Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LordTC

  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 list of influential American presidents looks something like: 1. Lincoln 2. FDR 3. Washington 4. Kennedy (admittedly largely as an iconic symbol of a movement) 5. Reagan (as much as I dislike him, he has changed the face of a country). What was the reasoning on Jefferson over Lincoln? You can probably solve the glut of candidates problem by splitting the US into multiple regions (2 or 4 would work well). Your English list possibly has a similar solution, but I'm not the one to ask about it. Ultimately I think the biggest issue is how do you set where the countries and candidates are at on policy. If the candidate policy is actually based on what they did at the time they were in power, Lincoln would be to the right of Reagan on most issues. If you want to base it on where they were politically relative to where their country was at the times, then your actual position sliders need relatively vague descriptions. Where the countries are can be very tricky too.
  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 aggressive small market media buys early (Even with poor candidates) to get "Big Mo". Getting Big Mo shouldn't happen for someone who is not actually getting sizable movement in their predicted delegate/EC totals. One way to make this fair is to make sure that a $30,000 ad buy in a small state doesn't have the same effect on national momentum as a $500,000 ad buy in a big one!
  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 +5 momentum and opponent 2 has +1 momentum then the actual momentum effects would be: +0 (for the +30 since it instead reduces opposing momentum), -5 (reduced from +5) and -4 (reduced from +1). The solution to having order matter is only do this for the person with the highest +ve momentum in the state.
  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 undecideds dry up add in 1 negative theme. Alternatively stay positive and make out of theme attacks.
  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 possible choices of display: 1) Regional 2) State 3) Atom (whatever your smallest unit ends up being called) and 4) media markets. It should allow you to choose to barnstorm in a state (it picks the atom for you) or an atom (you pick the atom) based on whichever map you are on. Lastly, give an option to get rid of 1-week turns entirely, it creates all sorts of problems with being unable to spin stories, and with Ads being broken (pay 1 day get 1 week). Note that having the effects/impacts of various ads/whatever fade over time would model importance of having to save money for the last minute ad blitz. This game has kind of the reverse of real life situation where once the undecideds make up their mind you can't get any traction so you're encouraged to go for broke as early as possible, and if you have no money for ads down the stretch it won't hurt you.
  16. The feature I'd like to see most is voter loss. This would be a way for scandals to move voters from committed to swaying and swaying to undecided as the results of scandals/attack ads etc. Long campaigns have serious flaws in this game, which can be exposed by playing with fog of war off. In my 2008 primaries campaign Florida had 0.0% undecided voters before the conventions occurred, and pretty much the entire electoral map was set, which really killed a lot of the fun in campaigning, and created many turns of nothing at all happening. There needs to be some way to have campaign effects that bring voters back to neutral. I think the natural dividing line is positive effects increase voters for you, and negative effects take voters from the other side, and I recognize this is a major engine change but its needed if the engine that runs a 6 week Canadian campaign is to be used for the year long primaries + general election campaign. To elaborate, ideally doing this on an issue by issue basis rather than total momentum. There are problems with using total momentum as +30 vs +1 is irrelevant unless there are undecided voters in the state, while in real life +30 vs +1 will either flip voters or make them far more likely to show up at the polls resulting in a significant surge.
  17. One thing you may want to consider: Rather than saying one additional new library you could have the issue be the system itself, with the right-wing position being cutbacks and the left-wing being additional spending. Similarly for the transportation system: Cutbacks of varying degrees on the right, status quo in the center, new tramway/street cars on the left, new subway on the far-left. Airport Expansion looks good. New Bridge -> I guess this could work, would probably be tricky to regionalize properly, if its just one bridge be sure to locate what region its in and who it effects when exploring how this issue affects demographics. Urban Riots has good potential, might be tricky to figure out which areas it affects positively and negatively. Are these race relations riots primarily in area 5? Urban Sprawl is tricky, you might want to replace it by Municipal Development Board, where the left wing positions relate to curbing sprawl and the right-wing positions relate to reducing development restrictions. Cycle Paths might want to be "Bicycling Infrastructure" this lets you do every option from nothing to on-road cycling lanes to completely separated paths. Taxes is good, you may want to also include program fees. Congestion Charge is a possibility, you might also want a broader spectrum of options here. Does the city have unionized municipal workers and is outsourcing on the radar? This is an option if you want the NAF to have good issues to campaign on. You can end up with lower taxes/reduce spending as a focus for the affluent regions and a non-appeasement stand on race riots to target the white vote in the poorer neighborhoods. The typical campaign for City Project is tricky. They already have plenty of environmental issues so they could even have an entirely environmental campaign theme without addressing all the issues: Congestion Tax, Bicycling Infrastructure, Transit Infrastructure for instance leaves out airport expansion as a theme. The ACT and NAF probably get a lot of similar issues I can see the ACT being pro-tax cut, pro direct-democracy as good central themes. The party should probably be less vehement on outsourcing or program cuts. Is Education Municipal, Provincial or Federally run in your fictional city? If its municipally funded or municipally managed or both it should probably be on the radar. Do you want intergovernmental relationships to be a potential issue, it has played well in mayoral campaigns in Toronto for instance. It's often a good issue for the center attacking the far-right or far-left, and there are plenty of areas where you need to get federal/provincial(or state) funding to carry out projects. Do you want amalgamation to be an issue with marginal effects in 1 through 9 and a significant voter base in 10?
  18. I've found the game tends to lock up voters too quickly in long elections. I've had US elections whose outcomes were set before the primary stage was even exited. I think the model works well for 6 week Canadian style elections but the voters need to be harder to lock up for campaigning to not get stale in US elections (about 1 year).
  19. Events: Lots of cool events from the show but they happen way to often. In the first week we had: Wednesday: Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action Thursday: Congress Debates Amendments to McCain-Feingold Friday: Congress Debates Social Security Reform Saturday: Tech Union Protests Transfer of Programming Jobs to India Before a calmer Sunday to Tuesday. When you have 1 week turns you can't spin these stories but the AI opponents can, which is problematic at best, so you don't want them to be occurring at this frequency, unless you are running day by day campaigns! You also want weeks to go Monday-Sunday so that you have a chance to spin the "who's leading" story each week! Lastly the primary dates need work, its Bizarre to not have super tuesday!
  20. Issues: If you're doing West Wing you should probably line up the issues there: Abortion, Affirmative Action, Balanced Budget, Business Tax, Environment, Free Trade, Gun Control, Immigration, Military Funding, and Same Sex Marriage are still there. Renewable Energy might want to take a back burner to a stance on Nuclear Power, which decided the last election. Campaign Finance Reform shouldn't reference McCain-Feingold since that didn't happen in the West Wing, but should still be an issue. Social Security is debatable or should at least have a lower priority since they agreed on a fix in the show. Iraq should be Israel (Peacekeepers) War on Terror should be Kazakhstan (Sitting in a War Zone between Russia and China). Alternative, War on Terror can be itself as an issue, in which case Iraq should be "Peacekeeping Forces Abroad". Education should be high-profile given the previous Santos campaign. If he's accomplished something on that front there are going to be proponents and opposition to the plan. I also think the sliders here should probably be one step to the left (where the country is), as this has presumably been a high profile issue for the past four years, if its implemented people are probably adjusting to it.
  21. Several things. First it creates an extra nesting of directories which you will want to remove to get it to run properly from the RAR. Secondly the balance seems way off on the scenario. Arnold Vinick has a massive amount of money for a candidate who hasn't been an elected official for 4 years. He has over 7 times the money of the incumbent president. His campaign is also better organized despite the fact that its a "shock" he's running. Similarly Walken has a very good campaign organization. For a group that hasn't had the white house in 12 years they are remarkably well organized. You might want to look at a Scenario like the 1992 election. Note that in that situation Republicans have held the white house for 12 years and also have the incumbent. Bush as a campaign at level 4, while no democrat has a level above 3. You try and make up for this by starting Santos with a higher percentage of the vote but that reduces a lot of fun of the scenario as you just don't get to do as much campaigning. Running computer candidates against each other doesn't really test the balance of a scenario well as the AI makes a lot of sketchy decisions and doesn't make the most of available capital in ad buys and such. Will Bailey shouldn't be a candidate for President at all if you can't justify giving him a campaign organization of 2, candidates with organization at level 1 are basically jokes (particularly when controlled by computer). Jerry Brown in 1992 anyone? Note that this is by default a disabled candidate in any real scenario. The crusaders are also wildly unbalanced: The republicans have a lot of 4/4/-1 type stuff while the best crusader the Dems get is 4/5/100. Also kind of strange to have Hoynes' Wife out on the campaign trail with all the scandal that will bring up and remind people of.
  22. I'm posting this because its the one thing I've most wanted in a political game and it seems sorely lacking in every implementation. The idea is to start with a candidate in say their 20's, and run for a small office. Between elections you make decisions that affect your policy positions and voting record. Each campaign and time spent in office make you a stronger candidate able to take on bigger campaigns. If you are successful you should be able to cap off a career with an 8 year run at the presidency or what not. The point is to have somewhat of an RPG feel (building up a character with some choices/selections) that reward you for winning campaigns rather than having 1 specific campaign be the whole story. I think this could be fairly reasonable to do with say a 1980 start and a 2008 finish, or something along those lines.
  • Create New...