Jump to content
270soft Forum

1812 Election Update (Historical Scenario Commission)


vcczar

Recommended Posts

I'll post the updates/improvements to the 1812 scenario here. 

The Historical Scenario Commission consists of @jvikings1 @CalebsParadox @Patine @Reagan04 @TheMiddlePolitical @SeanFKennedy @Conservative Elector 2 @Take Me to La Riva @vcczar @NYrepublican @MrPrez @msc123123, all of whom will help in improving historical presidential election at their leisure. We will go in chronological order. 

[Anyone wishing to join the HSC can do so by posting here, and can help by playing through the scenarios to find areas for improvement, providing advice for improvements, and for suggesting events, finding typos or other errors. Suggestions for historical newspapers (for interviews), events, surrogates, fixing inflationary index, etc. can also be helpful. ]

Updates will be edited in the list below as they are made. 

~~~~Updates to the scenario so far have been~~~~

  • Events added by VCCzar
  • A simulation party has been added to watch the election by VCCzar
  • Issue descriptions mentioning Whigs and Democrats are changed to Federalists and Republicans by VCCzar
  • Region issues set by VCCzar
  • Money coefficient set to 3 by Patine
  • Issue images set by NYRepublican
  • Adjusted endorser support by VCCzar
  • Candidate relations set by VCCzar
  • Adjusted ballot access, so that states without Popular vote only support the candidates in which they'd realistically support by VCCzar
  • Adjusted general election bonuses for Federalist candidates by VCCzar
  • "primary delegates" set to take into account the population of the states of 1808 by VCCzar
  • Flags added by Patine
  • Issue descriptions set, including fixing typos in "Slavery," "Rights of the States," "Tariff," "Taxes" by CalebsParadox
  • Tammany Hall's support for DeWitt Clinton is increased by CalebsParadox
  • John Jay, C. C. Pinckney and John Quincy Adams added as endorser by CalebsParadox
  • Playthrough by VCCzar, JViking1 and ConservativeElector2
  • Issue description typo fixed by JViking1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@vcczar can you please work on the basics for other elections while you're waiting for replies to speed up development.

I've been working on the next events, while waiting for playthroughs, if that is what you mean. I'm not going to go any faster than this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar I got a problem while playing through... I started as James Monroe, lost the primaries to James Madison and continued as Madison. He had already chosen Langdon as VP. Besides Monroe and Madison I had ON: Rufus King and DeWitt Clinton. 33 days before the election (as Madison now) I got this error message while simulating. I don't know why, I just simulated and started with 4 candidates set ON. It should be easy to recreate.

problem.PNG.ac4e1bd6ba677fffe0dee0a715f06b41.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

@vcczar I got a problem while playing through... I started as James Monroe, lost the primaries to James Madison and continued as Madison. He had already chosen Langdon as VP. Besides Monroe and Madison I had ON: Rufus King and DeWitt Clinton. 33 days before the election (as Madison now) I got this error message while simulating. I don't know why, I just simulated and started with 4 candidates set ON. It should be easy to recreate.

problem.PNG.ac4e1bd6ba677fffe0dee0a715f06b41.PNG

Thanks, I'll see if I can recreate it with Madison, Monroe, King and Clinton

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Thanks, I'll see if I can recreate it with Madison, Monroe, King and Clinton

Okay

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Okay

It must have been fixed or was a random one-time glitch. I used these same candidates, lost as Monroe, became Madison, and was able to finish the election without an error. My version has internal updates, so perhaps I did something that fixed it without knowing that I had. Thanks for the playthrough, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

It must have been fixed or was a random one-time glitch. I used these same candidates, lost as Monroe, became Madison, and was able to finish the election without an error. My version has internal updates, so perhaps I did something that fixed it without knowing that I had. Thanks for the playthrough, though. 

Okay sounds good. No problem, you are welcome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's also a problem with my computer or my game version... I will check with the update, when it is released. @vcczar

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CalebsParadox @Patine @jvikings1 @NYrepublican @Conservative Elector 2

One of the things you realize when playing the updated version of this scenario with the events is how spread out British forces were. 1812 wasn't the best phase of the War of 1812 for America, and the events will capture this. Also captured are British successes in Portugal and Spain (under the soon to be titled Duke of Wellington). The best of the British forces were occupied and America was losing against the backups in the War of 1812, which probably allowed Madison to take the risk for war. Lord Liverpool tried to prevent the War of 1812, but Madison declared war before the peace commission arrived. Madison is one of a few presidents to have been reelected despite losing support for his presidency. One can argue that George W. Bush is probably the best analogy. Obama is another, but for non-military reasons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the error above, there is a problem with parties with only 1 candidate on when they choose their ticket.  It was fixed in a sneak peak, but that fix hasn't been released for the game if you didn't download the sneak peak.

I suggest adding multiple start dates for the primaries.  The start date for the general election is fine, but it would hurt to add another one that is closer to the election.  But, that isn't as needed as another one for the primaries.  There is a long time between the one start and the convention with the only date that is available now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

In regards to the error above, there is a problem with parties with only 1 candidate on when they choose their ticket.  It was fixed in a sneak peak, but that fix hasn't been released for the game if you didn't download the sneak peak.

I suggest adding multiple start dates.  There is a long time between the one start and the convention with the only date that is available now.

I've been adjusting the start dates from Oct 1 to Jan 1, unless the convention is before January, or close to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The description for Congressional Nominating Congress is Incumbent President

Weird. I'll fix that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worked well;

Won as Monroe by winning every state except Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (I EDIT: was (not have) 1% away from winning Connecticut and 5% from Rhode Island).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Worked well;

Won as Monroe by winning every state except Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (I have 1% away from winning Connecticut and 5% from Rhode Island).

Thanks! Impressive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

In regards to the error above, there is a problem with parties with only 1 candidate on when they choose their ticket.  It was fixed in a sneak peak, but that fix hasn't been released for the game if you didn't download the sneak peak.

I suggest adding multiple start dates for the primaries.  The start date for the general election is fine, but it would hurt to add another one that is closer to the election.  But, that isn't as needed as another one for the primaries.  There is a long time between the one start and the convention with the only date that is available now.

Do you know which sneak peak I have to download? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Do you know which sneak peak I have to download? 

I'd just do the most recent if you want to go that route.  I haven't downloaded it myself because of some errors that people get in the sneak peak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd just do the most recent if you want to go that route.  I haven't downloaded it myself because of some errors that people get in the sneak peak.

Okay I see, thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a while since I looked at anything here, but the progress of the historical commission you guys have set up caught my eye. Just a few matters that I took note of with this scenario.

  • For anyone who is looking at the scenario for the first time, including me, the presence toss-up States with no support for any of the parties is more than a little jarring. I understand that they do lean towards the correct parties at the end and grant their electoral votes, but it would be nice if there was some way to show from the start that these States lean that particular way. This is especially the case in the primaries where it is impossible to tell without looking through the scenario files what your starting position is in these States, which ones you might have a chance in, and as the season goes on, how you are actually doing; given the number of delegates assigned to these States, you can't ignore them, but it really isn't all that fun trying to fight for them blind either.
  • I believe there should be three forms of ads for these earlier campaigns; Newspapers -- (expensive, but with a high power as they have a dedicated reader base) --, Posters  --(moderately expensive, but with a bonus to attack and can run longer) --, and Footmen -- (cheap, but have little power as they mainly rally your own dedicated based). It isn't perfect by any means, but it would allow advertising to play some role in these scenarios.

  • DeWitt Clinton is far too strong in Kentucky, -- (He only got 5% of the vote there) -- Virginia, -- (Even whilst representing King's voters in this case, King only got 27% of the vote historically to Madison's 73%; it wasn't a true swing State as displayed in-game) -- and to a smaller extent in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Now part of that problem is that I really dislike using more than 10% of voters as undecided given the wild swings that can experienced -- (In my scenarios I often work with a Committed Bloc of 60%, though whether that works as it should in-game is another matter) -- but in either case across the board I find Clinton being far stronger than he should.

  • I realize that there were elections in Tennessee, but given the lack of information on the vote, and when compared to the results that came out of neighboring Kentucky, I'd argue Clinton's support should be non-existent and that the State be cleared for Madison as, say, Georgia is.

  • The Clinton ticket should have ballot access in Kentucky and Ohio, which it currently does not.

  •  The various debates should probably be removed given they never happened. The old events from the 1912 and 2012 scenarios should probably be removed as well, even if they have no practical effect on the scenario as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lahbas said:

Been a while since I looked at anything here, but the progress of the historical commission you guys have set up caught my eye. Just a few matters that I took note of with this scenario.

  • For anyone who is looking at the scenario for the first time, including me, the presence toss-up States with no support for any of the parties is more than a little jarring. I understand that they do lean towards the correct parties at the end and grant their electoral votes, but it would be nice if there was some way to show from the start that these States lean that particular way. This is especially the case in the primaries where it is impossible to tell without looking through the scenario files what your starting position is in these States, which ones you might have a chance in, and as the season goes on, how you are actually doing; given the number of delegates assigned to these States, you can't ignore them, but it really isn't all that fun trying to fight for them blind either.
  • I believe there should be three forms of ads for these earlier campaigns; Newspapers -- (expensive, but with a high power as they have a dedicated reader base) --, Posters  --(moderately expensive, but with a bonus to attack and can run longer) --, and Footmen -- (cheap, but have little power as they mainly rally your own dedicated based). It isn't perfect by any means, but it would allow advertising to play some role in these scenarios.

  • DeWitt Clinton is far too strong in Kentucky, -- (He only got 5% of the vote there) -- Virginia, -- (Even whilst representing King's voters in this case, King only got 27% of the vote historically to Madison's 73%; it wasn't a true swing State as displayed in-game) -- and to a smaller extent in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Now part of that problem is that I really dislike using more than 10% of voters as undecided given the wild swings that can experienced -- (In my scenarios I often work with a Committed Bloc of 60%, though whether that works as it should in-game is another matter) -- but in either case across the board I find Clinton being far stronger than he should.

  • I realize that there were elections in Tennessee, but given the lack of information on the vote, and when compared to the results that came out of neighboring Kentucky, I'd argue Clinton's support should be non-existent and that the State be cleared for Madison as, say, Georgia is.

  • The Clinton ticket should have ballot access in Kentucky and Ohio, which it currently does not.

  •  The various debates should probably be removed given they never happened. The old events from the 1912 and 2012 scenarios should probably be removed as well, even if they have no practical effect on the scenario as it is.

@Lahbas

Thanks for this. I'll respond to each point:

1. This is because there wasn't a popular vote in these states. If I could think of a way to take the primaries away from this one state but keep them on for the general election, I would. I'm going to eventually make the population as the number of the state legislature, since they did vote; although, they shouldn't really count toward the popular vote. However, I need to find sources that accurately give me this number. I'm contemplating just putting 100 in each of these to represent a 100% scale. 

2. Footmen as ads are unnecessary as they are already part of the game. I might add posters. 

3. Weird, it shouldn't be that high. Where are you getting that he got 5%? Can you provide a source? Actually, now as I type this, I think the reason I inflated Clinton's numbers was that the game was leading to Madison landslides, when it was actually a close race. I think the game was giving boosts to people with large leads, "Madison dominating in the polls!" etc., when I had made the scenario. 

4. That makes sense. 

5. I think I took him off, because I couldn't find voter data, and they don't have the county results. So I made it so that Madison wins the state. These earlier elections will be updated again at some point, after I go through all the elections. This is the same lack of information that you attribute to point 4 regarding Tennessee. 

6. This has been discussed on the forum before. I add them just to add more excitement in the game. In theory, the candidates shouldn't even be campaigning until about Teddy Roosevelt. The older elections aren't completely compatible to the system. One can delete them in their downloaded version of the scenario if they wish. In regards to the events that don't show up in the game at all, I'll erase them in a future update. I'm racing to update all of these by August 15. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

  1. I knew about them not having a popular vote, my concern was that you were just never able to tell which way that "single" voter leaned. The size of the legislature in some the States I dug around for, with New York which had 144 legislators in 1812 (Wikipedia), New Jersey would have had 52 legislators (Wikipedia; 13 counties at the time), Vermont is listed as having 206 legislators (Wikipedia; no real source that I can see though), Connecticut would have had as many as 250 legislators (Wikipedia; 119 towns then established), Delaware had 30 legislators (Wikipedia), North Carolina had at least 190 legislators (Our Campaigns, Our Campaigns), South Carolina had 168 legislators (Some Carolina History Site), for Georgia there wasn't any hard data I could find but based off the Constitution of the time I estimated there were probably about 124 legislators (Likely less given the Representatives aren't accounting for the 3/5ths for African Americans, but a decent approximation), and Louisiana apparently had 39 legislators (Our Campaigns).
  2. I wasn't talking about footsoldiers, though I was straining for a more proper term. Mini-Crusaders would probably be more apt. Doesn't really matter either way.
  3. The Tennessee result I got from (Our Campaigns), Madison winning out 8,501 to 433. As for the landslides, I suppose that would depend on a number of different factors; last night I ran a basic set of simulations and Madison and Clinton won equally as often, but that was when it was being run from the general. If run from the primaries it is possible that Madison accrues more endorsements then he would otherwise, has stronger finances, and therefore has a much stronger general election start. That's happened a few times to me when trying to design scenarios in the past.
  4. --
  5. The results in Ohio from (Our Campaigns); I could more dependably pull that and Tennessee's data from Schlesinger's History of Presidential Elections, but I'm not in a position to make a trek to the public library today.
  6. Oh I'm aware about the campaigning, but you can't do much about that without tearing out a good chunk of the game's AI as it currently is. Ironically though this could also be exacerbating your problem in terms of Clinton getting crushed by Madison; Clinton has IF of 4 and a Debater level of 3, compared to James Madison's pair of 5's, meaning that Madison is effectively as potent as Gingrich was/is in the 2012 scenario, but without the attacks from eight other candidates.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...