Jump to content
270soft Forum

Arex

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Arex

  • Rank
    Political Geek
  1. Has anyone been able to create ads that are highly successful? Even with insight and a 100% chance of an ad being highly successful, they never are.
  2. I'm having trouble getting too far into the game because I appear to be spending $4-5 million each turn, but I don't think I actually am. It seems like local ads that I only run in a single district at $200,000/turn get charged as their national $2mil/turn ads. That, or I just can't figure out why I'm spending so much each turn (my watch list only had about eight races on it).
  3. Yeah, clearly Bush's advantage in the game is far too great. What I've done to balance things out is give Bush a large sum of money upfront but put his fundraising ability down to zero. This is all that can keep him from raising millions of dollars a day once his momentum gets going and airing wall-to-wall ads in every state. I've also taken out the news story bonuses from his wins in the primaries and eliminated the debates. I rarely run the scenario with Powell or Chaffee on, so it's not really an issue. I do agree that Dean should be farther out front at the start of the primaries, and weren't Gephardt and Lieberman stronger contenders earlier on? Wasn't Kerry more or less an also-ran until he started gaining traction in Iowa? And although I haven't made this change yet, I'm going to: Ohio is in the toss-up column at the start of the primaries on the general election map, while Illinois is Republican-leaning. The end result is usually Ohio becomes reliably Democratic while Illinois is a major battleground state. Swapping Ohio's and Illinois' percentages would make for more realistic results. But I've gotta say, since handicapping Bush in the scenario, election night is almost always close, which makes for exciting gameplay.
  4. Toughie. I like 2008 Wonk, but it's not challenging enough to play as any Democrat. 2000 is a bit boring unless one tries to mount a challenge against Bush or Gore. But hey, those problems come straight out of history. I don't bother with the 2008 non-wonk scenario anymore. 1980 can be a heck of a lot of fun and offers some great challenges - Kennedy, obviously, but also Dole on the Republican side. 1992 is a lot of fun as well. 2004...needs work.
  5. I've experienced the same dramatic poll drops. It happens whenever I win the primaries, but am unable to get my last remaining primary competetor to drop out or endorse me. If they stay in until the convention and are forced out, there's a dramatic poll swing. I think, but could be wrong, that all the states the primary opponent won or did well in get shifted in the general election. It's as if that primary opponent's supporters all opt to support the other party's candidate once their first choice is gone. This only started happening after a recent update to the game. I've experienced it in the 2008 wonk scenario and the 1968 scenario.
  6. I played the game on medium as Obama and swept the primaries like I never have before, so maybe he's a little too strong. As for the problem of getting a McCain bounce, reintroduce the Huckabee Surge in the game, and make the bonus on the GOP side for winning Iowa relatively small. That would probably help to some extent. The real-life events are great. I've been waiting for someone to make a scenario like this, and it was a lot of fun to play.
  7. I ran into the same problem, but I managed to make it work. I re-downloaded 1.6.0.4, but when I was prompted to save it, I saved it as "President Forever + Primaries Copy" and created a shortcut. Otherwise, for whatever reason, the new version didn't manage to override the old settings.
  8. Well hey, whaddya know - the game decided to load! It was a great scenario, other than that one anamoly, which was probably a problem with the game, not the scenario, as you pointed out. I played as McCarthy and won in the end. I seemed to have all the momentum in the general election, up 12, 13, 14 in momentum, but things remained extremely close between McCarthy and Nixon throughout. Whether that was by design or not, it made the game more fun because it was so competitive. No glitches or anything like that.
  9. I was very much enjoying this scenario until I saved my game, closed the program, and later tried to load my saved game - it doesn't load.
  10. It doesn't look like I ever received your email. I'd be greatful if you tried again, this time sending it to my other address: storiesonscreen@gmail.com Thank you very much!
  11. Arex

    1980 Beta Scenario

    Another thing: why is the RNC a national endorser, but not the DNC? Otherwise, this is a really nice scenario.
  12. Arex

    1980 Beta Scenario

    Even though Reagan bested Carter in the debates in reality, I still think Carter's 1 for Debate Skill and 2 for Issue Familiarity are unrealistically weak. Carter's angle in the debates was to speak very technically on the issues to appear more knowledgable than Reagan. Reagan won the debates at least in part because he knew Carter's approach was about as interesting as dry toast to the average viewer, and he played that fact up ("There you go again..."). I upped Carter's stats to 3's in both catagories because, while Reagan was the superior debater, Carter may have been able to hold his own against other opponents who didn't have Reagan's savvy.
×
×
  • Create New...