Jump to content
270soft Forum

WagonAngle

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-35

About WagonAngle

  • Rank
    Political Monster
  1. I'm getting the error message "Access violation at address 00516758 in module ‘p4e.exe’. Read of address 00000016" when going into election day in the 1952 scenario that is otherwise finished. I thought that it might be caused by the fact that Alaska, Hawaii, and DC are all set to 0 electoral votes, but I've changed them and it still happens. Does anybody know what could cause this?
  2. WagonAngle

    I Like Ike

    I found this document after a bit of googling around. With some trial and error, I should be able to tab the combined cost of a radio and a TV ad in Texas to just over 6 grand. Then, unless faced with compelling evidence of how much fundraising was actually done, I can just balance things to run comparably to other scenarios. Other progress reports, I've got everyone's percentages in, and the GOP nomination runs to my liking, generally very close between Taft and Eisenhower. The Democratic nomination is still a little wonky, so I might need to toy with alienated percentages or something to prevent things like Russell winning New Hampshire and then sweeping the nation. That wasn't happening in 1952.
  3. WagonAngle

    I Like Ike

    I'm maybe 50% of the way through a 1952 scenario, using actual delegate totals and selection dates (thanks to an invaluable source called Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952. Could have been written specifically for this purpose, had it not come out in 1954). Candidates are: GOP Dwight D Eisenhower Robert Taft Earl Warren Harold Stassen Theodore McKeldin (favorite son) Thomas Werdel (ran against Warren as stalking horse for Taft) Dem Adlai Stevenson Estes Kefauver Richard Russell Alben Barkley Averell Harriman Robert Kerr Hubert Humphrey (favorite son) Paul Dever (favorite son) J. William Fulbright (favorite son) James Murray (favorite son) Pat Brown (anti-Kefauver candidate in California) I will likely add General Macarthur, since he had some minor delegate strength. And probably Truman, turned off by default. The GOP side I've managed to get to be fairly balanced and reflective of the way it happened, so I just need to tweak some issue positions and starting money (if there are any reliable sources of campaign spending from that year, it would be a huge help). The Democratic side is tougher, since the South is tough to model, so I've been having to go state-by-state for most candidates, toying with their committed/leaning/undecided/alienated percentages. And if my assumptions of how those work are wrong, it'll take longer. I'm modeling Truman's participation in New Hampshire by just giving VP Barkley his strength there. My goal is for the Democratic nomination fight to come down more or less how it did: Kefauver sweeps most of the primaries, but not much anywhere else; Russell controls the South; everyone else parcels up the rest. Ideally, it should go to an open convention at least 60% of the time. That might take some doing. I used the 1960 scenario as a base because the electoral votes are the same (minus Alaska and Hawaii), and I've been working on some new issues (Korea, Joe McCarthy, etc). I will hopefully have everything ready for playthroughs by the middle of next week. It can be space-barred as a Democrat to get a decent GOP nomination, but there are still things I am trying to fix. If anyone has good info on anything from that election that would be of use, I appreciate the help.
  4. WagonAngle

    United States 1848

    I got past the 9/3 hang by changing the fractional percentages (.1 in most states) of the minor parties to 1. But then I got list index out of bounds on the 5th.
  5. WagonAngle

    Idea for 2012 campaign.

    And when would that be taking place?
  6. WagonAngle

    CSA 1866

    http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=172286 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=172390 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=172165 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=171827 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=169793 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=169325 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=166487 http://80soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=166768 But my criticism will be cheerfully withdrawn if you ever release this (or anything else).
  7. WagonAngle

    CSA 1866

    1) Secession 2) Secede 3) Can we just skip to the point 3 months from now where nothing has been done on this and somebody revives the thread to ask how it is coming and you say "sorry, but I don't think I'm going to be able to finish this"? It would just save everyone a lot of trouble.
  8. WagonAngle

    United States 1848

    I kept getting errors at that point with my edit of '76 until I removed the couple of new events I put in. I'd suggest troubleshooting events to see if that's where the problem is.
  9. I've done a lot of thinking about how to replicate travel for the 19th century. The best thing I can come up with is to make the stamina cost for barnstorming much much higher. Here's my thought, which has had absolutely no playtesting. Also, I don't know if the cost already has the $ coefficient worked into it (it would be around 4, by the way), so I'll assume it doesn't to make my thinking this through a little easier... Leader Barnstorming (vice-leader would be changed to fit too) Cost 200 (train travel, etc) Energy Points 30 (up from 5, more than twice in a week would be torture) Command Points 3 Base Power 5 Chance of News 30 This would make barnstorming extremely effective, but a once, maybe twice-a-week activity. Policy speeches could have "requires location" unchecked and be toned down a little, replicating open letters. And I'd say that develop campaign should have a huge huge cost associated with it, because it just wouldn't have been feasible in 1860 to be able to quickly build an effective national organization. Also, with ads, it might be best to nuance the type of newspaper ad, since that's all there was. With most papers of the time being unabashedly partisan (like now!), it could be broken down to "friendly" newspaper (no negative backlash), "hostile" newspaper (higher base power but higher cost, huge chance of backlash), and political cartoon (no idea how it would differ from the others, but go to any 19th century election wikipedia page and you'll see fifty editorial cartoons, so it should be in there).
  10. yes I do. I've got most of it figured out, but can't seem to make events that don't crash my scenarios
  11. I just saw the phrase "Wednesday the 25th" in that letter to Lincoln, which checking a calendar of 1860 was April, so pencil in 4/25 for the Wisconsin caucus, though Jan 25th was a Wednesday too. And Alabama seems to have been 1/11 California 2/23 Minnesota (dems, anyway) 1/13 Illinois 5/9 Indiana 1/11 Louisiana 1/24 (source said newly sworn in [as of 1/23] gov. convened state legislature to deal w/ convention. I call it close enough) Mass. 3/7 Missouri 2/29 Virginia 2/17
  12. I think he's saying that should be the results of the primaries going into the convention. Assuming everything shakes down as expected, Seward and Lincoln should usually be the top two candidates, with neither necessarily having an absolute majority. I wish I knew for sure what affects the reapportioning of delegates when either a candidate drops out or during a convention (largely momentum, I'd imagine, with relationship and issue positions maybe playing a part. If anyone knows for sure, that would be an important thing to know for pre-1972 scenarios), so it's hard to say how to model the floor fight. I'd give Lincoln better relationships with the other candidates, to reflect that he was the second choice for supporters of most of the other GOP candidates. Perhaps a big momentum issue right before the convention, too, to reflect the homefield advantage that played a big part. The goal, I'd say would be to model that Seward can win with a big enough plurality going into the convention, but if Lincoln is a close second, he can pull it out. That'll take some trial and error, but it can probably be done. Regarding the dates for caucuses (I don't know if the game models caucuses and primaries differently, but in case it does, I'd just say to set them all as closed caucuses), it'll take a bit of doing, but I think we can find reasonable dates for the state conventions. For instance, I just googled "1860 state convention" and found a link to a letter sent to Lincoln on 2/13/60 inviting him to the Wisconsin state convention. The letter itself is fairly illegible, but it is a starting point, and took me 5 seconds. In the time it took to type that, I found out that South Carolina held their state convention on 4/16-17/1860. I spent an afternoon last weekend poring over the Time.com archives to find better dates for the 1976 scenario, and could do the same for this one. I'm going in for surgery on Wednesday, so I could probably do some digging while I'm recuperating.
  13. For the GOP and Northern Dems, I'd try to find the dates of the state conventions. That's fudgable to some extent, but between the mighty Google and Team of Rivals, you could probably get a decent idea. On the GOP side, you wouldn't need to do a primary for any of the states where Lincoln wasn't on the ballot. The Southern Dems, you could probably get away with slapping all their caucuses on the same day, either on April 30th (the walkout of the original convention) or their own later convention in June. The Constitutional Union Party, you could probably throw all on the same day too, their convention apparently ended on May 9th.
  14. I think you've got that a little effed. Requiring slavery in all new states isn't Center-anything, and your Far-right position turns back into abolition, which is separate. The problem is that expansion and the Compromise of 1850 are treading on a lot of the same ground. If you're set on keeping the issues as they are, here's what I'd do: Far-"left" and "left" can stay more or less the same, though I'd consider spelling constitutional amendment differently. Center-"left" would be something on the order of "allow all states to decide for themselves" Center could be "allow all new states to decide for themselves" Center-"right" could be something similar to "Stick to the Missouri Compromise line when admitting new states" "Right" - would be essentially what it is now Far-"Right" would be John Brown I'd be a bit more conservative on where you put Lincoln too, since he was, in 1860, fairly moderate as an abolitionist. Seward was further to the "right" than he was, and if you put Seward all the way on the Far-fringe, then it leaves no room for the true radicals, not necessarily as candidates, but as endorsers or whatever. The way to go, on most of the slavery issues, is to make Lincoln Center-right (I'd say, to nitpick, center-left, but it is what it is), Seward as Right.
  15. Reverse left and right for, it looks like, just about all of those. The GOP was the progressive party in 1860, which is what left- and right-wing historically refer to. It is no reflection on current politics to give the Republican candidates of a century-and-a-half ago center-left and left-wing positions. That's just how it was in that context. In fact, modern US conservatism (or at least from whenever it was I took my last poli-sci course) is considered to be "Classical Liberalism".
×