Jump to content
270soft Forum

LordTC

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LordTC

  • Rank
    Political Geek
  1. Bush is complicated, maybe now people don't see him as charismatic, but people really did in 2000 and 2004. Maybe it's just that Kerry and Gore were some of the most uncharismatic candidates ever, but one of the key advantages for Bush was that he presented as more personable and more likable, and I think that's basically what charisma should be in this game.
  2. If you want a North American Socialist/Communist pickings are slim: MLK is a bit of a stretch, Tim Buck is probably an ok option but compared to most of the name recognition in here he's quite outclassed.
  3. If the making a map was directed at me, I have no experience making maps, so If I tried it I doubt it would be good. I'm also pretty busy over the next few weeks.
  4. Can you please try and avoid two candidates of the same last name, it can be a bit of an issue in terms of appearance of the map and lists. I'd rather not have to check colors all the time because the names are the same in a list. F.D.R. should get the nod over Teddy anyways. As for the English, I think Henry VI would get the nod over some of your list, but I guess balancing era's should probably win out. MLK might be better off as a crusader for one of the pro-civil rights parties, or a major civil rights candidate, or as a VP. Lincoln seems to be a huge miss on the American list, my lis
  5. My Best Guess: My best guess is the bonuses are too large: 160 is bigger than 100, so its possible you might be wrapping around going back to zero. Try testing scale: What happens if you do 50 and 30? 25 and 15? In multi-party systems this might be a mess because I'm guessing things can screw up if your bonuses are too large across all parties. Also: Is your scenario starting in the general, or going through primaries first? If its primaries first, what happens with the other candidates can possibly distort things!
  6. Played it again, Wonk on Hard no cheats and no exploits and got a 530 to 8 Electoral College win for my ticket of Obama/Clinton against Guliani/Romney with 64.9% of the vote. Utah and Wyoming are really tough to take as a Democrat, I might try again I think I made quite a few mistakes with money early and could have done better. I've got screenshots but need to setup a photobucket or whatever account.
  7. Hi Gax23, I have a thread open on this with a poll so please go vote or comment there also please, I'm hoping to generate a discussion on this. I also very strongly agree that something like this is a huge sell.
  8. 1. Effect of PP's on candidate offers. My recommendation here is to take the weighted average of issue positions as a modifier to effectiveness. If my candidate has a 2.3 Average and your candidate has a 5.3 average then each PP should give 5-3=2 percentage points rather than 5. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of stealing the vote from a very similar party in a multiparty system, but does close down the exploit of having a far-right guy endorse a far-left guy. 2. Weighted-Average of Momentum for National/HQ momentum. Almost everyone who's good at this game knows that you run aggres
  9. Maybe you could have the option to hire a campaign manager and have 5 varieties: Incompetent: costs nothing, -2 CP/turn. Mediocre: small cost, -1 CP/turn. Average: medium cost, +0 CP/turn. Heavyweight: large cost, +1 CP/turn. Superstar: massive cost, +2 CP/turn. Basically you'd be taking campaign organization and using campaign staff (manager, etc.) to model it. Rather than having the actual candidate work on the campaign strategy the campaign staff would.
  10. Locking is relative, but you can have +30 momentum in a state and if the state has no undecided voters your vote won't go up. Maybe if the state has no undecideds +ve momentum should be converted to negative momentum at a reduced rate spread proportionally among opponents. For instance: If I have +30 momentum in a state and there are 0.0 undecided voters you could do the following: 1) Reduce 30 to 15 by dividing by 2 2) If my opponents collectively control 60% of the vote (say 40% and 20%) then they would get 2/3 and 1/3 respectively. So for instance if I have +30 momentum opponent 1 has
  11. Also worthwhile is: While there is an undecided vote in the area you are going after its worthwhile to stay positive, but when there isn't you have to go negative. In an area with 0.0% undecided you ideally want the following: -> +10 momentum (you) -10 momentum (main opponent), which would have them bleeding 0.5% and you picking up the votes they bleed away. With this in mind the following is useful: 1) Save up scandals to hit them when you have positive momentum to take away the votes they lose during the scandal. 2) Start a campaign with 3 positive themes and once most of the undeci
  12. Finished the Scenario. Ended up with 87.1% of the vote on election day so I did fall slightly, still a pretty awesome result though.
  13. Fun with the Wonk Scenario. My Barack Obama/Hilary Clinton ticket, Hard no cheats got kind of stupid. It's May 12th 2008 and I have 87.3% of the Vote, Giuliani has 12.5% of the Vote and 0.2% is undecided. That's a whole lot of months for basically nothing to happen. I have a lock on every state in the general, and the primaries aren't even finished yet (although both winners are known).
  14. I played the 2008 Primaries + General Election and by the time the Republican Convention had rolled around the % of undecided voters was less than the difference between the two parties in every single state (no fog of war). Since parties don't lose voters the general was decided before it began! Ok so parties can lose voters if you can get their overall momentum sufficiently negative while maintaining enough momentum to pick up the gap. Which is pretty tricky.
  15. I'd like to see a media markets approach to add buys also. I'd also like to see being able to buy rating points for an add and have the effectiveness be the # of Ratings Points * Strength of the Ad. Ultimately I'd like to see states broken down into smaller units also. Ideally you'd have 1 or 2 parts for a small state, and 3 to 10 parts for a big state (10 being say California, 3 being Tennessee). These parts would be grouped into regions and ideally you'd have regional issues (taking the ethanol pledge in Iowa affecting the great plains for instance). The map interface would likely have 4
×
×
  • Create New...