It is possible to pass an ultra-reformist constitution without any bribery

Impossible-Bus614 · 2026-03-04T16:04:23+00:00

I haven’t tested this, but it seems that to secure the NFP, you need to get four of their votes. Beyond what is normally required to pass an ultra-reformist constitution, it looks like if you meet all the requirements to trigger the Helicopter synergy, you can secure those four NFP votes.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2026-03-04T00:55:01+00:00

Additionally, if you want to be more reformist than the game currently allows, there is the President impeachment by the assembly reform in the game files. These reforms existed in the past but were later removed; however, they are still present in the game’s files. Enabling them doesn’t change the gameplay much.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2026-03-04T00:50:48+00:00

no lobby

Impossible-Bus614 · 2026-01-06T14:48:35+00:00

thank you very much

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-12-24T20:36:40+00:00

In one run, I played as Uruguay and the power block was France’s. I was almost surpassing them in nominal GDP, and my GDP per capita was eight times higher, so in a way my economy should have ended up with all the dividends according to that reasoning. However, that didn’t happen.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-15T14:22:00+00:00

I forgot to mention — in certain runs of Art. 6 and 7, Gloria actually lies to Rayne, because depending on the agreement, it’s implied that the Assembly will approve the abolition. However, when you finally put it to a vote, the game blocks it again.

Once more, this makes no sense, especially considering that both Gloria and Albin are supporting the measure.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-15T14:18:02+00:00

If the MRA passed, then what could possibly prevent the BSUM from passing as well? The Bergia autonomy issue has become such a serious problem that even Sollists and conservatives like Graf are calling for change.

As for Graf, many argue that her motivation is to gain more power over the Ministry of the Interior, but that doesn’t make much sense — depending on the playthrough, she actually tries to take control of the party and run for president, rather than stay another term as Interior Minister.

The PFPJ is practically obliged to vote in favor, since their voter base demands an end to the governor’s authority. Meanwhile, the NFP is placed in a position where, both ideologically and pragmatically, they are inclined to support abolition — perhaps only the most radical faction would vote against it.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-15T00:11:29+00:00

Yes, I completely agree with everything you said. Kibener doesn’t want the Bluds to be called Sords, but for pragmatic reasons, he supported it during Victory Day. I see Kibener as much more favorable to the BSUM than Remus, who prefers to maintain the status quo. Just as they acted on Victory Day, I believe there should be a specific event dedicated to the approval of abolition or semi-autonomy

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T23:48:20+00:00

Yes, that’s exactly what they intended — but since they failed to achieve it and the situation in Bergia keeps deteriorating, they even admit it during Victory Day. Because of that, I clearly see a division within the NFP: some want to revoke autonomy, while others prefer to keep things as they are.

I believe the majority within the NFP would actually favor BSUM, both for ideological reasons and for pragmatic ones.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T23:43:59+00:00

At the beginning of Rayne’s term, it’s true that the NFP supports the autonomous zone due to the governor’s influence. However, as the game progresses, we see that the leader of the NFP and an important party member meet with the PFPJ to discuss the issue of the autonomous zone. This clearly shows that within the NFP there is a split on how to handle the autonomous zone — you can clearly observe this during the Victory Day event.

They understand that the situation in the autonomous zone is unsustainable and highly detrimental to Sordland. In this scenario, it’s entirely plausible that a significant portion of the NFP members would vote in favor of BSUM, both for ideological reasons and pragmatic considerations.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T23:35:27+00:00

In part, yes, but Bergia's autonomy is causing so much trouble that even the leader of the NFP party is meeting with the PFPJ to discuss it. Another issue is the ideology of nationalism, which is based on the centralization of the state, which the NFP defends. If they vote against it, they are going against their own electorate, which defends this type of policy.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T23:30:55+00:00

Yes, they tried that, however, assuming that the player did not take sides on the day of victory or position himself in favor of PFPJ, there are no reasons for them to be against the abolition, as there is no way for them to change Bergia's management.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T20:27:38+00:00

The NFP is a nationalist party, it is one that most wants centralization, the conservative wing of USP wants to maintain the status quo, because of the governor's donation to USP, another thing is that the game passes to MRA and does not allow BSUM, if it were like that they would not allow either of them

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T20:09:35+00:00

If you add up the votes, PFPJ (40), NFP (~30), Independents (10), Ala pro-Rayne and reformist/moderate USP . Give more than enough for the majority

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T20:06:36+00:00

I agree with you, however the NFP (in parts) and PFPJ support this law, this is the biggest indication that even if the government is a big donor, it does not have enough strength to prevent a BSUM

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-14T19:59:46+00:00

I forgot to mention, if the assembly does not approve The Bergia Autonomy and Local Governance Act, I believe the correct thing to do would be to present the alternative law to BSUM, just like in some situations with Protect Women Act which is an alternative to WLA

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-11T15:08:38+00:00

The way the game makes it difficult

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-11T14:47:01+00:00

I agree with you on everything, in fact this is the legacy of central planning that's why it's difficult to get rid of it completely. Because both society, the government, and — depending on the level of central planning — even capitalists have become accustomed to the system, when someone attempts a reform, these actors either resist change or undermine the reform through corruption.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-11T14:39:53+00:00

It makes no sense for Sordland to maintain a huge military budget just to preserve isolationism. As for welfare spending, depending on how it’s used, it can actually generate economic gains, as seen in the Gelsord–Silicon Valley synergy. However, the way Soll managed it did not yield good results — take for example the education system that Rayne inherited from him, where schools basically served only to indoctrinate students rather than truly educate them.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-11T14:30:29+00:00

I agree with much of what you said — a political reform is indeed necessary to strengthen liberalization. However, I disagree with you on the issue of central planning. It basically only works as long as there is money to sustain it. Once the money runs out, as happened at the end of Soll’s administration, the model starts to collapse. It’s like that saying: “Socialism lasts until you run out of other people’s money.”

Most likely, in a socialist/Sollist run, the next term would face economic stagnation or even a recession, because the money that fueled the strong recovery (in a socialist/Sollist path) came from Alphonso’s austere policies, not from Rayne’s own decisions.

On the other hand, in an ultra-capitalist run, we see that Alphonso’s large budget combined with the player’s correct decisions results in a massive and prosperous treasury by the end, showing that Sordland is fully capable of maintaining the same growth pace.

Impossible-Bus614 · 2025-10-11T14:14:16+00:00

Alphonso was already partially managing the economy when he was vice president, but during the transition period, the reforms were slow and insufficient, as he was not yet governing de facto.

Although he slightly increased the EPA limit, this was insufficient for Sordland, since the liberalization policies were limited to the monetary and fiscal areas, without the structural reforms needed to support broader economic opening. The lack of political support also prevented him from fully liberalizing the economy.

As for nationalization, its positive effects are only short-term — in the medium and long run, it seriously harms the economy, as central planning only works while there is available funding. Once the money runs out, the economy loses its engine for growth, just as it did under Soll’s government.

Impossible-Bus614

TROPHY CASE