Jump to content
270soft Forum

United Commonwealth 1983 - Beta Version


Recommended Posts

This is a scenario I've been working on for a while now -- the premise is that the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand merge together in a single governing body in 1983 and are electing their first parliament. I envisioned it primarily as a proportional representation scenario for C4E; however, it's available for PM4E as well. I'd love to hear some feedback on this in terms of general playability as well as issue stances and other details of the time period that I may have gotten wrong. (I did do some research into the politics of all four countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if I still missed some things.)

Proportional Representation Version:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ytigdnnlwjz

First Past the Post PM4E Version:

http://www.mediafire.com/?dyetzvijxez

Screenshot:

24oyum0.jpg

There are five parties in the scenario: Labour, Conservative, Liberal Coalition, Sovereignty Alliance, and National Independence, with the latter two being opposed to the United Commonwealth (for different reasons). I only have Sovereignty Alliance and National Independence candidates running in a fairly small minority of ridings -- I was trying to come up with a few "star" candidates for each, and then I made up a few random names in regions where I figured one or the other might be popular. I am considering adding them for all the ridings, though.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you all think. I'll add some more info in a reply to this post as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some info on the parties (some of this is in a Read Me that comes with the files). This is another area where I would be happy to hear some suggestions, if anyone can think of additional leaders or riding candidates for some of these groupings (or if you think I'm misreading the political position of an individual or a party).

Labour: A coalition of the leading socialist and/or social democratic parties from each nation, the Commonwealth Labour Party is united by ties to trade unions and a concern for social justice. There is some tension, however, between the committed-socialist UK wing and the more moderate, free-market-friendly factions of Australia and New Zealand, with the Canadian New Democratic Party usually somewhere in between. Many of them see the Commonwealth as an opportunity to create a more just and equal society.

Leaders: Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot, Bob Hawke, Ed Broadbent, David Lange, Denis Healey, Tony Benn, Bill Hartley, John Hume

Conservative: The various right-of-centre parties have united under the umbrella of the new Conservative Party. As in the Labour “family,” there is some internal disagreement between those embracing the more radical Thatcherite approach and those who believe in a more regulated economy, among them New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon and the “Red Tory” faction of Canada’s Progressive Conservatives. They support the Commonwealth for reasons of shared traditions and national security, while still protective of the sovereignty of all four member nations.

Leaders: Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney, Andrew Peacock, Robert Muldoon, Joe Clark, Malcolm Fraser, John Howard, Jim McLay, James Molyneaux, James Prior

Liberal Coalition: An alliance between the powerful Liberal Party of Canada and smaller “third parties” of the other member nations. Most of them adhere to a broadly centre-left but non-socialist platform, with the exception of the more classical-liberal New Zealand Party. They are supportive of the Commonwealth and tend to be pragmatic in their approach to the emerging new structures of government.

Leaders: Pierre Trudeau, Roy Jenkins, Don Chipp, Bob Jones (no, not the guy with a university named after him), David Steel, John Turner

Sovereignty Alliance: The Sovereignty Alliance initially began as a grouping of sovereigntist parties and aboriginal leaders who fear further marginalization of their constituents under the new Commonwealth constitution. It has since attracted the support of certain socialist leaders who see the new constitution as too tied to capitalism and corrosive of economic justice.

Leaders: Rene Levesque, Matiu Rata, Arthur Scargill, Galurrwuy Yunupingu, Gordon Wilson, Dafydd Wigley, Gerry Adams

National Independence: Another grouping of opponents to the new constitution, they tend to be socially conservative, their opposition arising from more of a nationalist mentality and from suspicion of radical elements within the Commonwealth. Their ranks also include Social Credit adherents from Canada and New Zealand and the hard-line Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

Leaders: Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Martin Hattersley, Bruce Beetham, Jack Ramsay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, having played a few games I think you've got a few issue centers a tad wrong. The only thing that really sticks to mind at the moment is the "Nuclear Issue" I think New Zealand should have it's issue centers set right to the left. Apart from that, excellent scenario. I managed to beat Thatcher as David Lange :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

I take that to mean that all of the New Zealand regions should have the "Left" position (pro-unilateral disarmament) on Nuclear Weapons? (I honestly can't remember where I set them at the moment.) Anyway, keep the suggestions coming on the issue centers -- for some of them, I was just making an educated guess based on what I know of the political culture of the time period.

Did you win as Lange in the PM4E or C4E version? And did you have a coalition? It's definitely tough to beat the Conservatives without one if you play at the top difficulty level, since Labour is weak in Canada and the Liberals are weak in Australia, New Zealand, and to some extent the UK.

To answer your other question, feel free to use the map and any other elements for whatever you'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks!

I take that to mean that all of the New Zealand regions should have the "Left" position (pro-unilateral disarmament) on Nuclear Weapons? (I honestly can't remember where I set them at the moment.) Anyway, keep the suggestions coming on the issue centers -- for some of them, I was just making an educated guess based on what I know of the political culture of the time period.

Did you win as Lange in the PM4E or C4E version? And did you have a coalition? It's definitely tough to beat the Conservatives without one if you play at the top difficulty level, since Labour is weak in Canada and the Liberals are weak in Australia, New Zealand, and to some extent the UK.

To answer your other question, feel free to use the map and any other elements for whatever you'd like.

Currently New Zealand Regions have the centre position on Nuclear Weapons.

I won as Lange on the highest difficulty level with a coalition with the sovereignty alliance. The Labour Party won about 141/397 seats with the Soverignty Alliance winning about 39 seats.

By the way, I think your ads are broken, the "Telivision," "Leaflets" and "Radio Ads" all seem to have the same base power except when they get to 'highly successful' but even then the highly successful powers are still all the same.

Thanks, I've been wanting to make a United Commonwealth scenario for P4E8 for ages but I just haven't had the resources to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I must say that this scenario certainly rocks and is truely excellent! :D

However, maybe add a French bonus in the sense that about a quarter in the list can speak french. Also, I think that some British leaders (read Eton educated) can speak French but I am not sure.

Here are the attributes (I am not really severe as a +1 means that somebody could be understood and a +2 means a native French speaker. Don't be fooled, Brian Mulroney has a french level which was equivalant to any other person from Baie-Comeau:

Ed Broadbent (+1)

John Turner (+1)

Brian Mulroney (+2)

Joe Clark (+1)

Pierre Trudeau (+2)

René Lévesque (+2)

Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, I think your ads are broken, the "Telivision," "Leaflets" and "Radio Ads" all seem to have the same base power except when they get to 'highly successful' but even then the highly successful powers are still all the same.

How would they normally be set? I think I just copied the ad_types file from one of the Canadian scenarios.

As for the French suggestion, I'll give that some thought. My feeling was that it wasn't as important since Quebec would be a much smaller minority and the new Commonwealth constitution would not necessarily include bilingualism. (Maybe that's another issue for the Sovereignty Alliance to champion!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the scenario played OK, but i loved the idea, and a great selection of candidates too. However, i have to say, maybe to do with the certain candidates i used in this game, i found it a little too easy with the Conservatives as Thatcher, i felt to gain 30+ seats in 1 week and then again, made me to lose enjoyment of the game, especially when it's the party with the highest seat tally. What also made it too easy, was particular regions, that are traditionally Liberal/Labour, even in 1983, swayed to easy to the Conservatives, such as Scotland N.England, Vancouver & British Columbia. These regions should be harder to win/ :P struggle in.

http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/ee358/p...00920-46-34.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the scenario played OK, but i loved the idea, and a great selection of candidates too. However, i have to say, maybe to do with the certain candidates i used in this game, i found it a little too easy with the Conservatives as Thatcher, i felt to gain 30+ seats in 1 week and then again, made me to lose enjoyment of the game, especially when it's the party with the highest seat tally. What also made it too easy, was particular regions, that are traditionally Liberal/Labour, even in 1983, swayed to easy to the Conservatives, such as Scotland N.England, Vancouver & British Columbia. These regions should be harder to win/ :P struggle in.

http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/ee358/p...00920-46-34.jpg

I was trying to replicate the historic low point that Labour had hit in 1983 in Britain. Did I overdo it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I could do would be to give the Liberals and Labour a better party relations score to increase their chances of forming a coalition, or even place them in coalition at the beginning (while also leaving coalition offers activated, so that one of them can still withdraw if they want).

OTOH, certain leadership combinations would really be ideologically untenable -- Benn for Labour and Jones for the Liberals, for example. Also, a Lib-Lab coalition would probably be nearly unbeatable in the proportional representation version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying to replicate the historic low point that Labour had hit in 1983 in Britain. Did I overdo it?

Your correct Labour were at one of their all time low points, but in the actual 1983 elections in Scotland the Tories lost 3 seats to Labour losing only 1. The Tories and Labour only gained 1 seat, so it the Labour vote should be still pretty solid here. N. england to a lesser extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

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...