Jump to content
270soft Forum

graemp

Members
  • Posts

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by graemp

  1. graemp

    Scotland UK

    What happens when you cut and paste it?
  2. graemp

    Welsh Scenarios

    http://www.270soft.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11339&view=findpost&p=183012
  3. graemp

    Scotland UK

    The answer is 'Yes'. I have a template that I have used for Wales UK scenarios which could easily be adapted. As for N.Ireland, in my view, this is not so 'necessary' due to the natural stand alone nature of the province in the UK scenarios. If there is anyone with a particular knowleadge of Welsh politics who would like to collaborate by doing the issues for any of the incomplete scenarios sitting on my PC, please get in touch; They are 1915 [not a miss-type], 1923, 1929, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1970, 1979.
  4. graemp

    Scotland UK

    The October 1974 General Election in Scotland The scenario includes the new feature 'Enhanced Crusader Targetting Strategy' This scenario is complete except for the Issues. If anyone fancies tackling the issues, please feel free to do so and upload back to this thread. Download here .... Scotland - 1974 October.rar 1.3 MB http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2OQI30VW
  5. When I said that 'at the start of the 1987 general election campaign, the Alliance were shown in most polls to be level with the other two parties in a fairly even three-way vote split.' I should have pointed out that it had been traditional for the support of the third party to rise during a General election campaign by about 6%, which could easily have resulted in an Alliance majority. However, 1987 bucked the trend and the Alliance support fell away.
  6. It means you are screwed. It is a common error message that could be attributed to any number of things. Assuming that no errors are identified via the scenario checker, the most likely place for errors is in the ridings file. Some things are not picked up by the scenario checker, such as an out of date region name being used as a leader's home region.
  7. I have often wondered about Crusaders; What defines where they go? What determines how powerful they are? What determines when they get tired? Why are they called Crusaders? Dealing with the latter point first, it is not a description that relates to politics in the UK. It is only used as a term to describe those warriors in the middle ages who went to kill Muslims in the name of Christianity. It is a term that some modern day Muslims regard as offensive. Sometimes when i play a scenario I get to release a Crusader into the game only to discover that the Crusaders power is 0/0/0, and doesn't increase. I understand that the initial power of a Crusader is directly linked to the power of your party leader. If your leader doesn't have a high Leadership ranking then your Crusaders powers tend to start very weak. I also think that the initial Crusader power might be linked to the party eastablishment ranking. The quite interesting thing that I have discovered about Crusaders is what determins where they go. Once a Crusader has been released into the game, we are told where the Crusader is going with an explanation in brackets of(Using Targetting Strategy). I have often noted that this targetting strategy doesn't seem to be my targetting strategy as the Crusader seems as likely to go to support one of my candidates with 5% in the polls as one of my candidates with 35% where I have decided to use targetting points. It seems that the only regions where a Crusader won't go are those regions where I am not running any candidates. This is assuming that the regions_candidates_running file is correct. I have carried out tests and can confirm that a '0' in any region will ensure the Crusader doesn't go there. If you stop thinking about the regions_candidates_running file as being a record of where parties are running candidates and treat it as the parties Crusader Targetting Strategy File, you can create or amend any scenario to give a far more logical approach to targetting and in effect, make the Crusaders more influential. All you need to do is change the '1's to '0's in those regions where a party does not have any interesting seats to fight. To take things to one extreme, if you changed the regions_candidates_running file to have one party only fielding candidates in one region then all the Crusaders you create will stay in that region rather than moving all over the place. Clearly making such changes assist those parties that are fighting on a narrow front. I have trialed this approach and can confirm that changing regions in the regions_candidates_running file to '0' does not seem to affect any other campaigning you want to do in those regions; you can still run Ads and barnstorm in these regions with your leader. Aside from changing the regions_candidates_running as I have suggested, clearly Crusaders are going to be more influential in scenarios with fewer regions to start with. I have not yet worked out why and when a Crusaders power drops.
  8. Election Night In PM4E, the timing of the declaration of the results is determined by the time details that appear for each region in the region variable file under the section // time polling occurs, EST // 2400 clock When I create a scenario and set the time for a particular region to declare as 0106, at the end of the game, that result comes out at "5:06 AM EST" (oddly, when the result is queing, it is listed as to be declared at 5:06 PM EST) Is it possible for me to correct this feature so that the time declared comes out as 0106? Is it possible to change the time from EST to GMT for instance? If so, how do I do it? If not, can the ability to do this become a future feature? Sometimes, when I have set the declaration times, I find that for some reason, on election night, a gap of about 12 hours appears between results. Are there a set of guidelines that you could post to help me work through these problems?
  9. Saskatchewan - 2011 for the 2011 engine
  10. Hmm. I wonder if I've made any changes in the last year. Did you try any of the variants? I assume that you worked out how to enable them.
  11. I have an unfinished UK 1922 scenario sitting on my PC that I didn't think that I had uploaded to here. Please can you clarify if this is the scenario I sent to you or if it isn't, can you reveal where you found it as I would like to try it?
  12. By the start of the 1983 General Election campaign, the Alliance had fallen back from its 1981 poll peak, and the 1983 election never looked like giving anything other than a clear Tory majority. At the start of the 1987 general election campaign, the Alliance were shown in most polls to be level with the other two parties in a fairly even three-way vote split. I'm into Alternate election scenarios though not particularly a 1992 one. Lawrence: I assume that your starting point is a 1992 scenario that someone else has created. You can play around with the electoral trends file to try and get a realistic starting point but I always found this cumbersome. If I was doing an alternate 1992 along the lines you were suggesting, I would painstakingly go into the ridings file and input the starting vote for each party in each riding. And before you ask, no I wouldn't like to do this for you. Good luck.
  13. As usual with UK elections, the result will be determined by money since there are no effective ceilings on UK spending. This means that the Conservatives will have a head start as they usually manage to pile up a shitload of cash to spend. Labour's success in modern times was almost entirely down to the ability of the party to attract business money during Blair's leadership. There is no sign that Milliband's leadership is going to tap into that.
  14. graemp

    Alberta 2013

    Although you probably have a greater feel for what is going on in Alberta and a good understanding of the game, trying to put together a future scenario may be tricky even if the election doesn't happen for a couple of years. With four provinces polling this year, it would be good to see someone tackle these.
  15. From the game playing point of view this would be less fun in my view, because by reducing the game to just 2 players, you remove many of the variables that make the game interesting. Also you can only play the game as one or other party. I enjoy the challenge of playing a game to try and become PM, however, it is also rewarding to play the game as a third party hoping to hold balance of power.
  16. If you read the thread, you will see that it works for some people but not for others for some reason that I don't know. I assume it has something to do with their version of the game.
  17. I've done a quick scan to see if I could work out why people have been ignoring you and couldn't see many posts that you had done. A bit of a shame really as I was hoping I would find you posting something really insulting that would justify people giving you the cold shoulder. Perhaps I scanned in the wrong place. Or perhaps you posted in the wrong place. If it makes you feel better Patine, I have been ignoring everyones posts for about 6 months and amazingly everyone has been ignoring me in return.
  18. The Speaker at election time is an interesting issue. It is often said that the Speaker is not opposed by any of the main political parties. Whilst this looks like being the case this year, it is not usually the case. I used to live in a constituency where the MP became the speaker and at the next election he was opposed by both main opposition parties. Either one or the other invariably opposes the speaker more often than neither doing so. I have to pick you up on Coalitions Matvail. Whilst I want to avoid raising any political debate in this thread, I feel it is right to point out that Coalitions in the UK have a habit of lasting a long time. 1. The Liberal Unionists went into coalition with the Conservatives in 1886 and it lasted beyond the life of the parliament, which ended in 1892 and then continued from 1895-1906. 2. The Unionist, Labour and Liberal parties formed a Coalition in 1916 which continued [albeit without parts of the Labour and Liberal parties] beyond an election until 1922. 3. The Conservatives, Liberals and some Labour members formed a coalition in 1931. although 'half' of the Liberals left the coalition in 1932, the coalition continued in power through 2 successful elections until 1940. 4. A new coalition between Conservatives, Liberals and Labour was formed in 1940 and lasted a full 5 years. There have been 3 instances in the UK where minority governments have attempted to govern without doing a deal with one of the opposition parties. On each occasion the minority government was a Labour one; 1. 1924 Labour did not enter into any discussions and was brought down in less than a year. 2. 1929 Labour managed to 'govern' for 2 years with informal Liberal support. 3. 1976 When Labour lost it's majority due to by-election losses, they agreed a deal with the Liberals who supported them from the opposition benches in exchange for policy consultation. After 18 months, the Liberals ended the deal but Labour attempted to soldier on rather than have an election. This resulted in the 'Winter of Discontent' which in turn resulted in 12 years of Thatcherism. I can only think of one instance of a party governing for a long time without having a majority and that would be the Liberal government between 1910 and 1916. They had no formal arrangment with Labour or the Irish Nationalists, though they had a clear 'understanding with the Nationalists resulting in the home Rule Bill. Evidence tends to suggest that in the UK, a coalition or some formal party arrangement can provide a secure tenure of government. Insecurity comes when a party attempts to govern by itself while not having an overall majority or any sort of formal arrangement with another party. I know this is not the case in Canada. How Stephen Harper can manage this is beyond me.
  19. Suggestions for Independent options (not sure if anyone ever plays these) George Galloway Respect are unlikely to field more than a handful of candidates so it is not worth making them a seperate player in my view. Bob Spink Sitting MP re-standing as Independent, though if you prefer, you could include him with UKIP who he apparently joined. Sylvia Hermon Sitting MP re-standing as Independent Unionist (opposed the Tory deal) I think all other 'Independent' MPs are not re-standing though I am not sure about Dai Davies. On the subject of wether or not a Lord can become Prime Minister, constitutionally, the Monarch can call on anyone they like to form a government. Not only are they not required to be a member of the house of commons, they don't even need to be a member of the house of lords either. In fact, if Betty Windsor wanted to, she could ask Britney spears to form a government if she wanted. In practice, the monarch's choice is restricted only by the 'judgement' of whom might be able to command sufficient support in the house of commons with which to pass a 'Queens speech' at the first reading. Interestingly, if David Cameron, for instance, were to end up as leader of the largest group, but without a majority, and Gordon Brown resigned, the queen would call Cameron to form a government. From the moment that Cameron accepts, he becomes Prime Minister. If he were then to put together a queens speech which then failed to get passed by the commons, his only course of action would be to resign. Thus he would have gone down in history as the only British Prime Minister to have been appointed but to have failed to conduct any business. I flag this up now as, not just because it is an oddity but that it is something that could easily happen - even though it never has happened.
  20. On the issue of the relationship between the Conservatives and the UUP, regardless of the actual relationship, if the UUP are kept seperate, it makes it more 'game player friendly'; Anyone wanting to play any of the Northern Ireland based parties will want to be able to see 'in one view' what is going on both across the 'region' and in each riding. Therefore it is necessary to try and get the 4 main participants positioned next to each other either as parties listed 1-4, 5-8 or 9-12. I would recommend 9-12 being UUP, DUP, SDLP and SF. This would mean the Alliance, TUV and various independents being on 'the next page'. If you combine the UUP with the conservatives, you wont get the UUP on the same page as the rest of Northern Ireland.
  21. PM4E UK 2009!! You may have missed the window on that one. Suggest you call it 2010
×
×
  • Create New...