PoliSim Help

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Instead of limiting my circle to a few select people, I've decided to create this thread so anyone can give feedback since I'm creating this just for the forum (until an official release of a 'Be-President' game by 270soft)

Also, I encourage @NYrepublican and @QuickHead555 to post theirs here as well if they want feedback on theirs too.

 

Right now, my first thing is starting popularity percentages for three candidates that I have right now. I already have percentages in mind for the candidates, but I want feedback on if they should be higher, lower, etc.

Trump: 39% (FiveThirtyEight currently has him at 40.4%)

Clinton: 42% (I don't imagine that she'd do that much better than Trump)

Gary Johnson: 48% (I think he'd be more popular hypothetically were he elected, but I still don't think he'd break 50%)

What do you guys think? Are these too high/low/right or what?

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

nb4 anyone asks why I didn't use the poll option

I didn't use it because I probably will ask for more than the maximum amount of questions that the poll will hold. I will collect each percentage given and make an average (please be serious, and don't inflate/deflate your answer by more than you actually believe just to influence the average more please)

And, if anybody has suggestions feel free to lay them down.

[vcczar 713]

52 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Instead of limiting my circle to a few select people, I've decided to create this thread so anyone can give feedback since I'm creating this just for the forum (until an official release of a 'Be-President' game by 270soft)

Also, I encourage @NYrepublican and @QuickHead555 to post theirs here as well if they want feedback on theirs too.

 

Right now, my first thing is starting popularity percentages for three candidates that I have right now. I already have percentages in mind for the candidates, but I want feedback on if they should be higher, lower, etc.

Trump: 39% (FiveThirtyEight currently has him at 40.4%)

Clinton: 42% (I don't imagine that she'd do that much better than Trump)

Gary Johnson: 48% (I think he'd be more popular hypothetically were he elected, but I still don't think he'd break 50%)

What do you guys think? Are these too high/low/right or what?

Assuming that these popularity ratings are from across the electorate, I'd say: 

Trump would be anywhere from 35-40%

Clinton would be anywhere from 38-43%

Johnson would be anywhere from 40 to 45% (He's in this weird spot where he isn't completely liked by the Libertarian base, most Republicans or by most Democrats. )

I think you should add Stein if you add Johnson, considering the Green Party probably helped Trump in some states. Stein's range would be 38-41%, I think. 

Overall, these were all terrible General Election choices. 

[Rodja 38]

Add more Democrats and Republicans in game,for example add Sanders,Warren,O'Malley,Cruz,Kaich,Rubio.

 

PS:Will it be election sim or governing sim?

[Wiw 44]

What's PoliSim? Is it any good?

[Rodja 38]

Quote

What's PoliSim? Is it any good?

 

PoliSim means political simulator.

 

[QuickHead555 0]

Personally, I think it would be more

Trump: 37% approval

Clinton: 43% approval

Johnson: 41%

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

PERCENTAGE CHANGES

Trump: 39% -> 38%
Clinton: 42%
Johnson: 48% -> 44%

Stein at the moment is a no-go (not even sure if Johnson will be included at the moment either)

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

RELEASE DATE

A nearly UNPLAYABLE CONCEPT demo will be released probably around late March-mid April. Not very good with release dates so  IT IS VERY LIKELY TO BE PUSHED BACK.  

[Rarename91 0]

On 2/5/2018 at 7:10 PM, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Instead of limiting my circle to a few select people, I've decided to create this thread so anyone can give feedback since I'm creating this just for the forum (until an official release of a 'Be-President' game by 270soft)

Also, I encourage @NYrepublican and @QuickHead555 to post theirs here as well if they want feedback on theirs too.

 

Right now, my first thing is starting popularity percentages for three candidates that I have right now. I already have percentages in mind for the candidates, but I want feedback on if they should be higher, lower, etc.

Trump: 39% (FiveThirtyEight currently has him at 40.4%)

Clinton: 42% (I don't imagine that she'd do that much better than Trump)

Gary Johnson: 48% (I think he'd be more popular hypothetically were he elected, but I still don't think he'd break 50%)

What do you guys think? Are these too high/low/right or what?

i think clinton health would have failed with in the first two year to be fair. gary johnson would not be very popular infact had trump or clinton not won the liberatian party would do worst then in 2012.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

39 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

i think clinton health would have failed with in the first two year to be fair. gary johnson would not be very popular infact had trump or clinton not won the liberatian party would do worst then in 2012.

If anything, Clinton is in physically better shape than Trump. She's younger, and Trump has a risk for heart disease. I will say that Trump definitely has more stamina though.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Expect the release to be at the earliest March 27th bois

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Okay, guys, I need some more help.

Unlike other games, in order to pass laws, they need to go through the house and Senate, and I need some help.

At the current time, I want there to be 3 different types of congresspeople: Center/Moderate, Right/Left, and Far-Right/Far-Left

I'm going to do the Senate first, how many would you say fit into each of these categories?

Also, people like Manchin and Collins MUST go into their Party. Later on, I might make a seventh "centrist" one for them, or even go as far as to individually assign people on specific issues, but right now there's only six.

You don't need to tell me each individual senator. Right now I just need numbers.

Here's a template

Far-Left: 
Left: 
Moderate Left:

Moderate Right: 
Right: 
Far-Right: 

[vcczar 713]

3 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Okay, guys, I need some more help.

Unlike other games, in order to pass laws, they need to go through the house and Senate, and I need some help.

At the current time, I want there to be 3 different types of congresspeople: Center/Moderate, Right/Left, and Far-Right/Far-Left

I'm going to do the Senate first, how many would you say fit into each of these categories?

Also, people like Manchin and Collins MUST go into their Party. Later on, I might make a seventh "centrist" one for them, or even go as far as to individually assign people on specific issues, but right now there's only six.

You don't need to tell me each individual senator. Right now I just need numbers.

Here's a template

Far-Left: 
Left: 
Moderate Left:

Moderate Right: 
Right: 
Far-Right: 

7 FL - Schatz, Warren, Booker (*traditionally Left), Gillibrand (*traditionally Left), Merkley, *Sanders, Murray

33 L - Feinstein, Harris, Bennet, Blumenthal, Murphy, Carper, Coons, Hirono, Durbin, Duckworth, Cardin, Van Hollern, Markey, Stabenow, Peters, Klobuchar, Smith, Masto, Shaheen, Hassan, Menendez, Udall, Heinrich, Schumer, ShBrown, Wyden, Casey, Reed, Whitehouse, Leahy, Kaine, Cantwell, Baldwin

9 ML - Jones, Nelson, Donnelly, *King, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkampf, Warner, Manchin

5 MR - Murkowski, McCain, Collins, Toomey, Graham

39 R - Shelby, Sullivan, Flake, Boozman, Gardner, Rubio, Isakson, Purdue, Crapo, Risch, Young, Grassley, Roberts, Moran, McConnell, Cassidy, Kennedy, Wicker, Blunt, Daines, Fisher, Sasse, Heller, Burr, Thillis, Hoeven, Portman, Lankford, Scott, Thune, Rounds, Alexander, Corker, Cornyn, Hatch, Capito, Johnson, Enzi, Barrasso

7 FR - Cotton, Ernst, Paul, Cochran, Imhof, Cruz, Lee

However, I think your breakdown might be too simplistic for the type of game you are making. I think something like this would be more helpful in brokering deals or gaining support:

Social Democrats: Sanders Democrats

Progressive Democrats: Warren Democrats

Mainline Democrats: Schumer/Pelosi Democrats

Moderate Democrats: Manchin Democrats

Conservative Democrats: Jones Democrats (He has voted with Trump 80% of the time, as opposed to Manchin at 57%) 

Centrists: King

Liberal Republicans: none at the moment---no real Jones analogy for Republicans, but one could develop again someday. 

Moderate Republicans: Collins Republicans

Mainline Republicans: McConnell/Ryan Republicans

Conservative Republicans: Cruz Republicans

Libertarian Republicans: Paul Republicans

These could also be broken down further, possibly to include Christian Value Republicans, War Hawk Republicans, Civil Rights Democrats, basically congress persons that focus overwhelmingly on a more focused area---Graham with military, for instance. He would probably vote for a bill forcing all evangelicals to become transgendered if it meant that there would be a troop surge. 

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

7 FL - Schatz, Warren, Booker (*traditionally Left), Gillibrand (*traditionally Left), Merkley, *Sanders, Murray

33 L - Feinstein, Harris, Bennet, Blumenthal, Murphy, Carper, Coons, Hirono, Durbin, Duckworth, Cardin, Van Hollern, Markey, Stabenow, Peters, Klobuchar, Smith, Masto, Shaheen, Hassan, Menendez, Udall, Heinrich, Schumer, ShBrown, Wyden, Casey, Reed, Whitehouse, Leahy, Kaine, Cantwell, Baldwin

9 ML - Jones, Nelson, Donnelly, *King, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkampf, Warner, Manchin

5 MR - Murkowski, McCain, Collins, Toomey, Graham

39 R - Shelby, Sullivan, Flake, Boozman, Gardner, Rubio, Isakson, Purdue, Crapo, Risch, Young, Grassley, Roberts, Moran, McConnell, Cassidy, Kennedy, Wicker, Blunt, Daines, Fisher, Sasse, Heller, Burr, Thillis, Hoeven, Portman, Lankford, Scott, Thune, Rounds, Alexander, Corker, Cornyn, Hatch, Capito, Johnson, Enzi, Barrasso

7 FR - Cotton, Ernst, Paul, Cochran, Imhof, Cruz, Lee

However, I think your breakdown might be too simplistic for the type of game you are making. I think something like this would be more helpful in brokering deals or gaining support:

Social Democrats: Sanders Democrats

Progressive Democrats: Warren Democrats

Mainline Democrats: Schumer/Pelosi Democrats

Moderate Democrats: Manchin Democrats

Conservative Democrats: Jones Democrats (He has voted with Trump 80% of the time, as opposed to Manchin at 57%) 

Centrists: King

Liberal Republicans: none at the moment---no real Jones analogy for Republicans, but one could develop again someday. 

Moderate Republicans: Collins Republicans

Mainline Republicans: McConnell/Ryan Republicans

Conservative Republicans: Cruz Republicans

Libertarian Republicans: Paul Republicans

These could also be broken down further, possibly to include Christian Value Republicans, War Hawk Republicans, Civil Rights Democrats, basically congress persons that focus overwhelmingly on a more focused area---Graham with military, for instance. He would probably vote for a bill forcing all evangelicals to become transgendered if it meant that there would be a troop surge. 

Thank you for your reply. One day I hope to include dozens of demographics for citizens (black, white, gay, farmer, smoker, etc.) and politicians (different levels of corruption, and individual issue stances), but right now I'm focusing on a basic alpha version before I begin to go in depth like that. The main goal of this project is for it to be there for post Play-by-Plays to actually try to put your campaign policies to the test, or to just play on its own.

@vcczar and others, this feedback significantly improves the authenticity and speed of development and prevents me from corrupting it with my own subconscious bias.

Also, people can expect an UNPLAYABLE CONCEPT  release around March 27th (at the absolute earliest)

(if you're wondering why I keep bolding 'unplayable concept' it's because I don't want to release it and have people be disappointed when they find out it's not playable, as it would be nearly impossible for me to include all main gameplay elements in slightly over a month from now)

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Actually, @vcczar, I looked at your breakdown of 11 different, and I might actually consider replacing mine with that as it makes more sense, though it would take considerably longer to implement. We'll see what happens.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Need more help. This won't actually affect anything, just cosmetic stuff. This one is also a little opinionated but not much.

When selecting a country (the US will be the only one available at the start), there are 3 little things that tell you a little bit about each country's government, economy, and military.

I need help deciding if the economy and military are correct. Economy takes into effect economic situation (poverty, homelessness, debt) and also overall spending power and GDP.

Military just takes into account military, navy, air force, etc.

Right now the U.S. has the highest in both, and all of the others have the second highest in both, but that just seems wrong. Here are the options:

Economy:
Impoverished
Poor
Typical
Affluent
Prosperous

Military: 
Feeble
Weak
Respectable
Significant
Overwhelming

If the need arises, I can also make new categories, but these are the five. Also, if you want, you can suggest new country descriptions or government types (not sure whether to put Russia as Semi-Democracy, or Authoritarian, so I just put 'Hybrid', as it's kind of in between)

Right now, I need them for these four countries: 
 

[Patine 299]

1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Need more help. This won't actually affect anything, just cosmetic stuff. This one is also a little opinionated but not much.

When selecting a country (the US will be the only one available at the start), there are 3 little things that tell you a little bit about each country's government, economy, and military.

I need help deciding if the economy and military are correct. Economy takes into effect economic situation (poverty, homelessness, debt) and also overall spending power and GDP.

Military just takes into account military, navy, air force, etc.

Right now the U.S. has the highest in both, and all of the others have the second highest in both, but that just seems wrong. Here are the options:

Economy:
Impoverished
Poor
Typical
Affluent
Prosperous

Military: 
Feeble
Weak
Respectable
Significant
Overwhelming

If the need arises, I can also make new categories, but these are the five. Also, if you want, you can suggest new country descriptions or government types (not sure whether to put Russia as Semi-Democracy, or Authoritarian, so I just put 'Hybrid', as it's kind of in between)

Right now, I need them for these four countries: 
 

To be honest, I'm starting to feel, with the current attitudes in the White House and on Capitol Hill, the U.S. is moving toward a "Hybrid" political system, as you define it, and may have already fallen from the "Prosperous" economic category for the purposes of the living standards, purchasing powers, real opportunities, and available infrastructure and services of the vast majority of Americans.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

To be honest, I'm starting to feel, with the current attitudes in the White House and on Capitol Hill, the U.S. is moving toward a "Hybrid" political system, as you define it, and may have already fallen from the "Prosperous" economic category for the purposes of the living standards, purchasing powers, real opportunities, and available infrastructure and services of the vast majority of Americans.

@Patine Given the large Canadian presence on the forum, I may make Canada the second available nation (US is first and only priority at the moment), how would you rate Canada on the three? Here's what I would put:

Government: Democracy
Economy: Typical (I would put Affluent if we're talking living standards, poverty, services, etc, but GDP brings it down)
Military: Weak (Forgive me if it is a stereotype, but Canada isn't really known for a strong military, relying on allies for support, though, i'd consider it big enough to not be in the Feeble category)

[Patine 299]

1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

@Patine Given the large Canadian presence on the forum, I may make Canada the second available nation (US is first and only priority at the moment), how would you rate Canada on the three? Here's what I would put:

Government: Democracy
Economy: Typical (I would put Affluent if we're talking living standards, poverty, services, etc, but GDP brings it down)
Military: Weak (Forgive me if it is a stereotype, but Canada isn't really known for a strong military, relying on allies for support, though, i'd consider it big enough to not be in the Feeble category)

No, you're skewing the economic analysis here. GDP PER CAPITA is what matters in this regard, as well as actual economic strength and stability within it's own economic sphere. Pure gross domestic production in and of itself is not how ANY credible economists measure a national economy as a whole.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Just now, Patine said:

No, you're skewing the economic analysis here. GDP PER CAPITA is what matters in this regard, as well as actual economic strength and stability within it's own economic sphere. Pure gross domestic production in and of itself is not how ANY credible economists measure a national economy as a whole.

Per capita would factor under living standards I guess, but overall GDP and a nation's spending play huge roles in the economic factor. Typical, to me, seems fair. I may make another category for human rights or something, where Canada would probably get a 5/5, along with Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc.

[Patine 299]

6 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

@Patine Given the large Canadian presence on the forum, I may make Canada the second available nation (US is first and only priority at the moment), how would you rate Canada on the three? Here's what I would put:

Government: Democracy
Economy: Typical (I would put Affluent if we're talking living standards, poverty, services, etc, but GDP brings it down)
Military: Weak (Forgive me if it is a stereotype, but Canada isn't really known for a strong military, relying on allies for support, though, i'd consider it big enough to not be in the Feeble category)

Though, I'm not arguing with the military one. The Canadian Forces have, on average, more discipline and better training than most of their U.S. analogs, but in no other way even remotely begin to compete.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Though, I'm not arguing with the military one. The Canadian Forces have, on average, more discipline and better training than most of their U.S. analogs, but in no other way even remotely begin to compete.

I'll leave economic for you to decide then.

Would you rate it Typical (3/5), or Affluent (4/5)?

This is mainly to do overall economic power and services. I will include human rights later (Canada will get a 5/5 there)

[Patine 299]

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Per capita would factor under living standards I guess, but overall GDP and a nation's spending play huge roles in the economic factor. Typical, to me, seems fair. I may make another category for human rights or something, where Canada would probably get a 5/5, along with Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc.

Saudi Arabia is a good example of what I'm referring to. They have, by far, the biggest GDP total of any nation in the Middle East, are third in all predominantly Islamic nations (next to Indonesia and Pakistan), and probably in the top 15 to 20. But their GDP comes ENTIRELY from controlling almost half of the world's known oil reserves. This is why I say you can't just use raw GDP alone and nothing else.

[ThePotatoWalrus 157]

Just now, Patine said:

Saudi Arabia is a good example of what I'm referring to. They have, by far, the biggest GDP total of any nation in the Middle East, are third in all predominantly Islamic nations (next to Indonesia and Pakistan), and probably in the top 15 to 20. But their GDP comes ENTIRELY from controlling almost half of the world's known oil reserves. This is why I say you can't just use raw GDP alone and nothing else.

Yes, and I realize that would make a country like Switzerland, which isn't poor by any standards, a 2 or 3 out of five, due to being a small country. I will re-do my algorithm, but I'll let you decide Canada's since you obviously are more informed.