Jump to content
270soft Forum

Lyly

Members
  • Content Count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lyly

  1. I lost my (admittedly a younger, more naive) faith in Obama after he arranged the bipartisan sit-down with the Republicans to draft health-care reform plans. That was within the first year of his administration. I felt then that it was an inherent betrayal to 'progressives', as Democrats has a super-majority at the time. Now in retrospect, I still feel the bipartisan sit-down was a major mistake - Obama wanted to make the appeal to bipartisanship in an effort to guarantee a generally popular healthcare reform plan, but Republicans have betrayed any kind of trust he may have had in such a fashion that despite their having participated in (and even DRAFTED) the basis of Obamacare(/Romneycare), they still went on the war path against it and are still raging to overturn it to this day. Obamacare has proved largely popular despite Republican obstructionism and that may well be its saving grace. Personally I happen to agree with Republican assessment that Obamacare is failing, though we obviously disagree on why. Back in 2008 and 2009, I supported a funded single-payer system to replace private insurance, which I believed at the time (yes, despite Obama's own words) that he would implement a single-payer system. I think the mandatory insurance schema is a failure because it doesn't address the fundamental contradiction of funding healthcare as a profit-making enterprise, not to mention the effective monopolies that have come to exist in a large bulk of the states. All the same, I feel Obamacare was doomed to fail from its conception, though I am happy and pleased to agree that it has been a huge advance for the US and, for a time, did improve healthcare access. I also feel that the bulk of the problem has been the ill-dealing of the insurance companies themselves, not so much the government programs associated. But that of course is precisely my critique - the insurance companies are the chief failure in the formula. I agree that in the long run both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will be viewed positively and both will rank at least in the top half of most serious lists of presidents in the coming decades, even if I may not agree with the assessment (that question being something of a rigged game as I happen to dislike every President as well as the office itself). GW Bush is enjoying a boom of popularity right now. I think something like 51% of Democrats in a recent poll gave him a positive rating. But I don't think that an overall positive view of his Presidency will pan out later on in this century.
  2. Way ahead of you: I've been to 18 states, plus D.C. I grew up in East Texas, and I spent many summers in eastern Oklahoma. I now live in North Texas. Isolated counties are because of airplane visits - I've not been outside the airport in either Atlanta or Tampa. I did take a plane to New Orleans, but spent a week there. While in D.C., I also visited Virginia and Baltimore. While in Rhode Island, I also visited Connecticut (accidentally overshot a highway exit). I've been to Chicago by car four times. New York once. I've been to Los Angeles twice, once by car, once by plane. I visited San Diego on one visit. I've been to Colorado via West Texas and New Mexico three or four times. I've been to Houston, Galveston, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi a couple times. I've been to Austin at least a dozen times. Big Bend once. I've also canoed the Brazos river south of Dallas for 50 miles. The rest is various fairly mundane travels over my lifetime.
  3. Very cool! Thanks for sharing. It's interesting to see the relative weakness of Democrats through the 1990s. Also the strength of the Republican party as a whole in Bush's first term. I was a kid during the time, so it's also kind of a blind period in my political perspective. Though the level of weakness of both parties in the current period does not surprise me at all, I'm surprised to hear that by your estimates they are both at their weakest point ever!
  4. I have the latest updated PI (unless it JUST got updated without my knowing), though perhaps the scenarios could be outdated. I don't know enough about how the game engine functions, I just try to be very careful.
  5. Right. Democrats especially have come to view the State of the Union response as at-best an ignored formality and at-worst a poisoned chalice. Joe Kennedy III hasn't been high on anyone's Presidential hopeful list and his appearance in a SOTU response basically confirms the party isn't grooming him for the role either.
  6. To be fair, Sanders is only left-of-center in the broad scheme of things. But I agree the current in Labour over the past few years is quite a bit further to the left than the Anglosphere has been used to. Even Corbyn is a bit to my right, however. As for the EU thing - you may well call it flip-flopping, and I don't think it's the wrong word to use. But Corbyn is historically personally opposed to UK membership in the EU and since being elected leader of the party at the same time the Brexit idea jumped from UKIP into the mainstream, it became fairly disadvantageous to be so publicly pro-Brexit within the Labour party. It is absolutely a political motive, but if Brexit ultimately goes through, it makes little difference which way he felt was best. Also fair to say that Corbyn, coming from a more Marxist tradition, probably has little qualms taking advantage of political capital when he has what he sees as a greater opportunity around the corner if he can keep that capital, especially if - as I said - the exact stance he has is politically inconsequential (as Labour is not in power and thus does not have to actually handle the details of the negotiations, just pick up afterward).
  7. I think if the Democrats retake the House in 2018, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker. If they don't retake the House until 2020, it's a bigger question.
  8. This is very interesting! I have my own very rough methodology, but it's not as systematic as this. Is there any chance you could ever share more from this project?
  9. I have had some stability issues in games I have modified using both vcczar's simulator party and some custom parties, but the access violation bug pops up at different points in the game for me, it's not consistent. My issues occur with a modified 1854 scenario and runs fine when I run the game without primaries, even with custom parties added. I will say, having play-tested 1812, that I have NOT experienced the bug on the scenario as uploaded.
  10. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1820

    Here is the 1820 scenario with updated map! Lots of new states this time around. I will be so happy come the 1840s and the default map alignment can be used again. United States - 1820m.rar
  11. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1820

    I will have the map done soon. Sorry I cannot offer to play most of the campaigns that need attention right now. You can tell I've been away from things for about a week or so.
  12. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1812

    Final version of 1812 should be attached below. United States - 1812ff.rar
  13. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1816

    I played a little as Marshall to test the map earlier, but I can play as King instead (and holy cow so many more surrogates to start with!) and let you know how it goes. Maps will be incoming over the next few days. I have them made, just have to input all the coordinates.
  14. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1816

    If you have it uploaded before about 7pm Central US Time, I can get the mapped version back same day, otherwise it will be Sunday or Monday. I will be out of town for much of the weekend.
  15. Updated Maps for 1788, 1792, 1796, 1800 campaigns Maps now show proper shorelines on the Great Lakes, have the proper border between Tennessee and North Carolina, and identify the territories of the North- and South-west formed from Virginia(+) and Georgia(+). Gradient used to show the rest of the continent has been reduced, but is still present to help provide historical and geographic context. These updated maps can be inserted into existing Historical Scenario Commission game files with no negative effects. Step-by-step instructions are provided below: Step 1. - Download the map attached in this post to your desktop. Step 2. - Open PresidentInfinity.exe; open the Campaign Editor and navigate to the appropriate scenario. Step 3. - Click on the "Regions" tab inside the Campaign Editor, it should open showing information for "United States". Step 4. - Inside the "United States" window inside the Campaign Editor, click the "Map" tab. (It is located next to the "Basics" tab underneath the text "United States") Step 5. - Click on the "Import Map" button on the far right side of the window. Choose "Ok" and "Ok", the maps are already set up for import. Step 6. - The Campaign Editor will open a new window. Navigate to your desktop and choose the map file you want to use for that scenario. Editor should now show the updated map. You do not have to rename the files for this method to work and you don't even have to keep the map on your desktop once you've updated the scenario. However, I would recommend both backing up your game files and saving this map somewhere (you can create any folder you want inside the game's documents without any harm, even inside the scenario itself if you like). An alternate method for updating the map is to replace the map.bmp file in any scenario with the desired map. Here again, I would recommend backing up the original by just renaming it and then leaving it inside the scenario's files. @vcczar @Patine 1788bf.bmp 1792bf.bmp 1796bf.bmp 1800bf.bmp
  16. Lyly

    Final Update: US 1816

    1816 now with a map. United States - 1816m.rar
  17. In any case, the reality for the majority of the people did not come as a coup-like situation as experienced in many other countries which have open military actions when they use the word 'coup'. I'm not here to debate theories, but even leaving room for an LBJ plot, - and I say this about 9/11 too - far more important than the details of the event is how it impacted history.
  18. Oh shit, they look so cute! I love it. Really good work, and I mean that. Pixelart is a skill.
  19. Nice results and nice looking maps/breakdowns! Looks like a fun scenario indeed!
  20. I have updated the maps for the 1788, 1792, 1796, and 1800 scenarios to include territories and correct unfinished shorelines on the Great Lakes.
  21. Paradox tends to make games of a bigger theme than just government management. The closest they come, in my opinion, is with Victoria II where you have dynamic political populations, including economic developments and class-based ideologies, elections, and forces you to interact with your elected or appointed parliamentary body to change social and economic policies. Even so, both CK and Vicky have the problem that they span a huge amount of time while the average political term is 4 or so years. The number of unique events in any given four year span in Crusader Kings is minimal and in Victoria only exists where specifically programmed - it's not as random as a true political power simulator ought to be. My wife plays Democracy 3, which I've been somewhat impressed by, although it's not quite my cup of tea. I have found it has a rather steep learning curve without any real guide. A more extensive game would probably have an even sharper curve.
  22. I plan on including two maps with the 1820 scenario. One will be the default map and appear when you open the game, the other would only be accessible within the scenario's files and would have to be renamed as the default map in order to be used in the game. The reason I want to do this is because the Adams-Onis treaty was signed in 1819 and ratified in 1821. That seems simple enough, but the borders after 1821 stay the same until 1846 and are the ones most people are familiar with. Additionally, the border in 1820 wasn't actually an agreed-upon border and anyone trying to map it at the time would never be able to get an accurate border since it was so ill-defined (hence the necessity of the treaty). As a result, in modern times people aren't too familiar with the look of the border as it might have technically existed, but the Adams-Onis border is very well known. For the sake of folks who want absolute historical accurance, I want to at least include the watershed border, but I wonder if it is better to make it the default map or the hidden alternate that hardcore players would have access to. Any thoughts? The maps under consideration are below: Pre-Adams-Onis Border, as the US technically appeared in 1820, but which was never agreed to or accurately mapped with technology of the time Borders Neogitiated in 1819, signed but not ratified until 1821, though it obviously represented the interests of the United States at the time ((edit - as with past maps, disputed territories which are part of a state are represented as favoring the American position for the sake of simplicity))
  23. This condorcet poll may be of some interest to anyone considering 2020 scenarios. I found this poll posted on alternatehistory.com, so while I can't say who all has voted, but the forum itself is only slightly left-of-center on average. Lots of interesting ranking/versus information. I thought it could be helpful. civs.cs.cornell.edu
×
×
  • Create New...