Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HorckDude

  1. Unfortunately version 1.6.5 is also crashing when I try to start a game. Whichever game (primaries on or off, different scenarios) I set up, after candidate selection it pops up the message window "Creating game ... Please wait.", and at the same time an error message:

    '0.1' is not a valid floating point value.

  2. I'm having the same problem where I can't get past the selection of candidates. The game just shuts down without showing an error.

    I tried:

    - Selecting different scenarios and candidates

    - Deselecting Spies, Fog of War and Primaries

    - Turning off Sounds, Inline Help, and Autosave in the options screen

    - Changing human vs computer to human vs human (in case the AI caused the problem)

    None of these helped.

    I'm playing on OSX 10.9.3 (the latest version).

  3. I found that President Forever 2016 did not have a facebook presence yet, so I took the liberty of creating a page myself.


    So for all fellow P4E fans: be sure to like the page and suggest it to friends so 270soft can continue its work. :)

  4. 1. VP button is a good point. The tricky part I can think of is that the Veep button is not used during large parts of the primaries.

    Well, I don't know how P4E is programmed, but couldn't you simply show/hide and move buttons in the interface? Put the VP button in third place once a VP has been selected, and move the other buttons slightly to the right. Wouldn't it work something like:

    IF ( VP_selected=1 )


    vp_button = on

    position_button3 = +50 pixels

    position_button4 = +50 pixels



    Or does this sound stupid? ;)

    2. Any specific situations where you are unable to cancel VP activities?

    I just tried again, and found that it's limited to the activities issue knowledge and debate prep, but the problem occurs all the time. All other activities don't have a problem and can be cancelled.

    3. Endorsement in exchange for VP candidacy: do you mean endorsement from another candidate who is running?

    Sorry, I should've been much clearer. I meant to say offer another candidate the VP spot if they endorse you before you have enough delegates to actually offer it. At that point they probably won't become VP because you have not yet clinched the nomination, but they will become the VP once you do cinch the nomination.

  5. I only very recently bought President Forever 2012, not having played the previous game for a long while, and I must say this is still the most awesome political strategy game there is. In recent years there have been some other political election games, but all focus on graphics and are no good simulation games. The level of detail that P4E has is great, and I love all the new additions to the game. I especially like that you can now court governors for their endorsement, and then actually use them as surrogates. So kudos to 270soft for a still-terrific game!

    Still, there is room for improvement. Mostly in the interface, since the actual dynamics of the game are strong. Here are some things I thought of:

    • Most importantly: VP activity is not easily accessed. While you use candidate activities daily, VP activity is a submenu of the leader’s activity. You have to click two buttons before you get there, even though it’s one of the functions you use most, especially in the last stretch of the campaign when all else (endorsements, strategy setting, organization creation) has already been done. Maybe the VP could get his own button to the right of the leader’s activity button. If another button would have to go to make room, the Theme button could easily be put elsewhere: for example in the platform menu. It would make more sense. You use the theme menu only a handful of times in a game, while you use VP activity in every turn.
    • Sometimes I am unable to cancel VP activities
    • Is it possible to structure the surrogate activities panel in the same way as the candidate activities panel so that an orange X means cancelling an activity? I know the difference is that you can only check one activity for a surrogate, but making it the same as for the candidates would make more sense. Several times I wanted to switch the state where a surrogate would fundraise (because he/she would raise more), and clicking the fundraise button again cancels the activity instead of selecting a different fundraising location.
    • It would be great if you can ask for an endorsement in exchange for the VP candidacy.
    • Could the VP’s spouse be added as surrogate once the VP has been selected?
    • During my party’s convention I can still travel the country with my candidates. I should be forced to fly to the convention on the day of the candidate’s speech.
    • When selecting a state, the numbers are shown at the bottom right, but without the name of the state above. You see the flag, but no name. Moreover, right above the numbers it says “Candidate X is in state Y”, causing confusing. When looking for a state name with the numbers you only find the name of the state the candidate is in, but I think it should be clear in the blink of an eye which state you have selected. Maybe put the “Candidate X is in state Y” line at the top of the screen near his/her photo? It would make more sense.
    • When playing the 2012 scenario with primaries, Obama’s running mate was chosen randomly, and my ticket (Romney/Ryan) was suddenly facing Obama/Clinton instead of Obama/Biden. Could it be made possible to specify the opponents running mate when playing a game with primaries? Or could it be possible to set a default running mate for a primaries game?
    • Could interviews be linked to a weekday, so that the Sunday show interviews are only offered on saturday?
    • Can we get a switch for week-by-week play during the primaries?
    • After clinching your party’s nomination, your opponents are still able to actively fight you. Now I can understand that some candidates continue if they really don’t agree with you, but their ability to make news should be reduced dramatically. The media barely ever spend time on a sore loser, so all their campaign activity should have only a very minimum impact.
    • I was unable to cancel my spy. I could cancel spy creation, but not a working spy. What made this annoying is that a few turns after I found out I couldn't cancel, that spy got caught.
    • The recap screen would be more effective if notifications were grouped: first the result of activities of candidates, then organizational improvement, and so on.
    • Debate results are, in my opinion, way too detailed. I appreciate that more variables are put into debating, but if you play the republican primaries and have to click through 8 screens filled with numbers you don’t pay attention anymore. Maybe just show a screen with the total score per candidate, and then a button to click for more details.
    • In the ad screen, two buttons to select the political unit is confusing. Can they be merged, with the ones with ads currently being run or created at the top? Perhaps with brackets behind their names showing the number of ads.

    • Upvote 1
  6. Started working on it weeks ago. :)

    But there can't be any release until the primaries version of P4E is out so we'll have to wait for that.

    Besides, there's very little information about all candidates available now. In early february there will be a 3-episode arc about the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, which will give me a lot of information for the scenario.

    The candidates currently planned (some already added):

    Democratic: Santos, Russell, Hoynes, Baker (if he wouldn't drop out), Tripplehorn (senate minority leader as seen in various episodes) and possibly an optional Bartlet candidacy for a third term (if the WW universe wouldn't know term limits).

    Republican: Vinick, Walken (acting president), Haffley, Ritchie (comeback), and more which should be announced in the show.

  7. Brilliant vegeta, you've just made a negative topic about why you are not too negative. :D

    Really, this is pathetic vegeta. That's what children say: "He did it, so I have the right to do it too!"

    And yes, this is a negative post of me too.

  8. so those other fictional scenarios were bad in your opinion? so why is this the first time u came out complaining?

    Again you are not reading well.

    For one, saying some scenario's are good doesn't mean the rest are by definition the opposite: bad.

    Second, 'all kinds of scenarios' doesn't mean those scenarios have to be made yet. The 'all kinds' means anything that has been made or is yet to be made.

    Third, even if I would have made such a comment it's redicilous to suggest that one has to comment on every scenario (s)he doesn't like. Not everybody likes to make so many negative posts as you do.

    i can think of several historical reference in which one angry party decided to take over the country by force

    Ofcourse that's true, but it's the 'several' part that's important. It doesn't always occur and as long as one thing does not necessarily lead to the other it should be researched for this scenario.

    I think you get the point that a violent group doesn't always have to become peaceful of vice-versa. You just have to research for the different factions in the Middle East whether or not it's likely that they will go political or not.

    So you're gonna have to figure how those division in a country would change after becoming democratic. Can a group becoming a peaceful political party and will they actually have enough supporters to get elected?

    thats a challenge in making the scenario but it's far from impossible

    You are right. I shouldn't have said 'impossible', but 'very difficult' or something like that. But I think it's so difficult that I doubt many people here (myself included) can do such good research to make it really work. Still, if you want to go through with it I wish you luck and hope you can really get it done.

  9. so if woodrow wilson really did run for president of europe that scenario would be realistic?

    and lets assume the entire middle east came together and elected on leader than the scenario would it be real wouldn't it?

    Please read before posting vegeta.

    I clearly refered to 'those fictional scenarios' I thought were good. Not to all kinds of fictional scenarios.

    If you make a scenario on any democratic country you can easily find the different political parties and their positions.

    even in non democratic countries there is still always a stuggle between different groups take iraq there was a constant struggle between sunni's and shiet (sp)

    That is true, but opposite sides in a dictatorship are different from opponents in a democracy.

    I can't see the republican party starting a guerilla war against the democratic party.

    So you're gonna have to figure how those division in a country would change after becoming democratic. Can a group becoming a peaceful political party and will they actually have enough supporters to get elected?

  10. and yes to get this done u have to do research but u could pretty much say the same thing for every other scenario idea

    Yes, but this scenario would need more research than any other. If you make a scenario on any democratic country you can easily find the different political parties and their positions.

    In this case none of that exists so you have to do extensive research on the current beliefs of various people in the Middle East. Also, there are no electoral trends available which makes it ever harder to find out what people would vote for.

    They're fictional, but if they were real it would be realistic.

    ??? now thats a quote

    LOL :D

    I ment politically realistic. If those fictional scenarios weren't fictional, they would be politically realistic. That's what I wanted to say. :)

  11. My point wasn't that a fictional scenario wouldn't work, which I pointed out when I said I liked fantasy elections. The scenario from 'The West Wing' is fiction, but the only thing really different are the candidates. America is thesame with it's red and blue states and electoral trends, so it's still good politics.

    There were more fantasy elections which were realistic within the scope of their own reality. They're fictional, but if they were real it would be realistic.

    What I merely pointed out was that if the Middle East would have elections you couldn't have anything like a US-style elections.

    But I wouldn't want to keep you from creating such a scenario. If you go on with it I'd just like to say that you should study the various Middle East politcal movements very carefully and make a scenario as closely to realism as possible. I say this because a scenario with an anti-terrorism candidate and terrorist candidate is simply a good vs. evil contest and that has little to do with good politics. So my advice is: do good research first!

  12. Yea, let's have full democratic elections in the most undemocratic region in the world.

    Politics as we know them can't exist in the Middle East so it's impossible to hold elections. For one, no political groups exist. They all agree on one important thing: Allah is great.

    There will not be a liberal stream, a conservative stream or any other political stream. Also, because of the non-existance of political diversity there are no electoral trends available so you'd be making the entire thing up, with the exception of the names of the countries.

    I like fantasy elections, but I think this one would be just a little bit too unrealistic.

  13. Idea for Divisions of Ideological Groups:

    Republican Democracy - US, Israel, Australia, UK, Japan, Pakistan

    European Democracy - France, Germany, Canada, South Korea, India

    Communist - Cuba, China, North Korea, Support in Russia, former Soviet Bloc

    Islamic Fundamentalism - Iran, Portions of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan

    Contintent Division Idea:

    North America US (in quarters), Canada (in quarters), Cuba, Mexico, Carribean, Central America

    South America - Brazil, Southern SA, Northern SA

    Africa - Southern Africa, Central Africa, NE Africa (more IF), NW Africa (more ED)

    Middle East - Israel, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (other countries merged into blocks with those major divisions)

    EU - Turkey, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, UK, France, Germany

    Russia - Eastern Russia, Central Russia, Siberia

    Rest of Asia - Pakistan, India, China, Japan, NKorea, SKorea, Indochina (as a block), Indonesia

    Australia - Australia, New Zealand

    I was the one who started a world scenario.

    And I had/have a good portion of the map done, but the problem is that the world is so big and you need big countries if you want them to be well clickable. The divisions you made sound good, but I have it a little different. I re-merged some countries which were seperated in the last few centuries. For example unifying Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Equador to Gran Colombia, which was a big state until the end of the 19th century.

    I'm trying to group countries that are similar, but it can never be totally perfect because there are just too many small countries.

    At this point I am done with North and South America and they are all clickable countries that have maintained much of their identity.

    Asia and Australia are easy, but Europe, the Middle East and Africa are a hell.

    The Middle-East has a lot of small countries close to eachother. Thorn in the eye is Israel which you almost can't find in this big world map. I had to merge many Arab countries, under which unifying Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Jemen and others into the 'Arabian Peninsula'. :blink:

    That was a bad move, but there is no other option because of the small map.

    This world scenario sure is tougher than any map ever done before.

    You have to make a balance between a realistic political setting and playability.

    I don't want it to be politically unrealistic but it shouldn't be too boring either with too many small unclickable countries all with 1 electoral vote. For this I really need to simplify the world and simplifying an immensely complicated system is a very hard job.

    Right now I still need ideas for Europe and Africa. Europe has currently been devided into:

    - Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark)

    - Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg)

    - France

    - Germany

    - Spain & Portugal

    - Italy

    - Central Europe (Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary)

    - Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Romania)

    - Balkans (Serbia, Bosnia, Greece)

    - Turkey

    After merging countries it's still too unclickable, so I need to merge more. But western Europe is a problem because it is (and always has been) so different.

    But I recently learned in my political science classes that the current political differences in Europe have evolved from religious boundaries: the northern countries that were protestant have become generally more liberal and the southern countries that were catholic more conservative:


    Look at the deeply religious Spain, Portugal and Italy in the south, and in super-liberal states in Scandinavia, Germany and Holland.

    I am thinking about seperating Europe around that lines, which means there won't be an entire 'western europe'.

    Then there's Africa. Now I don't think you can simply split it up in north, south, east and west. That would be very colonial style when the west similarly cut up Africa for themselves.

    I wan't to do a merging that makes sense, but I don have a really good idea. Although maybe all Islam countries in northern Africa should be grouped, but south of the Sahara I am at a loss on how to group countries together.

    Does anyone have ideas?

  14. He says as a courtesy that you should tell him if he is a bad mod, but you should be pollite and not actively seeking negative opinions about Matt.

    When someone says something nice as 'make yourself at home' you don't actually make it your home.

  15. we rate the president i am just looking to see what people think of the job matt is doing

    A president is an elected official who has to serve the people. Controlling that person by rating him is important because (s)he has indirect control over us.

    A moderator is none of those things. He doesn't even have control over you.

    If you disagree with him/her you can just leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay on a board with mods you don't like. You're a guest, and will just have to accept how things are run by the admins and mods. They own it and you are only a guest.

    Act accordingly by not insulting your hosts.

  • Create New...