This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.0.4, and includes an estimated release date for it (as with any estimate, this can change).
Est. release date: Saturday, July 4th.
Changes so far (this list will be updated as changes are implemented on this side, these changes will not be available until the version is released):
- Added 7 days per turn feature
- Main Screen > added weekly calendar, which allows you to schedule upcoming activities and view upcoming events for the week at a glance, and skip ahead to see what’s coming in upcoming weeks
- Main Screen > added HUD for regional items creating (Ballot, Targeting, Org. Strength, Footsoldiers, Polling)
- Turn Summary > new sections for categorizing messages, clarified output for various messages
- 2016 > added July 15th, 2015 primaries start date
- 2016 > Rep, Dem > updated primaries dates
- 2016 > Rep > updated primaries news story profiles
- 2016 > Rep > Primaries > Michigan > 30 -> 59 seats
- 2016 > Rep > Primaries > Florida > 50 -> 99 seats
- 2016 > Rep > Primaries > Arizona > 29 -> 58
- 2016 > Rep, Dem > all ‘on’ by default candidates have unique colors
- 2016 > Dem > Iowa > Clinton 52%, Sanders 33%, Biden 7%, O’Malley 3%, Webb 1%
- 2016 > Dem > New Hampshire > Clinton 43%, Sanders 35%, Biden 8%, O’Malley 2%, Webb 1%
- 2016 > Dem > Florida > Clinton 64%, Sanders 21%
- 2016 > Dem > Michigan > Clinton 57%, Sanders 25%
- 2016 > Kasich > -> ‘on’ by default, moved up list
- 2016 > Kasich > funds $3.5 M -> $10 M
- 2016 > Sanders > Primaries > $2.5 M -> $10 M
- 2016 > Bush > $15 M -> $20 M
- 2016 > Cruz > $5 M -> $10 M
- 2016 > Carson > $5 M -> $10 M
- 2016 > Paul > Surrogates > added Kelley Paul
- 2016 > O’Malley > ‘Governor of Maryland’ -> ‘Former Governor of Maryland’
- 2016 > Rep > Debates > updated August, September, February dates, August -> 2% threshold, added 2 debates in March
Note: a top-ten threshold rule will be added in another release.
- Main Screen > removed ‘Step’ information
- Offers Screen > ‘NA Pact’ -> ‘Non-Aggression Pact’
144 thoughts on “Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.0.4”
2016 > O’Malley > ‘Governor of Maryland’ -> ‘Former Governor of Maryland’.
I think the Same-Sex Marriage issue needs to be updated. Most states are not Center-RIght on that issue any longer, and it should (maybe) be higher profile.
We’ll be doing an update of issues in general in a bit. You’re right that this issue needs to be updated.
Just downloaded version 2.03 for the Mac. While I love the changes to the game, unfortunately the simulation keeps crashing. I have been unable to successfully complete a single game thus far and its a deeply frustrating experience. When will these bugs be resolved?
Will the pictures of Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush be updated? It seems to me their appearences have changed seems 2008.
I can play through a game but it gives an error message when I exit the game after the results.
Do you get a crash after doing anything in particular? Does it occur at certain points in the game? Does it occur during a turn or in between turn processing?
Maybe – I’ve noted this.
Thanks for this – noted.
Why are there joke candidates in the game like Ben Copeland and Kevin Kirby??? Who are these people?? Greg Thornton??? Marcello Robinson???
Pataki is announcing his campaign for 2016 on Thursday, calling himself a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican.” He definitely needs to be added.
Polling would probably be really low, no more than 1-2% nationally, though NY, along with the tri-state and New England area might be slightly higher.
Anthony has that in his things to do.
@Jesse & Jonah – If they’re going to include no name joke candidates suddenly they might as well add a former Governor of a state.
These are rewards for Kickstarter supporters.
The Steering Council has voted for Pataki to be added – it should happen pretty soon.
I frankly think the kick-starter candidates should be included in a separate duplicate scenario. Have a second 2016 scenario that includes them. Otherwise it”s just kind of annoying having them in the official scenario. I feel the official scenario should remain only real life candidates.
They’re off by default, and at the very end of the lists. I understand that they aren’t real life candidates, but there are lots of potential candidates included who aren’t real life candidates.
I’ll think about a way to make it clear they are Kickstarter backers.
When will 1992 come out? I’m so excited for it.
No ETA on 1992 as of yet. The focus is on adding core features first. You can get an idea of when it is going to be added when it’s added to the list of ‘What’s coming up in future updates’ which is included in upgrade posts.
Estimated release date changed to Saturday, June 6th.
While a pushed release date to have more features available is good, an update with O’Malley’s title as the only change would be hilarious.
Heh – working on a big feature.
Lincoln Chafee is going to jump into the race on June 3.
Will he be added now?
Lincoln Chafee is announcing on June 3rd and Donald Trump is announcing on June 16th, will you be adding these candidates as well?
lol whoops didn’t see your comment there!
The committed vs. Leaning vs undecideds still aren’t equal in every state between the parties. In a few states the GOP has a 5% advantage in committed voters. In Indiana the Dems have a 10% advantage of committeds over the GOP. In Louisiana, the GOP has a 25% advantage in Committeds. In Montana, the GOP has a 10% advantage.
Personally, I would make all the splits in this regard Committed: 80%- Leaning: 10% – Undecided 10%
That might help some of the states I and a few others have seen where it seems to easy for the CPU to randomly blowout. Example, as Clinton it seems really easy for any GOP candidate to win Arizona by 30-40 points.
On that same note: a future addition might be some sort of universal swing feature. (There might be some way to incorporate this with the favorability/Approval (for incumbent) rating feature) This would help those situations where (for example) Clinton gets 52%-46%-1.5%-0.5% but loses Arizona by 35%, Indiana by 10%, Minnesota by 2%, and Florida by 15% while winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas. In any realistic scenario, if she lost Minnesota by 2%, she would be losing most of those other states. If she lost Arizona by 35%, she wouldn’t win Arkansas by 5%. While she would do better in Arkansas than most other Democrats, she still wouldn’t win it without do MUCH better than -35% in Arizona.
Also, since we are going by the cook PVI instead of current polling data: Texas should be GOP +10 rather than GOP +23. (Texas isn’t quite as red as Alabama) Indiana should be GOP +5 rather than GOP +11. Those are the two biggest shifts, but a few other states should be changed as well. For example Florida and Colorado are right in step with the Cook PVI. If we are going that route, Texas and Indiana (as well as the rest) should go that route as well for consistency. I can submit a suggested XML file to you with all of my suggestions in regards to committed splits and GE margins if you would find that helpful.
Yeah it bothers me that the GOP wins WI, MI, MN, NH, ME and OR in most of the elections. When those should go DEM about 80% of the time. The only real tossups are CO, NV, VA, NC, OH, IA and FL.
NH is a toss up state as well. New Mexico would be one as well. Wisconsin could be a toss up if Scott Walker is the nominee.
Not sure if New Mexico is a toss up; it went for Obama by 15 in 2008 and 12 in 2012. Definitely likely Democrat on the Presidential level. However, I would imagine that some candidates (Rubio, Bush) would fare better there.
On a somewhat related note, perhaps certain candidates should get small bonuses beyond their home state to reflect things like this (like, I could imagine Rubio getting between 1-3% bonuses in NM, NV, CO, CA, AZ, due to his popularity among Latino voters); Clinton, similarly, would get marginal bonuses throughout most of the country. The 1968 scenario was like this; it does help show the difference in electoral appeal of each candidate (as in, Walker brings different strengths to the electoral map than Christie or Rubio does).
Alternatively, this might all be better solved with voter groups/demographics that candidates have strength in.
Not sure if this has been brought up already, but beyond issue centers, the issues themselves need updating. Education should probably mention Commom Core, and Iran should mention the recent negotiations.
Also, a few potential new issues;
1. Income Inequality; at the point where at least two candidates have made this their main point in their platform, this is an issue worth adding.
Gallup identified this as the third most important economic issue for voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
2. Criminal Justice/Law and Order/Civil Rights-Whatever you want to call it, the issue of police brutality, riots, discrimination, and the overall flaws in the criminal justice system Are definitely relevant in the upcoming election. This was identified by Gallup as the second most important non economic issue for voters.
3. NSA/Government Surveilence-Paul is making this his signature issue, and other candidates are jumping in on the discussion as well.
4. ISIS-Either incorporate a discussion of ISIS into the war on terror issue, or replace it with this.
5. Foreign Policy; more broadly speaking, foreign policy doctrine is a huge issue in the campaign, particularly for Rubio, Cruz, Santorum, Bush and Perry. This would reflect “America’s role in the world’, sort of like the domestically inclined role of government issue.
6. Possibly Cuba; but the principles of this might fall under Foreign Policy.
I’m sure there are much more pressing features for the next few updates, but this is just something to think about.
Having a big issue with the game going bonkers while the voters are being counted in the general election.
A box with “access violation at address 00514517 in module PI.exe” comes up about a million times on the screen and forces me to shut down my computer.
Anyone else having this issue?
You can manually insert those issues into the game quite easily if you so desire.
@Jim You can insert many things into the game manually. Many of the things @Jonah said are suggestions to what could make the game more enjoyable and realistic for many.
Would it be possible to make ballot access more realistic? In real life, some states are relatively easy to get on the ballot. However, in a state like Oklahoma, it’s almost impossible for a third party to get on the ballot.
Suggestion noted. I believe this is already available as a feature in the game engine, but for simplicity’s sake all states have the same difficulty in getting on the ballot.
Thanks for these issue suggestions.
The next Steering Council vote will be on this subject. We’ll be looking at revamping the issues for 2016, as they are somewhat out of date, as you note.
@Aaron re committed %s,
Thanks for this – noted. You might be right that an 80-10-10 split would be better – we’ll see.
As far as Cook PVI numbers, we don’t use them. I tend to use the latest polling data for primaries %s, and for the GE I look at historical %s as well as the latest polling data.
Chafee has been voted to be added to the game by the Steering Council – just a matter of when.
Trump has been voted against by the Steering Council in favor of working on other features. However, if he does officially announce on the 16th, he will most likely be added as well.
Yes, Chafee will be added.
This big feature that is being worked on, does it have a 7 and “turn” in the name?
Yes, 7 days per turn is the next major feature to be implemented. It might take another week or more – we’ll see.
I’m happy to say that it makes playing the primaries feel much more tractable. The goal is to expedite game play while still allowing relative fine-tuning of actions, like a player has when playing day by day.
And, a player can switch back and forth whenever they would like to do so, in the current implementation.
So, will the release date be changed so more time can be given for the completion of this feature or will it be released, say this Saturday and another update will add improvements to it?
I don’t know – if it’s not done, the release date will probably be pushed back.
Estimated release date changed to Saturday, June 20th.
Awesome news that the 7 day turn is coming soon!! I’m curious if any consideration has been made to add additional Veep options. I feel like the list is very limited.
Pataki is tied with Rubio as the front-runner in NY. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Anyone else get a “List Out of Bounds” prompt after even slight editing of endorsers?
Shouldn’t Ben Carson be a 1 on experience? If he isn’t, who could possibly be so; in which case, why bother having it available? He’s never held public office (or any administrative position, as far as I can tell) and is quite prone to injudicious statements.
You might be right. He was director of pediatric neurosurgery at a major hospital, and led various operations.
To some extent, this is relevant experience. I think it’s debatable whether he’s a 2 or a 1. I would give him 1.5 if I could.
Other feedback welcome on this.
If you are able to consistently create an error after editing endorsers in a campaign directly copied from an official one, please let me know which campaign and what action you take to create the error.
@Jonathan re Pataki,
Thanks for this – noted.
The list is very limited for Veep options? Can you say more (for example, when I start a game in the general election, Republicans, there are 30 Veep options)?
Main Screen > removed ‘Step’ information.
@Anthony I think that what Les means is that the vice-leader list (of ones not running) for Republicans has 6 options, and Democrats have only two. So, expanding the options for both of them would be a helpful addition.
I copied the 2016 campaign. I usually edit Barnstorming powers on the Senators who once served as Governors up a few points because it seems to me that they would have more power and popularity in their states.
I also create about 5 or 6 additional endorsers for each party. For instance, I created Vilsack, Rendell, Strickland, Bayh and Napolitano as endorsers/barnstormers for the Democrats while creating Daniels, Schwarenegger, Giuliani, Gregg and Ridge for the Republicans.
I also created Boehner, Pelosi, Dole, Mondale, Dukakis and Quayle as national momentum endorsers just because it feels like they should all be in the game.
This has happened in several version of the game though where my less intensive creating is limited to fooling around with barnstorming and fundraising powers. Generally I will raise the fundraising powers of the NY-NJ Govs and Sens significantly.
@Bubbles, exactly what I meant.
Some other VP options (that are not candidates in the game:
Rep. Joaquin Castro, TX (to get hispanic voters and attempt to turn Texas purple)
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, MA (young face to go with Clinton)
Sen. Tom Udall, NM
Sen. Bob Casey, Jr, PA (to get PA votes)
Sen. Joe Manchin, WV
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, WI (to get WI votes, especially if facing Walker)
Mayor Kasim Reed, GA (African-American)
Rep. Tammy Duckworth, IL
Fmr Rep. Dennis Kucinich, OH (I could see Sanders picking him)
Fmr Sen. Evan Bayh, ID
Mr. Michael Bloomberg, NY
Fmr Gov. Tom Vilsack, IA
Fmr Gov. Charlie Crist, FL
Thanks for these.
No prob. Also, Kasich is leading Reps in the polls for his state of Ohio. I don’t know if you have him leading in Ohio or not:
Kasich is in the lead.
In what world is Tammy Duckworth a VP candidate?
Main Screen > added HUD for regional items creating (Ballot, Targeting, Org. Strength, Footsoldiers, Polling).
1. What is HUD?
2. Duckworth will be running for US Senate. 2016 is not her time to run for VP.
HUD: Heads-Up Display. It’s the information that you see on your screen.
Re Duckworth, yes she’s probably going to run for Senate, but she’s a possible Veep choice. These aren’t contradictory. If the Presidential nominee for the Democratic party decided to ask Duckworth, it’s possible she’d say ‘yes’.
Re Duckworth, yes she’s probably going to run for Senate, but she’s a possible Veep choice. These aren’t contradictory. If the Presidential nominee for the Democratic party decided to ask Duckworth, it’s possible she’d say ‘yes’.
I mean, if that was the case you could say every member of Congress would be a Veep candidate, no?
No Democratic candidate needs any help in Illinois and Duckworth has almost no national profile. She probably the one person you could find with even less experience than Castro.
Yes, in theory every member of Congress is a possible Veep candidate.
However, Duckworth does has a higher national profile than most.
Note that we haven’t added Duckworth to the game. I’m simply saying (in the real world) she’s an unlikely but not out of the ballpark Veep choice. One point of the game is to give players options.
The balancing aspects of a Duckworth choice presumably wouldn’t come from geographic considerations, just as Palin wasn’t chosen because McCain was concerned about carrying Alaska.
If you zip up and send me a copy of the campaign that is causing an error, I can look at it.
You can send it to the e-mail address on this page
I get an error when closing the game after my election night results. Are you getting this error? I haven’t been able to exit the game after finishing a campaign since the last update.
I’ve noted this.
” I’m simply saying (in the real world) she’s an unlikely but not out of the ballpark Veep choice”
@Anthony – Then why the phony players that you added in via the kickstarter? They’re way way out of the ballpark of legitimate candidates for President.
Duckworth will likely be the Democratic nominee for a highly targeted Senate seat. The presidential nominee will not ask her to drop out and run for VP. If she loses the Senate primary, that’s even less reason to select her.
And Nick, the Kickstarter thing was just a reward for people who donated a lot of money towards making this game possible. I think it’s obvious that they are not included because Anthony thinks they are viable presidential candidates.
I hope the 7-day per turn option is still planned for this Saturday. I and many others have been waiting for this feature. No more delays? 🙂
It depends on progress today and tomorrow. Trust me, releasing it in an unplayable state isn’t going to be better than waiting a bit. As stated emphatically, all release dates are estimates, and may change.
Estimated release date changed to Saturday, June 27th.
This update has involved replacing the CP system in the game, which has taken a lot of finicky work because it was ancient code.
Main Screen > added weekly calendar, which allows you to schedule upcoming activities and view upcoming events for the week at a glance, and skip ahead to see what’s coming in upcoming weeks.
Kickstarter “candidates” should be removed from being VP possibilities. I just had Huckabee (CPU) pick Copeland as his VP candidate.
Thanks for this – noted.
Hmmm … Copeland isn’t set to be a VP choice for Huckabee. I’ll look into this further – thanks again.
@anthony Well it seems that something is broken with the potential VP list. In the official scenario, Biden isn’t listed as a possible VP choice for Clinton. When I play as Clinton, I am presented with Biden, Thornton and Robinson as possible VP choices in the game.
Ok, sounds like a bug.
Wow, Trump is in second place in a New Hampshire poll and in a National poll now… That being said the only nation wide polls put him 18% and 17% behind Hillary. While Hillary is ahead of every GOP candidate in most polls (and some by double digits), there is an interesting disparity between a second place polling in the GOP field and how much worse he doesn’t against Clinton compared to anyone else.
That being said, is there some way (outside of platforms) to replicate a difference in general election chances that exist among candidates? For example, it should be MUCH more difficult for Cruz or Trump to win against Clinton than Bush. Like for example, there is a way to do this at the state level to an extent in candidate bonuses, but might it be worthwhile to add something like this at the national level in the future at some point?
I know there was talk a while back about a favorability rating feature. That could possibly be the way to go to reflect this.
Yes, it’s possible to model this with state-wide or national bonuses.
However, this sort of things won’t happen until a Favorability feature is implemented. It’s next up after the 7 days per turn feature, which is almost done.
This will allow for a more realistic modeling of voter dynamics, both in the primaries (where we saw rapid ascents and decreases in %s for multiple candidates) and in areas of the general election such as you’re talking about.
Favorability will automatically factor in platform differences, among other things. For example, if you’re in the Rep primaries, your platform might score your Favorability high with Rep voters on average, but once you move to the general it might be lower among Independents, say.
@Anthony I know I have asked this; how is a release this Saturday looking?
My guess is a version will be released late tomorrow.
Most of the dates for the primary calendar have been set. Perhaps this might be something worth adding. The late start, and the so called SEC primary on Super Tuesday will make this a much different race.
Estimated release date changed to Saturday, July 4th.
Any idea on why my game continues to crash after the following error message appears
List Index out of bounds
This error occurs when in primaries at various stages in term of turns. Also occurs in normal 2016 and campaign editor 2016.
I am using the most current version for Mac also
I have a question and can’t seem to find an answer. What’s a NA pact? It’s listed next to VP slot and Endorsement and I don’t know what it means/does.
Also I wish there was an option to offer the VP slot when there are only two candidates left even if you haven’t secured the nomination. Or even an option when there are multiple candidates still left in the race to offer someone a VP slot on the chance that you become the nominee.
NA Pact is a non-aggression pact. It helps stop negativity from that candidate.
Very frustrated by the update release date being pushed back again. I understand that it’s a complex update and a big change, but this is disappointing, especially when the 7-day turn should have been built into the game to begin with. If this is released July 4th, I will be shocked out of my shoes.
Also, is it possible to make people who endorsed you at a state level for example, if you were endorsed by Rick Snyder in MI and later you want to choose him as a VP candidate? If not, I would like to see governors of “swing states” be added as possible VP choices.
Also, have y’all thought about adding Ted Cruz’s dad as a crusader for him, he has and already will be a frequent crusader for Cruz in the bible belt.
His dad should have -3 in spin.
I think Kelley Paul should be added as a Rand Paul surrogate. She is now often on the trail with her husband and she gives interviews on tv shows. I think she should have 2 in brainstorming/ 2 in spin/ 1 in fundraising.
I’m really looking forward to the 7-day turn option. I really enjoy playing this game, but it definitely lacks approachability because of how painstakingly long it can take to play. Especially for some of the non-2016 scenarios that don’t start in December.
I can say that I am enjoying playing the game much more with 7 days per turn. It makes every turn more meaningful. Unlike with President Forever 2008, a player can switch between 7 days or 1 day per turn whenever they’d like, which means you can speed up, or slow down to fine-tune things at crucial periods.
Yes – you’re right. The Paul campaign seems to have decided to make her a high-profile aspect of their campaign.
Thanks for this – got it.
It really looks like John Kasich will be running.
@Kevin re endorsers as VP possibilities, this could only be done by adding a significant amount of information to the endorsers, because VPs have attributes that endorsers currently don’t have. Request noted.
@Les, I understand it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating on this end for a feature to take this long – I like to have updates on a bi-monthly basis for whichever product is being updated. Having said that, this feature affects a large number of aspects of the game. I can say, in my experience, it has increased the game play value significantly.
@Mitchell, “Also I wish there was an option to offer the VP slot when there are only two candidates left even if you haven’t secured the nomination.”
This is a good point – we’ll see.
After the next release, I am going to focus on fixing subtle bugs that seem to be cropping up in some people’s games. I’ll have a blog post about how to report and have these bugs fixed once that happens.
Looks like it! Noted.
@Jonah re primary calendar,
Yes, updating the primary calendar is near the top of the to-do list. Thanks for this.
Turn Summary > new sections for categorizing messages, clarified output for various messages.
2016 > Paul > Surrogates > added Kelley Paul.
2016 > Kasich > -> ‘on’ by default, moved up list.
2016 > Kasich > funds $3.5 M -> $10 M.
Offers Screen > ‘NA Pact’ -> ‘Non-Aggression Pact’.
Is there a chance you guys might be reinstating the prediction tool from P4E games into PI?
Minor, minor, minor changes for endorsers.
The current governor of American Samoa is Lolo Letalu Matalasi Moliga, an independent (former Democrat).
The current governor of the Northern Mariana Islands is Eloy Inos, a Republican.
Thanks for this – noted.
No plans currently – we’ll see at some other point. It is fun to be able to change %s around and see what the map looks like quickly.
Will the PI and PMI games be compatible with Windows 10?
Also, a new Iowa Poll has Sanders up to 33% in Iowa http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia07022015_I257tha.pdf
Yes, they should be compatible with Windows 10. I will be adding Windows 10 to the development environment soon as well, to ensure on-going compatibility.
Ya, things are getting more interesting on the Dem side.
Also, Webb is now in the race. Walker is set to join as well. Kasich is expected to announce soon as well.
Are you going to add George Pataki, Donald Trump and Lincoln Chafee? They are all running now.
Yes, they should be added soon – probably the update after the upcoming one.
Will the update be released today?
I noticed you changed Kasich’s funds for this turn. Cruz and his Super Pac have done very well fundraising, is it a possibility that you will change his funds and fundraising level, as well as his Super PAC strength?
Yes, it should be released today. Probably in the afternoon PST.
Yes, noted. Thanks for this.
2016 > added July 15th, 2015 primaries start date.
2016 > Rep, Dem > all ‘on’ by default candidates have unique colors.
2016 > Dem > Sanders > Primaries > $2.5 M -> $10 M.
2016 > Rep > Debates > updated August, September, February dates, August -> 2% threshold, added 2 debates in March
Note: a top-ten theshold rule will be added in another release.
2016 > Rep > updated primaries dates.
2016 > Dem > updated primaries dates.
2016 > Bush > $15 M -> $20 M.
2016 > Cruz > $5 M -> $10 M.
2016 > Carson > $5 M -> $10 M.
2016 > Sanders > $2.5 M -> $8.5 M.
2016 > Dem > Iowa > Clinton 52%, Sanders 33%, Biden 7%, O’Malley 3%, Webb 1%.
2016 > Dem > New Hampshire > Clinton 43%, Sanders 35%, Biden 8%, O’Malley 2%, Webb 1%.
2016 > Dem > Florida > Clinton 64%, Sanders 21%.
2016 > Dem > Michigan > Clinton 57%, Sanders 25%.
2016 > Rep > Primaries > Michigan > 30 -> 59 seats.
2016 > Rep > Primaries > Florida > 50 -> 99 seats.
2016 > Rep > Primaries > Arizona > 29 -> 58.
Is there anyway that you could add locations for the debates and for someone to participate, they would have to fly to the debate location?
@jesse I like this idea. Alot actually. There was another more bare bones election game I used to play that (while I don’t think it had debates) it made you have to travel to the interview location. Though the game also had a travel cost built in so you had to have money to travel. One of the few actual realistic parts of that game that I remember.
@Jesse re debate locations – thanks for this feedback, we’ll see.
The Tea Party started out as nothnig more than a bunch of grassrooters making a statement. I for one, put on a couple of Tea Parties. Now, the term Tea Party has become muddle in the eyes of the general public whereas there are no official leaders, some candidates have run under the Tea Party banner and no one is sure what it is anymore. There are also those who have tried to decieve the public by claiming to be Tea PArty but not following the original principles for their own gian. The closest thing to an official Tea Party would have to be the Tea Party Express which has run two buses across the ZCountry three times in support of Republican candidates. If they look like a Republican, talk like a Republican and act like a Republican, back them!
The Political Machine by Stardock. I liked the first one because it had a tournament system that allowed players to unlock candidates like Jefferson and Washington. And no, it didn’t have debates, but speeches and ads could change voters’ opinions, not just issue importance. More arcade-y and silly than President Forever/Infinity, though. Remember the storytelling grandma?
@Eric YES. That game was quite ridiculous at times but I found it a lot of fun.
I liked how on Political Machine you could answer questions from reporters from a list that was determined by your knowledge.. If that could be implemented, that would be awesome… Same with debates… you would be asked questions and respond, and your choices would be based on how much debating skill you had. Then, if you went against your platform, you would take hits and you could fire up your base with answers or woo independents, or turn a lot of them off.
Interactive debates would be awesome, except I get the feeling that PI casts you as the campaign manager, not the candidate him/herself.
This has to be the weirdest, most nonsensical spam post I’ve ever seen.
Thanks, deleted spam.