Jump to content
270soft Forum

Lahbas

Members
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lahbas last won the day on October 29 2012

Lahbas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Lahbas

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday 05/19/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Massachusetts
  • Interests
    Various.

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    jamesrobertmclaughlin@yahoo.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No problem. Now I've been actively working on a scenario, and I've picked up on a few other issues mentioned elsewhere on the board, so the following are my thoughts and observations since my last post: The scenario I have been working on has (15) candidates in it, and I was worried it was going to be a fairly slow game as often it seems to lag when there are that many candidates. To my surprise though there wasn't any lag at all between turns, almost to the point where it was as fast as if there were only (2) candidates or so. The difference in my scenario though is that it starts in the General Election, whereas in the Primary you often have that same number of candidates sticking to the Primary Calendar, and so a selected few States (particularly in the beginning). It is just a theory, but I believe that the game is presently struggling to math the results of a day of campaigning in a single State when hit by a host of candidates and their crusaders. I don't know if there would be anyway to work around that though. A "How-Well-Known" or "Recognition" scale of some kind should be reimplemented: It has been mentioned that lesser candidates should be weaker, and I think that we could tie in their "recognition" with the strength of their actions. Barnstorming would be weaker for someone who is not well known in a State compared to someone who is familiar to voters, and the same would be the case for Speeches, Fundraisers, and so on. Building up "recognition" would be fairly difficult, especially on the national level, as it would largely depend on a candidate making the news or through paid advertising. Barnstorming and Rallies are well and good, but a candidate can only reach so many people, assuming they know to show up or who they are, so it would be subpar compared to targeted advertising; that being said, it can also be useful for generated stories, but those aren't guaranteed. Candidates would have "recognition" divided between the various regions (or States in this case), and that score can rise and fall over time. If a candidate spends a lot of time campaigning in Iowa and paying for adverts there they should probably be recognized, but that doesn't mean their name should have anymore pull in Florida, when narry a dime has been dropped there. Debates would be the biggest single increase in recognition (though not by net, that'd still be Media stories), tied in with their performance score in the debate. A candidate shouldn't have to win a debate earn recognition, so long as they perform admirably enough in comparison to the winner. I don't have a set formula in mind, but it would also make boasting a stronger strategy for weaker candidates as they need to make themselves known. Debates: As debates are currently set up, there is currently little chance for a frontrunner to win a debate once you have a certain number of candidates present, as a sizable number of them will be throwing punches, and you only need so many of those to land before their score is wrecked. To counteract that I think there should be a modifier on the candidates "action scores", their boasting or attacking, based on the number of candidates present in the debate; this would represent the amount of time each candidate has available, so they have less time to make these actions. Alternatively, or possibly in combination, you could tie the success of an attack against the Stats of the one being attacked. In short, the Charisma, Issue Familiarity and Debating Skill of the Attacker would be rolled against that of the Defendant, and would determine whether it backfires, is neutralized, takes, and so on. I apologize if this is already the case, I just may not have noticed, but I believe that any attack that lands should add points to the performance of the Attacker, and any attack that backfires should add points to the Defendant. That might also help to balance things.
  2. @admin_270 I have to open by admitting that I have yet to play a full game of President Infinity, least starting in the primaries and ending in the election proper; often I only play within either the primaries or the election individually given I still find the way the game interacts between the two … odd at the best of times, which can upend what would normally be sensible strategies. Also I apologize if any points or observations I make are those I've made in the past. That being said: Crusaders as they currently stand are not well designed, in my opinion. As most crusaders have a very limited period of use (5 Campaign Points), you often trotting one out just as your on the cusp of expending one you've trained the week before. The player ends on concentrating on a small handful of powerful Crusaders at the expense of all the others, leaving the question of why they are available as crusaders in the first place; I personally don't use most of the Senators or Governors for example. At the same time, I'm aware from some edits that increasing the longevity of these crusaders is quite destabilizing to the game, as it is possible to reach a critical mass where the player can consistently achieve positive momentum, even into the double digits. I'd still argue for making crusaders permanent, in that they don't need to be retrained, but to apply stricter conditions in terms of their use. The pool of points each Crusader has would function as their stamina, which would slowly regenerate over time to an established cap (whether that cap be 5, 10, 25 and so on). The point cost of an action however would vary from Crusader to Crusader, depending on their specializations (it would be more expensive points wise to get a "spin doctor" to barnstorm, as that would not be their preference), if they are alongside the Candidate or his running-mate (they'd rather be a part of major events rather than on their own), or they are "cool" towards the endorsee (they are less enthusiastic about their support and so perform fewer actions). Certain Crusaders would also be restricted in terms of the regions in which they can aid their chosen candidate. The most obvious example are those candidates who are running for re-election, and so usually are unable to spend a significant amount of time outside of their State. As an added caveat however, the actions of "most" Crusaders would have a cost savings in their home states. The cost of a Crusader's action is dependent on the level of the related skill. Part of me feels that the best system would be one that is something in this order, based on skill level; ($5k), ($10k), ($15k), ($20k), ($25k). That would allow weaker campaigns that are struggling financially to still put out basic Crusaders or Fundraisers. I'd also have the cost for a Crusader cut down by a percentage based on how well organized the candidate is in that particular State, and whether they are being bundled with the candidate themselves or the running-mate. Crusaders should be allowed to participate in a Rally action, but the Candidate or Running-mate must be present at the Rally on that turn. Crusaders should have an option allowing automated fundraising, or even a balanced approach between fundraising and barnstorming. You should have an organizational list of your Crusaders based on their remaining action points, on each of their specific skills, and on their home regions. Campaign infrastructure costs make very little sense as they currently stand. It shouldn't cost the same to maintain campaign infrastructure (footsoldiers) in California as it does in Wyoming, else you are providing a significant advantage to smaller campaigns who are now able to affordably compete in larger States they wouldn't otherwise. As an example, let us assume that the cost of maintaining a basic foot-soldier network in Wyoming, with a population of (577,737), at (Lvl 1) would be ($100). That means at the other various levels, as game costs currently stand, would be respectively ($200), ($300), ($400), and ($500). California on the other hand, with a population of (39,557,045), at (Lvl 1) should be ~($7,100), the subsequent levels being ~($14,200), ~($21,300), ~($28,400), and ~($35,600). While those costs may seem exorbitant, I'd add the caveat that those costs would also be dependent on how "active" the footsoldiers themselves are, explained below. Footsoldiers would have a flat cost similar to organization, representing the leadership of that particular network or set, in addition to a cost and power modifier of (0.25); I've never understood why footsoldiers were turned off entirely before the (90) day window of the Election or the Primary, as you inevitably still have volunteers campaigning in the interim. The subsequent cost and power modifiers would respectively be (0.50), (0.75), and (1.00). As costs would rise and fall depending on their level of activity, they won't become money sinks throughout. Footsoldiers provided by endorsers should also come with a cost savings, in that the first (25%) or (50%) of the maintenance would be "paid for", making them that much more advantageous to acquire. Possibly they should cover even more, depends on how it'd play out. National endorsers, when it comes to footsoldiers, should favor certain regions more than others. Certain multipliers should be in place to make sure that there is a more balanced layout of footsoldiers across all the regions, that footsoldiers placed are more liable to be in regions that are close to their political views, and so on. As the Republican candidate, it can be a mite annoying to have your endorsers place (5) footsoldiers in D.C., and none in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Advertising as currently implemented is a bit of a core to manage, especially if you are trying to manage them on the Regional level in combination with the National level. There should be an option to immediately renew and keep running any advertisement that the player has set up. If I have televised advertising in Iowa extolling my candidates views on gun control, I don't really want to go back to Iowa week after week to delete the old advertisement, scroll through the options to pick myself and then the issue, set the budget, and so on; if the setup is never going to be different, why can't the player automate it? It would save a significant amount of time. Web advertising is far too easy to take an advantage of given it just has a flat cost of ($1k), and can be spammed. I'd argue that a Web Ad should be able to run for the normal seven day period as any other Ad, but that the running cost should be ($0.01) per person (assuming we are using a pay-per-view model akin to Google). That would be ~($3.3m) a turn nationally, or a rate of ~($32k) per turn in a State like Iowa, making it a viable alternative for smaller targeted campaigns. Super PACs need a much larger presence in the campaign as they did a lot of advertising on their own, and at the moment I just don't really see it. Many of the endorsers should come with their own Super PACs, such as the National Rifle Association, which then work to support the candidate from their particular direction (the NRA would be running Ads centering on Gun Control for example). Direct Mail should be one of the types of advertising available to Candidates given its rather common usage; honestly surprised it has never been included. It is also a potent means of fundraising, but I'm not sure how best to represent it beyond it also providing a boost to background fundraising. The scale for Issue Familiarity and Debating skill should be flat, rather than gaining points at each level. While I understand this was done with the intention of making it harder to for a candidate to progress to the next skill level, it has the unfortunate side-effect of making it easier for low-level candidates to lose their skill. I'd argue this gives a major advantage to candidates who start a scenario with higher skill levels. I've also noticed that you can max either skill to (10), and then continue training to (80/80). Once you do so it "locks", meaning you never need to practice either skill again. If a candidate is available as an endorser, they should immediately start with the benefits of their own "endorsement". Governor Larry Hogan places a free footsoldier in Maryland for whomever he endorses; therefore, if running, he should start with said footsoldier. I'm less sure though how best to apply this to candidates or endorsers who place footsoldiers on the national level. There still seem to be major problems when it comes to maintaining support for the candidates. Committed voters almost never appear to actually be "committed" to their candidates, and with enough negative momentum their support will plummet far below where it should be. This extends to the General Election as well with Party support, though it is only really apparent when played from the Primaries. Regional Candidates and Parties: These are rather important for a number of historical elections, and there are a number of ahistorical scenarios I have in mind that require them in some form. However these require the ability to restrict a candidates actions and AI stratagem to certain specific regions, which at the present can't be modeled. There should be a way to set preferences when spinning, as while the auto-spin is useful it doesn't always pick the most useful story to spin, and it also tends to bunch all the points into a single story, even when the spin would still be guaranteed success with fewer spin points. If there were a way to target certain candidates or stories, while also allowing the establishment of limits on the number of points or percentage chance per story, it would reduce a lot of micromanaging. I ask for this every time, but I really wish that I could use percentages other than whole numbers. When working with smaller parties that struggle in the single digits, it can be really awkward to round out their support, especially at times when it can cut their support in a region in half, or so much as double it. Being able to put in a percentage like (1.42%) would make some scenarios far cleaner in my opinion. There remain serious stability issues running the game, though I imagine it is a matter of the sheer amount of data the game needs to keep stored. Running a vanilla 2020 scenario from July for example is impossible as the game eventually has a data storage error of some sort and just crashes, and saving some turns before that point returns the same error. Cutting down on the number of candidates does allow for the game to last longer, making me feel that there is just some sort of "ceiling" in terms of data storage, especially as increasing the voter detail also seems to shorten the games' "lifespan". Don't know what the happy medium is yet. Sure I've forgotten something, but then I always seem to forget something.
  3. @admin_270 So unfortunately I've encountered a bug where virtually none of my saves are working. If I try to load them it will either say that "Unable to read from specified game file", or the game will crash to desktop. Now I say virtually none as this seems to only be happening with user scenarios, I have never had this problem with the official scenarios, and it isn't obvious what is causing the problem; this happens even if I've saved at the beginning of the scenario before anything has happened, and if I've merely copied an official scenario and made no changes. That being said, I do have the game installed in the D:/ drive as that is where most of my computers memory is, so I don't know if this might be a pathing issue. I've attached a couple of the aforementioned saves below just in case there is something in there. autosave.sav Bloomberg Wave.sav
  4. Having never played K4E and only dabbled in PM4E, what were the major differences between the two? I imagine that MMP was implemented in some form, but other than that?
  5. For the sake of argument I decided to quickly run through the last House Elections results with margins akin to what happened in 2006; polling has put Democratic support slightly under that though close to it, which would mean a popular vote margin of (~9.1%). This is complicated by the abomination that is California's Top-Two system as Democratic votes were inflated and Republican deflated given a number of Democratic-Democratic races in 2016, but I did my best to work around that. In the case of retiring incumbents I also removed a further (8%) which is traditionally considered the average incumbency bonus for congressmen (~8-10%), meaning in those particular districts the gain would be (~17.1%). Using universal swing, not the most accurate measure but you work with what you can, the following districts flipped: Alabama 2 Arizona 2 California 10 California 25 California 39 California 49 Colorado 6 Florida 27 Iowa 1 Michigan 11 Minnesota 2 Nebraska 2 New York 19 New York 22 Pennsylvania 8 Texas 23 Virginia 10 That would still leave the Republicans with a majority, 224 seats to the Democrats 211, a Democratic gain of 17. "Technically" it is less right now because, again, the polling hasn't put the generic ballot quite at 2006 levels yet, but if they exceed those levels then they can certainly capture the House as a number of districts were on the tilt. The problem though is that the number of attainable districts that aren't strongly Republican begins to drop off at that point, so anything but a narrow majority might be out of reach. Still a respectable result, but the Democratic base, at least given past reactions I've seen, may see anything less then a capture of the House as a defeat.
  6. I always wondered this, and I'm curious if there is indeed a way to implement this even if it means typing it manually into the scenario documents, or if it is effectively dead code that is present for later implementation. @admin_270
  7. Lahbas

    Jones won

    Also it looks like the race will be close enough to force a counting of the Write-In votes, which should be interesting to see.
  8. Lahbas

    Jones won

    Unfortunate, but I suppose this will finally kick the GOP in the ass hard enough that they feel it, rather than being able to shrug off those close victories.
  9. I never really got into Congress Forever and so never made the jump over to Congress Infinity, but I can't even begin to imagine the kind of headache that would be to set up. Not that the idea isn't interesting, it very much is, but I would really have no good idea on how best to calculate the Representatives on a District by District basis for something like the Progressive Party, unless that is I went and translated down Roosevelt's 1912 results to the CD level (and I don't know quite where to find that). The Senate is infinitely easier on the other hand given you are again doing, well, entire States. Not really in my present plans though.
  10. Alright so I'll be honest, I need help. Come to find out I am one of those people who can come up with a basic concept and lay out some figures, but I am completely and totally inept when it comes to some other matters like the issues; not that I don't have them, I do, but I am having a hard time getting myself to write up the seven entries required for each and every one. The issues themselves I need in order to finish setting down some of the other pieces like the leanings of the States, politicos, how events may be effected, etc., and it isn't possible to work around such a critical part of the game, least beyond what I've already done. That doesn't mean however I need the issues written up entirely per se, but that enough of a concept is there that I could potentially run with it myself; sometimes it is literally nothing more than a small push before I can get on running with whatever I'm working on. There are quite a few issues I've been looking at however, mostly from perusing the Party Platforms, and of course a couple of my own additions. There will be notes attached to those issues where the situation may have changed from OTL, especially with Foreign Affairs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mexico The events at Veracruz eventually spill over into war, with the United States intervening in favor of Venustiano Carranza's Constitutional Army and overthrowing the Huerta Regime. However the Roosevelt Administration extracts a number of concessions in return for this aid, such as protections for American businesses in the country, as well as the right to station its military at strategic points around Mexico until the civil situation in the country was once again calm. Carranza isn't content with the agreements in place, but sees it as a small price to pay in the short-term if it means establishing peace and a fairly free Liberal government. By 1920 there is still a sizable American contingent based in Mexico, but they mostly act as a supporting force for the Mexican National Army in its efforts to root out Emiliano Zapata's guerrilla rebels in the south. League of Nations While the same name, this League of Nations is quite different from its OTL namesake; under pressure from the Roosevelt Administration, the actual membership of the League has been limited to the Allied nations involved in the First World War for a period of twenty years, with Germany/Russia/Austria/Hungary/Turkey being blocked from membership for a period of forty years. A class-based system has also been established with "more powerful" nations subsequently having more clout over the proceedings of the assembly or in any vote. Henry Cabot Lodge is also involved in the drafting of the League, so many of his reservations and written into the organization from the start, which allows for the League to pass muster in the Senate. As such, it is not a particularly major issue. Russian Civil War Shortly before and after the conclusion of the Great War, Theodore Roosevelt deployed a sizable number of American soldiers to aid the White Forces against what is now known as the Petrograd Soviet, somewhere in the range of (100k) to (200k), their aim being to secure supply lines for the Whites and to provide combat support where deemed necessary by local commanders. By 1920 General Anton Denikin has established on the surface re-established a constitutional monarchy in Moscow under the reign of Tsar Nicholas III, in reality a military dictatorship under Denikin's direct control, with the Bolsheviks having been mauled over the last year but not yet knocked out of the fight. The question remains as to how critical American support for the Russian Monarchists is at this juncture despite Roosevelt's insistence, and the reports coming out of Russia on pogroms being conducted against minorities and suspected Bolsheviks has nearly sapped any remaining American will to stay to the finish. Agriculture Rights of Labor Basically the issue of Unions National Economy Presidential War Powers There is some concern with Theodore Roosevelt having ignored calls by Congress to withdraw troops from Russia, including vetoes at legislation aimed to end some war-time measures that are presently supporting said Expeditionary Forces in Russia. Taxation The Federal Reserve / Inflation For the period these two issues were naturally a bit related, so I wasn't if I should list them separately or not. The Federal Reserve as established is also very similar to what it was in OTL, as I imagined Progressive pressure would still push Roosevelt in that direction rather than adopting Aldrich's approach entirely. High Cost of Living Railroads Regulation of Industry and Commerce (i.e. Monopolies) Trade and Tariffs Immigration Naturalization Free Speech The Sedition Act has not been passed, but enforcement of the Espionage Act has been fierce since its passage, resulting in many arrests of those deemed acting against the interests of the United States, prominently members of the Socialist Party opposed to participation in the Great War and, ironically for the Roosevelt Administration, some members of the Progressive Party. Enforcement has gotten progressively lax as public opinion has turned against the expedition to Russia, but at times there are claims it is still used to muzzle the largest agitators or as a form of blackmail; Eugene Debs death in the early months of 1920 is often called upon as an example. Lynching Public Roads and Highways Conservation Army and Navy Naturally it is still fairly sizable as total demobilization has not yet happened, with troops still occupying parts of Russia and the Rhur region in Germany. Veterans Affairs Despite Roosevelt's best efforts, service men that have been demobilized are still struggling to reestablish themselves given the poor economic situation and the high cost of living. Education Health Roosevelt has called for but never succeeded in passing a system of universal healthcare. Child Labor Housing Also attached to economic conditions, there is quite simply a lack of available or affordable housing. Ireland There were those that hoped that Irish Independence could be negotiated by Roosevelt and Wilson at Versailles, and now those same voices are divided over how to react to the ongoing Anglo-Irish War raging across the pond. While not a pressing issue outside the Irish community, it could potentially prove valuable if the cards are played right. Philippines Essentially whether the Philippines remains a Commonwealth or goes Independent, and how soon. Asiatic Immigration An especially important issue for those on the West Coast, separate from immigration as a whole. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sure I may be forgetting some, but these are the critical ones which I know I am going to be making use of in some capacity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @JDrakeify @mz452 @The DM @Kingthero @QuickHead555 @chunkbuster11 @Bjornhattan @HomosexualSocialist @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican @RI Democrat @servo75 @koneke @Presidentinsertname @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami
  11. So this was supposed to be a far more comprehensive update to the OP, with a reworked and expanded premise as well as descriptions for the candidacies, but quite stupidly I decided to write the drafts in the OP itself (except for the Republican one), and then proceeded to accidentally click back a page when I thought I was on something else, losing three hours of writing. More or less killed that impetus. Anyway, got at least the new candidates up that I've chosen for the Republican and Socialist parties as well as the new percentages, and an accompanying image to show what the map looks like at the start presently. It may still be tweaked a bit as I figure out how the Running-mates are going to effect it, but its largely set.
  12. Blurb In 1920, the euphoria and jubilation that came with Theodore Roosevelt’s fourth inauguration has now completely dissipated. The United States had found itself drawn into the Great War waging on the European continent, and despite its conclusion the nation has quickly found itself mired in the Russian Civil War aiding the Whites lead by Anton Denikin. The national economy, once prosperous, has over the last year collapsed, demobilized soldiers struggling to find paying jobs and the cost of living increasing exponentially. With the appeal of the Bull Moose having withered away, it seems as if the War has but one more casualty to claim……….. Candidates Progressive Party - Vice Pres. Hiram Johnson (P-CA) - (~17.4%) Democratic Party - Sen. William Gibbs McAdoo (D-NJ) - (~38.4%) Republican Party - Univ. Pres. Nicholas Murray Butler (R-NY) - (~28.3%) Socialist Party - Mayor Emil Seidell (S-WI) - (~5.3%) Prohibition Party - Pastor Aaron Watkins - (~0.7%)
  13. @vcczar That's fine, I'm aware you've got a bit of a full plate at the moment reworking all the scenarios, and your welcome; glad to be back in some capacity.
  14. @vcczar I knew about them not having a popular vote, my concern was that you were just never able to tell which way that "single" voter leaned. The size of the legislature in some the States I dug around for, with New York which had 144 legislators in 1812 (Wikipedia), New Jersey would have had 52 legislators (Wikipedia; 13 counties at the time), Vermont is listed as having 206 legislators (Wikipedia; no real source that I can see though), Connecticut would have had as many as 250 legislators (Wikipedia; 119 towns then established), Delaware had 30 legislators (Wikipedia), North Carolina had at least 190 legislators (Our Campaigns, Our Campaigns), South Carolina had 168 legislators (Some Carolina History Site), for Georgia there wasn't any hard data I could find but based off the Constitution of the time I estimated there were probably about 124 legislators (Likely less given the Representatives aren't accounting for the 3/5ths for African Americans, but a decent approximation), and Louisiana apparently had 39 legislators (Our Campaigns). I wasn't talking about footsoldiers, though I was straining for a more proper term. Mini-Crusaders would probably be more apt. Doesn't really matter either way. The Tennessee result I got from (Our Campaigns), Madison winning out 8,501 to 433. As for the landslides, I suppose that would depend on a number of different factors; last night I ran a basic set of simulations and Madison and Clinton won equally as often, but that was when it was being run from the general. If run from the primaries it is possible that Madison accrues more endorsements then he would otherwise, has stronger finances, and therefore has a much stronger general election start. That's happened a few times to me when trying to design scenarios in the past. -- The results in Ohio from (Our Campaigns); I could more dependably pull that and Tennessee's data from Schlesinger's History of Presidential Elections, but I'm not in a position to make a trek to the public library today. Oh I'm aware about the campaigning, but you can't do much about that without tearing out a good chunk of the game's AI as it currently is. Ironically though this could also be exacerbating your problem in terms of Clinton getting crushed by Madison; Clinton has IF of 4 and a Debater level of 3, compared to James Madison's pair of 5's, meaning that Madison is effectively as potent as Gingrich was/is in the 2012 scenario, but without the attacks from eight other candidates.
  15. Been a while since I looked at anything here, but the progress of the historical commission you guys have set up caught my eye. Just a few matters that I took note of with this scenario. For anyone who is looking at the scenario for the first time, including me, the presence toss-up States with no support for any of the parties is more than a little jarring. I understand that they do lean towards the correct parties at the end and grant their electoral votes, but it would be nice if there was some way to show from the start that these States lean that particular way. This is especially the case in the primaries where it is impossible to tell without looking through the scenario files what your starting position is in these States, which ones you might have a chance in, and as the season goes on, how you are actually doing; given the number of delegates assigned to these States, you can't ignore them, but it really isn't all that fun trying to fight for them blind either. I believe there should be three forms of ads for these earlier campaigns; Newspapers -- (expensive, but with a high power as they have a dedicated reader base) --, Posters --(moderately expensive, but with a bonus to attack and can run longer) --, and Footmen -- (cheap, but have little power as they mainly rally your own dedicated based). It isn't perfect by any means, but it would allow advertising to play some role in these scenarios. DeWitt Clinton is far too strong in Kentucky, -- (He only got 5% of the vote there) -- Virginia, -- (Even whilst representing King's voters in this case, King only got 27% of the vote historically to Madison's 73%; it wasn't a true swing State as displayed in-game) -- and to a smaller extent in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Now part of that problem is that I really dislike using more than 10% of voters as undecided given the wild swings that can experienced -- (In my scenarios I often work with a Committed Bloc of 60%, though whether that works as it should in-game is another matter) -- but in either case across the board I find Clinton being far stronger than he should. I realize that there were elections in Tennessee, but given the lack of information on the vote, and when compared to the results that came out of neighboring Kentucky, I'd argue Clinton's support should be non-existent and that the State be cleared for Madison as, say, Georgia is. The Clinton ticket should have ballot access in Kentucky and Ohio, which it currently does not. The various debates should probably be removed given they never happened. The old events from the 1912 and 2012 scenarios should probably be removed as well, even if they have no practical effect on the scenario as it is.
×
×
  • Create New...