Jump to content
270soft Forum
dr abc

Britain 2010 - party/leader modifications

Recommended Posts

I changed the party leader attributes, candidate platforms, and party strengths (establishment) to closer to what I thought was right.

For example, Gordon Brown has Charisma 1 (he is repulsive to look at to many people), but Integrity goes back up to 3 (there have not any serious scandals concerning him in particular, especially compared to MPs in general).

Some party leaders have been changed... Respect has Galloway default, Plaid has Elfyn Llwyd (leader of Westminster/parliamentary party)

Cameron now has more of a centrist platform. UKIP has less of an 'extreme' far-right on all issues platform (mainly center-right), and Greens are not a hard-line communist party either.

Some 'minor' parties have been given a boost in establishment level, to reflect their potential and make it possible to play them.

Party funds have been changed a little, but not too sure about them. On the one hand I want playability and the other for it to reflect reality... reality would mean Cameron has 19 million and Brown about 10 million (in-game was 12 million vs 10 million). I will be changing the ridings next and have the same dilemma there. If you have any thoughts let me know.

Tell me what you think of the changes made so far, which you disagree with etc.

Download: http://www.sendspace.com/file/bzdf43

INSTRUCTIONS:

before: make a backup of your game. You can backup just the scenarios folder.

1/ Download file
2/ Copy to your PMFE folder, place it in the scenarios sub-folder. Ie, path something like c:\program files\prime minister forever british 2010\scenarios\united kingdom - 2010 modification v2.rar
3/ Right-click file, "Extract here"
4/ Yes to all overwrites

Finally, how to simulate the Clegg factor? Even with improved stats and more money he rarely goes above 22%. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charisma 1 would be appropriate for someone who was truly despised while also being uncharismatic, like maybe Nick Griffin (though I think he is still a 2). Gordon Brown, despite what the Tory-dominated blogosphere may say, is not actually hated. (He commands about a 30-40% approval rate.)

Integrity in this scenario is a measure of how badly the party was affected by the expenses scandal. In the UK, individuals' scandals backfire on party leaders.

Small parties already perform to well above their potential IMO, though we'll see how they do tonight. I routinely cripple them to prevent massive drains on the real parties.

Don't bother doing constituencies until tomorrow, when we know the real-life data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about ridings.

I still think Gordon Brown should have charisma 1, and I'm not going by Tory CCHQ views.

Nearly all journalists say he is an very bad speaker, that he comes off better over the radio than in person, and that he is a drag on the Labour party (reflected by personal approval ratings vs party rating). I think he is between 1 and 2. I'll see how it affects the game.

For party establishment I take it as reflecting the number of members, activists, and the 'health' of the party. I am considering reducing Labour to 4 to reflect that. I gave the BNP establishment 3, compared to UKIP's 2 to reflect that it does have a lot of members and activists (¬12,000 which is not bad), while UKIP is always disorganized, has a high member turn-over and is currently shrinking. This doesn't mean the BNP is popular but they can organize better (UKIP are more everyone for himself). In-game the extra establishment doesn't change popularity levels dramatically but allows the boosted parties to make more of an impact if played right.

SNP was similarly increased to party establishment 4 (it is one of the two major parties of Scotland, and in government).

I am going to test changing Labour to 4 and perhaps Liberal Democrats to 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about ridings.

I still think Gordon Brown should have charisma 1, and I'm not going by Tory CCHQ views.

Nearly all journalists say he is an very bad speaker, that he comes off better over the radio than in person, and that he is a drag on the Labour party (reflected by personal approval ratings vs party rating). I think he is between 1 and 2. I'll see how it affects the game.

For party establishment I take it as reflecting the number of members, activists, and the 'health' of the party. I am considering reducing Labour to 4 to reflect that. I gave the BNP establishment 3, compared to UKIP's 2 to reflect that it does have a lot of members and activists (¬12,000 which is not bad), while UKIP is always disorganized, has a high member turn-over and is currently shrinking. This doesn't mean the BNP is popular but they can organize better (UKIP are more everyone for himself). In-game the extra establishment doesn't change popularity levels dramatically but allows the boosted parties to make more of an impact if played right.

SNP was similarly increased to party establishment 4 (it is one of the two major parties of Scotland, and in government).

I am going to test changing Labour to 4 and perhaps Liberal Democrats to 5.

I'll look at how these changes work. Also, have they fixed the Miliband picture? (since the version I have has Ed instead of David).

Also, the Conservatives were perceived as being centre-right rather than centrist plus they needed a weak issue (so I made it the NHS) to reflect RL issues.

The Greens also ran pretty far to the left and are L on quite a few issues, while the UKIP is R on quite a number of issues as well. I have changed Veritas' Ireland position to R, and put the TUV leader as an alternate. I will talk with others about changing Respect to Respect-TUSC and Veritas to Alliance for Democracy-TUV.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandal on brown's integrity, when he called that woman a bigot the day before the final debate. The Guardian made a shock endorsement of Nick Clegg too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandal on brown's integrity, when he called that woman a bigot the day before the final debate. The Guardian made a shock endorsement of Nick Clegg too.

I'm personally not surprised, the Lib-Dems were technically to the left of Labour on a bunch of issues, and the Guardian had been growing disenchanted with the party.

I will change endorsers to reflect that, and probably replace the Herald and the Star with other British papers that actually endorsed someone (like the Economist).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...