Jump to content
270soft Forum

ElectricMonk

Members
  • Content Count

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About ElectricMonk

  • Rank
    TheorySpark Scenario Consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It would be nice to have something broadly similar along those lines.
  2. I like it, but the blog posts would be kinda boring since they'd either be super-short auto-generated ones… or require quite a lot of writing for all possibilities (though you could swap names in and out, to help). Also, how about a "remaining paths to victory" type screen for the projected on last poll of the election losing candidate? i.e. once McCain has lost PA, his options narrow. Conversely winning PA, sees his options expand. Have a little map flicking through the possibilities, magic holographic technology of CNN style.
  3. Nah, he cheated by getting Obama as his VP (which is not to take away from an impressive win). I'm cool.
  4. Please tell me you did not do that on the Political Wonk scenario on Hard with no tricks. Because I'd really have to kill myself .
  5. Yep, that's what I meant. The thing is, knock-out events are simply not very likely (especially when most of the candidates in the field aren't great debaters). Even the pretty bad ones—Ford on Poland, Carter and his daughter Amy, Dole on "Democratic Wars"—were not knock out punches. Arguably the only one that does qualify is Reagan's "There you go again" but that was the whole debate performance assuring people that Reagan wasn't nuts.
  6. It could be added a % chance of it happening, but I can't tie it to in-game events.
  7. Think of it this way: in 1968 Nixon had very limited coattails in California, but Reagan as a popular sitting governor would have somewhat more coattails. There is no way to tell the game that if Candidate A is playing, he gets this home state bonus, but if candidate B is playing he gets this home state bonus. So you can set it, but you can only cover the expected general election candidate (Nixon) and you can't cover alternative general election candidates (Reagan).
  8. I'm pretty sure I (or someone else) mentioned that way back in the thread. Also, fund-raising is woefully out-of-sync with the modern fund-raising operation via direct mail and recently internet; also, money comes in at far too slow a pace for 2008. Hmm. The easiest way to test this would be to have both VP states be balanced (say 40-40 for Maine and Wyoming) and have the VP barnstorm in his home state once per week on each side; one VP has a home state bonus of 10, the other has 50. Don't do anything else in the state—no advertising, no FootSoliders, no visits by the Presidential nominee—and
  9. I was actually bothered by this a few minutes ago, because Reagan as Republican nominee in 1968 should be doing better in California. Have you tried cranking the VP bonus way up? The 5-10 TheorySpark levels do little.
  10. Not in modern elections. But in pre-1972 Dem. and pre-1976 Republican (not that it mattered since Nixon had the '72 nomination safely in the bag) they made up as much as 1/3 of delegates. More important, or perhaps part and parcel, would be a delegate tracking & persuasion system + national convention modelling where you could keep track of delegations and try and swing them to your side. Doesn't matter for modern elections but up until 1980 or so it would have been possible to sway the non-primary delegates into your camp and win at the convention (e.g. Reagan in 1976).
  11. In addition to the media market idea I also think adding a Network versus local TV ad would be a bonus. The way I'm doing it in the 1968 scenario is simply to make it expensive, require a lead time to book the ad buy, and it's darn expensive—as well as a single day shot. I've inserted a house rule to the effect that Network TV can only be booked nationally but obviously an actual bit of code to force that would be better.
  12. Yes but there should be the option to decline public funding as all candidates look likely to do this cycle. Further public funding in the primaries should be correctly modelled in scenarios before 2008 and after 1972: i.e. you have to win 10% of the vote in two consecutive primaries to keep the money flowing, and there are strict limits to how much you can spend per state.
  13. So I have my Thompson/Gore ticket (snerk) and pulling Gore out of his won Democratic race puts Clinton at 1700, Obama at 1000 and Biden at like 600. Eventually it works out to roughly Clinton 2000, Obama 1400, Biden 600. Biden throws his support to Obama which is marginally enough to edge out Clinton and the last three primaries don't change anything. So Clinton—at 60% popularity—drops out because she can't win despite being the choice of most Democratic voters. Obama gets the nod and picks Warner for VP. I then crush them. The only states in play were New England ones, and DC. I stick Gor
  14. As a Republican (Thompson) I offered Gore—the man who was winning the Democratic primaries with 2230 delegates pledged or ahead—my VP slot plus 14 PIPs and he accepted. Oddly without any PIP offered he had a -37% chance, while the losers on the Democratic side (Obama and Clinton) both had a -39% chance of accepting. Something a little odd there. ------- @CraigInTwinCities Try Clark/Bayh 2008's 2008 scenario if you want more realistic ads and fund-raising. It's a little easier, as well.
  15. Oh I agree, but these lopsided victories are the exception (at least for me) and (note) are more likely to happen in Clark/Bayh's 2008 scenario then the official one. Anyway both Nixon and Reagan pulled off these massive victories (albeit against weak Democratic candidates) so it's not entirely out of the question but in 2008 I agree, both sides have a great deal of the vote locked and are fighting over a relative handful of states and votes. Anyway, most days on hard it's down to the wire and I have the edge because the computer player prefers spinning news and scandal to foot soldiers and
×
×
  • Create New...