Jump to content
270soft Forum

benjipwns

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About benjipwns

  • Rank
    Political Hack
  1. I just wanted to thank you for making these available so quickly, quibbles or little things like the Socialist logos included. It's been great fun playing with these. Two things I'd like in general among them is an observation character to allow the AI to play all candidates. And maybe a bit more leeway in candidates who might have run had the actual winner lost the election earlier. Though I know you've said you'll be adding those down the road. One other thing to keep in mind is that if you select an low ranked candidate (like Champ Clark or Woodrow Wilson in 1920) as say the only Democratic candidate, the party will only poll like 2% in the GOP vs. DEM head-to-head at the start which can lead to the GOP running away with 85% of the vote. Seems like it'd work better if the party (outside the candidate) starts with at least 25-30% of the vote no matter how much the candidate needs to shore up party support.
  2. 1970s v0.1 -First release -Issues updated for the 1970s, might need to tweak one more...note that the description text may still refer to things like it's 2012 -GOP: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Rockefeller, George Romney, Mathias, Bush, Dole, Baker, Connally, Crane, Weicker, Stassen -DEM: Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Udall, George Wallace, Muskie, Church, Scoop Jackson, Shriver, Bayh, Eugene McCarthy, Mondale, Jerry Brown, Fred Harris, Bentsen, Shapp, Terry Sanford, Robert Byrd, Walter Washington, Fauntroy, McCormack, Ted Kennedy, Cliff Finch, Bill Bradley, Joe Biden, Fritz Hollings, Askew, Alan Cranston, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson -IND: McCarthy -AIP: George Wallace (1968 strength, 1970s AIP will have to be separate) (Also Ron Paul as Libertarian placeholder because I did not change it yet) -Favorite sons and further potential candidates (this latter applies to 1980s as well) along with standard tweaks (strength, etc.) to come, likely will create some kind of base 1960s version like this one first https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1970sElectionsv01.zip 1980s v0.4 -Leftover candidates (Cheney, Lugar, Buchanan, Bradley, Cuomo, Clinton, Graham) "updated" to 1980s versions -Couple issue changes (more accurate middle ground between 1970s and 1990s than it was) -Candidate strengths, issue positions, pictures, etc. adjusted https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1980sElectionsv04.zip 1990s v0.4 -Gary Hart and Pete du Pont added -Some minor tweaks https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1990sElectionsv04.zip
  3. Lots to ramble about regarding the course of this project, but I shall refrain because this is what anyone still checking in wishes to know about: 1980s v0.3 -New Alliance Party* added -Republicans: Larry Pressler, Charles Mathias, Nelson Rockefeller** added -Democrats: Cliff Finch, George Wallace, Frank Church, Sargent Shriver, Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, Milton Shapp, Terry Sanford, Robert Byrd, Walter Washington, Walter Fauntroy, Ellen McCormack added -Libertarians: David Bergland (1984 nominee) added -New Alliance: Lenora Fulani (1988 nominee) added -A few candidates strength tweaked here and there https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1980sElectionsv03.zip *They seem to be overly strong in this version, I think I fixed it shortly after putting this release together. **Died in 1979 but added for maximum fictional 1976 compatibility
  4. 1980s v0.2 -Bob Dole tweaked to be less dominant -Paul Laxalt, Alan Cranston, Bruce Babbitt, Jim Traficant, Mo Udall, Scoop Jackson, Eugene McCarthy added -Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Stassen, Joe Biden, Lloyd Bentsen "updated" to 1980s versions https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1980sElectionsv02.zip
  5. So almost a year later...lol The recent addition of the 1968 scenario to President Forever 2016 inadvertently led to a revival of this project. I found that shortening the calender again as suggested did make more candidates competitive early on. So here are some minorly updated 1990s and 2000s scenarios both in terms of calender (now starts about a year before election day) and those pesky candidate colors, with a few tweaks (though some more need to be made as Donald Rumsfeld has become basically unstoppable at times in the GOP primaries): 2000s: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/2000sElectionsv03.zip 1990s: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1990sElectionsv03.zip That's certainly no reason to revive this failed thread on its own, but perhaps this is, an early version of the 1980s scenario! 1980s: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/820953/1980sElectionsv01.zip Who's running so far? Glad you asked. GOP: Reagan, Bush, Dole, Howard Baker, Pat Robertson, Jack Kemp, John Connally, Phil Crane, Pete du Pont, Lowell Weicker, Gerald Ford, Alexander Haig (plus some yet to be edited left overs from the 1990s like Rumsfeld) DEM: Carter, Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Gary Hart, Gore, Gephardt, John Glenn, Paul Simon, Jerry Brown, McGovern, Reubin Askew, Fritz Hollings (plus leftovers) IND: John Anderson Quite a bit rougher than the other two, candidates whose photos are in color have not been "updated" to represent their 1980s era versions but were already in the 1990s scenario which I built off of. (Since some candidates of the 1980s it's much easier to only find black and white photos in acceptable quality I chose to make every candidate in black and white. Pretend it's newspapers, while 1990s is network TV and 2000s is cable TV or something.) Still plenty of quirks to fix (Ronald Reagan bombs on the Daily Show! Rachel Maddow grills Walter Mondale!) and candidates to add but it's pretty playable. One cool thing is that after I adjusted the primary calenders to more accurately represent the 1980s ones with a big gap between Iowa, NH and then the first "super tuesday" is that there is a lot more jockeying for position with momentum fading and others rising to become a late contender. May need to tweak this in the 1990s scenario as I mostly just copied the 2000s setup of early battles. There is one thing of note, and that's the general election can see some big swings in terms of who has a quite large lead. My excuse is that this is realistic since Carter and Dukakis both had 30 point leads over Ford and Bush respectively at one point in 1976/1988. But in reality, I'm unsure why it's happening other than it may be related to me lowering the expected funds for the campaigns. (The debates also seem to play a much bigger role in swinging things.) Mentioning 1976/1988 reminds me that I somewhat built the base party major support around these two elections rather than 1980 and 1984 because that makes the Republicans more or less unstoppable, especially using 1984. If you just pile all the "big names" into primaries you get a lot of deadlocks that have to be resolved at the convention, this combined with some bugs I accidentally introduced into the primary season had a side benefit of illustrating to me a future way of dealing with the conventions as powerful deciding factors as we go back in time more. I do need to move the conventions back to earlier, I just realized last night this should have been done and only now as I wrote this remembered. (Though the gap does have the benefit of having a period where everyone who can't realistically win starts dropping out and allowing for uncontested conventions. And some Veep deals.) I have looked into porting these over to 2016 with the new editor and will put that on the to-do list as it continues to develop. Anyone can feel free to do a port job if they'd like and don't want to wait on me. I will be focusing on 2008 for the time being because of the familiarity with editing it and having the "core base" of the scenarios already built. All I ask for is a mention of credit and permission to build upon your port in the future.
  6. It's strange, I can't recreate that. Though I have with other scenarios sometimes run into errors on my laptop that I never get on my desktop. I will take a close look at those two candidates in particular and the party as a whole to make sure there is nothing I know that causes the error lingering. I've addressed most of the issues mentioned in this thread in the scenarios themselves (outside of those I've waxed philosophically on, which probably won't ever be "fixed") so far and thus am looking towards posting some updated downloads by next week. Also going to start messing with the 1980s, I may also try something with the 2010s in terms of iterating more often since I already have a good number of the candidates from 2012 and even 2016 potentials already in the game and so that scenario could be more about slowly adding candidates. (Unlike 1980s where you have to throw out a lot of the 1990s candidates and you're missing the heavy hitters like Reagan and Kennedy and Mondale and Carter, etc. And the candidates you do have you have to rework, ala Dole who wasn't anywhere near as strong.) If you guys would prefer I also push out the 1980s scenario regularly as more of a work in progress I could do that as well. I don't know if you guys are enjoying the scenarios more just from their whatever state or when they get more polished up. Like my oversight of fixing the colors in the 1990s one before I posted it. I personally enjoy just being able to get in and play when I get scenarios to that point so perhaps I should do that even if "incomplete." (Maybe I'll post my weird testing scenario just for fun.)
  7. I haven't been able to recreate that error so far unfortunately. Forgot to reply to this: As I noted I originally setup the scenarios to be two years out and tried figuring out a way to play that early period. The recent GOP race is probably fresh in my mind with the rise and fall of Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Santorum. But I found it did nothing but guarantee the runaway train of the frontrunner, I have yet to figure out how to deny this and have jockeying in the polls before the primaries. That's why I shortened to April (just prior to debate season last time around, first I believe was in May with candidates like Johnson, Paul, Cain, etc., and created regular debates) and now first Tuesday around August (Iowa Straw Poll) but depending on what I can either figure out or not, I will consider moving it up again. (Maybe I have set things up wrong, but debates don't seem to matter all that much prior to the primaries.) Also as noted, I had messed with issue based endorsers like Sierra Club, Right to Life, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc. to fill in that long empty calender. Along with local endorsers like newspapers. But I found that once one went they all fell in line behind the frontrunner and momentum went even more out of control. (Even where anti-abortion groups were endorsing pro-choicers no matter what I did.) That's why the endorsers you DO see currently are financially focused with a few related to foot soldiers. Maybe I should mess around with a cloned scenario or my old fantasy test one some more than I have since I got these off and running. Try some more extreme settings out. Also should really see about getting some more surrogates in the game, I've seen them be really valuable at times when playing.
  8. 1. Bob Graham certainly didn't have his set for some reason. I'll recheck everyone most candidates should have support 2-4 times higher in their home state and sometimes also in neighboring or otherwise strong states. Of course, for some like in Graham's case even the high end boost still wouldn't make him very strong against an Obama/Clinton in Florida. But that does seem realistic. I will try to "individualize" the state strengths in the future, one reason I didn't just replicate their actual performances as much as try to "rate the overall candidate" is because of that "changing history" aspect to the goal of these scenarios. Not to mention how quickly people drop out so it's hard to "guess" how they might have done. It does seem to be contributing to the domino effect however. (Which also does seem realistic in some regards, winning three or more out of Iowa/NH/SC/Florida/Michigan does tend to "win" you the nomination.) I'm not sure to what extent the AI will target states to setup a "firewall" or do something like Rudy did in 2008 and focus all in on an early primary. 2. Wow, I've only ever seen him win a primary once or twice in realistic fields. Even putting him in some favorable fields it's been rare to see him come out with the nomination. If he hangs around it's mostly in a seemingly proper gadfly role. I just noticed that for whatever reason his strength was elevated in Iowa/NH, must be a left over old rating that went unchanged, correcting that alone should probably put a bit of a damper on The Revolution. There might be a few more of these legacy things hiding in the 2000s one in comparison to 1990s since I had shifted over to working on the latter for a while before coming back. Are there particular candidates or a particular party this happens with? I will try and recreate it on my own to see what the issue is.
  9. Is the link no good? Maybe this one will work better without the spaces: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/820953/2000sElections.zip I got approved to post scenarios on the site so I will consider that going forward as well, and I got a tumblr for this as mentioned, just need to set it up right and make it semi-pretty.
  10. Here is a 2000s scenario beta, I think I fixed up most of the outstanding issues including those related to the start date shift (I spacebarred through a few AI games and it seemed to work okay, will do important fixes faster if found), wanted to get it out anyway since I had been delaying for so long: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/820953/2000s%20Elections.zip Unlike the 1990s one there are some VP candidates since this is where I realized it was dumb to start there instead of leaving a generic candidate initially. Just realized I should make Cheney as a candidate. Need to still fix up a couple things in 1990s to do another beta version, had a busy week so apologies for this not coming out earlier as planned. (And even more apologies for 2000s taking so long. You get changing one thing and then another and even though they're betas, etc.) This was my "first" scenario after my test bed fantasy one so there's probably more weird stuff still lingering in this than the 1990s one where I had already learned quite a bit. Hope this scenario works for everyone. Oh, and I tested something using the Green Party for third party primaries, let me know if that's horrific. I'm still somewhat unsure how to handle a race in those.
  11. Yes, along with Barry Commoner. My intent was to try and include any of the candidates/parties who got higher than 0.2% of the vote or were "famous"/interesting for some other reason. (Part of why I included Griffin, Duke and Stassen in the 1990s scenario.) I did explore going lower to include "regular" parties like the Socialists or Prohibition but kept running into issues finding pictures and just basic information on the candidates. So for the first pass I tried to make it be the top five or six parties. 1980s will likely be the next scenario I start working on rather than 2010s so if anyone would like to make some pre-emptive suggestions for candidates/issues/etc feel free. Dale Bumpers, William Proxmire, John Danforth, and Gerald Ford are a few candidates who didn't actually run who I'll probably be including. Maybe Charles Mathias. Thankfully like the 2000s and unlike the 1990s, lots of speculated people actually did wind up running for President in the 1980s. Especially on the Democrats side thanks to all that losing. (1990s has basically Clinton, Gore, Bradley, Harkin, Tsongas, Kerrey, Wilder and Brown if you stick to people who actually ran AND include 2000.) Even though Reagan-Bush were there for twelve years (and with 1984 being a non-entity) you still had Kemp, Dole, Baker, etc. all taking a stab at it in the primaries. If there's a clamoring for doing 2010s I could be convinced to go that route either before 1980s or after because it is a much easier one to do since finding information takes almost no time. Otherwise I'll probably go onto at least a 1970s one before coming back to 2010s because if I toss in Goldwater, LBJ and Bobby Kennedy you can sorta play that one back to 1968 or even earlier if you combine with the 1960 scenario that exists. I'll keep refining the ones posted as well, though there's just something more fun in getting a basic one up and running with all the candidates and playing around with it even if unpolished than going through and rechecking things. EDIT: Oh, and if anyone would like to suggest some 1990s era (and earlier for later usage) replacements* for the media interviews I'll start "correcting" those. (And suggestions will get me to also do my own research to fix them all.) One thing I did with them currently is kinda exaggerate their positions so it'd hopefully "pull" away from the center and maybe "trip up" candidates. Something along the lines of left becoming far-left, center-left becoming left, etc. Since I mentioned Maddow above, the idea is basically that she would interview the candidates from their left (even if they're center-left or near left) most of the time and someone like Hannity would interview them from their right less than what their overall positions on the show may really be. I have no knowledge on if the game does the real life thing where candidates would just avoid the "opposition views" or not but I did want to sorta simulate that effect with a "pull" to the extremes. *Crossfire, McLaughlin, Firing Line, etc. Even if candidates don't necessarily appear on the shows, going back with the lack of 24/7 cable and its time to fill reduces these compared to today but I wouldn't mind still having a decent amount of them. One justification I make is that it replaces the "talking head" shows that do influence decisions even if candidates wouldn't appear. (Or campaign managers, etc. would.)
  12. As of this moment the following are in: Libertarians: Browne, Barr, Badnarik, Johnson Green: McKinney, Cobb, Nader Constitution: Phillips, Peroutka, Baldwin Reform: Buchanan, Hagelin, Trump (2000 version), Perot, Ventura Then there is an independent Nader who is actually more of a "2000" version as he's stronger than the Green Party (even though he was on the Green Party line that year). There are also Sam Nunn and Johm McCain as independents since there was speculation and flirting and such regarding both and also because I felt McCain at the least was fun to have in such a role. (Same reason I've stuck him in the Democrats as some media types frothed up about such an idea.) I had intended to put Bloomberg and Trump (modern version) in a 2010s scenario, but I guess Bloomberg could be added to this one as another independent. I could add Colbert, though I'm not entirely sure how to "properly represent" him in the game lol. I'll give them both another once over (especially since I changed the start dates and forgot about the colors last time) and post them up hopefully by Monday.
  13. After messing around a bit with it I'm going to move the start dates from the start of April to August (or last Tuesday of July) with the Ames Straw Poll. Still looking at tweaking the support, I've been messing with various changes to my original system and the main thing I've come away with is to take another look at how the candidates are balanced in terms of quantity vs. depth. Thinking of a situation like the recent election where every seeming non-Romney rose and fell, in particular how Rick Perry entered the race as a clear frontrunner and with great fundraising but collapsed quickly. One candidate in the 1990s scenario who is sorta like this is Phil Gramm who was leading or tied with Dole in many 1996 polls, was the top fundraiser and basically the conservative frontrunner and it all evaporated before the primaries. I tried to set him up in the scenario with good polling support but weak in committeds and have mostly seen him always fade as a primary candidate if there's heavy hitters like Dole or Kemp or even a Cheney or Rumsfeld in the race. I'm going to take another look at the candidates and see if there's room to improve and add stuff like this. (Or the inverse, a Rick Santorum type with no money and 2% in the polls sticking around long enough to be the "other choice") Has anyone seen an explanation for how exactly AI candidates determine to leave the race? I've seen no-money, no-campaign "extreme" candidates like Al Sharpton and Kucinich ditching races almost always early on while others like David Duke or Mike Gravel or Alan Keyes will often hang around until the convention. At the same time I've seen someone like Colin Powell be near tied for the delegate lead, leading in the polls and the projection showing him still having a good shot at it and he'll bail after Super Tuesday or before the Illinois primary (roughly the "big" middle primary in the setup I used) and I'm wondering if it may be tied to one of the character attributes? I intend to post an updated 1990s Scenario (color fixes, new start date, a few more candidates, etc.) along with the 2000s Scenario sometime this week. I'll also setup a tumblr to also post updates to incase the forum goes down again. (And it'll be another place to easily go and get the scenarios.)
  14. Thanks for the comments, I'll try to address them: 1. Will take a close look at Gore, I tried to balance him between 1988 "strength" and VP "strength" but there's a good chance I underpowered him. Gore had been almost too strong for a while in both the 1990s/2000s scenarios (vaporizing Bill, Hillary and Obama as challengers for example) so I might have ratcheted him down way too much. 2. Yes, I've seen that runaway momentum issue. (I do tend to see this more in the GOP field, if you notice it's happening mostly there or across all parties, let me know.) I had actually originally started the scenarios two years before election day and it just made one candidate untouchable a lot. I've also toyed with endorsers of various issues in that pre-primary stage but found that once that momentum starts they would all flock to the frontrunner (even things like "far-right" pro-life groups endorsing "far-left" pro-choice candidates) and it'd be over at Iowa. I will take a look at both the support levels and also shortening the pre-Iowa calender. 3. This was an oversight on my part before posting. You'll notice that the GOP field (mostly people who actually ran) generally runs through the entire available color palette. I simply forgot to edit all the Democrats I had recently added. I will make this a priority since it is pretty unsightly and confusing.
  15. Also forgot to mention, actual VPs don't really exist currently. I've been focused on creating the candidates with the idea that I can go back and make a bundle of VPs fairly quickly later. I started to make them in the 2000s one and realized it was better to flesh out the candidates first, especially since a lot of those are also potential VPs. When the AI picks the placeholder I often pretend they picked the "actual" VP (Gore/Kemp/etc.) or runner-up although they mostly pick one of the other candidates so you really tend to see this when you run against an "incumbent" in which case I pretend they just re-picked the same VP. (Which I tend to do even if they dump them if they get "challenged" in a primary.) And almost none of the candidates have any kind of crusaders (for similar reasons), suggestions for some of those (who aren't wives or husbands) would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...