• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by admin_270

  1. My apologies, I was incorrect about the PIPs value - the PIPs value in question is a default value, not a modifiable one. It's value will be 10 in the save file. Again, this will be after the VP section, and the 'HQ' section, which contains the total CPs for the player, the CPs used, and a few other variables.
  2. That probably indicates the save file is too big. This is a known problem that sometimes occurs, and is on the to-do list. Are there a large number of candidates in the game?
  3. Ok, so it sounds like an error with something either just before the election (like an event) or election night itself. Please let me know if you have any similar problems when the next update is released.
  4. @Wiw My apologies for the delay on this - I had no errors running the campaign from the general election using the latest game engine. Can you tell me the exact date you get the error? Does it happen consistently after loading the save game?
  5. One major reason to have smaller states start is it gives candidates without major name recognition or money a better chance. Iowa and NH seem like fairly good states to start with, as they're both battleground states.
  6. It's in the main save file for a game, but it's tricky to find because it's just a 0 (which stands for 'human') or 1 ('computer'). If the player had a relatively unique number of PIPs, you could search for that in the save file. The type (human or computer) is two lines after that (so, player's PIPs, then player number, then player type). It comes not far after the vice-leader is written to file.
  7. If you undo the change you manually made in the XML (and haven't made any other manual changes to the XML, i.e., outside of the official Editor), and then re-post it, I can look at it to figure out what's going on.
  8. @thr33 It's a good idea - we'll see.
  9. What game is this for, what is the version number (right side of Start Screen), and what operating system are you using?
  10. @PoliticalStudent For random events, what NYRep said. For volatility, Favorability is the next major feature planned, and a significant part of its purpose is to allow for more dramatic surges and collapses.
  11. Thanks for this - the second bug should be fixed in the latest internal - I've noted it to check just in case.
  12. CI's editor is quite old, and is set to be updated after PMI and PI updates. I recommend saving backups regularly while working on campaigns for CI, and testing regularly to make sure they work.
  13. If it's using the default 2016 campaign, did you set the Polls > data for the new candidates?
  14. @PoliticalStudent Thanks for this - I've noted it.
  15. @Nulla Lex Ink. Although the specific error has something to do with the campaign, if you are experiencing a problem importing the campaign I recommend updating to the latest sneak-peek version of PI ( ), which has an auto-import feature.
  16. Have you been doing all editing with the Editor, or have you also been editing with an XML editor?
  17. PR

    After the next PMI update is completing the PI update, including direct pop. vote. There is currently no plan to implement PR, but it might happen at some point in the future.
  18. It's percentages.xml > universal_alienated. Set it to 0 if you want all regions to have 100% turnout. If you want it for a specific region, set that region's general_election alienated value to 0.
  19. Here's a related question. When's the last time a less charismatic candidate in President Infinity terms beat a more charismatic one? 2016 Trump > H. Clinton 2012 Obama > Romney 2008 Obama > McCain 2004 W. Bush > Kerry 2000 W. Bush > Gore 1996 W. Clinton > Dole 1992 W. Clinton > H.W. Bush 1988 H.W. Bush = Dukakis (?) 1984 Reagan > Mondale 1980 Reagan > Carter 1976 Carter = Ford (?) 1972 Nixon < McGovern !
  20. Noted - thanks for this.
  21. Where exactly are you referring to?
  22. @vcczar Thanks for this response, which is substantive and valuable. No, I'm not more concerned with descendants of people who fought for the South than with descendants of people who were enslaved in the South. I'm simply pointing out there are many relevant parties, not just descendants of former slaves, who are affected by these decisions. I don't think the proper way to understand the actions of Lee and many people who fought in the Civil War on the side of the South is simply through the lens of 'they were fighting for slavery'. If that's how you see it, as I suggested before, then the monuments to Lee, et al., are barbaric, glorify slavery, and should be removed. Yet, I've never thought of monuments to Lee in that way (as an outsider, I saw it primarily as a paean to a great General, who fought a losing cause, and to those who bravely fought with him, as well as simply to mark historical events, but again, I don't pretend to understand the culture well). In the minds of people in the South, my guess is many thought they were fighting against Federal tyranny, for local government, kith and kin, and so on, or perhaps simply because they were conscripted. Remember, they were being invaded by a belligerent North. Having said that, many probably thought the future actions of the U.S. Federal government re slavery would cause more harm than good, and some viewed it as an existential threat. Many didn't own slaves themselves (only about 1/3 of soldiers belonged to families that did). Many resented those who were exempt from conscription because of it (the Twenty Slave Law). Most probably thought blacks were inferior (a view shared by Lincoln), and that holding black slaves was a natural right (a view most expressly not shared by Lincoln or the Republican party). It was probably a complex situation.
  23. @President Garrett Walker "I ask you this: what good reasons are there to keep them up?" I'm not a Southerner, and don't pretend to understand their culture well. If you want reasons to keep them up, however, in addition to their historical value, my guess is that the *removal* of these statues is offensive to many people, whose ancestors fought in the Civil War on the side of the South. In particular, people like Lee and Stonewall Jackson, in addition to their military virtues of bravery, loyalty, and so on, probably stand for fighting against a tyrannical Federal government, and perhaps against perceived abuses like the scorched earth policies of Sherman. Contra VCCzar, I also think the Confederacy's heritage is part of the U.S.'s heritage, and has been so since the U.S. conquered them.
  24. Behind all this, I think there is a lack of context of history. Native American tribes practiced slavery, war, and had all sorts of brutal customs. I am currently reading about the Nootka tribe (pacific northwest area) - their standard practice was to take a large armada, surprise another tribe while they were sleeping, kill any who resisted, were old, or were infirm, and then take the rest as slaves. The tribes from which black Americans descend practiced slavery. History is rough stuff.
  25. @vcczar "I don't think the relocation of statues will lead to a slippery slope or to new targets." I am highly skeptical of this. You are already talking about removing Jackson and Wilson! Why can only Native Americans be offended by statues of Jackson?