Expansion Suggestions

Published on August 16, 2004 By Baze0195 In Political Machine

Finally got the game on Saturday, my local Best Buy never got it in, but luckily CompUSA did. Anyway, I'm having a great time with it, although I havent gotten the chance to play online yet (I cant figure out how to start up an internet game, only option I see is to join one). Anywho, here's some suggestions I have for an expansion:

- Third Parties - Obviously, playing as a third party you won't be able to "win", but you can set other goals (5-25% of the vote). Personally, I would love to play as any of the number of Third Parties in the US. Theres a lot more strategy involved (getting that 5% requires a lot of campaigning on a miniscule budget), and I think would be a lot of fun, and harder. Some parties I'd like to see: Libertarian Party, CPUSA (Communist Party), Constitution Party, Green Party, American Party, Prohibition Party, Socialist Party. Mainly, the Libertarian and Green Party. Possibly, maybe even the option of running as an independant. The game mechanics would also expand to attempting to get on each states ballot, which is very important in third party campaigns.

- Historical Campaigns - Self contained campaigns that recreate past campaigns (political climate, historical issues, etc.)

- Primaries - Primaries for Republican and Democratic parties

- Conventions - Going a bit out there, but being able to plan out your parties Convention (i.e. getting speakers, celeberties, media exposure, picking out who attends (bloggers, left or right reporters, etc.), etc.

- Internet Advertising - Setting up a campaign site. The more money you put into it, the more donations and national exposure you get out of it

- Debates - Somewhat similiar to TV Interviews, following the standard debate format they use

Just some ideas. Reply with your own!

Comments (Page 1)

Deaniac

on Aug 16, 2004

Very good ideas! You should submit these to UBI, and hopefully they might send it to the creator..

jscott991

on Aug 16, 2004

The issue editor should let you create historical campaign situations, though not really as slickly as Stardock could. Historical scenarios would be kind of fun.

I personally think the first expansion should focus on expanding the election night coverage (slowing down the pace, improving the presentation, and maybe increasing the drama), adding an incumbency advantage and, most importantly, adding in new candidates (the limited number of points you get for a custom candidate is just not enough to fill the game with credible candidates; there are currently 0 2008 GOP candidates and only 1 real 2004 GOP vice presidential candidate;).

If they release an Altarian type expansion pack for Political Machine, I'd love to see the addition of conventions, debates, a slower pace to the game (a strategy game should be played over days ideally, not hours) and historical scenarios (Reagan v. Carter, Nixon v. JFK, Truman v. Dewey, and Ford v. Carter all would make great scenarios using the current game engine, ie no Third parties).

I'd also appreciate any kind changes that make the game a little deeper and more involving.

Baze0195

on Aug 17, 2004

Dean, Im sure the people from Stardock will read these posts

And jscott, yea expanding the election night coverage is also a great idea and a must. I also agree that more customizing options would be nice, if not more political figures. I would really like to see Third Parties however, I think they would be very cool to play as and offer a change of pace (your goals would be different than the Big Two, offering different gameplay but still using the same basic engine)

Frogboy

on Aug 17, 2004

PoliticalMachine.com is controlled by Stardock, not Ubi

So when you post here, the "creator" is reading them.

Iceberg1

on Aug 17, 2004

Jscott,

I disagree with the Altarian suggestion. Give us these features as an update rather than a full (priced) expansion. Otherwise I like the ideas!

Suggestion:
Fix pronoun and direct reference errors. I was playing a game as GW against Jimmy Carter, and one of the newspaper articles refered to my oponent as "Clinton." I've seen this in other matches as well.

--James

Iceberg1

on Aug 17, 2004

I like the way endorsements are handled in the game now. In real life, a candidate usually courts a political action group for their endorsement. Using the political clout to achieve them is great and accurately models this, IMHO.

I do, however, have a problem with endorsements from the opposite end of the political spectrum (e.g. NRA endorsing Bill Clinton, Environmentalist Club backing Condi Rice) not hurting the candidate with their base. If this happened in real life, people would do a double take and think twice about voting for their perceived favorite. I'd like to see endorsements always create increased national awareness (as they do now) but could backfire, if you radically change viewpoints (George W getting the NOW endorsement would cause his polls to drop amongst conservatives).

I'd also like to see more variety in the endorsements, in addition to other people's comments. I think Vetrans of Foreign Wars would be a good one. Maybe a Pro-Europe (Globalization) group. More groups that affect various issues.

--James
edit: also maybe have more neutral endorsements that you would strive for initially, then have the more controversial ones.

jscott991

on Aug 17, 2004

I wasn't suggesting we pay for the expansion.

I was really referring to the size of the update. GalCiv got a "bonus pak" on the first day of its release because of the one month delay in release due to MOO3. A bonus pak like that for Pol Machine could include more candidates and a better election night system.

Altarian was a much more substantial update and that would be the size of what would be needed to make the more serious changes we all seem to want eventually.

Whether we pay or not depends on the effort they put in. I'd pay for an expansion pack that really overhauled the game, but I wouldn't expect to pay for just new candidates or something of that size.

LordNimrod

on Aug 17, 2004

being able to adjust difficulty on campaign mode would preserve my sanity

LastStand

on Aug 17, 2004

I love the idea of this game but the more I play it the more it feels like it belongs in an arcade than on my pc. This may sound weird but in some respects the game is too balanced. For example, there is no logical political reason a pro-choice dem and a pro-life republican with the same experience should have the same access to the women endorsement. Rather than adding balance by allowing both equal access to that endorsement the balance should be that the pro-life republican has easier access to the christian endorsement.

Also, for a sim this game runs entirely too fast. The game speed is about right for the massive effect advisors and ads have but I think they should be turned way down.

Finally, the campaign should be changed to give the computer some other advantage rather than a seemingly endless supply of money and capital. I just restart the campaign when I reach Clinton because there is just no fun in getting your butt kicked without the ability to fight back.

I would love to see additional content but these are issues that I think need addressed first.

jscott991

on Aug 17, 2004

Excellent points Laststand.

sgtfury

on Aug 17, 2004

Here's my list:

1. Historical Campaigns back to 1960;
2. Inclusion of debates;
3. On election night, I'd like to see the voting breakdown for each of the states;
4. More stats;
5. Parties should only be able to receive endorsements within range of their base.

Also, I have a question about campaign mode. What are the game conditions? It just seems that it doesn't really matter who your opponent is, except that he/she is harder to beat. the overall strategy doesn't change, you just have to be better at it. What I'm suggesting is that if I am running Kerry vs. U.S. Grant, I should know more about my opponent's dynamics and the condition of the country, otherwise it seems a little meaningless.

sgtfury

on Aug 17, 2004

Ok, I'm already adding to my list:

6. Yes, add SOME third-party candidates, but not necessarily third-parties;
7. Perhaps a weather feature could be added, much like the question mark. That is, 2-3 random weather events in a campaign could affect campagining in a given week, like: Snow storm in Denver precludes ability to fly to California. Rain puts a damper on Bush event in Florida, speech effects negated; Labor strike shuts down Hartfield airport in Atlanta (OK, not a weather event, I know, but you get the idea). The event could either affect both candidates, or just one, in a given week.
8. Where's the scandal / overseas event factor? This would really ratchet up the drama, and give someone who's really down in the polls a chance to surge, or conversely, shoot the projected winner over the top. Should affect the beneficiary candidate by about 10-15% in the polls, and have a lasting effect of about 4-6 weeks. Should be random and occur only once in a campaign, but not in every campaign. Perhaps this could be something that the player could toggle on/off as a game condition before it starts.
9. More candidate info. Not just bio, but how the person stands on issues, how he/she is as a campaigner.
10. Gaffes - these are also random events that could hurt one candidate, and could range from an innocent remark to an outright affront.

jscott991

on Aug 17, 2004

I agree with all fury's list except the Third Party candidate (not necessary and probably would really damage the demographic model and the weather. Great list.

jdjefferson

on Aug 17, 2004

All good ideas. I especially like the idea of primaries.
Add AARP endorsement to raise prescription for seniors and social security ratings.
Make the Vice President choice more meaningful. Let him/her campaign for/with you. Make them do something!

Why not have primaries, pick a VP, hold a convention, campaign, have elections, and do it all again with the same Pres/VP and have an incumbent advantage. The third election would then pit your VP against other potential candidates in the party, etc. Gee, kind of like the system we have now.

Jedi_Master_Yoda

on Aug 17, 2004

Going way out on a limb here but.... a Metaverse?

GalCiv people know what I mean, the game give you a score at the end, so why not? Instead of Empires we could have 'Parties' or 'Unions' even. The Personal rankings would be where you could create your own online Candidate to track and compete with your end-Campaign scores.
It'd probably take some work, but perhaps GalCiv's system could be copied.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!