Jump to content
270soft Forum

Feature You'd Most Like to See


Recommended Posts

Here's some election night options...

-Demand Recount (vote must be very close for this option to open itself)

-Lawsuit of voter fraud (vote must be very close for this option as well)

I think one big addition that needs to made is how they show states. I don't think they should give a state a color until it has been declared. I think you can show it being tracked, but don't paint it red or blue until it is official.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's a pretty cool idea! It would be fun connecting with other campaigners for a game.

Certainly, but it is important to make sure the candidates all have reasonable shot at the money... at least some shot... Romney should have the edge...but it shouldn't be impossible for other candida

Good idea! Maybe you could also throw in Vice Presidential Interviews... you how much damage those did to Sarah Palin in 2008... I'd also like to see some ads on the Veeps. I know the McCain campaig

Posted Images

Some President Forever ideas:

Some mechanic to make your supporters more dedicated. Getting supporters is one thing, keeping them is another. As we've seen with this election cycle people like Perry, Cain, and Gingrich can get supporters, but can't hold on to them. Romney and Paul on the other hand can keep their supporters, Paul more-so than Romney but some Romney supporters are fairly ardent.

Straw polls, of course.

State and county tea parties and interest groups for endorsers.

Media relations. The ability to deal with the media, get it to pay attention to you, and to keep it from being as harsh as it can be.

Organization needs to play more of a role. Even a really good candidate can't survive with a poorly managed campaign. In fact, a candidate that would not normally perform that well with good organization can do much better than expected. See: Paul in Iowa, Jackson in 88.

Multiple party nominations. If a strict Constitutionalist wins the GOP nod, he can vye for the Constitution party. If a libertarian leaning politician wins one of the parties, he can be on Libertarian party ticket also. If a far leftist wins the Democratic nod, the Green Party might give them a their ballot slot too.

Cross-party momentum. If a Democratic governor endorses a Republican candidate, they should get more momentum than a Democrat getting the same endorsement.

Celebrity endorsers. Barry Manilow, Clint Eastwood, Ted Nugent. No competing for them. Random endorsements to like minded candidates, gives tiny little momentum boosts and possibly adding them as crusaders.

Hey that's not a bad idea. If you win someone as an endorser, they have a chance of becoming a crusader.

Barnstorming with Crusaders or local favorites. If I'm campaigning in the general election in let's say Iowa, I want Terry Branstad by my side while I campaign. Think of Romney campaigning with Pawlenty.

Voter groups and turnout. Obama and Paul have a talent of getting younger voters to turn out, who normally would not. Gingrich and Clinton have people old enough to have political nostalgia about the 90s.

States with senate elections or tough congressional elections going on should be effected by that somehow. More undecided if the senate race is close, more support for one party if their senate candidate is obviously superior.

Promised cabinet positions. McCain promised Secretary of Treasury Meg Whitman. A strong cabinet shortlist could swing voters.

VP shortlist during primaries. If a state's favorite son is on the shortlist, that might get some voters.

Trust and distrust of the government. Distrust makes the competing party stronger. Trust makes the incumbent party stronger. Extreme distrust gives third parties a chance to take off.

Alienation rates should be adjustable. Perry alienated people with his debate performances, while Gingrich and Paul made themselves more applicable and attractive to supporters.

Charisma types. Motivational like Obama, Comedic like Reagan, Firm like Romney, Energetic like Palin. There's more than one way to slice it.

That's all I got for now, but it's quite a lot to consume so I think it's good to end it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like those ideas, especially the speaking style one. My only critique is that Obama is more of a "Calm" speaking demeanor than "Motivational". Otherwise, I agree with those recommendations.

Some President Forever ideas:

Some mechanic to make your supporters more dedicated. Getting supporters is one thing, keeping them is another. As we've seen with this election cycle people like Perry, Cain, and Gingrich can get supporters, but can't hold on to them. Romney and Paul on the other hand can keep their supporters, Paul more-so than Romney but some Romney supporters are fairly ardent.

Straw polls, of course.

State and county tea parties and interest groups for endorsers.

Media relations. The ability to deal with the media, get it to pay attention to you, and to keep it from being as harsh as it can be.

Organization needs to play more of a role. Even a really good candidate can't survive with a poorly managed campaign. In fact, a candidate that would not normally perform that well with good organization can do much better than expected. See: Paul in Iowa, Jackson in 88.

Multiple party nominations. If a strict Constitutionalist wins the GOP nod, he can vye for the Constitution party. If a libertarian leaning politician wins one of the parties, he can be on Libertarian party ticket also. If a far leftist wins the Democratic nod, the Green Party might give them a their ballot slot too.

Cross-party momentum. If a Democratic governor endorses a Republican candidate, they should get more momentum than a Democrat getting the same endorsement.

Celebrity endorsers. Barry Manilow, Clint Eastwood, Ted Nugent. No competing for them. Random endorsements to like minded candidates, gives tiny little momentum boosts and possibly adding them as crusaders.

Hey that's not a bad idea. If you win someone as an endorser, they have a chance of becoming a crusader.

Barnstorming with Crusaders or local favorites. If I'm campaigning in the general election in let's say Iowa, I want Terry Branstad by my side while I campaign. Think of Romney campaigning with Pawlenty.

Voter groups and turnout. Obama and Paul have a talent of getting younger voters to turn out, who normally would not. Gingrich and Clinton have people old enough to have political nostalgia about the 90s.

States with senate elections or tough congressional elections going on should be effected by that somehow. More undecided if the senate race is close, more support for one party if their senate candidate is obviously superior.

Promised cabinet positions. McCain promised Secretary of Treasury Meg Whitman. A strong cabinet shortlist could swing voters.

VP shortlist during primaries. If a state's favorite son is on the shortlist, that might get some voters.

Trust and distrust of the government. Distrust makes the competing party stronger. Trust makes the incumbent party stronger. Extreme distrust gives third parties a chance to take off.

Alienation rates should be adjustable. Perry alienated people with his debate performances, while Gingrich and Paul made themselves more applicable and attractive to supporters.

Charisma types. Motivational like Obama, Comedic like Reagan, Firm like Romney, Energetic like Palin. There's more than one way to slice it.

That's all I got for now, but it's quite a lot to consume so I think it's good to end it here.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback everyone - it's read and noted.

One thing in particular: approval ratings. This is similar to 'favorability' ratings for candidates in general, that you sometimes see in polling results. I like this idea, but the trick is how to relate it to percentages. So, when setting up a scenario, do you set favorability ratings and then generate percentages from that? Or vice versa? Or is there just a marginal relationship between the two (changes in approval -> changes in percentages)? And so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression of watching this upcoming election unfold is that there are two fundamental dynamics - there's the movement of Obama's approval rating, which seems to make the general election numbers move in essentially 1-to-1 correspondence, and then there's a handicap that each of the Republican candidates "spots" Obama. So, for instance, Romney's handicap looks like about 6 points, so if Obama's net approval rating is around -3% nationally his margin against Romney will be about 3% nationally, but if his approval rating improved to +1% then he'd be beating Romney by 7%, and if he went down to -7% then he'd lose to Romney. Also I've noticed in polling data that this "handicap" varies quite a bit from place to place.

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

The four features I would most like to see is:

1. The ability to save election results to look at later

2. Ability to win the nomination by popular vote (for state and senate elections)

3. The ability to launch an independent campaign.

4. A "Primary Election Night" where the primary results are like election night.

Thanks! :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya .. momentum from primaries is tricky. It's not so much how one places, but instead how one does relative to a complex set of criteria about how well one ought to do.

We could add momentum for 2nd and 3rd, which is like the momentum for 1st but just less. That would be straightforward ... will think about it.

Another addition needs to be momentum from second and third place in early states. I played Keyes in the '96 mod and got second place in Alaska 1 point behind Buchanan, but didn't nab any momentum off of barely losing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that is true. I think the opposing candidate's strengths and weaknesses should play a role in it, but I think your observation is a good one. :D

By the time the election is in full swing, the polls themselves are pretty much the approval ratings. If the president is polling high, it would be reasonable to assume their approval ratings are good (or getting better), if the president is suffering, you would assume their approval ratings are equally as such. They would pretty much just store the same information as polls, and add more computational burden to the program.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

One more idea I thought is having the option of only playing in the primary.

Also make unique maps for candidates. While Romney has a chance to stand up against Obama Gingrich would be a bit weaker. This should be reflected somehow if it is possible. A candidate like Kucinich or Alan Keyes wouldn't be able to win a GE either.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kind of thinking about an idea that would help make certain scenarios more realistic and balanced.

Anyone who has played scenarios with incumbent presidents knows that if you start in the primary the incumbent has a huge advantage. Its not difficult at all to get a clean sweep (minus maybe DC) with Bush in '04. Even in 2012 Obama can easily lock up the election while the GOP is fighting it out. Not only does this make scenarios that feature incumbents unrealistic, but it makes it difficult to overcome the advantage the incumbent has.

What I think should be done, is to simply limit how much the incumbent can campaign before the convention. Even Obama doesn't campaign every day. He's the president of the United States, he has to spend considerable time actually becoming president. What I think should happen is a restriction in the amount of days a President can devote to campaigning. Perhaps allow them 1-3 days, while the rest are automatically selected as "Executive Administration" or something. Let the candidate vary the amount of days a little, but if they devote too much time to campaigning too early they will receive some sort of bad "Campaigner in Chief" event, sort of similar to the criticism Obama is getting for making politically pleasing decisions rather than ones that will help the country, Keystone XL for example.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kind of thinking about an idea that would help make certain scenarios more realistic and balanced.

Anyone who has played scenarios with incumbent presidents knows that if you start in the primary the incumbent has a huge advantage. Its not difficult at all to get a clean sweep (minus maybe DC) with Bush in '04. Even in 2012 Obama can easily lock up the election while the GOP is fighting it out. Not only does this make scenarios that feature incumbents unrealistic, but it makes it difficult to overcome the advantage the incumbent has.

What I think should be done, is to simply limit how much the incumbent can campaign before the convention. Even Obama doesn't campaign every day. He's the president of the United States, he has to spend considerable time actually becoming president. What I think should happen is a restriction in the amount of days a President can devote to campaigning. Perhaps allow them 1-3 days, while the rest are automatically selected as "Executive Administration" or something. Let the candidate vary the amount of days a little, but if they devote too much time to campaigning too early they will receive some sort of bad "Campaigner in Chief" event, sort of similar to the criticism Obama is getting for making politically pleasing decisions rather than ones that will help the country, Keystone XL for example.

a proposal i made a long time ago was allowing candidates to enter at multiple dates throughout the campaign (the reverse of them dropping out).. you could set the incumbents (without challengers) to enter the day of the first primary

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea which I'd endorse. Maybe have momentum penalties if you campaign more than 3 days a week.

I was kind of thinking about an idea that would help make certain scenarios more realistic and balanced.

Anyone who has played scenarios with incumbent presidents knows that if you start in the primary the incumbent has a huge advantage. Its not difficult at all to get a clean sweep (minus maybe DC) with Bush in '04. Even in 2012 Obama can easily lock up the election while the GOP is fighting it out. Not only does this make scenarios that feature incumbents unrealistic, but it makes it difficult to overcome the advantage the incumbent has.

What I think should be done, is to simply limit how much the incumbent can campaign before the convention. Even Obama doesn't campaign every day. He's the president of the United States, he has to spend considerable time actually becoming president. What I think should happen is a restriction in the amount of days a President can devote to campaigning. Perhaps allow them 1-3 days, while the rest are automatically selected as "Executive Administration" or something. Let the candidate vary the amount of days a little, but if they devote too much time to campaigning too early they will receive some sort of bad "Campaigner in Chief" event, sort of similar to the criticism Obama is getting for making politically pleasing decisions rather than ones that will help the country, Keystone XL for example.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea... Maybe we can customize each turn time. Basically, we could choose to campaign on a day to day basis during the primaries instead of on a week to week basis as the current game suggests. The primaries go by so fast with a Week by week turn. Maybe give us an option to change it to a day by day... it would make it alot better.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, P4E8 was originally designed for 2008, where primaries were occurring on both sides and so there to an extent was a balance. We'll be looking at this with P4E12.

For the days per turn idea, having a setting in a scenario that allows this to be modified is a possibility. We'll see.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It would probably be pretty straightforward to model. Define a <polls> section, each with name, party_biased, party_biased_percentage, frequency.

Then have a drop-down list of polls to view. Perhaps have an aggregate number as well, which is various polls weighted in the way the player wants to.

I'm not planning to add it to Congress Forever 2010, but it's possible a P4E12 would have expanded polling options ...

Thanks,

Anthony Burgoyne

http://www.TheorySpark.com

Games that spark the political imagination!

Since it's straightforward, is it going to be included?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks 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...