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 2)

LastStand

on Aug 18, 2004

I think some of the core issues need to be tweaked in an update. I think someone else mentioned this elsewhere but a lot of the issues are either good or bad across the board. Some of them make sense to be because of how they are written, social security for example. It makes sense the way it is because no politician seeking serious support is gonna leave seniors out in the cold but today's debate is generally more about whether to privatize it which, if implimented in the game, would make it more of a tough choice for a candidate in Florida to take on.

Another one is the enviroment. I think it is just too open ended. I think rather than just the general environment issue it should be deregulating evironmental controls which would again make it a tougher choice for candidates.

I just think too many issues are agreed on by republicans, democrats, and independents.

Iceberg1

on Aug 18, 2004

I agree with Last Stand. Make the issues harder to choose from.

I would like to see Third Parties, but upon further reflection, I think I have an idea how they could be implemented. In non-historical (liked that idea from someone above. This would only work with modern campaigns) have three small-time parties with small-time candidates. The three parties would be: The Green Party, The Libertarians (or Conservative Party) and the Independent Party.

Each of these parties would have less than 1% of voters in any given state. However, they come into play when you as a mainstream candidate contradict yourself through national media campaigns, speeches, or endorsements. Say John Kerry gets the endorsement of the NRA. The consequence of this would be greater awareness (just like now) possibly some moderates to moderate conservatives switching over to him, but more liberal voters would be driven to the Green Party. If GW Bush gets the Environmentalist endorsement, he might win some moderates or moderate liberals, but would drive conservatives to the Libertarian party.

This IMO would make endorsements have both positives and negatives (maybe to compensate for the potential negatives, drop their cost down to 7 political capital points?).

I think this would also make it more important to choose appropriate issues per state and being especially careful when launching a TV or Radio ad.

--James

LastStand

on Aug 18, 2004

If I understood Frog yesterday endorsements do have negatives within your party, its just a stat we don't see in game.

jscott991

on Aug 18, 2004

It has an extremely minor effect Laststand.

Upon further review of all the stats, the AI suffers almost no damage to his Democraticloyalty score for getting the NRA endorsement. The entire loyalty score system seems a little broken, but I have run through two campaigns today and in both the Dem got the endorsement of the NRA and Chamber of Business (plus the Unions) and his democratic loyalty score did not change.

LastStand

on Aug 18, 2004

I'd like to see it changed so that it has a definite effect on both the player and the computer's base as well as it being something we can track while we play. I know we only have two candidates so the base really has no choice but to vote for us but perhaps it could keep them home on election day.

Iceberg1

on Aug 18, 2004

I agree. If it does adversly affect your candidate to get an illogical endorsement, I would like to be able to track that info.

--James

Monster Kabasue

on Aug 18, 2004

I have played the game for a couple of days now in quick mode (have yet to win

), but while I was at work today I had a brain storm of an idea. Hot girl on girl bi-partisan action! I thought if I ran Rice as prez then take Hillary for her pure political might as VP, I could pull off an easy victory. Sadly I couldn't do this in quick mode, (if you can do it in campaign mode then never mind). I think being able to split a ticket would win more votes.

Some endorsements do hurt; I took the national fires association, and got burned hard on it.

Iceberg1

on Aug 19, 2004

Minor Suggestion:

The first time you build a HQ, it should say "Build" on the button, rather than "Upgrade."

--James

st botolphs review

on Aug 19, 2004

There have been some good ideas here.

I agree that it's way to easy to win endorsements from the wrong groups. Not only should it have a negative effect if, I as a Democrat win the endorsement of the National Gun Owner's Association, it should be harder to win in the first place. Maybe the candidates should be rated for where they stand on the issues prior to the game and the endorsements would cost more or less political capital points depending on where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to these organisations. So, if I was +10 on gun-control it would cost me 11 political capital points to be endorsed by the NRA, whereas if I was +10 on right-to-bear-arms, it might cost me 5. Whether this would have any effect on the computer-controlled player, I don't know. I don't know if they have an infinite reserve of political capital.

I think the addition of a debate should be a priority. This, to me is really important. I think you should have to put the candidate through debate prep. Also, early on, the players would have to specify how many debates they would like during the course of the campaign, then at some point you would be informed on the Commission on Presidential Debates would make a ruling. I'd prefer the debate be more substantial than the interviews. The debate model used in President Elect was pretty thorough. It should be a break from the week-to-week playing of the game and a chance to make character ratings such as intelligence and charisma count. I realise that you're trying to steer clear of designing a dry, election simulator...but i think debates are an opportunity to do something fun. Conventions would be a hoot, too, but you can't have everything.

I think issues should be more inter-related. It's hard to say how much they are now without much of an insight into the mechanics of the game. Coming out in favour of drilling in ANWR should damage your rating on the environment. Coming out in favour of Capitalistic policies and Socialistic policies ought to cancel eachother out. Stuff like that.

Also, I think that there needs to be a significantly expanded range of candidates. Power Politics has everyone who even thought of running for president since 1960, (i don't agree with their reasoning for stopping at this specific year, but hey) and while I appreciate that it must be a pain in the ass to have to draw every single candidate you add to the game, I think it's needed. By the way, I really like that this game has cartoons instead of a bad mix of black+white and colour photographs.

I like the weather idea that somebody mentioned before, but I wouldn't like it to be the only added feature of the new election night sequence, otherwise it would be like a weather forecast.

I'd like to know what Brad thinks of everybody's ideas. Are we over-reaching?

GoldDiggingKerry

on Aug 20, 2004

double post

GoldDiggingKerry

on Aug 20, 2004

1. Conventions, with prime time convention speeches where you pick and choose what you say. Kind of like how you do in an interview

2. 4 debates. 3 Presidential and 1 VEEP.

3. Power of the incumbency. The incumbent should have a big time financial advantage on the challenger, and the incumbent should be able to control the issues of the campaign so to speak by making certian policy decisions (for instance- Bush drew all of the talk away from Vietnam and the economy by raising the terror alert level following the Dem convention, things like this are what I speak of)\

And perhaps the incumbent can be givin a report card so to speak, to determine how good of a Presidency he has had, and what his grades are on certian issues. And this so called "report card" would be vital in the success or failure of the challenger's campaign.

4. The VP candidate should have more power. He should be able to give speeches and make political capital of his own, albeit with less effect than the Presidential candidate. Just a suggestion- But maybe the Veep can be givin 6 or so stamina points on his own, that he can use independent of the President's 14 stamina points?

And maybe there could be an option where you have the Pres and Veep candidates campaign together, effectively doubling their effect and combining their stamina points?

5. Campaign bus tours

6. Safe states. There's no way a Dem candidate is going to win North Dakota or Utah. The same with Repubs in Vermont and Conn. The only way that a "safe state" should even be in play is if the other guy has extremely high grades and marks on the "report card" that I mentioned earlier.

7. Primaries

8. Street fights between the 2 candidates. You could have them fight during the debates, or perhaps have Bush attack Kerry at the Dem convention or vice versa. And whoever wins the fight would get major "macho" points with the American people (but would also lose 'sensitive' points with women). All of those NHL hockey games that are made have fighting in them, so why not in politics as well?

LastStand

on Aug 21, 2004

My biggest problem with the game right now is that winning doesn't take strategy as much as it takes following the exact same plan over and over and over. Sure you can change which issues are important and which states are battle grounds but even thens its just, build HQ, run ads, rinse, repeat.

There are a few things I would like to see before primaries, debates or anything else. First, we need outside influnce on the election. In politics, no matter how much a candidate pushes the environment, if people are losing jobs that will be their main concern. Second, no issue should be agreed on by everyone. As someone else pointed out, of course everyone wants more jobs, the political disagreement is on how to achieve it. Next, we should have a set number of voters. I have had elections where the turn out was 142 million voters, about 40 million more than in real life. It just seems that rather than issues having any meaningful impact, new voters are pulled out of thin air to accomidate California suddenly turning red. And finally, I think we need far fewer advisors, operatives, and endorsements. They reak of power-ups and detract from the feeling of politics.

i know this was designed to be more of a game than an election simulator but the fun of the game is disappearing because so many sim elements were left out.

sgtfury

on Aug 21, 2004

LastStand makes some very good points, which I echo. I'll add that the strategy remains the same as to the battle for the states - the battle is over the same states, no matter what.

This is why historical campaigns would be important, because the states voted much differently in 1960, for example, than they do now. A Nixon vs. Clinton campaign under 1960 conditions would be very intersting.

There doesn't seem to be enough overall conditions to start the game with, nor is there enough gradation on the scales. For worldwide tension, it's either complete peace, total world war, or tnesion. Nothing else.

The computer gives itself way too much money and stamina, too. Also, why not make the monetary amounts more realistic. Campaign now top out at $200 million, not $20 million.

I know, I know, this is supposed to be a "fun" game, not a totally serious strategic gaming experience. I just think even the casual political geek knows quite a bit, and perhaps more depth is needed in general.

jscott991

on Aug 21, 2004

Great ideas.

I think many are overreaching. I still think short term, they should focus on adding more candidates with the proper artwork and revamping election night. I would also sell my soul if they would cut down on the cheating by the upper level AI. How fun is it to win an election by getting 271 electoral votes but get killed in the popular vote, over and over. I don't know why they thought that was the way to increase difficulty.

Long term, I think the game needs more strategic depth in the form of lessening the impact of ads and political operatives, more length by adding things like debates, and ceilings and floors on support. As someone mentioned, there are some states that Democrats just can't win and vice versa. The game now acts like each candidate starts with 0 built in state support. That's kind of ridiculous. Also, there is no state in the union that is going to split 80-20 in favor of one candidate or the other (save DC). Pol Machine states that are neglected by one side routinely are won or lost by 80-20 margins.

tpostman67

on Aug 21, 2004

I HAVE ONE--------- HOW ABOUT AN EXPANSION THAT MAKES THE GAME WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!