Jump to content
270soft Forum

Mrdie

Members
  • Content Count

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mrdie

  1. Since it's been well over a year, I will bump this thread again to note that a world simulation set in 1994 is now running on eRegime, in which players join as countries, political parties, or militants of some kind (guerrillas, terrorist organizations.)

     

    Next year there's going to be a world simulation set in 1945, and I actually intend to "integrate" it into President Infinity and Prime Minister Infinity, in the sense of using the latter to simulate certain elections (e.g. the Truman and Republican players would be able to "compete" indirectly as I input their actions into a modified 1948 scenario for President Infinity.) I figure it'll be an interesting experiment and make more people aware of 270soft.

  2. For what it's worth, an American professor who was in Berlin during 1989-1990 claimed the following: "One week before the elections in East Germany on March 18, 1990, polls indicated that the Christian Democrats would get less than ten percent of the votes. The Social Democrats and the Communists [i.e. the PDS] would win. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the Christian Democrats changed tunes on the all-important currency question and promised an immediate one-to-one exchange rate if they won. The next poll indicated that the Christian Democrats would win, and, indeed, they did." (Austin Murphy, The Last Year of a Country That Never Existed, 1995, p. 94)

     

    I don't know how accurate or exaggerated that is, but it might be worth including as an event.

  3. "Vulnerability" indeed isn't perfect and, thinking about it, shouldn't actually replace integrity. I just used it to point out that some candidates are simply more vulnerable to being attacked in ads and campaign speeches than others, and I think this should be represented.

     

    One advantage I think the term "vulnerability" has is being neutral. VCCzar's list has honor on it, for example. Imagine if this were 2004 and users had to argue over how much honor John Kerry has. It'd become subjective very quickly.

     

    My intention isn't "to knock down Dukakis' integrity score," it's to point out that the problems he faced during the campaign aren't represented by either integrity or corruption (hence why I wrote he "didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle.")

  4. I think something like vulnerability would be a better word. For example, Dukakis in the 1988 campaign didn't have problems with being seen as a liar or having a scandalous lifestyle, but he was clearly vulnerable to attack anyway (hence ads attacking his treatment of crime while Governor, and Bush pointing out that Dukakis was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU.")

     

    As there's a separate stat for corruption nowadays, I figure that gives even more reason to rename the integrity stat.

  5. President Forever got mentioned again on eRegime.

     

    On October 1 a Cold War forum game is going to start on the forum. 50 people have signed up so far. I'm only bumping the thread because this game is the "staple" of eRegime, it doesn't come all that often.

    Balance of Power XIII begins in January 1981. Players assume the role of countries, militant groups, political parties, or whatever other position they can think of. Every year is divided into Early (January - April), Mid (May - August) and Late (September - December) periods. Each turn lasts about four days in the real world.



    The game is played by sending a private message to the Game Master (the person in charge of the game) with information on what actions you want to do for the turn. The GM will inform you how much an action costs in terms of credits or points, as well as their chance of success (from 1 to 10) and potential effects. Turn PMs may be formatted however one wishes, so long as it's legible to the GM.

    So if someone wants to join as the GOP, or Democrats or something, that is possible.

  6. I've gotten permission to post this from anthony_admin.

    http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

    As of March 2020 there's a text-based, turn-based world simulation game set in 1994 called Balance of Power, where players join as countries, political parties, or militant groups (e.g. guerrillas, terrorists.)

    eRegime has been in existence since 2012. It is a forum where users think up and run their own forum games, and there have been quite a few since its beginning. Some forum games are country simulations where players join as politicians, army officers, rebels, clergymen, trade-union leaders and whatnot. Others are based on the 1985 video game Balance of Power. Still others are based on whatever else the users themselves can come up with.

    Anyone may run any sort of forum game he or she likes, and will be given full moderator powers over as many forum areas as they need for said game.

  7. I still use the President Forever 2008 version, and it appears there's no way to just have a primary campaign ignore certain states. Let's say there was a hypothetical Canadian scenario using the American electoral system, it'd make no sense for the BQ to have any sort of primaries outside of Québec/Montreal/etc. It seems that using Campaigns Forever for a scenario I'm making I either have to individually create useless primaries (with no delegates) in various states or the game will crash. Is this correct?

    Edit: Also candidates who have ballot access in only a few states think it's a good idea to campaigns across the country, but I guess that's just a bug.

  8. As others have said, it'd definitely be of use in custom scenarios and would also allow the 1980 scenario to be simulated more accurately, since that was a famous case of it occurring in a Presidential election. Besides that, 1912 (obviously as a custom scenario) would also qualify, would it not?

    So long as there's a setting which toggles the likelihood of a primary candidate jettisoning his or her party for their own independent or rival-party runs (e.g. no chance of Obama running his own campaign if he lost to Hillary in 2008, whereas there would be an obviously high likelihood for John Anderson if he loses to Reagan in the 1980 primary) then it'd be a good addition. The only big issue I can see is having candidates go from one primary to another (as Gravel did when he went from the Democratic to Libertarian party primary), that'd probably be tricky to code and liable to produce glitches, and you'd probably need to have a setting for party preferences or whatnot so people don't "defect" to parties they'd never touch.

    • Upvote 1
  9. "Local Issues" was added I believe with Congress Forever. I don't think it's currently used. The idea was that it could be used in the future as a way to make ads (and so on) about "local issues."

    That'd be interesting, although in custom scenarios there is sometimes the problem of too many issues. :P
  10. As you can see I've been around for quite a while. I actually started playing PF in 2004 and it was quite addicting. One big issue is that around 2007 the off-topic forum area was deleted, which resulted in a lot of the community withering away.

    I do look forward to a new version, though.

  11. However, I've tweaked and edited the scenario over and over, and the third-party candidates still get too many votes. I'll keep trying but I'm not having any luck so far.

    If anyone wants to go ahead and edit this scenario so the third-party candidates are a bit weaker, I'd appreciate it.

    This was the biggest problem I had with my 1932 scenario, too.
×
×
  • Create New...