I dont care about perfect games but he was objectively not playing a good one. I pointed out everything wrong so why do you keep strawmanning me making it sound like I give a shit about minmaxing?
Anon, it's not just the first post you made. In the one you just made before this one, you said that looking at an image of someone not passing reforms made you "violently ill." If you're getting that upset over someone not playing the game how you want them to, then perhaps you do care. And that's okay. >Min wage
You don't understand how minimum wage works. It's a minimum. As in, if your factory was already profitable enough then min wages don't actually do anything. And if your tax rates are low enough then the pops get more buying power as well. Like I said, it's not a necessary reform. >Beyond that, its always a popular reform and will keep militancy down at 0 cost to you.
I already said that reforms are good for keeping down militancy and emigration. And even if the cost is low, the benefit is little. Which is also my point. >No they dont, it increases factory cost and reduces everyday needs for pops by 20%.
I already corrected myself in the post immediately after that one. Please read the thread. And factory cost can increase spending quite a bit, especially if you're running a very large industrial nation lategame. >unemployment
It has limited use, already stated. Ideally you won't have any unemployment and when you do it's only for a limited time. >Education
20% is alright, but compared to how much you normally get from tech it's pretty small. It's nice, but not required. >Yes, it snowballs. Thats what makes it good
No, anon. The redundancy comes from the logic that reform = good and more reform = more good. Sometimes you don't want to pass a bunch of reforms immediately, since it'll get rid of a powerful tool for reducing militancy. And making your pops want more reforms will also increase militancy long-term. (cont.)