retarded to do it, but it does do it.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.