New decision progression system

[GarwelGarwel]

Decision progression options:

• List: simply choose any applicable decision. Decisions from the alternative route (democratic or authoritarian) are locked immediately or if you have at least N incompatible decisions (it is something similar to the old system of regime types). Pros: more freedom for the player, may work for a greater number of play styles. Cons: the choice may be overwhelming.
• Linear: each decision unlocks the next one, ever more powerful. Pros: simple, intuitive, "one-click" progression. Cons: rigid, may force players to adopt decisions they don't like just to unlock the next ones.
• Choice tree: each decision leads to a few others, which may be mutually exclusive. Pros: creates meaningful choices, improves replayability. Cons: not all decisions are "either-or", so it may be too artificial, the number of potential decisions has to be much higher (at least 2^N, where N is the total number of active decisions in late game).
• Inclusive tree: each decision leads to one or more other decisions, which can be activated simultaneously (like the tech tree). It combines features of a list and a choice tree. Pros: more manageable and sensible choices than a list, clearer progression, more options for the player than a choice tree. Cons: less intuitive, may need a different UI with visual connections.
• Independent choices: decisions are divided into groups of alternative options, e.g. between egalitarianism and elitism. The groups are independent of one another. Pros: another compromise between a list and a choice tree; allows more replayability without having to create too many decisions; player can choose reforms in any order. Cons: too many simultaneously available options, not all combinations of decisions will make sense.
• Random opportunities: available decisions are generated from time to time (e.g. based on the leader's preferences, popular demand, governance quality etc.), and the player may either support or oppose/ignore them. Pros: makes each playthrough unique, creates an element of surprise, gives pawns more "agency". Cons: takes agency away from the player, makes gameplay more reactive.

[GarwelGarwel]

In the case of independent choices, the first such choice is probably the decision-making process itself: autocracy (the decision must be approved by the leader) vs direct democracy (decisions must be approved by the majority of citizens). In the future, there may also be other options added: parliamentarism (decisions approved by the council), consensus (decision must be approved by all citizens, but how to balance it?) etc. Obviously, this choice doesn't require anyone's approval, and it is needed to make any other decisions.