Jump to content
270soft Forum
MattyN

Feature You'd Most Like to See

Recommended Posts

Thanks - noted.

Another feature I think would be cool and rather easy to implement is the ability to choose how many delegates are required to win a nomination. This allows historic scenarios to be more accurate, back when it took like 2/3s of the delegates to win a nomination. This I think is what encouraged such divided, exciting conventions in the past and could in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... it would probably be tricky to implement, but idea noted.

I think a feature of drafting crusaders would be cool...let's say I'm Hillary Clinton in 2008 and I want to pickup some more crusaders...I see Barack Obama has Oprah as one of his crusaders...I could possibly try to bribe or woo in that crusader to campaign for me...it happened in 2008 with Colin Powell who started out as a McCain supporter, then switched to Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Favorability polls for each candidate would be cool imo.

A candidate who is conducting a negative campaign would be more likely to have high unfavorable numbers, a candidate who is well-known (i.e. Hillary in 2008) would have few "don't knows", a candidate who is relatively unknown (i.e. Gravel in 2008) would have a lot of "don't knows", etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi (first post, and it is a bit long-winded so sorry about that!)

I re-downloaded the game a few days ago and came up with a few ideas. Apologies in advance if they've been discussed before.

1. Split electoral college votes for Maine and Nebraska, where candidates gain electoral votes based on winning congressional districts within the states.

2. Post-election analysis - perhaps newspaper headlines, statistics showing performance in various demographics, swings to/from your party from the previous election etc.

3. Ability to save the game map and perhaps data (maybe in excel format?), including the total votes and percentage of votes for each candidate in each state. Or maybe I'm just a numbers freak who likes playing around with such data :P

4. Tie-in to congressional elections, with coattail effects in both directions - a strong presidential candidate could provide boosts to congressional candidates and strong congressional (particularly Senate) candidates could provide a boost for the presidential candidate. Similarly a weak presidential/congressional candidate would provide negative coattails. At the end of the game you could see how the party did overall, e.g.:

President: Obama (D) 365 - McCain ® 173

Senate: Democrats 59 (+8) Republicans 41 (-8)

House: Democrats 257 (+21) Republicans 178 (-21)

This leads into an idea which I think has been brought up a couple of times before, although I'm wary of the game becoming too much of a government simulator:

Governing once elected and re-elections

1. Once you are elected you gain a certain number of Political Influence Points to use in enacting policy, depending on how well you and your party (per point 4 above) did. (If you helped get more Senators/Representatives elected, they would be indebted to you).

2. You spend turns researching (in the same way for insights/scandals) on a particular issue, e.g. health care. After a certain amount of turns it will be "researched" and you can propose a policy change. (To prevent just doing nothing, popular support and PIPs could decay over time).

3. Using the 1-7 slider (similar to the platforms screen), you can move government policy for the researched issue left or right. Suppose you want to move health care one position to the left, you'd get this screen:

<Current US Position> 4: Health care benefits for the poor and elderly.

<Proposed new position> 3: Universal health care whether public or private.

<Public Support> Support 48%, Against 45%, Undecided 7%

<House Support> Support 200, Against 185, Undecided 50

<Senate Support> Support 40, Against 41, Undecided 19

Here you may need to use PIPs to get your policy passed by the House and Senate - more PIPs if there are many against/undecided or if the policy is further from the party's position. The party's performance in the previous election (as above) is important here - obviously if you win the presidency but face a hostile Congress you won't get many policy changes enacted.

4. If you are successful, you may gain PIPs from members of Congress with a similar position. If you are not, any PIPs used are lost. Your public support may also change depending on existing public opinion on the issue and how many PIPs needed to be used.

5. You may also get PIPs for barnstorming for candidates during the mid-term elections who win.

6. Therefore, if you govern well, you take more PIPs (and public support) into a re-election campaign, and fewer PIPs and public support if you govern badly. Thus your policy decisions affect your "starting" position for the re-election campaign. Specific policies popular in certain states that you enacted (e.g. Ethanol in Iowa or bailing out the car industry in Michigan) could also affect this.

Anyway, that's my spiel, hope there are a few ideas that may be useful in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Ability to save the game map and perhaps data (maybe in excel format?), including the total votes and percentage of votes for each candidate in each state. Or maybe I'm just a numbers freak who likes playing around with such data :P

You're not the only one. A while ago I suggested being able to save election victories in a file which can be read by some program designed to view them. It would show all available data (including things like how much each campaign spent and fundraised, what they spent their funds on, etc.). You could share these files so that others can view (and even compare) campaigns.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOP FIVE

5) An option to switch from Electoral vote to Popular Vote

  • Makes it realistic for governor/senate and other races

4) More in depth conventions

  • From the list of veeps and all crusaders in the party choose 5 speakers + a keynote
  • Pick two issues for the Veep's speech and four for the Leader's speech
  • Show a "convention bump"

3) More exciting election night

  • Don't have results called as soon as their polls close
  • If you win/lose use a method to draft your concession address (like for the conventions i mentioned)

2) Reinstate multiplayer play

  • I was around when you could play against other people online, it was great fun

1) More in depth Veeps

  • Make your Veep Candidates just as you do ur leaders
  • Add the ability to copy leaders in to veeps and vice/versa

OTHER SUGGESTIONS

*More colors for candidates (I often run out)

*Create a Campaigns Forever for P4E2012 (if its ever released)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has probably been asked about a hundred times, but with the proposal being batted about in PA right now I figured I'd ask again. Is there any chance that we'll see electoral votes by CD?

If it's included, personally, I'd like to see it be an optional thing, as that would give a lot of added variety in game play.

I completely get it if it's too late to implement it, I just thought it begged the question with the recent developments in Pennsylvania.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it would be particularly possible to do anything other than proportional vote, or maybe something where 2 EVs go to the winner of the state and the others randomly approximate proportionality, or something. At least, not without putting in 428 new contests, which just seems like a whole lot of extra work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it would be particularly possible to do anything other than proportional vote, or maybe something where 2 EVs go to the winner of the state and the others randomly approximate proportionality, or something. At least, not without putting in 428 new contests, which just seems like a whole lot of extra work.

Someone could quite fesably use the new PM4E engine to design something of the sorts. If the engine were modified slightly to allow different ridings to have different weights, and maybe some kind of number for winning an entire state. Yeah, it could work easy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have EVs by CD is possible - the new engine is a continuation of the PM4E engine. The hitch is that campaigning would then be done by CD for those states where the EVs are by CD - perhaps making gameplay a little less elegant. For small states like Maine, that's fine, for big states like PA or CA, say, it wouldn't be ...

Someone could quite fesably use the new PM4E engine to design something of the sorts. If the engine were modified slightly to allow different ridings to have different weights, and maybe some kind of number for winning an entire state. Yeah, it could work easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have EVs by CD is possible - the new engine is a continuation of the PM4E engine. The hitch is that campaigning would then be done by CD for those states where the EVs are by CD - perhaps making gameplay a little less elegant. For small states like Maine, that's fine, for big states like PA or CA, say, it wouldn't be ...

Can you tell us some of the features that you plan to include?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have EVs by CD is possible - the new engine is a continuation of the PM4E engine. The hitch is that campaigning would then be done by CD for those states where the EVs are by CD - perhaps making gameplay a little less elegant. For small states like Maine, that's fine, for big states like PA or CA, say, it wouldn't be ...

Less elegant, true. But that does (at least in my opinion) give some realism to the winning EV's by CD. That has been one of the main gripes of the opponents of the PA plan - the State would receive less attention and that attention would be aimed at just a few CD's. So, personally, I don't see that as a huge problem, especially since I assume that as it's a continuation of the PM4E engine that you could have multiple barnstormings.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, that's true. Players would probably ignore most of the CDs in a state like PA, and focus on just the ones that are close. So, that would split 1 political unit into 5 or what have you, in terms of what is relevant for game play.

Less elegant, true. But that does (at least in my opinion) give some realism to the winning EV's by CD. That has been one of the main gripes of the opponents of the PA plan - the State would receive less attention and that attention would be aimed at just a few CD's. So, personally, I don't see that as a huge problem, especially since I assume that as it's a continuation of the PM4E engine that you could have multiple barnstormings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have EVs by CD is possible - the new engine is a continuation of the PM4E engine. The hitch is that campaigning would then be done by CD for those states where the EVs are by CD - perhaps making gameplay a little less elegant. For small states like Maine, that's fine, for big states like PA or CA, say, it wouldn't be ...

It could be that the state is broken up into individual ridings, but when you campaign/run ads/barnstorm/targeting/etc., you can't do it by individual riding, you do it by state. So the numbers may change within the ridings, but all you can hope to do is work on the state as a whole and hope it carries through to the ridings.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading between a few lines, it sounds like the idea of having multiple different methods for determining the winner of the election is going to be a part of the 2012 version?

That is *all* I need to hear to make any amount of waiting worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa! It depends on what you mean by 'multiple methods for determining the winner'. Could you unpack that a bit?

Reading between a few lines, it sounds like the idea of having multiple different methods for determining the winner of the election is going to be a part of the 2012 version?

That is *all* I need to hear to make any amount of waiting worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa! It depends on what you mean by 'multiple methods for determining the winner'. Could you unpack that a bit?

Winner by popular vote, usual the usual electoral college, modified electoral college (eg. the Pennsylvania thing).

What I'd like to see is the option to turn preferrential voting on in P4E. It would in particular make primaries a lot more interesting. Hell, you could go a step further and have preferrential voting in some states, and first past the post in others.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popular vote (national): the code should actually be pretty simple to do this. So we'll see.

Modified EC: probably.

Winner by popular vote, usual the usual electoral college, modified electoral college (eg. the Pennsylvania thing).

What I'd like to see is the option to turn preferrential voting on in P4E. It would in particular make primaries a lot more interesting. Hell, you could go a step further and have preferrential voting in some states, and first past the post in others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of a proper PBEM facility? It would be great if pressing end turn with PBEM mode on would automatically zip up the save and prompt the next player for a password to start his turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know at this point ..

Any chance of a proper PBEM facility? It would be great if pressing end turn with PBEM mode on would automatically zip up the save and prompt the next player for a password to start his turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just meant something like popular vote or proportionally-allocated EV's, something like that. Anything deeper, like IRV or another kind of fancy voting, would probably be a lot more work.

Oh, and the other thing I mean is that the American model has this funny feature wherein a plurality isn't good enough, and if no one gets an absolute majority then it's just a roll of the Congressional dice. The ability to turn off the absolute majority requirement would be really useful, for situations where you want to have genuine multi-party elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding PFE2012:

A) I would love for primaries to have a greater impact on the general election's electoral landscape. This plays a small factor in PFE2008, but I think expanding it would improve the game.

For instance, a conservative Democrat with a right-wing position on gun control should receive a hefty bonus in the south if he runs against a moderate republican with left-wing position on gun control. Similarly, said Republican should receive a bonus in liberal strongholds.

B ) This this relates to the previous point -- diversify the issue profiles between states. Immigration's profile should be low in Wisconsin, very high in Texas, ect. This doesn't need to be extremely complex, but different profiles on a few big issues including gun control (higher in south, lower elsewhere) and immigration (higher in border sates, lower elsewhere) should suffice.

C) Add greater depth to the Vice Presidential selection. Currently, the sole strategy is to select a VP with high debate skill from a large swing state. Instead, the VP should be defined primarily by their ideology and attributes, both in relation to the nominee

Each potential VP should have a general ideology -- akin to endorsers. This ideology should contrast well with the nominee. For example, a centrist Democrat would require a left-wing VP, or face increased levels of alienated Democrats during the general election. Conversely, he could select another centrist Democrat to solidify support among independents, while sacrificing a portion of his base.

In regard to attributes, a good VP choice should pick up the slack of the attributes a candidate lacks. Ex: If the nominee has an experience attribute of 2, a VP with an experience of 4 would prevent support from falling.

D) Overhaul footsoldiers via a state infrastructure system, or something similarly titled. This should function in a similar manner as the "how well established attribute, with higher levels of state infrastructure aiding GOTV, barnstorming, fundraising, along with automatically creating footsoliders (hundreds per state), which function as state-specific mini-crusaders.

State infrastructure could be increased, with CP's, money, PIP's, or a combination thereof. It would deteriorate slowly over time, similar to debate and issue knowledge, and the nominee's existing state infrastructure would transfer over from the primaries.

Do not hesitate to request further clarification.

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...