Jump to content
270soft Forum

Fireball1244

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fireball1244

  1. Oh well. Guess I was hoping someone would tell me I was doing something wrong, or that there's some reason I overlooked that my momentum counted for nothing.
  2. I was playing an alternative of the wonk scenario, where I've given the candidates money similar to what they raised overall in the campaign. As Obama, I'm facing Romney in the general election. From mid-September on, boosted by the financial crisis and heavy television advertising on my part, I hold a constant momentum lead, around 10 points, going as high as 20 points (that's the margin). Throughout the last half of October, I ad-bomb and scandal-plague Romney, and his momentum is consistently negative. But the polls never move in my direction. And in the end I win the popular vote by 1.2%
  3. Well, the amounts of money given the candidates in the primaries are less than the top line candidates were raising per quarter in 2003, so it just doesn't seem real. But the giving-candidates-more-money problem isn't hard to solve. I just wanna know why Hillary Clinton isn't spending it to beat me in the primaries. I'm eating her lunch, and she's just sitting there with millions in the bank.
  4. I've upped the money in the default scenario to something much more realistic, but I find that my opponents don't spend it! I've played on easy and medium and noticed this (didn't look when I played on hard), but Hillary, Obama, etc, just don't spend through their money like they should. On lower difficulties do the computer players not spend their cash as aggressively as they should, or is it a flaw in the game? It happens in the general election, too. It's quite frustrating. It decreases the "realism" of the game.
  5. I ran as Edwards in a modified version of the 2008 game, where I majorly upped the starting cash for all the candidates to more realistic numbers. As I get sick of Guliani and McCain always winning the GOP nod, I turned them off. On the GOP side, Gingrich, Romney and Brownback were in the running. On the Democratic side, Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Vilsack were the contenders. I turned Badnarik on, as well. The primaries were an interesting challenge. By using early turns to build ads and throw CPs into endorsements, I was able to go into January 08 with a ton of cash, footsoldiers and three
  6. Maybe I'm just way too Catholic, but in my mind I can't make it look like anything but a guy with a giant, glowing communion wafer.
  7. They actually work, though. If you track turnout, you'll see noticeable spikes amongst populations that receive direct mail and/or GOTV robocalls. It seems counterintuitive, I guess, but the things do work.
  8. I played a game last night as a customized Libertarian candidate, and part of my intended strategy was to try to pick off one of the moderately-strong-but-not-going-to-win Republicans or Democrats to be my VP. Unfortunately, this was not possible, as I couldn't offer my VP spot until I had locked up my party's nomination, which happens on one day in the scenario, at the convention. Immediately upon winning the nomination, I am asked to pick a Libertarian VP from the default list, and there was no way to ask, say, Senator Edwards to come and be on my team. So, my suggestion is minor: I'd like
  9. I love this game. It's great. However, while you've got footsoldiers (field programs), speeches and advertising, you're missing two very powerful parts of political campaigning -- direct mail and auto-dialed robocalls. These are major components of most modern political campaigns, and it would be cool to integrate them into the game. Here's how I envision it would work: For Direct Mail, you select a topic just like you do in a speech or ad (topic + pos or neg), then select a state or states, perhaps with sliders to determine the number of pieces sent (estimate $0.40 per piece), and click "sen
  10. While I think this is an interesting idea, it doesn't entirely mesh with how I view the game (note: that's not a big deal, of course). In my view, when I play PF, I'm not the candidate -- I'm the campaign manager. I'm telling the candidate where to go, scheduling the ads, etc, but I'm not actually giving speeches, etc. As I run campaigns for a living, that might be a bit "biased" of me. :-)
  11. Yeah, it's a feature, and a nice bit of realism. But it needs to be fixed. Presently, it gives Republicans more in the block grant than Democrats, which is inaccurate. Under the law, both parties receive precisely the same amount.
  12. PLEASE! OH PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! I've been trying to build my standard 2036 scenario, but it's soooo overwhelming with the new program. A Scenario Editor would be a godsend. I'd pay extra for it!
  13. Excuse me, but I'm gay, and the member of "gay-advocacy groups" and not a single organization that I'm a member of -- Human Rights Campaign, Stonewall Democrats, Equality Texas -- in any way seeks to criminalize private religious practices. The accusation is baseless and completely offensive. I am just as Christian as I am gay or American, and I do not appreciate this accusation that GLBT equality activists are seeking to imprison those who disagree with us, or whose churches would continue to exercise their freedom to choose who they do or do not marry within their own organization.
  14. It would be kinda cool if you could stay in the game and just run the veep campaign, with the AI controlling the presidential candidate. That's a lot to ask, though, and probably not reasonable.
  15. I figured that was part of it -- that in the GOP primary, they had to work New York, while as Clinton, I didn't, thus the New York electorate was more impressed with McCain than me. I won as Hillary 319 to 219, despite losing the popular vote 47.5 to 52.5 -- a perfectly possible scenario, given the way it broke down state by state. I got trounced by 40% to 50% in the South and plains, while I won the coasts and mid-west by 10% to 20% -- no close states, but the vote was thrown by the way I got slaughtered where McCain won.
  16. It toggles your map display to the default view, if you've switched to, say, momentum or ads view. It doesn't change states to indicate that it's selected, though, which is a bit confusing.
  17. Please don't go to day-by-day during the primaries. That would be completely overwhelming. I hate the day-by-day of the general election, because if feels so limiting after being able to plan a week during the primaries. Presidential campaigns do not plan day-by-day. But part of my dislike of it is the crippled "only can move when barnstorming" thing that makes me feel trapped when I want to do something other than barnstorm (seriously, it's almost painful to not be able to move my candidates around, even if I'm just moving them for the sake of moving them). I know I've gone on about this bef
  18. Sure. I make an ad, then go to tell it where to play, and instead of the nice, useful dialog from PF, which listed the states in terms of which I had targeted, and how I was performing in each, I just get an unhelpful flat listing of the states. I miss the old dialog.
  19. Debate prep being locationless makes sense, as does issue research and operations development. I think that speeches should have some localized effect, however. They will be covered more by the local media, and they should be addressing local issues (Social Security speech in Florida, for instance). Obviously, they have a national effect, but they should have a stronger local effect, as well. Also, fundraising should be localized. Hillary Clinton will raise a lot more money in New York at a fundraiser than in Idaho. This should be reflected in the game. Plus, it just seems awkward to leave t
  20. This really annoys me. If I'm in one state doing debate prep, and next turn I want to give a speech in another state I can't! That's horrible. It slows everything down, and requires you to barnstorm in every state you visit. What if I just want to fly in, do a fundraiser and fly out? I could do that in the old game, which means this a major step backwards in terms of flexibility. Also, late in the game, when candidates are tired, barnstorming leads to mistakes. This broken travel functionality requires MORE barnstorming, which is forcing me to go around making an ass out of my candidate. Pl
  21. Hello, everyone. Former lurker and longtime player of PF here. I've run through a couple of games in PF+P, and I've got some thoughts. Many of these have been shared by others on the board, but a little pile-on regarding important stuff is never a bad thing. I like the game quite a bit. It feels more "solid" than the old version, in terms of the work involved to win. And it feels long -- like a presidential campaign should. THINGS I LIKE: 1) The new vice president controls (but please do a find and replace and lose the "leader" stuff). Being able to control my Veep and have him build the c
×
×
  • Create New...