Jump to content
270soft Forum
European Qoheleth (SANC)

Prime Minister Forever British 2015

Are You Interested In A New Prime Minister Forever British game whether or not it has my suggestions?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Are You Interested In A New Prime Minister Forever British Game Whether Or Not It Has My Suggestions?

    • Yes
      18
    • Not Sure
      1
    • No
      2


Recommended Posts

The election may be a long way off but I for one would certainly get this game especially since the new engine for 270soft games has virtually no bugs as opposed to the common bugs that made me give up on the last British game albeit after 2 years or so. I have a few ideas;

Slightly More Detail (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Having the Command Strength etc. as seen in President Forever 2016 as well as the economy benefiting or hurting the incumbent. In the last British game a party with a How Established of less than 3 was basically paralysed. I beg that every party will be at 5 for everything except corruption as all of the parties are very well established by now. Introduce decimalisation of votes percentage down to xx.xx or a percentage or 2 will go missing.

Footsoldiers

At the start of the game a party gets a footsoldier for every MP, MEP, member of the London Assembly or Scottish Parliament or Welsh or Northern Ireland Assembly, police and crime commisioner and local government representative it has in that region as opposed to the last British game's system of more momentum gives you a better chance of getting footsoldiers. The footsoldiers will be spread according to the strength of the candidate in a particular constituency with a 5 star candidate getting 2 footsoldiers more than the average in his constituency (for example 300 footsoldiers in the region and 100 constituencies in the region so the average is 3 but a 5 star candidate gets 5 footsoldiers) a 4 star candidate gets 1 more than the average while a 3 star candidate gets the average and a 2 star candidate gets 1 less than the average. I recommend not making the game until after the election has ended so then the candidates could be assigned strengths based on where they came in the constituency with 1st place getting 5 stars and 2nd 4 stars etc. You won't be able to create new footsoldiers but targeting will still make barnstorming more effective in the targeted constituency.

An Alienated Group (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

As a party has committed and leaning voters an alienated group would be a good idea as well. Currently momentum is the be all and end all but for example not many DUP voters would switch to Sinn Fein no matter how well that candidate might be doing so I propose that there a maximum share of the vote that a candidate can get in his or her seat. For every personality trait or candidate strength in the constituency below 5 or distance from the issue position centre multiplied by the profile the candidate's maximum possible share of the vote goes down by that.

Let's use a Labour (led by Michael Foot) candidate in a constituency as a (near worst case) example:

Leadership 1 Very High profile (4 x 4 =16)

Experience 5 Low profile

Integrity 4 Low profile (1 x 1 = 1)

Issue Familiarity 3 Low profile (2 x 1 = 2)

Trade Unions Centre-Left Very High profile (Regional centre is centre-right) (2 x 4 = 8)

Nuclear Weapons Far-Left Very High profile (Regional centre is centre-right) (4 x 4 =16)

Government Far-Left Very High profile (Regional centre is centre-right) (4 x 4 =16)

Candidate Strength is 3 (=2)

So in this constituency the maximum share of the vote the candidate can get is 39 as the deductions add up to 61. This system will make the game less about momentum and more about the issues and the party leaders alike and therefore will in of itself make the game harder but not atrociously so. Even in the above example the candidate isn't guaranteed to lose but the platform and quality of the leader do mean that the maxium share of the vote the candidate can get is far from 100%.

Adjusted Leaning And Committed (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Anything less than 100 committed means 4 attack ads ran at the same time can tear through the party on the receiving end and enormously boost ones own so much that you can win in 1992 with over 80% of the vote (as Labour!) on easy but even for easy that's ridiculous. Then again maybe weaker ads would be a better idea.

Ad Changes (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Rather than a boasting or a negative ad there will be an option of an ad that does both. The ad will hurt your opponent and help you in equal measure. Ads' costs will be their only cost, they will run for free with the running costs included in the price of creating the ad. This is just to simplify things and really there's no point in a party being able to complete an ad if they can't run it anywhere. Also a party can only have 1 ad at a time, that should make the game more balanced. Since the ad types besides national were unnecessary because national ads were so powerful we might as well just have one ad type. Also since negative ads are so powerful this time they won't get an attack bonus but can't backfire either.

Different Map And Regions (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

The regions are sized according to how many seats are there. Every city is its own region (Labour v Conservative depends a lot on city v countryside as any map will tell you) apart from London and Belfast which get 2 (Outer and Inner London) and West and East Belfast as cities tend to go the same way pretty much but there's a divide within cities in these 2 cases. Rather than being this county or that I suggest that the rural areas be Rural South East or Rural North East or whatever. This list helps; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

Adjusted Difficulty (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

All parties will do everything at every difficulty but on easy or hard your party will start off having leeched/lost 1% from/to each party in each seat that your party contests. The AI will do its best to keep up with the amount of footsoldiers you have in every seat.

Different Coloured Backgrounds (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Dark blue is a pretty boring colour. I'd suggest switching to yellow or the background changes according to which party you play as.

*Being able to play against other players on a different computer.

Endorsers (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Endorsers will go for the party they went for historically, they are already on your side but you choose when to reap the benefits. Maybe to get off the mark quickly, counter a surge from the opposing party or finish strong.

4 Parties (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Having 4 parties instead of 16 would be much neater and wouldn't take up so much memory. The last British game always had at least one party that had no hope of gaining even 3% due to both lack of money and How Established. This time I propose that the smaller parties (who aren't Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat) be joined into one party, centrist on everything with a leader with 3 for everything except corruption of 1 and that leader will be the leader of whatever party comes 4th in real life (probably UKIP). Other parties only got 12% of the vote and 4.4% of the seats at the last general election. For Northern Ireland only the Others party will run.

Automatic % Changes (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

If a new candidate is created with a different stance on something to the party's default leader then it will affect the party's support. For example if an issue is very high profile, the region's centre is Centre and the candidate is Far as opposed to the default leader who is Centre then the party's support in that region goes down by profile x distance from the region's centre on the issue (in this case very high and 3 so 4 x 3 =12 so the party loses 12% in that region, if Labour or the Conservatives are the ones losing or gaining the % it goes to the other party while if the Liberal Democrats are the ones losing or gaining support it goes to/comes from both of them equally. If the Others gain or lose votes with a different candidate the votes will come from/go to Labour and the Conservatives equally.

Declaration Times

Instead of all of the seats of an entire region declaring all at the same time seats will declare one by one. Things kick off at 10 PM but no seat will declare until 10:45 and from then until 11 AM they will finish counting starting with the most one sided seat then 2nd most one sided and so on until the election is over. Where there were a number of seats where the winning parties had the same % of the vote the seat Labour won declares first, then the Others then the Liberal Democrats and then the Conservatives.

This is to have a more tense election night even in landslides. Putting in voter groups would be a big help too. Even in years like 1997 there will always be a number of people a party can't win over, using a swingometer can help.

Revised Election Night Display (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Rather than the party ahead being on the left parties will be displayed from top to bottom with the party in the lead on top and so on. At the very top instead of showing how much is needed for a majority there will be a bar saying (party) short (number of seats needed for a majority) or (party) overall majority. Also every party gets a line in its colours that fills up from left to right with every seat it gets, slightly right of the middle will be a white line going down through every party's line that represents the minimum number of seats needed for a majority. The election night display will also show that party's goal.

Highscore Changes

Rather than having a top 10 for the game as a whole have a top 10 for each scenario. This will make replayability more worthwhile and balanced plus if a scenario gets deleted it won't bring down the highscore mechanism entirely. Also to get on the highscore board you need to get the amount of seats the party got at the real election +1. Votes shouldn't matter for getting a highscore as it's a first past the post system and having to reach a vote goal and a seat goal at the same time is very hard.

A Map Editor (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Scenario and candidate editors work fine but making maps still has to be done manually and this is a pain. If scenario and map editing could all be done on the same screen that's just like the in-game screen (along with scrolling down to this constituency and that) then that would be a big help.

Crusader/Surrogate Changes (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

Since the crusaders are in your party anyway they should all be available at the very start of the game but set to automatic permanently, they aren't you after all but this time they will campaign in the most closely contested region until their powers all go down to 1, then they will move on to the next most closely contested region. By closely contested region I mean region where your party's % is the closest to another party's %.

Issues

Rather than having to have 18 issues as well as the personality related ones there don't have to be any issues apart from the personality relate ones but there can be up to 3 that aren't personality related and all non-personality realted issues will be of Very High profile by default as campaigns really are about a few issues.

More Voting Systems

An exhaustive ballot system so party leadership elections can be done properly and a referendum system where there aren't any issues apart from the issue it's about and the only choices are yes or no. Leadership etc. still matter but aren't treated as issues and whoever gets the most votes wins though there would still be different regions.

Adjusted Policy Speeches

They now will all be guaranteed to make the news but will be weaker or will have a higher chance of backfiring to compensate. You're spending energy points and CPs that you do have so it's only fair that the policy speech does make the news one way or another.

Funding Changes

As your funds go down constantly one way or another during the campaign instead of fundraisers disable this action and have this instead; when you start the game the party gets its funds plus the combined fundraising points of all of its issue positions as seen in the issue position fundraising file multiplied by the number of seats the party is contesting. In the scenarios I'm working on ads will cost more to make (in the 2010 scenario I'm working on the cheapest ad is a fair bit more expensive than the most expensive ad from the official 2010 scenario) but nothing to run so I would like for this game to have the Canadian Prime Minister Forever 2011's thing of releasing money to individual constituencies like I saw in the demo of said game.

Spectator Mode (I recommend this for all Forever games.)

An ability to simply watch a game and not play it but it will keep running unless you click somewhere. The idea with this is to have the ability to playtest more quickly and simply have the option of enjoying just watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds very good, being a brit I would absolutely love this. The idea about comparative ads is a very good idea, especially since it is very much the focus with any negative ad because unless it's a scandal smearing needs to have an element of what your side would do better. This sounds great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SANC,

Thanks for this - right now, we're focusing on P4E16, C4E14, and PM4E Aus 2013. Once 2014 is done, we'll start looking at a possible PM4E British 2015. If it happens, it will probably use the latest game engine (probably based on PM4E Aus 2013).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SANC,

Thanks for this - right now, we're focusing on P4E16, C4E14, and PM4E Aus 2013. Once 2014 is done, we'll start looking at a possible PM4E British 2015. If it happens, it will probably use the latest game engine (probably based on PM4E Aus 2013).

I think many would appreciate a 2015 version of PM4E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly try this and possibly buy..this if released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main interests revolve around U.S elections, but with the latest 270Soft engine and features I would consider buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've completed scenarios as much as possible for all general elections from 1945 to 2010 and the 1979-1983, 1987-1992 and 1992-1997 by-elections.

I would be extremely grateful if you could send your scenarios to w.smith405@btinternet.com :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't have maps or ridings done. I can't as the game isn't even out yet but getting as many scenarios as ready as possible for when it does come out would be a great idea I feel. A lack of scenarios is the bane of any Forever game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Highscore file is ready. I'll post it here for those interested in knowing what the biggest wins in British history were.
1.Stanley Baldwin-1931-470-55%
2.Earl Grey-1832-441-67%
3.Lord Grenville-1806-431-???
4.Tony Blair-1997-418-43%
5.Tony Blair-2001-413-41%
6.Stanley Baldwin-1924-412-47%
7.Lord Salisbury-1895-411-49%
8.Lord Salisbury-1900-402-50%
9.Henry Campbell-Bannerman-1906-397-49%
10.Margaret Thatcher-1983-397-42%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided that I'm going to make Canada 1993 and 2011 scenarios as well so I'd like the French Debate Bonus attribute to be in the game. Apart from the biggest 4 no other parties will be in. This of course leads to the odd situation of the governing party not being in 1993 but since they came 5th they shouldn't be in with a chance anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't accurately do 1993 without the PC's without REALLY wonky results that don't really reflect the reality of the situation, frankly. Plus, on top of the PC's %'s being needed to be there (and they got two seats in the end, plus I've seen people win with them in the PM4E2008 game), there was an Independent that got a seat fairly easily in Quebec and, although not getting seats, the National, Natural Law, and Green Parties got too high of percentages (comparatively speaking) to easily ignore, especially give the Natural Law were a popular protest vote in that election. So, as a Canadian who was around at the time, I'd say reducing the Canadian election with the most relevant number of parties in Canadian history (more or less) to 4 arbitrarily and artificially is a fool's errand. That's my two bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbitrarily isn't the right word here.

*To have the % of more parties shown you'd have to scroll down but with 4 you don't have to.

*Also, less parties mean less loading time.

*Smaller parties are almost wastes of space in British and Canadian scenarios; not much money or anything so they can't get further than 1 or 2 extra % and won't get much more seats, if any.

*The parties I'm leaving in will get the votes of those who were left out. The parties I leave in will get the votes of the parties I left out who are ideologically closest to them but to preserve realism only the candidates who won and came 2nd in a seat historically will contest it with again their votes going to the party that's left in who's most like them ideologically. Too often have I seen a 3rd party do far too well in these games; take British 2010 where in the 2010 scenario you could get a hung parliament; due to the Liberal Democrats winning over 100 seats (this has never happened, they can get 6/10 of the way at best). I know this is making big changes in the name of preserving reality but I don't see how I can keep the outcomes within the bounds of reality otherwise and playing as parties where really you're little more than an insignificant spectator trying hard to get a tiny bit more % and seats isn't fun; it's a slog and I know this from experience. Last time I played these games were far too easy (though it's been said that President Forever 2016 is harder now); winning a landslide as Labour (UK) in 1992 with 80 something % of the vote? That sure isn't what happened historically. I just don't want the false choice of playing as tiny parties who don't make much impact beyond increasing the load time even when you add up all of their votes and seats. It's easy to do ridiculously well; run 4 attack ads all at once attacking your main opponent's weakest attribute and wham; you lead in all regions regardless of your platform. It's nice to do extremely well, sure, but when you're getting more than double the votes and seats (even on hard) that a party got well that's just a biscuit take and that's not fun, it's just ridiculous. If you must call foul on something call foul on the fact that I'm making Canadian scenarios for a British game. I might be the only one on the face on the planet to play them, and that's fine if I enjoy them due to them not only being fun to play but also not straying into the realms of the happiest dreams of the partisans well that would be a success; I'm working on these scenarios by myself and if they go belly up I'll take all of the blame because I would deserve to and nobody else could possibly be blamed. These scenarios probably won't even be out this year; they'll come out when Prime Minister Forever British 2015 comes out; IF it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbitrarily isn't the right word here.

*To have the % of more parties shown you'd have to scroll down but with 4 you don't have to.

*Also, less parties mean less loading time.

*Smaller parties are almost wastes of space in British and Canadian scenarios; not much money or anything so they can't get further than 1 or 2 extra % and won't get much more seats, if any.

*The parties I'm leaving in will get the votes of those who were left out. The parties I leave in will get the votes of the parties I left out who are ideologically closest to them but to preserve realism only the candidates who won and came 2nd in a seat historically will contest it with again their votes going to the party that's left in who's most like them ideologically. Too often have I seen a 3rd party do far too well in these games; take British 2010 where in the 2010 scenario you could get a hung parliament; due to the Liberal Democrats winning over 100 seats (this has never happened, they can get 6/10 of the way at best). I know this is making big changes in the name of preserving reality but I don't see how I can keep the outcomes within the bounds of reality otherwise and playing as parties where really you're little more than an insignificant spectator trying hard to get a tiny bit more % and seats isn't fun; it's a slog and I know this from experience. Last time I played these games were far too easy (though it's been said that President Forever 2016 is harder now); winning a landslide as Labour (UK) in 1992 with 80 something % of the vote? That sure isn't what happened historically. I just don't want the false choice of playing as tiny parties who don't make much impact beyond increasing the load time even when you add up all of their votes and seats. It's easy to do ridiculously well; run 4 attack ads all at once attacking your main opponent's weakest attribute and wham; you lead in all regions regardless of your platform. It's nice to do extremely well, sure, but when you're getting more than double the votes and seats (even on hard) that a party got well that's just a biscuit take and that's not fun, it's just ridiculous. If you must call foul on something call foul on the fact that I'm making Canadian scenarios for a British game. I might be the only one on the face on the planet to play them, and that's fine if I enjoy them due to them not only being fun to play but also not straying into the realms of the happiest dreams of the partisans well that would be a success; I'm working on these scenarios by myself and if they go belly up I'll take all of the blame because I would deserve to and nobody else could possibly be blamed. These scenarios probably won't even be out this year; they'll come out when Prime Minister Forever British 2015 comes out; IF it comes out.

Wait a minute! Did you used to be known on these forums as "Display Name?" An Irishman insistent on a 4-party cap seems too uncanny to be otherwise, though I could be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't do 1993 without the PCs, they began the campaign polling in a tie with the liberals and then slowly faded because of the numerous blunders made during the game, and in the 2015 version of UK PM4e, there is no way that UKIP can be arbitrarily mixed with the others, UKIP is out polling the Lib Dems! Also the nationalist parties are a major factor in Scotland and parts of Wales and you cannot simply remove them without screwing up the game. If you really hate the NI parties than go ahead, they have no bearing on the actual result, but you need at least 7 parties on the mainland unless things change drastically. Your position on parties would destroy the realism of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's destroying the realism of all games at the moment is that ads are too powerful; I remember in the last British game you could win as Labour in 1992 with 80% of the vote and nobody brought that up apart from me. Plaid Cymru and the SNP put together have a total of 12 seats or so and that's not much (there are 72 or so seats in Scotland alone). I don't hate the Northern Ireland parties it's just they don't matter and with little seats to contest or money to spend they're boring to play as and irrelevant to the overall result. As for UKIP the 2015 election hasn't happened yet and if they do become the 3rd party I'll put them in to that scenario, assuming a 2015 game ever comes (Patine and yourself haven't mentioned that ye are going to get the game so I have to wonder whether ye are or not and if not why object to my plans). Having to constantly scroll down to see how another party is doing is annoying and with most parties getting no seats at all as well as a 16 party limit leaving out most parties anyway I may as well go for just 4 parties and if nobody but me plays these scenarios then fair enough but don't like don't play. People could always make their own versions of scenarios. In my experience trying to set up a party to do badly means they don't do near as badly as they would be supposed to so it would be better to just leave them out entirely, 2 seats is peanuts and popular vote doesn't matter much in first past the post.

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...