Jump to content
270soft Forum

Historical Scenarios


Recommended Posts

Above all else, I enjoy playing historical scenarios. However, there is one thing that irritates me more than anything else and that is a bad historical scenario.

What do I mean by a bad historical scenario? I will start by saying what I think a good historical scenario should be like.

With a historical scenario, we know what the result of the election was. Therefore, a good historical scenario should be able to re-create that result. This means that when I play the scenario I want the campaign and the eventual result to be reasonably close to the actual result. If it doesn't, then I have, in reality, just played a fictional scenario. Usually this comes down to the scenario being too easy to play.

Any scenario designer who takes the trouble to do a historical scenario, should in my view do the following things

1. Spend time to make sure they get the facts right.

2. Spend time to make sure they get the 'right feel' for the scenario

3. Spend time to ensure that when the scenario is played, it produces sensible results.

There is no point in 'rushing out' a historical scenario if it is not going to deliver the above three points. There have been some historical scenarios produced that I have downloaded and then started to play and then decided not to bother playing because they were clearly badly done. I do not wish to discourage people from designing scenarios but wish to encourage people to produce better scenarios.

If anyone has produced a historical scenario and knows that it doesn't 'play' right, there are numerous ways to make it play better. If anyone is interested, let me know and I would be happy to give you some pointers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Above all else, I enjoy playing historical scenarios. However, there is one thing that irritates me more than anything else and that is a bad historical scenario.

What do I mean by a bad historical scenario? I will start by saying what I think a good historical scenario should be like.

With a historical scenario, we know what the result of the election was. Therefore, a good historical scenario should be able to re-create that result. This means that when I play the scenario I want the campaign and the eventual result to be reasonably close to the actual result. If it doesn't, then I have, in reality, just played a fictional scenario. Usually this comes down to the scenario being too easy to play.

Any scenario designer who takes the trouble to do a historical scenario, should in my view do the following things

1. Spend time to make sure they get the facts right.

2. Spend time to make sure they get the 'right feel' for the scenario

3. Spend time to ensure that when the scenario is played, it produces sensible results.

There is no point in 'rushing out' a historical scenario if it is not going to deliver the above three points. There have been some historical scenarios produced that I have downloaded and then started to play and then decided not to bother playing because they were clearly badly done. I do not wish to discourage people from designing scenarios but wish to encourage people to produce better scenarios.

If anyone has produced a historical scenario and knows that it doesn't 'play' right, there are numerous ways to make it play better. If anyone is interested, let me know and I would be happy to give you some pointers.

I would like to have some pointers. The most annoying part of making a scenario is trying to test play it, and you find out it's too easy usually, or one party in particular is too strong or weak, and also getting large negative momentum's but i try to fix that, intervening with more events designed to weaken or make it a more even playing field. Also, basing on the Greater London one, probably because of the sheer number of seats, choosing a different Labour candidate makes a big difference on the seat tally at the start. Also, when you give a main party candidate an honest 5 for integrity or leadership, it can skew the results too much. But a scenario should have enough give to change history, but not too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Above all else, I enjoy playing historical scenarios. However, there is one thing that irritates me more than anything else and that is a bad historical scenario.

What do I mean by a bad historical scenario? I will start by saying what I think a good historical scenario should be like.

With a historical scenario, we know what the result of the election was. Therefore, a good historical scenario should be able to re-create that result. This means that when I play the scenario I want the campaign and the eventual result to be reasonably close to the actual result. If it doesn't, then I have, in reality, just played a fictional scenario. Usually this comes down to the scenario being too easy to play.

Any scenario designer who takes the trouble to do a historical scenario, should in my view do the following things

1. Spend time to make sure they get the facts right.

2. Spend time to make sure they get the 'right feel' for the scenario

3. Spend time to ensure that when the scenario is played, it produces sensible results.

There is no point in 'rushing out' a historical scenario if it is not going to deliver the above three points. There have been some historical scenarios produced that I have downloaded and then started to play and then decided not to bother playing because they were clearly badly done. I do not wish to discourage people from designing scenarios but wish to encourage people to produce better scenarios.

If anyone has produced a historical scenario and knows that it doesn't 'play' right, there are numerous ways to make it play better. If anyone is interested, let me know and I would be happy to give you some pointers.

Are you talking about my historical Québec scenarios? If that, I don't mind that you said this as a criticsm because they are not definitive scenarios and I trying to make some ''base'' of scenarios to work on it after which are the 1960-2008 scenarios + Two (or three) referendums. I must say that I am doing that only as a hobby.

As said, Beta Testing is also really difficult and it depends greatly with the degree of difficulty.

If this is the case they are only Beta versions and I am open to your feedback as usual.

I must say that I am new to the basis of PM4E and it is very difficult (or impossible) to have historical polls or to see the real number of undecided voters because voting is very polarized in Québec between the federalist/independendist side since 1970.

As per my referendum, this has been the FIRST referendum made for PM4E and I think that this is not so bad, but it's clear that this is not 100% accurate, but it can be fun to play and to compare to real life or make a what-if result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make note of, since we're on the topic of scenario criticisms. There's been some Canadian scenario's (not yours Matvail's!) made quite long ago, that had OTT finances, and i ended up winning in a landslide with the third placed party, the NDP. Enjoyable but unrealistic. That was Alberta -1971. I know you can change it yourself, but it's up to the creator to make the election testing really. I usually just keep it as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree a realistic historical scenario must always come out close to histroical results. Some historical elections could have easily been way off historical results if one or another candidate had (or hadn't) done some particular thing, or if some piece of information had (or hadn't) surfaced about them. In fact, a few elections out there were a complete fluke in terms of their historical results, seemingly against all odds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there was 4 main factors for 1993. If one of them had gone differently, the result would not been the same:

1)The PC campagain, which was horrible.

2)The rise of the Reform at the expanse of the PC and the NDP over west.

3)The rise of the Bloc at the expanse of the Liberals and the PC.

4)The quasi-complete fall of the NDP.

But, if Meech (or maybe Charlottetown) had passed, I think that the PC would have been in the opposition or with a minority gouvernment as they would all have taken all the support from the Bloc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there was 4 main factors for 1993. If one of them had gone differently, the result would not been the same:

1)The PC campagain, which was horrible.

2)The rise of the Reform at the expanse of the PC and the NDP over west.

3)The rise of the Bloc at the expanse of the Liberals and the PC.

4)The quasi-complete fall of the NDP.

But, if Meech (or maybe Charlottetown) had passed, I think that the PC would have been in the opposition or with a minority gouvernment as they would all have taken all the support from the Bloc.

If the Meech or Chalottetown pass...I think the bloc never exist or less powerful than he was in 1993.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Meech had passed, Mulroney would have been considered a hero in Québec and the PC would been in the place of the Bloc, as it's formation was after the failure of Meech. Also, the PQ would probably had become a center-left nationalist party and Mario Dumont had stayed with the Liberals....maybe as PM! :lol:

After all a nice alternate history scenario for 1993:

Basically, the PC will have it's power base in Quebec and the Maritimes.

Reform would have stayed at about 10%-20% in the west.

The NPD would have been at 1988 level.

The Liberals would have also been at 1988 level.

So, basically my preditions will be:

LIB=151

PC=84 (60 seats in Québec)

NDP=40

REF=20

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Meech had passed, Mulroney would have been considered a hero in Québec and the PC would been in the place of the Bloc, as it's formation was after the failure of Meech. Also, the PQ would probably had become a center-left nationalist party and Mario Dumont had stayed with the Liberals....maybe as PM! :lol:

After all a nice alternate history scenario for 1993:

Basically, the PC will have it's power base in Quebec and the Maritimes.

Reform would have stayed at about 10%-20% in the west.

The NPD would have been at 1988 level.

The Liberals would have also been at 1988 level.

So, basically my preditions will be:

LIB=151

PC=84 (60 seats in Québec)

NPD=40

REF=20

That is rather interesting.

I think NDP governments or something like that should be an issue- since the reason why the NDP did so poorly in 1993 was due to the ineptitude or broken promises of their provincial governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario- which prevented them from capitalizing on their advantages- and left them on a sour note in the minds of those provinces' voters.

I personally think that the official 1993, 1997, and 2000 scenarios need some work. Would anyone be willing to help me with them (after I'm done with my most of fictional scenarios)?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...