Jump to content
270soft Forum
EGaffney

EGaffney's Scenarios

Recommended Posts

2009, based on current polls and results, with coalitions based on what makes the most fun. Virgin Islands aren't going to be an issue (presumably the progressive Nordics would have been among the first to let their colonies free).

Didn't think of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you keeping the rest of the timeline relatively intact, ie, will the EU still be a major force? I know that Sweden has tended to be more Eurocentric, and Norway has resisted membership thus far. It could lead to some fractious politics, although they may be settled by 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't think of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense. Are you keeping the rest of the timeline relatively intact, ie, will the EU still be a major force? I know that Sweden has tended to be more Eurocentric, and Norway has resisted membership thus far. It could lead to some fractious politics, although they may be settled by 2009.

Not sure yet. For now, let's say that the country was ravaged in World War II by the historical three-way assault but that it recovered quickly. As was historical, Scandinavia wouldn't be invited to join the EEC at the start. Say an accession referendum was rejected in 1970-72, but an accession treaty was passed in 1993-94, so they joined historically in 1995. Most of the Europe debate will be about how much power should be ceded; only the radicals and independents should want to leave the EU at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issues will be Immigration, Financial Crisis, Personal Tax, Welfare State, State Powers... there will be others as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would change the name of the National Socialists to the Social Democratic Party, because every Scandinavian county (except Norway which is Labour) have a party by that name.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would change the name of the National Socialists to the Social Democratic Party, because every Scandinavian county (except Norway which is Labour) have a party by that name.

It's entirely possible that a united Scandinavia would see different political trends that may favour a less gradualist approach to economic reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this issue is largely academic, on the topic of the Scandinavian Union's monarchy, is there one united monarch as head of state, is it like Uganda with a national president and traditional regional monarchs recognized, or is it purely republican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this issue is largely academic, on the topic of the Scandinavian Union's monarchy, is there one united monarch as head of state, is it like Uganda with a national president and traditional regional monarchs recognized, or is it purely republican?

The king is Carl XVI Gustav of the House of Bernadotte (i.e. the King of Sweden); the Swedish and Norwegian royal line of the 19th century was more positive towards constitutional monarchy, and so Scandinavia has developed along the lines of the modern Scandinavian monarchies, though in a federal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No major updates. No progress on any scenarios to report. However, I finally found a picture of James Kilfedder for the UK - 1992 scenario. Thanks to whoever uploaded the election night coverage to YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constituencies now 100% complete. I am finding issues and positions based on contemporary manifestos. Then it will be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just discovered this thread Gaffers.

Usually when I go to the message board I access scenario creation and then go to the country of interest.

I didn't realise that any threads existed in scenario creation outside of the countries.

It seems I have a really big problem with scrolling down a page!!!

Anyhow, I have downloaded the UK 1979 scenario to take a look at and I have a number of comments about it having only played it once.

I will assume that you are still looking for suggestions to improve the scenarios.

I know you don't mind criticisms in public so hear goes;

I have emailed correct Lib and Lab logos to you along with correct photos for Evans and Wolfe.

Callaghan description

Interesting take on JC's election date desires. Not sure he was hoping to hang on until Autumn 1979. Many were expecting him to call it for Autumn 78.

Experience rating

Steel and Thatcher had similar amounts of experience both in terms of their tenure as MPs and party leader, and both had minor government experience, albeit in differing ways. You rate Thatcher at 3 and Steel at 2 instead of say 3 and 3.

Initial Party finances

In comparison with their British counterparts, all the Irish parties seem to have rather a lot of money. One of the weaknesses of the game is that it permits Irish parties, played by the computer, to put out attack ads on British parties. Over funded Irish parties could do serious damage to a scenario in a non-realistic way.

Nationalist party finances

Both the SNP and PC also seem to have a bit too much money although this is less of a problem.

Starting position

I would have prefered to see a starting position that was more in Labour's favour. Anyone looking to play as Conservative will start the game and feel that the job is already done as they start with a majority. I don't recall the state of the opinion polls in March 1979 so don't know how accurate the starting position is. It looks as if you just use the 1979 election results as your starting point. Better to use 1974 as a starting point in my view.

Playing the game from a Northern Ireland perspective

It is awkward and irritating to play a scenario where you have to keep scrolling up and down and left and right. This is particularly true when you are trying to view ridings. Ideally, the Northern Ireland part of the election should be contained in 'one view' as much as possible. This means that the order in which the parties is listed is important with the key elecroral contests taking place between party numbers 5,6,7 and 8. Your 5,6,7 and 8 are OUP, DUP, SDLP and IndU. I would have dropped IndU down the list to appear on the next page as they only field 6 candidates, none of which seem likely to feature in a close race. I would elevate up to 8, the APNI who run 12 candidates and have at least one in a close contest.

Playing the game from a Nationalist perspective

Anyone wanting to play as SNP has a nice experience as their party is listed at 4. Anyone wanting to play PC has a horrendous experience as their party is listed at 11, two pages away from their opponents. To make the PC experience the same as the SNP experience, I would group the SNP and PC together as the 4th party with two leader options.

Endorsers

I'm not sure if the Sun was openly pro-Conservative in 1979. Having all endorsers as 'general' endorsers is a bit boring. I usually disable endorsers files anyway.

Issue positions

Too many issue position descriptions are too long and therefore unreadable. (picked up in thread already)

Education

Libs should be CL, albeit with a different description.

Issue profiles

Housing

Tory policy to allow council tenants to buy their homes was regarded as a key vote winner and was fairly central to their campaign but starts with a low priority. Unless events change this, it should be given a high priority.

Devolution

Medium profile a bit low given the high profile the issue generated in last parliament.

Immigration

High profile a bit high in my view. I would agree with the profile rating if the issue and positions were more Race Relations orientated.

Trade Unions

Medium profile is too low given the part played by the Unions in the winter of discontent. Should be Very High.

Regional variables file

Still got US State descriptions for nicknames. I would NEVER consider taking my holiday in the North of England.

Undecides

The ability of the game to react to things done by the players, human or computer is restricted by there being only 4% undecideds at the start. In my view, this should be increased to make it worth playing. This is the really important bit as this determines everything else in the game.

Things I liked

Events - I usually don't bother - respect.

most of the stuff I did not comment on.

Given what has been done by others, 1979 is pretty much a scenario from scratch and clearly a lot of effort has gone in.

Things I like which were not in the scenario

Sitting members being identified in the ridings files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logos: Thanks. I really do need graphics for every election before 1983, because "flavour material" from the old days is very rare on the internet as opposed to surnames/votes/manifestos.

Callaghan: He certainly did not want a May election, high turnout tends to hurt Labour and much of their long-term strategy involves depressing turnout, so cold months are better. But the vote of no confidence obviously forced his hand.

Steel: I forgot about the pact when drawing up his stats.

NI money: I will give them 50 relationship with the British parties.

Nationalists: They have been balanced to provide reasonable results. Less money or org points and they do badly. As for merging them, that would require yet more rebalancing, i.e. bonuses to compensate for their newly-stretched campaign, with undesirably "gamey" consequences for the human player. (This is also in part an aesthetic disagreement between us about whether four parties is optimal; I don't think it matters too much to scroll around with an inconsequential party like Plaid Cymru, where you can more or less remember their score in the seats where they matter.)

Starting position: This has also been balanced to compensate for the trend that happens in most games, so that "on average" space-barring as the Alliance Party (i.e. effectively running it as a demo) gives an accurate result. Starting with 1974 obviously gives you a Labour majority or near-majority - my understanding is that most of the damage to the government was already done by the time the election started, so 1974 figures would give persistently incorrect results without unrealistic events that swing it to Thatcher. The scenario isn't such a Tory landslide that I need to doctor the results in order to make it fun.

NI parties: I don't really see the problem here. Alliance are not going to win anything, they are programmed to be too weak.

Endorsers: The Sun wasn't pro-Conservative.

Issues: Get PM4E Canada already! I will make changes to Education, Housing, etc. Devolution should not matter as an election issue in England, which in fairness does comprise the vast majority of seats.

Regional variables: I don't think nicknames appear in the game, do they?

Undecideds: Again, a difference between us on scenario design. I think high undecided figures can produce ridiculous results in UK elections, where there was strong voter identification with parties (at least in the 1970s). In particular, a human player can abuse his/her knowledge that the undecideds are a cheap source of early votes to win a big advantage over the computer. This is a popular tactic on the high-undecided Canadian scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callaghan: He certainly did not want a May election, high turnout tends to hurt Labour and much of their long-term strategy involves depressing turnout, so cold months are better. But the vote of no confidence obviously forced his hand.

Starting position: This has also been balanced to compensate for the trend that happens in most games, so that "on average" space-barring as the Alliance Party (i.e. effectively running it as a demo) gives an accurate result. Starting with 1974 obviously gives you a Labour majority or near-majority - my understanding is that most of the damage to the government was already done by the time the election started, so 1974 figures would give persistently incorrect results without unrealistic events that swing it to Thatcher. The scenario isn't such a Tory landslide that I need to doctor the results in order to make it fun.

NI parties: I don't really see the problem here. Alliance are not going to win anything, they are programmed to be too weak.

Issues: Devolution should not matter as an election issue in England, which in fairness does comprise the vast majority of seats.

Regional variables: I don't think nicknames appear in the game, do they?

Undecideds: Again, a difference between us on scenario design. I think high undecided figures can produce ridiculous results in UK elections, where there was strong voter identification with parties (at least in the 1970s). In particular, a human player can abuse his/her knowledge that the undecideds are a cheap source of early votes to win a big advantage over the computer. This is a popular tactic on the high-undecided Canadian scenarios.

Callaghan: Election studies pre 1990s always concluded that low turnouts hurt Labour. It was believed that Labour supporters were generally less determined to vote and could more easily be put off by bad weather. (fewer car owners than Tory voters) Regarding preferred election date, it is hard to work out exactly what was going through JCs head, see below. As far as scenarios are concerned, this is all irrelevenat.

Starting position: Opinion polls in the Autumn of 1978 showed a Labour lead. After the Winter of Discontent, this had disappeared, but I don't have the figures just going from memory.

NI parties: If you are going to enable people to play as the Alliance, then their experience ought to be better. The same applies to PC. Frankly I would not bother changing it but it is worth noting for future.

Issues: Fair point but some English voters have always felt that it should to the point where the issue has on more than one occasion been the most important issue of the election. Perhaps it is a case of the issue profile being an enabling rather than a disabling feature.

Regional variables: Throughout - check file to amend.

Undecideds: I don't disagree. It comes down to how you want to design a historical scenario.

1.If you start off with the finishing result and few undecideds, you are in effect saying to the player, you can do what you like but this is going to be the outcome and you can't change it.

2. If you start with the previous election result or the pre-campaign opinion poll position, build in a realistic bias to reflect electoral historical movement during the campaign, give a decent amount of undecideds, then you end up with a campaign that can be more receptive to a players actions whilst seeing the graph lines go up and down, which is usually what happens in an election.

The latter is more difficult but I think ultimately more satisfying to the player.

With regard to elections in the 70s, I'm not sure how these differ but remember reading an electoral study of the October 74 election, (which ended up with a similar result to the February 74 election) revealing that about 1 million voters changed the way they voted. (actually I can't remember the figure but the point was that party loyalty was weak). Perhaps you are right about few undecideds with regard to elections in the 50s.

I agree with you about human abuse of undecideds being a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1982 UK alternate scenario

I havn't played this yet - not sure if I will as it just seems too one sided. But some initial observations;

When I open it the first day is shown as (no typo) Thursday, May 13rd, 1982. The following day appears correctly as Friday, May 14th, 1982. Weird.

Some nitpicking

Thatcher's biog talks about something called the Falkland's War, which I have never heard of!!!

There is no explanation anywhere on why or how the general election has come about 2 years sooner than it needed to.

I agree with the endorser comments made earlier.

I think this scenario needs a strong set of events to make the alternative world aspect of it come alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1982 UK alternate scenario

I havn't played this yet - not sure if I will as it just seems too one sided. But some initial observations;

When I open it the first day is shown as (no typo) Thursday, May 13rd, 1982. The following day appears correctly as Friday, May 14th, 1982. Weird.

Some nitpicking

Thatcher's biog talks about something called the Falkland's War, which I have never heard of!!!

There is no explanation anywhere on why or how the general election has come about 2 years sooner than it needed to.

I agree with the endorser comments made earlier.

I think this scenario needs a strong set of events to make the alternative world aspect of it come alive.

I can't do anything about things that are hard-coded into the game. I will remove the problematic apostrophe. I can't think of a good explanation as to the election date, it makes no sense from a strategic viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will remove the problematic apostrophe.

The problem bit is not the apostrophe but the War - you said there wasn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem bit is not the apostrophe but the War - you said there wasn't one.

AH. I see, yeah I think it was too early for the war when I first designed it but didn't bother changing files

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×