Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

I think the fact that no one drops out in the primary is a huge problem that makes it really unrealistic, etc... and so that should be a major focus to get fixed asap. However, I too would like to see a one day per turn option as well. It was much easier to digest little bits of information in that format.

And heck, if I max out my CPs on creating footsoliders, it only takes a few seconds to spacebar through 3-4 days until I make some more decisions. It would also add to the suspense of the primaries as you could clearly decide what to do the day before and the day of... and just generally add to the realism of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The game is long enough as it is. I like the week-by-week structure -- going day-by-day would make the game seven times longer!! That's insane, and unworkable.

The problem is that 80soft made the turns weekly, but kept everything else based on a daily structure (campaign events, news, etc.). This is what makes things so confusing. If you're going to base the turns off of a weekly structure, then everything should be based on a weekly structure. You should just have ONE newspaper for each week, and ONE set of 'recap' events for each week.

Day by day would be possible. Anyone played civilization 2? A long campaign is more satisfying to complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Day by day would be possible. Anyone played civilization 2? A long campaign is more satisfying to complete.
Mmkay, to show how this is flawed, open your PMF folder, go into a scenario, and make it about, oh, say, 56 weeks. (that way it'll be like the primaries)

Have fun. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmkay, to show how this is flawed, open your PMF folder, go into a scenario, and make it about, oh, say, 56 weeks. (that way it'll be like the primaries)

Have fun. :rolleyes:

392 turns. If you really want it to take a few hours of game play, doing exactly the same thing over and over...well, whatever makes you happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the perfect solution here would be to do week-by-week turns until January 1st. So you can make broad strokes to prepare everything for the primaries... then on January 1st you go into a day-by-day mode. That lasts until June 1st, then it's week-by-week until September 1st.

That way the "dead time" after the primaries can be done quickly and the early strategic groundwork can be done quickly... but the actual primaries and general election can be slowed down into a day-by-day slugfest that would be more satisfying.

Sometimes I forget that a primary is inside a given week's turn and completely forget about it. Day-by-day would be a lot more fun for the intense portions of the campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the perfect solution here would be to do week-by-week turns until January 1st. So you can make broad strokes to prepare everything for the primaries... then on January 1st you go into a day-by-day mode. That lasts until June 1st, then it's week-by-week until September 1st.

That way the "dead time" after the primaries can be done quickly and the early strategic groundwork can be done quickly... but the actual primaries and general election can be slowed down into a day-by-day slugfest that would be more satisfying.

Sometimes I forget that a primary is inside a given week's turn and completely forget about it. Day-by-day would be a lot more fun for the intense portions of the campaign.

I think a good solution, if it's at all possible, is to have the game advance only the number of days that you have activities scheduled. Therefore, if you schedule a full week, it advances a full week. If you schedule only one day, it advances the game one day. If you schedule three days, it advances three days, and so on.

This would allow a good balance for people who prefer day-by-day and those who prefer week-by-week, as well as accomodating those who want to finely tune things at certain portions of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the same-sex marriage positions are good untill you get to Left and Far-Left. Far-Left should be the same thing as the Left position is in PMF:C 2006. "Take action against religious figures who refuse to marry same-sex couples."

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, the same-sex marriage positions are good untill you get to Left and Far-Left. Far-Left should be the same thing as the Left position is in PMF:C 2006. "Take action against religious figures who refuse to marry same-sex couples."

Can you cite a major national political figure that actually holds this view?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you cite a major national political figure that actually holds this view?

I'm sure many of the gay-advocacy groups do (think endorsers), besides including it would give scenario creators some more interesting positions to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure many of the gay-advocacy groups do (think endorsers), besides including it would give scenario creators some more interesting positions to make.

For scenario creation purposes, I'm pretty sure you can change the positions from within the xml files, just as you could change positions on P4E... although I cannot think of anyone who holds this view (I can't even think of any advocacy groups that do, though I'm not familiar with them all). And on a similar note, the far-right platform position for gay marriage doesn't say "God hates fags".

I think the positions are fine as they are currently and represent both ends of the mainstream political spectrum. I don't see much point in including platform positions that would never be publicly endorsed by a national political candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see much point in including platform positions that would never be publicly endorsed by a national political candidate.
Well, you see, "Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right" and "Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right" aren't really different, considering that Constitutional rights are viewed as human rights by many. Having the stance that I described would add a bit of uniqueness to it, because I wouldn't really call the belief in same-sex marriage being a fundamental human right "far-left".

"Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right, hence we must legalise it"

"Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, which means it is a fundamental right, which means we must legalise it."

As you can see, not a major differance. Ah well, people can always edit it in.

BTW: Acording to PMF:C 2006, Lucien Bouchard's stance on same-sex marriage is at Left (Meaning punish religious figures if they refuse). So, yeah, it's Canada, but still, it can happen. And he founded the Bloc Quebecois, so he isn't exactly some random, obscure politician with a party that gets 1000 votes in elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you see, "Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right" and "Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right" aren't really different, considering that Constitutional rights are viewed as human rights by many. Having the stance that I described would add a bit of uniqueness to it, because I wouldn't really call the belief in same-sex marriage being a fundamental human right "far-left".

"Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right, hence we must legalise it"

"Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, which means it is a fundamental right, which means we must legalise it."

As you can see, not a major differance. Ah well, people can always edit it in.

BTW: Acording to PMF:C 2006, Lucien Bouchard's stance on same-sex marriage is at Left (Meaning punish religious figures if they refuse). So, yeah, it's Canada, but still, it can happen. And he founded the Bloc Quebecois, so he isn't exactly some random, obscure politician with a party that gets 1000 votes in elections.

I understand what you're saying. It's difficult to have three different Democratic/left positions with an issue such as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you're saying. It's difficult to have three different Democratic/left positions with an issue such as that.

I think you can play around with the extent to which you would force states to accept it and tie in the whole, civil union vs. marriage debate.

392 turns. If you really want it to take a few hours of game play, doing exactly the same thing over and over...well, whatever makes you happy.

I'd save a lot and have it as a long term project set on 'hard'. It would just be nice if it was an option, particularly during the primaries themselves when days count.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure many of the gay-advocacy groups do (think endorsers), besides including it would give scenario creators some more interesting positions to make.

Excuse me, but I'm gay, and the member of "gay-advocacy groups" and not a single organization that I'm a member of -- Human Rights Campaign, Stonewall Democrats, Equality Texas -- in any way seeks to criminalize private religious practices. The accusation is baseless and completely offensive. I am just as Christian as I am gay or American, and I do not appreciate this accusation that GLBT equality activists are seeking to imprison those who disagree with us, or whose churches would continue to exercise their freedom to choose who they do or do not marry within their own organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really the appropriate thread to discuss it, but...

The accusation is baseless and completely offensive.

It isn't baseless at all. If its offensive then so be it. Christians have faced legal trouble in Sweden (and I believe Canada as well) once so-called "hate crime" laws have been passed for their private beliefs and speech. It is only reasonable to assume that since it was attempted in other countries, it will be attempted here. It already has actually, there was a piece of hate crimes legislation voted on a little over a year ago that would have criminalized speech against homosexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about being able to toggle week by week and day by day in the primaries? I have it once I start actually getting into the primaries not having the option of switching to day-by-day.

Also, if its a race between me and Clinton going into the convention, Clinton always wins, no matter the situation - I'm ahead, she's ahead, she has no respect in the party, whatever - she ALWAYS wins. It drives me nuts, especially since, because no one ever drops out before hand, it's extremely difficult to win outright (at least it is for Warner or Clark).

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about being able to toggle week by week and day by day in the primaries? I have it once I start actually getting into the primaries not having the option of switching to day-by-day.

Also, if its a race between me and Clinton going into the convention, Clinton always wins, no matter the situation - I'm ahead, she's ahead, she has no respect in the party, whatever - she ALWAYS wins. It drives me nuts, especially since, because no one ever drops out before hand, it's extremely difficult to win outright (at least it is for Warner or Clark).

I actually just space-barred a primary race as the two third-party candidates (I quit about halfway into the general election campaign because the Dems were being squashed flatter than a tortilla) where Clinton ended up seven delegates shy of the nomination after the first ballot, and everybody else threw their support behind John Kerry, helping him win the nomination despite Clinton's primary dominance.

BTW, how are delegates divvied up in each state? For some reason, it seems like every state for the Republicans is winner-take-all, whereas the Democrats have things somewhat more realistic (proportional for anybody over 10% or so)...am I correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, how are delegates divvied up in each state? For some reason, it seems like every state for the Republicans is winner-take-all, whereas the Democrats have things somewhat more realistic (proportional for anybody over 10% or so)...am I correct?

B/C that is how it is in real life. In most R primaries it is winner takes all, in most D they split it by percentage of vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one thing about the game that really bugs me, and I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet. When I go to the ad screen to select which states my ad will play in, there's no indication as to which states are fair, good, poor, etc. So every time before I go to the ad screen, I have to write down all the states I want to run my ad in. It was much nicer in the old game when the states were listed from excellent to very poor, and one could just add all fair states with the click of a button.

Also, a much more minor issue, in 2004, Nader has a commanding lead in Alabama every time. This is potentially even more unrealistic than when Massachutsetts is inexplicably "Republican Country."

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...