Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lahbas

  1. On 9/2/2019 at 7:55 PM, admin_270 said:


    Thanks for this - just a note that I'll look at this.


    No problem.

    Now I've been actively working on a scenario, and I've picked up on a few other issues mentioned elsewhere on the board, so the following are my thoughts and observations since my last post:

    • The scenario I have been working on has (15) candidates in it, and I was worried it was going to be a fairly slow game as often it seems to lag when there are that many candidates. To my surprise though there wasn't any lag at all between turns, almost to the point where it was as fast as if there were only (2) candidates or so. The difference in my scenario though is that it starts in the General Election, whereas in the Primary you often have that same number of candidates sticking to the Primary Calendar, and so a selected few States (particularly in the beginning). It is just a theory, but I believe that the game is presently struggling to math the results of a day of campaigning in a single State when hit by a host of candidates and their crusaders. I don't know if there would be anyway to work around that though.
    • A "How-Well-Known" or "Recognition" scale of some kind should be reimplemented:
      • It has been mentioned that lesser candidates should be weaker, and I think that we could tie in their "recognition" with the strength of their actions. Barnstorming would be weaker for someone who is not well known in a State compared to someone who is familiar to voters, and the same would be the case for Speeches, Fundraisers, and so on.
      • Building up "recognition" would be fairly difficult, especially on the national level, as it would largely depend on a candidate making the news or through paid advertising. Barnstorming and Rallies are well and good, but a candidate can only reach so many people, assuming they know to show up or who they are, so it would be subpar compared to targeted advertising; that being said, it can also be useful for generated stories, but those aren't guaranteed.
      • Candidates would have "recognition" divided between the various regions (or States in this case), and that score can rise and fall over time. If a candidate spends a lot of time campaigning in Iowa and paying for adverts there they should probably be recognized, but that doesn't mean their name should have anymore pull in Florida, when narry a dime has been dropped there.
      • Debates would be the biggest single increase in recognition (though not by net, that'd still be Media stories), tied in with their performance score in the debate. A candidate shouldn't have to win a debate earn recognition, so long as they perform admirably enough in comparison to the winner. I don't have a set formula in mind, but it would also make boasting a stronger strategy for weaker candidates as they need to make themselves known.
    • Debates:
      • As debates are currently set up, there is currently little chance for a frontrunner to win a debate once you have a certain number of candidates present, as a sizable number of them will be throwing punches, and you only need so many of those to land before their score is wrecked.
        • To counteract that I think there should be a modifier on the candidates "action scores", their boasting or attacking, based on the number of candidates present in the debate; this would represent the amount of time each candidate has available, so they have less time to make these actions.
        • Alternatively, or possibly in combination, you could tie the success of an attack against the Stats of the one being attacked. In short, the Charisma, Issue Familiarity and Debating Skill of the Attacker would be rolled against that of the Defendant, and would determine whether it backfires, is neutralized, takes, and so on.
        • I apologize if this is already the case, I just may not have noticed, but I believe that any attack that lands should add points to the performance of the Attacker, and any attack that backfires should add points to the Defendant. That might also help to balance things.
  2. @admin_270

    I have to open by admitting that I have yet to play a full game of President Infinity, least starting in the primaries and ending in the election proper; often I only play within either the primaries or the election individually given I still find the way the game interacts between the two … odd at the best of times, which can upend what would normally be sensible strategies. Also I apologize if any points or observations I make are those I've made in the past.

    That being said:

    • Crusaders as they currently stand are not well designed, in my opinion. As most crusaders have a very limited period of use (5 Campaign Points), you often trotting one out just as your on the cusp of expending one you've trained the week before. The player ends on concentrating on a small handful of powerful Crusaders at the expense of all the others, leaving the question of why they are available as crusaders in the first place; I personally don't use most of the Senators or Governors for example. At the same time, I'm aware from some edits that increasing the longevity of these crusaders is quite destabilizing to the game, as it is possible to reach a critical mass where the player can consistently achieve positive momentum, even into the double digits.
      • I'd still argue for making crusaders permanent, in that they don't need to be retrained, but to apply stricter conditions in terms of their use. The pool of points each Crusader has would function as their stamina, which would slowly regenerate over time to an established cap (whether that cap be 5, 10, 25 and so on). The point cost of an action however would vary from Crusader to Crusader, depending on their specializations (it would be more expensive points wise to get a "spin doctor" to barnstorm, as that would not be their preference), if they are alongside the Candidate or his running-mate (they'd rather be a part of major events rather than on their own), or they are "cool" towards the endorsee (they are less enthusiastic about their support and so perform fewer actions)
      • Certain Crusaders would also be restricted in terms of the regions in which they can aid their chosen candidate. The most obvious example are those candidates who are running for re-election, and so usually are unable to spend a significant amount of time outside of their State. As an added caveat however, the actions of "most" Crusaders would have a cost savings in their home states.
      • The cost of a Crusader's action is dependent on the level of the related skill. Part of me feels that the best system would be one that is something in this order, based on skill level; ($5k), ($10k), ($15k), ($20k), ($25k). That would allow weaker campaigns that are struggling financially to still put out basic Crusaders or Fundraisers. I'd also have the cost for a Crusader cut down by a percentage based on how well organized the candidate is in that particular State, and whether they are being bundled with the candidate themselves or the running-mate.
      • Crusaders should be allowed to participate in a Rally action, but the Candidate or Running-mate must be present at the Rally on that turn.
      • Crusaders should have an option allowing automated fundraising, or even a balanced approach between fundraising and barnstorming.
      • You should have an organizational list of your Crusaders based on their remaining action points, on each of their specific skills, and on their home regions.
    •  Campaign infrastructure costs make very little sense as they currently stand. It shouldn't cost the same to maintain campaign infrastructure (footsoldiers) in California as it does in Wyoming, else you are providing a significant advantage to smaller campaigns who are now able to affordably compete in larger States they wouldn't otherwise.
      • As an example, let us assume that the cost of maintaining a basic foot-soldier network in Wyoming, with a population of (577,737), at (Lvl 1) would be ($100). That means at the other various levels, as game costs currently stand, would be respectively ($200), ($300), ($400), and ($500). California on the other hand, with a population of (39,557,045), at (Lvl 1) should be ~($7,100), the subsequent levels being ~($14,200), ~($21,300), ~($28,400), and ~($35,600). While those costs may seem exorbitant, I'd add the caveat that those costs would also be dependent on how "active" the footsoldiers themselves are, explained below.
      • Footsoldiers would have a flat cost similar to organization, representing the leadership of that particular network or set, in addition to a cost and power modifier of (0.25); I've never understood why footsoldiers were turned off entirely before the (90) day window of the Election or the Primary, as you inevitably still have volunteers campaigning in the interim. The subsequent cost and power modifiers would respectively be (0.50), (0.75), and (1.00). As costs would rise and fall depending on their level of activity, they won't become money sinks throughout.
      • Footsoldiers provided by endorsers should also come with a cost savings, in that the first (25%) or (50%) of the maintenance would be "paid for", making them that much more advantageous to acquire. Possibly they should cover even more, depends on how it'd play out.
      • National endorsers, when it comes to footsoldiers, should favor certain regions more than others. Certain multipliers should be in place to make sure that there is a more balanced layout of footsoldiers across all the regions, that footsoldiers placed are more liable to be in regions that are close to their political views, and so on. As the Republican candidate, it can be a mite annoying to have your endorsers place (5) footsoldiers in D.C., and none in Ohio or Pennsylvania.
    • Advertising as currently implemented is a bit of a core to manage, especially if you are trying to manage them on the Regional level in combination with the National level.
      • There should be an option to immediately renew and keep running any advertisement that the player has set up. If I have televised advertising in Iowa extolling my candidates views on gun control, I don't really want to go back to Iowa week after week to delete the old advertisement, scroll through the options to pick myself and then the issue, set the budget, and so on; if the setup is never going to be different, why can't the player automate it? It would save a significant amount of time.
      • Web advertising is far too easy to take an advantage of given it just has a flat cost of ($1k), and can be spammed. I'd argue that a Web Ad should be able to run for the normal seven day period as any other Ad, but that the running cost should be ($0.01) per person (assuming we are using a pay-per-view model akin to Google). That would be ~($3.3m) a turn nationally, or a rate of ~($32k) per turn in a State like Iowa, making it a viable alternative for smaller targeted campaigns.
      • Super PACs need a much larger presence in the campaign as they did a lot of advertising on their own, and at the moment I just don't really see it. Many of the endorsers should come with their own Super PACs, such as the National Rifle Association, which then work to support the candidate from their particular direction (the NRA would be running Ads centering on Gun Control for example).
      • Direct Mail should be one of the types of advertising available to Candidates given its rather common usage; honestly surprised it has never been included. It is also a potent means of fundraising, but I'm not sure how best to represent it beyond it also providing a boost to background fundraising.
    •  The scale for Issue Familiarity and Debating skill should be flat, rather than gaining points at each level. While I understand this was done with the intention of making it harder to for a candidate to progress to the next skill level, it has the unfortunate side-effect of making it easier for low-level candidates to lose their skill. I'd argue this gives a major advantage to candidates who start a scenario with higher skill levels.
      • I've also noticed that you can max either skill to (10), and then continue training to (80/80). Once you do so it "locks", meaning you never need to practice either skill again.
    • If a candidate is available as an endorser, they should immediately start with the benefits of their own "endorsement".
      • Governor Larry Hogan places a free footsoldier in Maryland for whomever he endorses; therefore, if running, he should start with said footsoldier. I'm less sure though how best to apply this to candidates or endorsers who place footsoldiers on the national level.
    • There still seem to be major problems when it comes to maintaining support for the candidates. Committed voters almost never appear to actually be "committed" to their candidates, and with enough negative momentum their support will plummet far below where it should be. This extends to the General Election as well with Party support, though it is only really apparent when played from the Primaries.
    •  Regional Candidates and Parties: These are rather important for a number of historical elections, and there are a number of ahistorical scenarios I have in mind that require them in some form. However these require the ability to restrict a candidates actions and AI stratagem to certain specific regions, which at the present can't be modeled.
    • There should be a way to set preferences when spinning, as while the auto-spin is useful it doesn't always pick the most useful story to spin, and it also tends to bunch all the points into a single story, even when the spin would still be guaranteed success with fewer spin points. If there were a way to target certain candidates or stories, while also allowing the establishment of limits on the number of points or percentage chance per story, it would reduce a lot of micromanaging.
    • I ask for this every time, but I really wish that I could use percentages other than whole numbers. When working with smaller parties that struggle in the single digits, it can be really awkward to round out their support, especially at times when it can cut their support in a region in half, or so much as double it. Being able to put in a percentage like (1.42%) would make some scenarios far cleaner in my opinion.
    • There remain serious stability issues running the game, though I imagine it is a matter of the sheer amount of data the game needs to keep stored. Running a vanilla 2020 scenario from July for example is impossible as the game eventually has a data storage error of some sort and just crashes, and saving some turns before that point returns the same error. Cutting down on the number of candidates does allow for the game to last longer, making me feel that there is just some sort of "ceiling" in terms of data storage, especially as increasing the voter detail also seems to shorten the games' "lifespan". Don't know what the happy medium is yet.

    Sure I've forgotten something, but then I always seem to forget something.

  3. @admin_270

    So unfortunately I've encountered a bug where virtually none of my saves are working. If I try to load them it will either say that "Unable to read from specified game file", or the game will crash to desktop. Now I say virtually none as this seems to only be happening with user scenarios, I have never had this problem with the official scenarios, and it isn't obvious what is causing the problem; this happens even if I've saved at the beginning of the scenario before anything has happened, and if I've merely copied an official scenario and made no changes.

    That being said, I do have the game installed in the D:/ drive as that is where most of my computers memory is, so I don't know if this might be a pathing issue.

    I've attached a couple of the aforementioned saves below just in case there is something in there. 

    autosave.sav Bloomberg Wave.sav

  4. 3 hours ago, Patine said:

    Actually, not true. There used to be a huge crowd interested in playing and making scenarios for K4E. They started disappearing from the forums when he began his monomaniacal focus on PI, PMI, and CI only.

    Having never played K4E and only dabbled in PM4E, what were the major differences between the two? I imagine that MMP was implemented in some form, but other than that?

  5. For the sake of argument I decided to quickly run through the last House Elections results with margins akin to what happened in 2006; polling has put Democratic support slightly under that though close to it, which would mean a popular vote margin of (~9.1%). This is complicated by the abomination that is California's Top-Two system as Democratic votes were inflated and Republican deflated given a number of Democratic-Democratic races in 2016, but I did my best to work around that. In the case of retiring incumbents I also removed a further (8%) which is traditionally considered the average incumbency bonus for congressmen (~8-10%), meaning in those particular districts the gain would be (~17.1%). Using universal swing, not the most accurate measure but you work with what you can, the following districts flipped:

    • Alabama 2
    • Arizona 2
    • California 10
    • California 25
    • California 39
    • California 49
    • Colorado 6
    • Florida 27
    • Iowa 1
    • Michigan 11
    • Minnesota 2
    • Nebraska 2
    • New York 19
    • New York 22
    • Pennsylvania 8
    • Texas 23
    • Virginia 10

    That would still leave the Republicans with a majority, 224 seats to the Democrats 211, a Democratic gain of 17. "Technically" it is less right now because, again, the polling hasn't put the generic ballot quite at 2006 levels yet, but if they exceed those levels then they can certainly capture the House as a number of districts were on the tilt. The problem though is that the number of attainable districts that aren't strongly Republican begins to drop off at that point, so anything but a narrow majority might be out of reach.

    Still a respectable result, but the Democratic base, at least given past reactions I've seen, may see anything less then a capture of the House as a defeat.

  6. 6 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

    I feel like this would be also interesting if you did a CI version, especially since it is easier for one of these small parties to get a house seat or a senate seat than a Presidency win.

    I never really got into Congress Forever and so never made the jump over to Congress Infinity, but I can't even begin to imagine the kind of headache that would be to set up. Not that the idea isn't interesting, it very much is, but I would really have no good idea on how best to calculate the Representatives on a District by District basis for something like the Progressive Party, unless that is I went and translated down Roosevelt's 1912 results to the CD level (and I don't know quite where to find that). The Senate is infinitely easier on the other hand given you are again doing, well, entire States.

    Not really in my present plans though.

  7. Alright so I'll be honest, I need help. Come to find out I am one of those people who can come up with a basic concept and lay out some figures, but I am completely and totally inept when it comes to some other matters like the issues; not that I don't have them, I do, but I am having a hard time getting myself to write up the seven entries required for each and every one. The issues themselves I need in order to finish setting down some of the other pieces like the leanings of the States, politicos, how events may be effected, etc., and it isn't possible to work around such a critical part of the game, least beyond what I've already done.

    That doesn't mean however I need the issues written up entirely per se, but that enough of a concept is there that I could potentially run with it myself; sometimes it is literally nothing more than a small push before I can get on running with whatever I'm working on.

    There are quite a few issues I've been looking at however, mostly from perusing the Party Platforms, and of course a couple of my own additions. There will be notes attached to those issues where the situation may have changed from OTL, especially with Foreign Affairs.




    • Mexico
      • The events at Veracruz eventually spill over into war, with the United States intervening in favor of Venustiano Carranza's Constitutional Army and overthrowing the Huerta Regime. However the Roosevelt Administration extracts a number of concessions in return for this aid, such as protections for American businesses in the country, as well as the right to station its military at strategic points around Mexico until the civil situation in the country was once again calm. Carranza isn't content with the agreements in place, but sees it as a small price to pay in the short-term if it means establishing peace and a fairly free Liberal government. By 1920 there is still a sizable American contingent based in Mexico, but they mostly act as a supporting force for the Mexican National Army in its efforts to root out Emiliano Zapata's guerrilla rebels in the south.
    • League of Nations
      • While the same name, this League of Nations is quite different from its OTL namesake; under pressure from the Roosevelt Administration, the actual membership of the League has been limited to the Allied nations involved in the First World War for a period of twenty years, with Germany/Russia/Austria/Hungary/Turkey being blocked from membership for a period of forty years. A class-based system has also been established with "more powerful" nations subsequently having more clout over the proceedings of the assembly or in any vote. Henry Cabot Lodge is also involved in the drafting of the League, so many of his reservations and written into the organization from the start, which allows for the League to pass muster in the Senate. As such, it is not a particularly major issue.
    • Russian Civil War
      • Shortly before and after the conclusion of the Great War, Theodore Roosevelt deployed a sizable number of American soldiers to aid the White Forces against what is now known as the Petrograd Soviet, somewhere in the range of (100k) to (200k), their aim being to secure supply lines for the Whites and to provide combat support where deemed necessary by local commanders. By 1920 General Anton Denikin has established on the surface re-established a constitutional monarchy in Moscow under the reign of Tsar Nicholas III, in reality a military dictatorship under Denikin's direct control, with the Bolsheviks having been mauled over the last year but not yet knocked out of the fight. The question remains as to how critical American support for the Russian Monarchists is at this juncture despite Roosevelt's insistence, and the reports coming out of Russia on pogroms being conducted against minorities and suspected Bolsheviks has nearly sapped any remaining American will to stay to the finish.
    • Agriculture
    • Rights of Labor
      • Basically the issue of Unions
    • National Economy
    • Presidential War Powers
      • There is some concern with Theodore Roosevelt having ignored calls by Congress to withdraw troops from Russia, including vetoes at legislation aimed to end some war-time measures that are presently supporting said Expeditionary Forces in Russia.
    • Taxation
    • The Federal Reserve / Inflation
      • For the period these two issues were naturally a bit related, so I wasn't if I should list them separately or not. The Federal Reserve as established is also very similar to what it was in OTL, as I imagined Progressive pressure would still push Roosevelt in that direction rather than adopting Aldrich's approach entirely.
    • High Cost of Living
    • Railroads
    • Regulation of Industry and Commerce (i.e. Monopolies)
    • Trade and Tariffs
    • Immigration
    • Naturalization
    • Free Speech
      • The Sedition Act has not been passed, but enforcement of the Espionage Act has been fierce since its passage, resulting in many arrests of those deemed acting against the interests of the United States, prominently members of the Socialist Party opposed to participation in the Great War and, ironically for the Roosevelt Administration, some members of the Progressive Party. Enforcement has gotten progressively lax as public opinion has turned against the expedition to Russia, but at times there are claims it is still used to muzzle the largest agitators or as a form of blackmail; Eugene Debs death in the early months of 1920 is often called upon as an example.
    • Lynching
    • Public Roads and Highways
    • Conservation
    • Army and Navy
      • Naturally it is still fairly sizable as total demobilization has not yet happened, with troops still occupying parts of Russia and the Rhur region in Germany.
    • Veterans Affairs
      • Despite Roosevelt's best efforts, service men that have been demobilized are still struggling to reestablish themselves given the poor economic situation and the high cost of living.
    • Education
    • Health
      • Roosevelt has called for but never succeeded in passing a system of universal healthcare.
    • Child Labor
    • Housing
      • Also attached to economic conditions, there is quite simply a lack of available or affordable housing.
    • Ireland
      • There were those that hoped that Irish Independence could be negotiated by Roosevelt and Wilson at Versailles, and now those same voices are divided over how to react to the ongoing Anglo-Irish War raging across the pond. While not a pressing issue outside the Irish community, it could potentially prove valuable if the cards are played right.
    • Philippines
      • Essentially whether the Philippines remains a Commonwealth or goes Independent, and how soon.
    • Asiatic Immigration
      • An especially important issue for those on the West Coast, separate from immigration as a whole.




    I'm sure I may be forgetting some, but these are the critical ones which I know I am going to be making use of in some capacity.




    @JDrakeify @mz452 @The DM @Kingthero @QuickHead555 @chunkbuster11 @Bjornhattan @HomosexualSocialist @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @koneke @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

  8. So this was supposed to be a far more comprehensive update to the OP, with a reworked and expanded premise as well as descriptions for the candidacies, but quite stupidly I decided to write the drafts in the OP itself (except for the Republican one), and then proceeded to accidentally click back a page when I thought I was on something else, losing three hours of writing. More or less killed that impetus.

    Anyway, got at least the new candidates up that I've chosen for the Republican and Socialist parties as well as the new percentages, and an accompanying image to show what the map looks like at the start presently. It may still be tweaked a bit as I figure out how the Running-mates are going to effect it, but its largely set.

  9. Blurb

    In 1920, the euphoria and jubilation that came with Theodore Roosevelt’s fourth inauguration has now completely dissipated. The United States had found itself drawn into the Great War waging on the European continent, and despite its conclusion the nation has quickly found itself mired in the Russian Civil War aiding the Whites lead by Anton Denikin. The national economy, once prosperous, has over the last year collapsed, demobilized soldiers struggling to find paying jobs and the cost of living increasing exponentially. With the appeal of the Bull Moose having withered away, it seems as if the War has but one more casualty to claim………..



    Progressive Party -  Vice Pres. Hiram Johnson (P-CA) - (~17.4%) 

    Democratic Party -  Sen. William Gibbs McAdoo (D-NJ) - (~38.4%)

    Republican Party - Univ. Pres. Nicholas Murray Butler (R-NY) - (~28.3%)

    Socialist Party - Mayor Emil Seidell (S-WI)  - (~5.3%)

    Prohibition Party - Pastor Aaron Watkins - (~0.7%)


  10. @vcczar

    1. I knew about them not having a popular vote, my concern was that you were just never able to tell which way that "single" voter leaned. The size of the legislature in some the States I dug around for, with New York which had 144 legislators in 1812 (Wikipedia), New Jersey would have had 52 legislators (Wikipedia; 13 counties at the time), Vermont is listed as having 206 legislators (Wikipedia; no real source that I can see though), Connecticut would have had as many as 250 legislators (Wikipedia; 119 towns then established), Delaware had 30 legislators (Wikipedia), North Carolina had at least 190 legislators (Our Campaigns, Our Campaigns), South Carolina had 168 legislators (Some Carolina History Site), for Georgia there wasn't any hard data I could find but based off the Constitution of the time I estimated there were probably about 124 legislators (Likely less given the Representatives aren't accounting for the 3/5ths for African Americans, but a decent approximation), and Louisiana apparently had 39 legislators (Our Campaigns).
    2. I wasn't talking about footsoldiers, though I was straining for a more proper term. Mini-Crusaders would probably be more apt. Doesn't really matter either way.
    3. The Tennessee result I got from (Our Campaigns), Madison winning out 8,501 to 433. As for the landslides, I suppose that would depend on a number of different factors; last night I ran a basic set of simulations and Madison and Clinton won equally as often, but that was when it was being run from the general. If run from the primaries it is possible that Madison accrues more endorsements then he would otherwise, has stronger finances, and therefore has a much stronger general election start. That's happened a few times to me when trying to design scenarios in the past.
    4. --
    5. The results in Ohio from (Our Campaigns); I could more dependably pull that and Tennessee's data from Schlesinger's History of Presidential Elections, but I'm not in a position to make a trek to the public library today.
    6. Oh I'm aware about the campaigning, but you can't do much about that without tearing out a good chunk of the game's AI as it currently is. Ironically though this could also be exacerbating your problem in terms of Clinton getting crushed by Madison; Clinton has IF of 4 and a Debater level of 3, compared to James Madison's pair of 5's, meaning that Madison is effectively as potent as Gingrich was/is in the 2012 scenario, but without the attacks from eight other candidates.
  11. Been a while since I looked at anything here, but the progress of the historical commission you guys have set up caught my eye. Just a few matters that I took note of with this scenario.

    • For anyone who is looking at the scenario for the first time, including me, the presence toss-up States with no support for any of the parties is more than a little jarring. I understand that they do lean towards the correct parties at the end and grant their electoral votes, but it would be nice if there was some way to show from the start that these States lean that particular way. This is especially the case in the primaries where it is impossible to tell without looking through the scenario files what your starting position is in these States, which ones you might have a chance in, and as the season goes on, how you are actually doing; given the number of delegates assigned to these States, you can't ignore them, but it really isn't all that fun trying to fight for them blind either.
    • I believe there should be three forms of ads for these earlier campaigns; Newspapers -- (expensive, but with a high power as they have a dedicated reader base) --, Posters  --(moderately expensive, but with a bonus to attack and can run longer) --, and Footmen -- (cheap, but have little power as they mainly rally your own dedicated based). It isn't perfect by any means, but it would allow advertising to play some role in these scenarios.

    • DeWitt Clinton is far too strong in Kentucky, -- (He only got 5% of the vote there) -- Virginia, -- (Even whilst representing King's voters in this case, King only got 27% of the vote historically to Madison's 73%; it wasn't a true swing State as displayed in-game) -- and to a smaller extent in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Now part of that problem is that I really dislike using more than 10% of voters as undecided given the wild swings that can experienced -- (In my scenarios I often work with a Committed Bloc of 60%, though whether that works as it should in-game is another matter) -- but in either case across the board I find Clinton being far stronger than he should.

    • I realize that there were elections in Tennessee, but given the lack of information on the vote, and when compared to the results that came out of neighboring Kentucky, I'd argue Clinton's support should be non-existent and that the State be cleared for Madison as, say, Georgia is.

    • The Clinton ticket should have ballot access in Kentucky and Ohio, which it currently does not.

    •  The various debates should probably be removed given they never happened. The old events from the 1912 and 2012 scenarios should probably be removed as well, even if they have no practical effect on the scenario as it is.

  12. 5 hours ago, vcczar said:

    Update: Finished the 2020 Senators and Governors. Republicans still maintain a lead in both categories; although, the lead is cut noticeably in the governorships. Senate is either 51-49 or 50-50 (Pence breaks tie). I didn't really count, but there didn't seem to be any movement one way or the other. I'm assuming the House will still be a Republican majority as well, but much slighter. Republicans will have much more infighting, which will sometimes be to the Democrats advantage in the scenario events. 

    How do you figure the Republicans lose any seats? Every Republican seat that cycle is ruby-red except for the one in Nevada, whereas the Democrats have to protect themselves across a slew of battleground (or even Red) states such as Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, North Dakota, and so on. I know the rule about how Midterms always go against the incumbent party, but there comes a point where it is a bit difficult to believe the opposition holding the line everywhere, especially when turnout during that part of the cycle is to their disadvantage.

    I'd be curious who you chose to survive or get picked-off through 2018, however.

    Edit: I also believe that King and Sanders are both going to remain as Independents; despite the talk of having joined the Democratic Party, Sanders seems to have walked back that commitment and returned to the former status quo of "accepting endorsement" by the VDP. Not that it really matters, as you said both are going to lean strongly Democratic, whether thrown into the Party or not.

  13. 2 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

    I'm skeptical on giving Kaine a big boost, for two reasons:

    1) He isn't the most charismatic man in the world.

    2) He is tied to the Clinton campaign, which lost an election that many predicted she should've won. 

    In short, he is essentially Walter Mondale- a fairly successful senator from a swing state that has the misfortune of being connected to a failed campaign.


    It's funny you mention Mondale, given he ran in '84 and won the Democratic nomination fairly handily despite a spirited challenge from Gary Hart (at least once Super-Delegates are considered). For that reason I'm not entirely in disagreement, but I doubt he would be a weak candidate. As a compromise an argument could be made that his support is soft, akin to the polling strength that Joe Lieberman had during the 2004 Primaries before the Anti-War message proved overwhelming.

    I'd argue against all your proposed candidates except Hasan, Franken, Bullock and Hickenlooper, for a myriad of reasons, but I don't believe that any of these candidates will have any real polling strength except maybe Franken (largely because of his previous exposure as a Comedian). There just isn't a national following for the others as far as I can tell, nor do Representatives typically perform all that well (more in appearance than as a rule though admittedly). The same can be said of New York's mayors, but Bill de Blasio has the additional problem of being rather unpopular, and there is an outside chance that he could be ousted in either the Democratic primary or the Mayoral.

  14. Democratic

    • I would hesitate on nixing Senator Kaine, if only because he now has a national profile and has a lot of appeal among Centrist Democrats. Now whether he would actually carry the nomination is a good question, and I personally doubt he would given the proposed field and environment, but I see no reason why he wouldn't opt to give it a shot when he'd be polling in the double-digits.
    • I'd argue Cory Booker's presence in the race would be much smaller, if only because most of the establishment would be backing Tim Kaine, and he has managed to alienate quite a number of key people who would be strategically vital for a successful bid. That, and it wouldn't be hard to paint him as being overly friendly will Wall-Street, his attacks on Obama regarding Bain Capital coming to mind.
    • Bernie Sanders is definitely making some noise, and while I doubt he will actually run in lieu of another Progressive, I believe it would be fair to have him as an "Off" candidate, with the caveat that both Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren should be turned "Off" should he be activated.
    • People are making noise about both of Minnesota's Senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobucher.


    • Don't really have anything to say at the moment actually.


  15. Been running tests for one of my own scenarios, and the Primaries are effecting the General percentages so severely that the maps between each play-through are essentially unrecognizable. I have images I captured that highlighted some of these issues but the forum is forbidding me from linking them from Imgur, and I am not familiar with how to upload attachments to this site for use. I'll describe three cases.

    To set the scene there are two Democratic candidates, the incumbent President and a weak challenger, eight Republican candidates though only four with any real strength, and one Green candidate.

    In Missouri the Republican-Democratic-Green balance is supposed to be around 50-47-2. As it stands in May, after seven months of campaigning, that balance is now at 58-13-3. The Democrats, despite having a relatively uncompetitive primary and the Republicans at each others' throats, have lost 34 points in the polls. The absolute floor for the Democratic vote, even when factoring in that it may be exclusive to Gore at his 80 primary points at 40% committed, should be 15%. Reasonably though were the Democratic Party be what was followed, the floor should be the 60% committed vote I've set, which is 28%.

    In California the Democratic-Republican-Green balance is supposed to be around 54-42-5. As it stands in May, after seven months of campaigning, that balance is now at 21-42-8. There was no real competition on the Democratic side in California either, but what perplexes me the most is that, in the week I had caught the image, the Democrats had lost 22.4 points in the state, going from 43 to 21. I have no idea what reasonably could cause that kind of dip in support within such a short period of time. Accounting for the Democratic committed block the absolute floor for the Democratic vote should be ~33%.

    In Michigan the Democratic-Republican-Green balance is supposed to be around 51-46-2. As it stands in May, after seven months of campaigning, that balance is now at 56-19-2. Now I realize that the Republicans did have a competitive primary, but I'm still not sure how they could lose 27 points of support in the state. Accounting for the Republican committed block the absolute floor for the Republican vote should be ~28%.

    Then there is also the 18 points lost by the Democrats in New Hampshire, the 8 points lost by the Republicans in West Virginia, the 10 points lost by the Democrats in Minnesota, and so on. I really don't know what is going on; these kind of changes or drops in support never appear if I run the scenario from the General Election.

    Thought the creators should be aware.

  16. Further observations on my part, as well as recommendations, in regards to President Infinity:

    • The fact that the primary vote in states that have already held primaries is not redistributed once a candidate has dropped out of the race is what I think is causing the issues with some states in the General Election period being rather static or only moving a couple tenths of a percent this way or that; since the attacks are only made against the nominee of the party, only his percentage in that states primary is being effected, whereas the rest being is connected with candidates that can't be attacked once the conventions have concluded. The redistribution of the vote once a candidate withdrew was something that occurred in President Forever 2008. I could be wrong of course, but the two do seem to correlate.
    • I realize regional parties and candidates are something that has already been discussed between Anthony and Vcczar, but I would also like to add onto that the possibility of completely removing certain political units from holding primaries for a certain party, as well as blocking their ability to attain support in those political units in the General. For example, I've been working on updating the All-Star Presidents scenario for President Infinity and some Parties, like the Democratic-Republican Party, aren't meant to be organized in states like California or Wyoming which were formed after the Party dissolved. I can move those primaries past the convention date while removing their delegates, but that doesn't preclude the candidates benefiting from momentum provided by newspapers. I can remove ballot access in the General period for the Party, but that encounters the same issues which can amount to a Party gaining some non-negligible support in a state they are supposed to have literally zero. Even with regional candidates and parties added, this could prove problematic.
    • ​Ideologue and Ambition need to have far more say in how soon a candidate will drop out of the race; usually half or more of the field drops out of the race with the first two primaries, as has just happened in the case of the Republican race, whereas in-game this rarely happens, most deciding to stay in until Super-Tuesday or even later.
    • Candidates, even when they drop out, continue to raise millions of dollars in funds and are subject to attack ads and negative campaigning by those who are still in the race. If a candidate drops out of the race, they should drop out of the race; they shouldn't be raising money, I shouldn't have the option to attack them, their endorsers should be freed up.
    • At the moment it appears that the A.I. appears to target its attacks based on the amount of momentum a candidate or player is able to generate, which while somewhat understandable given the polls may or may not show a rapid rise for that candidate, does not always reflect the reality on the ground. As Lindsey Graham for example I was at best languishing at around 4% or so, but nearly everyone had changed their themes to attacks on my positions and character, and ultimately I was permanently gifted negative momentum in the early primary states and thrashings at the debates as everyone attacked, while front-runners Donald Trump and Ben Carson were left alone. To say it is frustrating, and this has been the case in each and every one of my games, is an understatement.
    • When a candidate wins the nomination of a Party, their General Election Campaign Infrastructure stats should immediately kick in. I do understand that upgrading the campaign to that level would take a reasonable amount of time realistically, but the A.I. seems to at best do a sub-par job in progressing its stats beyond its initial starting levels, moreso for lower leveled candidates. This of course would work with the caveat that it would not upgrade down, or alter Campaign Infrastructure stats which are at parity or higher then those set (Five won't go to four).
    • You should be able to recruit two or more crusaders at the same time. Now this would be rare especially in the primary period, but in the General period where your foot-soldiers are established and organization is up to your standard you sometimes will have the investment on hand and desire to recruit two or possibly even three crusaders. This has happened to me on a couple of occasions.
    • Ability to change the costs of various actions and abilities; I normally wouldn't mention this given I can take care of most of this through Notepad++, but I haven't been able to find the costs related to Rallies which is problematic for those scenarios where the money coefficient is rather low.
    • Fix Proportional Representation in regards to the Electoral Votes for Political Units, as well as the ability to place a floor in terms of the percentage of votes needed to be awarded Electoral Votes. Not the highest of priorities, but it would certainly allow for a greater variety of possible scenarios than the present FPTP does.
    • Increase the character limit or space available of the Party name in the Candidate boxes during the final voting stage. Not that important, but it is a bit awkward to see the names of Parties like Republican, Democratic, Federalist, Whig, but then for the Democratic Republicans it simply displays DRP.
  17. This is from a conversation I was having with another member, but I feel it may be applicable here as well in case anyone else has made the same observation.

    I've encountered another problem though which has proven a bit crippling, and I don't believe it is entirely as a result of the conventions being bugged but it may be related. It was the 1868 scenario, I played as Millard Fillmore with the Constitutional Unionists, and the main contest was the Democratic nomination (I had turned on Chase and Wade to fight Grant, but they were too weak to really contest). Pendleton eventually won by default through the bugged convention, but what I noticed was that in states where Pendleton was really weak in the primary phase it was near impossible to knock down Democratic support, and conversely it was easier in those states he won but still somewhat like molasses. The Republicans meanwhile, whose primary phase was dominated by Grant everywhere except in Ohio, were fairly fluid in their support in every state 'cept, of course, Ohio where Grant had netted only ~35% against Chase and Wade. For the sake of argument I ran the same scenario again, this time as Grant with no opposition, and this observation held true; Pendleton had won again but I could not effect Democratic popularity in those states where he had been especially weak in the primaries. Run from the General Election however is nothing of the sort happens, every state is fairly fluid in its support according to the parameters of Committed, Leaning, etc., as it should be.

    Now my hypothesis for why this is happening is that the game, for whatever reason, is not redistributing the support of eliminated candidates to those who are still running, or even to the nominee. I ran a third time as Grant and decided to wait until the Democratic caucuses had all been won in June, then decided to run attacks on Joel Parker in Michigan where he had won with a fairly sizable amount of the vote, and because of some mishaps on my part the Democrats had managed to reach 55% of the vote in the state while I languished nearer 40%. Lo and behold, the Democratic vote went down by about one or two points, not all that much but far more than I ever managed after Pendleton was again named the nominee; he had only earned 2% in the caucuses there, and I was lucky to ever get more than 1/10th of a percent knocked from the Democratic margins.

    I haven't tested it extensively, but it seems to connect fairly well with what I have experienced in other scenarios such as 2016, where for example Clinton usually becomes to the nominee but, because her support is driven to essentially nill in the early primary states, its impossible to degrade Democratic support in those states.

  18. Having tried my hand at President Infinity again after a lengthy hiatus, I have to say that I still find a lot of issues in how the game and set up and runs, principally when run from the Primaries; running from the General Election eliminates some of the issues I'll raise.

    • Currently, the momentum and efforts of all the candidates in a party effect the general election, and this naturally benefits the party(s) which have more candidates. For example in the 2016 scenario it is not uncommon for the Republicans to develop massive leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, sometimes over 60%. As a Democrat or Third Party I have never been able to compete in those states.
    • The voters appear to become more static as time goes on, often once the conventions are over and done. Playing with FOW off, there is some movement, but even with momentum for a candidate over (-10) or more their movement in the polls is by tenths of a percent. The end result is that the General Election often becomes anticlimactic as the map is, well, static, other than perhaps a few states within a point or so.
    • Conventions are still broken, though I am aware they are presently being worked upon.
    • The primaries are almost too fluid, at least on the state-level; if Hillary Clinton is supposed to have a sizable bloc of support in Iowa, and that about 40% of them should be committed to her, there should be no way to drive her support down to essentially zero. A similar situation often arises with Donald Trump on the Republican side.
    • Foot-soldiers and organization should have their cost be based on the population of the political unit slash state, not be subject to a flat fee. While I agree there would technically be some flat fees associated with state managers or top-level staff, the actual 'foot-print' of the foot-soldiers and organization should be based on how many people it needs to achieve the same effect in would have in another state. For example, establishing operations in California or New York should be far more expensive then it would be in Wyoming or New Hampshire.
    • Endorsers need further limitations to prevent them from endorsing candidates they simply would not endorse. I don't want to see Dick Cheney endorsing Elizabeth Warren, or in a case I've seen the NRA endorsing Jill Stein. There should be some room for crossover but not so much that the endorsers would be committed to an institution.
    • Allow the scenario editor to work into the (00.1)'s place in percentages. Not that important, but its such a pet peeve of mine that this never carried over from the last version of the game, and makes the inclusion of any candidates that operated in the single-digits more trouble than its worth, both in the primary and the general. Don't know if its not compatible with the engine, but the only workaround I have right now is to truncate the voting population to prevent it from reading my new percentages as billions of voters.
    • When you have the editor remove a political region from the game, it should remove the political region from the files as well. Right now it seems to do nothing other than block them from the Campaign Editor.

    That's it for now, but I'm sure I'll think of more later.

  • Create New...