Jump to content
270soft Forum

Opponents Don't Spend Money


Recommended Posts

I've upped the money in the default scenario to something much more realistic, but I find that my opponents don't spend it! I've played on easy and medium and noticed this (didn't look when I played on hard), but Hillary, Obama, etc, just don't spend through their money like they should. On lower difficulties do the computer players not spend their cash as aggressively as they should, or is it a flaw in the game?

It happens in the general election, too. It's quite frustrating. It decreases the "realism" of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

humm... what do you consider "realistic"?

The values aren't dead on accurate, I'll give you that much, but within the game all the costs seem balanced vs. the amount of money that is usually in the game. At least, that's the way it seems to me. I don't exactly have a PhD in election finance, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
humm... what do you consider "realistic"?

The values aren't dead on accurate, I'll give you that much, but within the game all the costs seem balanced vs. the amount of money that is usually in the game. At least, that's the way it seems to me. I don't exactly have a PhD in election finance, though.

Well, the amounts of money given the candidates in the primaries are less than the top line candidates were raising per quarter in 2003, so it just doesn't seem real. But the giving-candidates-more-money problem isn't hard to solve.

I just wanna know why Hillary Clinton isn't spending it to beat me in the primaries. I'm eating her lunch, and she's just sitting there with millions in the bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

There's a really good point.

Candidates--especially for scenarios from 2000 forward--need to be given the option to either accept or decline matching funds.

(Of course that option would be more attractive if, as in real life, it were possible to actually raise considerably more than the matching fund total in the game.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well v11 of Clark/Bayh2008's scenario for 2008 makes raising money easier (too easy, actually) and ups the general limit to 130 million. That said it's perfectly possibly to arrive at the general with hundreds of million (or 1.3 billion) in the bank so tossing that aside in favour of matching funds is silly. The regular scenario really needs an update, though.

I agree in principle, the computer doesn't spend the money it should (most days) and is also horrible at rolling foot soldiers. Further it doesn't react well. If I spend 60 million a turn in national TV ads (like I said v11 2008 is easy to get money) they should be able to either counter, or (if they don't have the cash) ramp up hard in a couple important states.

As long as we're making money better in earlier scenarios there should be historical (i.e. post Watergate) limits on spending money in primaries. Candidates routinely went up to 95% of the limit in New Hampshire (Reagan went marginally over) and used the Boston media market (media markets are another issue) if they wanted to spend more as New Hampshire is within the Boston market.

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...