Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
JDrakeify

UK PMI Scenarios

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

I've just uploaded a 1983 scenario I did too the campaigns page, feedback would be much appreciated:

http://campaigns.270soft.com/2017/03/03/united-kingdom-1983-2/

I'll probably follow this one up by doing 1987 as well, seeing as I already have the boundaries for it. 

 

Ah, the Slaughter of '87, when Labour really put their "Foote" in their mouths... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

Ah, the Slaughter of '87, when Labour really put their "Foote" in their mouths... :P

You mean the slaughter of '83? And drop the e:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

You mean the slaughter of '83? And drop the e:P

Yes, thank-you. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great scenario! Love all the diffrent candidates. Can't wait for 87.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎03 at 9:02 AM, JDrakeify said:

I've just uploaded a 1983 scenario I did too the campaigns page, feedback would be much appreciated:

http://campaigns.270soft.com/2017/03/03/united-kingdom-1983-2/

I'll probably follow this one up by doing 1987 as well, seeing as I already have the boundaries for it. 

 

My only concern here is that 1983 is the recent Conservative equivalent in British Westminster elections of Labour in 2001. I'm not sure there's a big chance of beating the historical winner (unless the player is masterful at the game or gets a tonne of scandals against the historical winner). It's somewhat akin to winning as a Democrat in a US 1984 Presidential Scenario or beating the PC's in a 1984 Canadian Federal scenario (or winning as the PC's in a 1993 Canadian Federal scenario). I mean, it's likely possible, especially given the wonky turns TheorySpark games can take, but it would be VERY difficult, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

My only concern here is that 1983 is the recent Conservative equivalent in British Westminster elections of Labour in 2001. I'm not sure there's a big chance of beating the historical winner (unless the player is masterful at the game or gets a tonne of scandals against the historical winner). It's somewhat akin to winning as a Democrat in a US 1984 Presidential Scenario or beating the PC's in a 1984 Canadian Federal scenario (or winning as the PC's in a 1993 Canadian Federal scenario). I mean, it's likely possible, especially given the wonky turns TheorySpark games can take, but it would be VERY difficult, in my opinion.

This is true, the main reason for my picking this scenario was the battle between Labour and Alliance, and seeing how far the latter could go. Having played through it as Foot as well, I can attest that it is very difficult to challenge the Tories, not least because both their leader and their campaign are far superior, and there are very few positions where they are totally in tune with the public. I think it might be more doable in the 1987 scenario, as Labour are stronger in all of those categories. For 1983, a good aim is to see if you can keep the Tories from winning a majority. I came within 15 seats in a campaign where things didnt always go my way, so I should think that is possible, if a bit of a challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Were you playing as Thatcher Victor1313?

yeah i'am playing as Thatcher thats one of greats results i make in infinity games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, victor1313 said:

yeah i'am playing as Thatcher thats one of greats results i make in infinity games

Then you have gotten the easy mode achievement in this scenario... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Falcon said:

Very well done; will you do 92 also?

Prussian1871 mentioned he is getting the base 1992 scenario imported from PMF, so not sure if I want to replicate something someone else is already working on, especially if he has access to the correct constituencies. If it becomes clear that he isn't going to do it, maybe I'll give it a go. At some point in the future I might do an earlier scenario, I'm considering 1979, 1950/51, or one of three that took place immediately after World War 1. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played through '83 a few times and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm sure that I'll find the '87 one enjoyable too. I might suggest making the Alliance leaders into one candidate and averaging out their stats, as Treasurer of the PC did in his scenarios for Prime Minister Forever. Thank you for taking the time to produce these scenarios and for sharing them :).


As for future scenarios I would suggest 1979 as a good one as it would be in chronological order, which might mean less work for you. You might also be able to cannibalise parts of the scenario made for Prime Minister Forever, as you have acknowledged doing for the 1983 scenario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Manic said:

I've played through '83 a few times and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm sure that I'll find the '87 one enjoyable too. I might suggest making the Alliance leaders into one candidate and averaging out their stats, as Treasurer of the PC did in his scenarios for Prime Minister Forever. Thank you for taking the time to produce these scenarios and for sharing them :).


As for future scenarios I would suggest 1979 as a good one as it would be in chronological order, which might mean less work for you. You might also be able to cannibalise parts of the scenario made for Prime Minister Forever, as you have acknowledged doing for the 1983 scenario.

 

I can see why the idea of a joint Alliance leadership is appealing, though imo it would lead feel a little unrealistic to have two leaders having to do everything together, I might add a joint leadership option as another possible choice alongside the existing individual leaders.

 

All possible scenarios would probably be a similar workload in terms of constituencies, as there were some pretty sweeping boundary changes between 1979 and 1983, and unless I can find documentation of the boundary changes, which is difficult in the pre-internet era, it will probably take as long as the 1983 scenario did to complete. That said, I will still probably opt to do that one, as earlier scenarios can be difficult due to lack of information about the less important candidates (stats, photos, party logos etc)  and also the old multi member constituencies throw up issues as well. Plus, if I had the 1979 boundaries, that would leave open the possibility for me or anyone else to use it for another election from that Wilson/Heath era, where there were several close elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDrakeify said:

I can see why the idea of a joint Alliance leadership is appealing, though imo it would lead feel a little unrealistic to have two leaders having to do everything together, I might add a joint leadership option as another possible choice alongside the existing individual leaders.

 

All possible scenarios would probably be a similar workload in terms of constituencies, as there were some pretty sweeping boundary changes between 1979 and 1983, and unless I can find documentation of the boundary changes, which is difficult in the pre-internet era, it will probably take as long as the 1983 scenario did to complete. That said, I will still probably opt to do that one, as earlier scenarios can be difficult due to lack of information about the less important candidates (stats, photos, party logos etc)  and also the old multi member constituencies throw up issues as well. Plus, if I had the 1979 boundaries, that would leave open the possibility for me or anyone else to use it for another election from that Wilson/Heath era, where there were several close elections.

Though constituency boundaries before I believe 1894 are very, very easy - two per traditional county, two per borough, and two for the Universities in Cambridge, Oxford, and (after 1801) Dublin, regardless of each's population at that time... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 6:30 AM, JDrakeify said:

Prussian1871 mentioned he is getting the base 1992 scenario imported from PMF, so not sure if I want to replicate something someone else is already working on, especially if he has access to the correct constituencies. If it becomes clear that he isn't going to do it, maybe I'll give it a go. At some point in the future I might do an earlier scenario, I'm considering 1979, 1950/51, or one of three that took place immediately after World War 1. Thoughts?

I'm not currently working on 1992 right now (I've started with 2005 and have kinda got sidetracked from it), so you're free to work on 1992 if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Prussian1871 said:

I'm not currently working on 1992 right now (I've started with 2005 and have kinda got sidetracked from it), so you're free to work on 1992 if you want.

Thanks, I've made a start on 1979 now but might give '92 a go afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, victor1313 said:

good you create churchill election in future?

You do know that the only time Churchill was actually "elected" as PM (that is, as party leader going into a general election) was his post-WW2 re-election in the early 1950's. His WW2 government came to power in 1940 when Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM and Churchill was chosen by the "National Unity Government" coalition caucus directly (a wartime coalition of most Conservatives and Liberals and some Labour), and no election would be held until after the Instrument of Surrender by Germany in 1945, with the last full election before that having been held in 1935 (this making Edward VIII the only British Monarch since the establishment of the Parliamentary tradition in 1265 to never formally dissolve Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, whether symbolically or not, or preside over the opening of a newly elected Parliament).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

You do know that the only time Churchill was actually "elected" as PM (that is, as party leader going into a general election) was his post-WW2 re-election in the early 1950's. His WW2 government came to power in 1940 when Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM and Churchill was chosen by the "National Unity Government" coalition caucus directly (a wartime coalition of most Conservatives and Liberals and some Labour), and no election would be held until after the Instrument of Surrender by Germany in 1945, with the last full election before that having been held in 1935 (this making Edward VIII the only British Monarch since the establishment of the Parliamentary tradition in 1265 to never formally dissolve Parliament, appoint a Prime Minister, whether symbolically or not, or preside over the opening of a newly elected Parliament).

yeah i sure his elected post world war II

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
Sign in to follow this  

×