[1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> [1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority) - 1/12/2022 12:42:33 AM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

Should choice [A] to be +7 to commerce rather than having two enforcement options?
It seems industry more closely aligns with commerce than enforcement.

-Mark R.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: [1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority) - 1/12/2022 10:42:27 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

Public Industry is generally not Commerce. Only Private Industiry is realy in the "Commerce" sector.
So I would expect A to be Government.

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 2

RE: [1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority) - 1/12/2022 11:04:26 PM

mroyer

Posts: 914
Joined: 3/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Public Industry is generally not Commerce. Only Private Industiry is realy in the "Commerce" sector.
So I would expect A to be Government.

Makes sense.
Either way, two enforcements seem off, maybe.
-Mark R.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 3

RE: [1.10.04] Possible Policy Speech Issue (Low Priority) - 1/16/2022 3:48:17 AM

Don_Kiyote

Posts: 22
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

It looks like a Government task.
Unless they are Private Industries, which would be really hard. But that would be Commerce then.
imho
-----
Historically, Socialist government models have been very good at accelerating industrial development. This includes war economies, which are also Socialist.

(in reply to mroyer)

Post #: 4