Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.0.9

by

Hi everyone,

This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.0.9.

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):

  • 2016 > Sanders -> second place in Dem list
  • 2016 > Trump > updated blurb
  • 2016 > Trump > Primaries > Spin 2 -> 3
  • 2016 > Carson > Primaries > Issue Familiarity 3 -> 2
  • 2016 > Kasich > Issue Familiarity 3 -> 4
  • 2016 > Cruz > Ground Strength 1 -> 2
  • 2016, 2012, 2008, 1968, 1912 > ad types now can run for 7 days
  • 2016, 2012, 2008 > fixed error where US issue centers were almost all center-right instead of center
  • fixed bug > displaying candidate goal if involved %
  • goals > seats ‘out of’ value now calculated based on total seats in general election
  • fixed bug > Player Info Screen > ‘…’ at end of line of goal text
  • fixed bug > Platform Screen > ‘…’ at end of line of issue position text
  • Editor > can edit region names
  • Editor > can add regions (cannot modify region locations yet, so this is useful mostly for CI districts and PMI constituencies at this point)
  • Editor > can edit region id’s
  • Editor > can edit region abbreviations
  • Editor > can delete regions
  • 2016 > updated governor of American Samoa
  • 2016 > updated governor of Northern Mariana Islands
  • 2016 > Sanders > Surrogates > added Bill McKibben, 1 Barnstorming, 2 Spin, 1 Fundraising
  • 2016 > Cruz > Surrogates > added Rafael Cruz, 1 Barnstorming, 1 Spin, 1 Fundraising
  • Editor > Debates > added max. candidates count
  • Debate Prep. Screen > now shows % required for debate, max. number of candidates for debate
  • Debates now have optional max. candidates count
  • 2016 > Rep > August 6th, 2015 debate > max. candidates count set to 10, no % threshold
  • 2016 > Rep > September 16th, 2015 debate > max. candidates count set to 10, no % threshold
  • Strategy Screen > now displays Org. Strength
  • Election Night > Export > fixed possible bug where might have blank or zero in a party’s columns even though on ballot in that region
  • Load Game Screen > double-clicking save game will load game, instead of closing screen
  • Fixed bug with random graphics filler being displayed around edges of certain screens in Windows 10 (and perhaps other operating systems)
  • Fixed bug > Campaign Editor > Regions > if no leader from a given party on primaries ballot, no longer causes error
  • Main Screen > if in 7 day mode, +-s for percentages and seats now relative to previous turn
  • Strategy Screen > Primaries > when mouse hovers over region, date format (for example) 01/01/2016 -> Jan. 1st, 2016
  • Fixed bug > Select Campaign Screen > if ‘not seeking’ option selected for last candidate on a row, no longer causes graphical glitch
  • Main Screen > if hover over Issue Knowledge or Debate Prep. buttons, displays respective attribute and upgrade values
  • Main Screen > removed ‘takes 1 CP and 5 EPs’ pop-up box after click Issue Knowledge
  • Debate Prep. Screen > removed ‘takes 1 CP and 5 EPs’ pop-up box after click Do Debate Prep.
  • Keycode Screen > can now paste entire keycode into first box
  • General Election > Debates > can now set which parties invited
  • Campaign Editor > fixed bug where Save As would save to same folder
  • Turn Summary > first turn > Goal > “out of” > now calculated dynamically based on number of electoral votes
  • 7 days per turn > Upcoming debate note only added once
  • Select Campaign Screen > no party or leader selected by default

229 thoughts on “Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.0.9”

  1. The way things used to work (2.0.5), the electorate was modeled, basically, with %s. Momentum would then directly affect the %s. If someone had positive momentum, they gained %s, negative momentum, they lost %s.

    Now (2.0.6) with Favorability, the electorate is modeled on an individual person level. Each region has a large number of persons (who in turn represent a fraction of a % of the electorate), and each person has Favorability scores for each candidate. The one they support is the one to whom they assign the highest score.

    So, in addition to %s and Momentum, you will be able to see average Favorability scores nationally, by region, and for primaries electorates.

    What’s important about this? Because the electorate is now modeled on a person-by-person basis, it can be modeled more realistically. In particular, more complex arrangements (primaries or third-parties) and rapid upsurges or collapses can be better modeled.

    It also opens the game up to whatever demographic blocks a campaign designer wants (although this won’t be included in 2.0.6), because an individual can have various ‘tags’ assigned to them (‘republican’, ‘independent’, ‘democrat’, ‘male’, ‘female’, ‘lower-class’, ‘middle-class’, ‘upper-class’, and so on).

  2. THIS IS THE FEATURE I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR! So excited!

    This most have taken/will still take a long amount of time to work on but know it will be greatly appreciated! Can’t wait to start making demo blocs!

  5. It reminds me of the “Democracy” games where the electorate is divided into various sub-groups. Do you intend to use this feature to model variable turnout as well? For example, if a “person” has a negative view of both major candidates, s/he may stay home instead.

  6. @Eric,

    Yes, if no one has a high enough Favorability score for a given person, that person will sit out the election.

  7. Couple minor fixes. AFL-CIO in ’68 campaign’s main issue is Vietnam and is centrist. I’d suggest changing that to ‘Unions’ and making it left or far-left.

  10. I like this idea. It sounds like it really will be a great addition. I like the way you’re changing it for the better.

    Although I must ask- will you add George Pataki and Lincoln Chafee as Presidential candidates in 2.06? And will you be adding anymore VP nominees? And will you also be adding anymore parties/nominees for parties?

    I really enjoy playing this game- thanks for working so hard on it!

  11. @Kevin,

    Yes, there will be the potential to target certain groups (as opposed to, say, regions as in the current ads system). This will be implemented after 2.0.6, though.

    @DJH,

    Yes, Pataki and Chafee are scheduled to be added, it’s just a matter of when.

    Yes, probably more VP possibilities, but no ETA.

    No more parties planned at this point. Might add Constitution Party, perhaps some other third parties. Any major independent bid would be added if it happened.

  12. I know I have already asked for that, but could you update the pictures of Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Rick Perry? It seems to me their appearances has changed since last elections. I know it is not essential, but it would make the game more pleasant.

  13. This is interesting:
    Wow, I’m kind of surprised. In a new CNN poll, Bernie Sanders would lose to Jeb Bush in a general election by only a point. In the same poll, Donald Trump is the Republican frontrunner, but would lose to Bernie Sanders by 21 points in the general election (Clinton would beat Trump by only 16 points). Clinton beats Bush by 5 points.

  14. Anthony would you consider adding the ‘Economic Indicator’ system like there was in PF2008, it would be really great to help simulate 2008 and 1932 etc.

  16. Anthony have you thought about adding Mark Everson for the Republican primaries and a Constitution party?

  17. @Jonathan the polls now are all registered voters polls which always lean toward Democrats so that poll you really be more like a 3 or 4 point difference for Sanders and Bush.

  18. @Mitchell Registered voters weighted for a likely voter sample. In fact, a few of the polls’ demo spreads more closely resemble a mid-term electorate rather than even a neutral Presidential year. There is really no reason to subtract anything from any democratic lead at this point unless the sample is more than D +7 or D +8 nationally.

    A good example would be the swing state poll set Quinnipiac released the other week that spurred countless “Hilary is doomed” articles and op-eds since then. (Because a single poll is always a bellwether…) The poll has a partisan split for Colorado of R+ 3, Iowa of R +2, and Virginia of D +1. In 2012, (which was a less Dem friendly year than 2008) Colorado was D+ 5, Iowa was Even, and Virginia was D +7. That is a slant of R +8 for Colorado, R +2 for Iowa and R +6 for Virginia. These polls are the exact opposite. While they are RV samples, they fundamentally lean towards Republicans by an average of 5.33%. If these polls had a Presidential year turnout model rather than a 2014 midterm turnout model, Colorado would have been a 3% lead for Clinton rather than an 8% lead for Bush, Iowa would be a 4% Bush lead in Iowa and a 3% lead for Clinton in Virginia rather than a 3% lead for Bush.

    The CNN national poll that Jonathan mentioned has a 2008 turnout partisan split which is D +1 of 2012. If anything, that poll might be a 2% deficit for Sanders against Bush. Though that is WELL within the MoE, so it’s a statistically insignificant lead anyhow.

  19. @Jacob
    I’m currently working on an expanded 2016 Scenario. Added already both, Everson and the Constitution Party with Keyes and Stockman and much more (source: Wikipedia) ^^ I gave the minor parties, such as Peace or Freedom or Prohibition Party only ballot access in their candidate’s home state, cause I don’t know yet where they will be on ballot. But some of the Independents seem a bit too strong and I don’t know some minor veeps for sure, so I speculated or added unspecified veeps :/ Will add some what-if scenarios like Rand Paul for the Libertarians and Trump as an Independent, too.
    If someone wants a test version contact me: email hidden; JavaScript is required
    Feedback would help me a lot 🙂

  20. That would be cool to have some more minor parties. Does anyone know why I am getting this Error code.
    Access violation at address 00781037 in module ‘PI.exe’. Write of address 0AEB22CB
    I don’t know why it keeps happening?

  21. @Rophil re candidate images,

    Feedback noted – this is low on the priority list, but we’ll see.

  22. @Bubbles re economic indicator,

    We’ll see. My sense is that it’s better to incorporate this into events, with an ability to have an event affect incumbents, say.

  24. @Jacob re error,

    Can you say which campaign this is occurring in (official or customized), and if it occurs in any particular spot or after a certain action?

  25. Something I believe would be a cool feature is when a candidate decides to launch his/her campaign, he/she has a one time activity that has to be completed within a week of launching their campaign, titled “announcement speech”. The player then chooses where to have this ” announcement speech” and this is where the candidate would choose his/her theme for the election, and this could also be a fundraiser. I believe this could be a good feature especially with the favorability feature as their favorability as well as the amount of money raised would be boosted or would decline due to their choice of their theme. Is something like this doable?

  26. @Kevin,

    I like the idea of initially setting a theme timed to an announcement speech. It’s doable – we’ll see.

  28. It is only in my customized games and it happens around mid April. It is also only when I make a new party. or change one significantly.

  29. Anyone looking to abuse Favorability so that many voters have a negative view of both candidates so turnout is lower than it was in 1996?

  36. @Anthony,

    is there a way you can make it so we can spin news item within the 7-day turns? As it stands, we can only spin the final day.

  37. @Jonathan,

    Yes – but I’m going to wait until I redo the way news works in general.

  39. Is it possible to add online rallies and barnstorming? Number one, as long as social media is where people get their information, it might be more effective. Number two, Bernie Sanders had an online rally nationwide last night, and so far it appears there were at least 100,000 people involved. Could that perhaps be an event in game, with a momentum boost besides to him?

  42. 2016, 2012, 2008 > fixed error where US issue centers were almost all center-right instead of center.
    fixed bug > displaying candidate goal if involved %.
    goals > seats ‘out of’ value now calculated based on total seats in general election.
    fixed bug > Player Info Screen > ‘…’ at end of line of goal text.
    fixed bug > Platform Screen > ‘…’ at end of line of issue position text.

  43. @Anthony

    This may be fixed with the updates, but I’ll mention it just in case. One thing I’ve noticed, and you may be aware of this, is that the party with the most candidates has significant strength in the primaries. I noticed this while making scenarios of the older elections.

    For instance, a party with once candidate going against a party with 10 candidates will get pummeled into the ground. Especially if the party with the one candidate is going in as the weaker party. Especially in the 1812-1820 elections. This may explain part of the reason why the Democrats also perform poorly in the 2016 scenario. This may be part of the momentum factor.

    Personally, I feel a party should have some sort of organization boost if they have a single candidate. They don’t have to worry about in-fighting and can concentrate solely on the opponent. Yet, this advantage doesn’t seem to be used when CPU plays CPU. It is advantageous if a player is playing as the single candidate of the party.

    Anyway, just thought I’d let you know in case you hadn’t noticed this yourself.

  45. @Lucas,

    I think Sanders has a rough-hewn kind of charisma. Having said that, I don’t think he’s drawing crowds because of his charisma – I think it’s because of his positions.

    More feedback welcome on this, though.

  46. @Anthony

    Yeah, I’d agree with you. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is by nature charismatic. Most of my favorite politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson, have no charisma outside of their platform. Same with Ron Paul (who I don’t care for). As much as I like Sanders, Kucinich and Grayson, if they were given a charisma of 2, I wouldn’t bat an eye. I think the argument for a charisma of 2 is stronger than for a 4. I think Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are the only comparable progressives with a charisma of 3, possibly 4. I think Brown runs in 2020 if Warren feels she’s too old to do so (she’ll be 71 then).

  47. @Jonathan re number of candidates in primaries and general election %s,

    Yes, and it will be addressed with Favorability.

  48. Editor > can edit region names.
    Editor > can add regions (cannot modify region locations yet, so this is useful mostly for CI districts and PMI constituencies at this point).

  49. New PPP poll has Sanders at 32% in Minnesota, and Walker leading. Perry, who in the game is currently tied for 1st in the state, registered no support at all. Obviously you’re not going to change % with every released poll, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

  50. @Jonah,

    Another state that’s competitive on the Dem side – yes, there will be a major change in %s with an upcoming update.

    The way that start %s work will also change. Basically, instead of setting %s for each candidate, campaign designers will be able to enter in raw poll data (state, candidate %s, date, margin of error). The program will then calculate starting %s based on the raw poll data and start date. This will allow for %s that are accurate for a given start date.

    Thanks for this.

  53. What would be nice for editing scenarios and making things like gubernatorial elections and individual senate elections would be an option to do an election by popular vote instead of electoral college.

  54. @Jesse,

    I would like to do this, but it’s a bit trickier to implement than you might initially think. Once there’s some time in the development schedule, it might happen.

  58. @Anthony

    I noticed that you cannot give a candidate a negative general election boost. It only works in positives. Just try test it, I gave -50 to Cruz in Texas, and then selected him in a general election battle. However, it still had Texas overwhelmingly red…something like 56% to 30% with the rest undecided.

    Is there a way you can make negatives work? I’m hoping to edit the more radical politicians so that the states don’t play out the same starting in the general election if certain candidates are selected.

  62. While watching the debates to now, it occurred to me that a negative debate performance might not necessarily lead to negative momentum. In the debate, I think Trump clearly would get a negative score, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he still increased his momentum.

  64. Agreed on Kasich. He’s good in front of the camera, and if he can somehow survive this crazy field he could emerge as the non-Bush “moderate” choice.

  65. Carson Issue Familiarity should probably be a 2, based off the question he received regarding his lack of knowledge on some basics. He should have to work himself up into a proper candidate. He seems to be more well-spoken for his idea of government that what government and politics in fact is.

  69. Although, Carson did well with the issues he was asked about. Remember, those were PREVIOUS mess ups that were mentioned. But, He did very well in the debate.

  70. Carson did not really answer any questions specifically, and did not show a command of any issue that he would face as President. He made some good jokes and “policy paper” type comments, but that doesn’t mean he actually has an independent command of the issues.

    On another note, @anthony – how would you say the Favorabilty feature will affect gameplay strategy? Will each “demographic” have its own issue positions, so that it will be more important to target a demographic with your platform and less important to simply target regions?

  71. Very supportive of Anthony decreasing Carson’s issue familiarity. A lot of stumbling and blind pecking on his part — I’d also decrease his charisma.

  72. @Nick

    I’d agree with dropping the charisma, he seems like he’s mid-way through the effects of a tranquilizer when he’s speaking.

  73. 2016 > updated governor of American Samoa.
    2016 > updated governor of Northern Mariana Islands.
    2016 > Sanders > Surrogates > added Bill McKibben, 1 Barnstorming, 2 Spin, 1 Fundraising.
    2016 > Cruz > Surrogates > added Rafael Cruz, 1 Barnstorming, 1 Spin, 1 Fundraising.
    Editor > Debates > added max. candidates count.

  74. @Jeff re Favorability,

    Initially, demographic blocks will mirror what already exists (broken down by party and how committed).

    In the future, though, there will be the ability to target by any block that a campaign designer has added to a campaign.

  76. @Anthony

    Is it possible to see the home state of a candidate or vice presidential pick again in their info screen? I liked that pretty much in PF+P 2008. 🙂
    I know that’s low on priority list, but I wanted to mention it.

    My 2nd suggested feature was already mentioned by another user, but I think it could become pretty interesting, when Trump is going to lose the primary.
    I think it would be nice to have the option to run as an Independent if you don’t secure your party’s nomination.

  77. @Anthony

    I’d like to see more in the VP selection process. I’m not quite sure what that would be. Maybe the % chance that someone will agree to be your VP, based off of how much they like you, then perhaps a screen that shows demographic boosts and negatives if the candidate is selected. Also, maybe have CPU candidates offer to drop out in exchange for being the VP.

  79. I agree that Kasich’s Issue Familiarity should get boosted to 4, but his debate should stay at 3 since he did not go against a candidate head on (ex. Christie-Paul) so he really did not debate.

  83. @Anthony
    I thought on another two features last night. 🙂

    The first one was already mentioned, when I didn’t have much experience with the game. After a lot of games I noticed too that often there’s a winner announced in the election process before the western states came in, which eventually changes the whole outcome. I liked the system as it was in PF+P ’08. Is there a chance that this will come back one day?

    The other one is relating to additional/optional statistics. There could be some info about the states composition of race (Whites, blacks, hispanics, native americans, asians), social components (family income, political affilation, sexual orientation, education) and gender/age
    My inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics

    Let me know what are your thoughts on that. 🙂

  84. Could there be an option for endorsement in the general election? Say, Michael Bloomberg leads in the popular vote and the electoral vote, but since the Democrat is in, no one has a majority of the electoral votes. If it gets sent to Congress, the Republican wins, so the Democrat could endorse Bloomberg which gives him the electoral votes needed to win.

  85. Hey @Anthony. I know that some of these things have been mentioned before but I figured I would mention them again. First off, it’s really annoying during election night when the election gets called but then never gets corrected if it changes. It would be cool if election night could be a little more interactive. For instance, it would be cool if it felt more like real news reporting on the election fr when candidates pick up states and if you are losing you have the option to concede or accept the other candidates concession. It would also be cool if something happened if one candidate won more electoral votes but the other one won the popular vote like in 2000.

    Second off, When you go to offer a candidate something it would be cool if you could offer a spot on the cabinet or ask for a spot on the cabinet. And it is annoying how you can’t offer a candidate the vp option before the nomination is locked up. It would be coll if you could offer the vp spot to someone or accept the vp spot before you or another candidate lock up the nomination because you would have to weigh risk v. reward in that situation.

    And third off, Please add the other candidates to the game it makes the game feel a bit more unrealistic without everyone there.

    Anyway hope these suggestions helped. The game is great!

  87. @Jonathan re VP selection process, it would be nice to have this more involved. Feedback noted.

  88. @Jesse re endorsement in GE, I think this is a good idea, but it’s pretty unprecedented. My intuition is that a Dem candidate (in the example) would stay in, even if switching would ensure the Ind victory.

  89. @Bjorn re election night, yes – it will be updated in a future release.

    Offers feedback noted – thanks for this.

  90. Debate Prep. Screen > now shows % required for debate, max. number of candidates for debate.
    Debates now have optional max. candidates count.
    2016 > Rep > August 6th, 2015 debate > max. candidates count set to 10, no % threshold.
    2016 > Rep > September 16th, 2015 debate > max. candidates count set to 10, no % threshold.

  95. Thanks for the % updates, everyone – all noted.

    The %s system is going to change, where starting %s depend on when a player starts the campaign.

    So, the next update may not contain updated %s, simply because the system is going to be switched.

  97. Election Night > Export > fixed possible bug where might have blank or zero in a party’s columns even though on ballot in that region.

  99. @Anthony

    Another feature I thought on:

    Is it possible that endorsers could be colored in the party’s color after they decided to endorse someone.This would be especially helpful in the main election rather in the primaries… But it would make it easier to see who supports whom, instead of clicking on all of them.

  100. Quick Thing, Was playing a ’68 campaign as Stassen and as in his desc. ‘he maintains close ties to President Eisenhower’ but his endorsement points are 25 compared to Rockefeller’s and Nixon’s 50. I think Stassen’s should be 50 as part of his cabinet, I see the rational for making Nixon’s 50 and everyone else’s 25 but since Rockefeller’s is also 50 I think Stassen’s should be also.

  106. @Luki re endorsers, it’s a good idea to color them the color of the player they endorse. I’ll think about it.

  107. @Anthony
    Ya, it is unprecedented. But, it would be a nice feature to have. Who knows what would happen if an election got to this point because there has not been an election like that.

  108. @jesse might be an interesting feature to have but it’s not a situation that could ever happen under current law. Lets say Clinton gets 217 EV’s, Bush gets 191 EV’s, and Bloomberg gets 130. Since no candidate hits 270, those totals no longer matter. If Clinton were to drop out then and endorse Bloomberg, it wouldn’t be that Bloomberg now wins 347-191. Bloomberg would still have 130, the withdrawn Clinton would still have 217 and Bush would still have 191. (I am ignoring the possibility of faithless electors)

    Regardless who drops out, the race gets a fresh slate and the only vote that would matter is one vote per state’s congressional delegation (so 50 votes since DC wouldn’t get a vote) for the Presidency and the Senate for the Vice Presidency.

    So, I really don’t know if adding the feature to the game would even be worthwhile since it would need a constitutional amen dent to change the “contingent election” process in order for that to even be able to happen in real life.

  109. @Aaron
    I am not talking about at the electoral vote. I am talking about maybe a week before the election. A week before the election Clinton(in my case) drops out and endorses Bloomberg(me). That makes me win the states that she would have won, so Bloomberg is the next President. I know the rules about if no one has a majority. This proposal has nothing to do after the election. But, Clinton could tell her electors to vote for Bloomberg instead of her (they would technically be faithless) and that is allowed.

  110. @jesse still isn’t possible. Clinton would remain on the ballot in that time frame and would get at least some of the votes. Telling her electors to vote for Bloomberg instead of her would not work either. In 29 states the electors can be penalized for not voting the way they are pledged. In some states, including Michigan and Minnesota, a faithless elector would render that vote invalid. So lets say Clinton still won Minnesota and Michigan and told her electors to vote for Bloomberg and they then did. This 26 electoral votes would not go to either Clinton or Bloomberg, they would be invalidated. Clinton telling her electors to cast ballots for Bloomberg as faithless electors would likely have legal ramifications for her as well.

  111. @Aaron
    But, an endorsement would have an effect. There would be a lot of voters that vote for Bloomberg instead of Clinton. Also, show me where it is illegal to tell your electoral voters to vote for someone else. They would be faithless electors technically, but where is it illegal to have your electors vote for someone else?

  112. @Jesse Well, in New Mexico being a faithless elector is a 4th Degree Felony. (1-15-9) In North Carolina, it is a $500 fine. (§ 163-212) There are others. Telling someone to commit a crime for you can be a crime,. For example, if I tell you to go and steal a car and you do so, I can be charged with a crime as well as you.

    Well yes an endorsement would have an effect (now we are talking the popular vote on election day and not dealing with electors and the electoral college). But a realistic vote for a candidate that dropped out would likely be 5%-10%. It would also be reasonable to assume that 5%-10% wouldn’t vote for president if their candidate dropped out. Then, maybe 5% would turn around and vote for the other candidate (the Republican in this case). So a popular vote that would have been Clinton 30%, Bloomberg 34% and Bush 36% would end up more like Clinton 11%, Bloomberg 48% and Bush 40%. Then possibly 5%-10% of Bloomberg voters that voted for him because he was an independent might vote for the Republican after he is endorsed by the dropping out Dem seeing him now as the defacto Democrat. (Think Greg Orman from Kansas in 2014) Then maybe the result may end up Clinton 11%, Bloomberg 37%, and Bush 51%. Basically meaning, it could still very well (possibly more likely than not) end up being a GOP victory and by a possibly larger margin than a 3-way would have been as far as the popular vote is concerned. Unfortunately, the only guidance as far as how this would play out in the electorate is what has happened in lower level races like the 2014 Kansas Senate race.

  113. @Aaron Booth
    Give me links to those laws. Also, you do not know that that is how that would happen since it has not happened. Maybe some voters switch, but maybe they do not switch. These are all speculation on your part.

  114. @Jesse Well I provided you with the statute numbers so you could have looked them up yourself. But, New Mexico: http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Legislation_And_Resources/NMElectionHandbook_2011.pdf , North Carolina: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=163-212 . And the statutes declaring faithless elector votes invalid in Minnesota: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=208.08&year=2008 and Michigan: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28agrxieylljbb0r05tjpmjpaa%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-168-47. There are other states with criminal penalties for faithless electors but you can look the rest up yourself if you want to see more. Also, the constitutionality of such laws criminalizing faithless electors was affirmed in 1952’s SCOTUS decision on Ray v. Blair.

    As far as the rest goes, that’s exactly what I said. That’s why I mentioned that the only comparison is Senate, House and other lower office elections where a candidate has either died or dropped out and endorsed another candidate and has either had to remain on the ballot due to legal or time constraints, or was able to be removed from the ballot such as Chad Taylor in the 2014 Senate race when he dropped out and endorsed the Independent Greg Orman.

  115. #1 To Jesse: Pull up a search engine, and search for “Faithless Elector Laws”. Wikipedia, even has information on Faithless Elector(s). That applies only to Electoral College voters, not citizens casting a vote in the general election.

  116. #2 There’s a way you can simulate a endorsement. In the aforementioned scenario. Clinton 30%, Bloomberg 34% and Bush 36%. About 7-10 days before the election…. Just change your entire platform, to the platform of the candidate, you want to endorse. Make minor tweaks to evey postion on the following days, until election day. Do this daily for the last 10+ days, if you want it to have the most effect. Example of candidates platforms: Clinton 2 – Left. Bloomberg 3.5 – Center-ish. Bush 5 – Center Right. Instructions, I’m Clinton, so 10 days before the election, and I know I’m going to lose. I change my entire platform, to match Bloombergs. I get tagged for flip floping. My poll numbers will drop, my momentum is crushed. 9 days before the election, I change my entire platform to 3.0, one step to the left of bloomberg. (Don’t ever go to the right of Bloomberg; otherwise, Bush will pick up a few of your voters.) 8 days before election, my platform, goes back to Bloomberg’s. Etc, etc… 2 days before the election, I hammer Bush with a couple of ads keeping him with negative momentum. A full 10-15%+ of my (Clinton), voters, will go to someone else… 75% will go to the candidate with the closest platform. More, if you keep bush in negaitve momentum. Give it a try, hope this helps.

  117. Aaron Booth: That last post you made on August 14 at 5:04pm, your math doesn’t quite add up on that last scenerio. I’ll explain… This is the scenerio that was used. Clinton 30%, Bloomberg 34% and Bush 36%. Then, Clinton drops out. “Then possibly 5%-10% of Bloomberg voters that voted for him because he was an independent might vote for the Republican after he is endorsed by the dropping out Dem seeing him now as the defacto Democrat.” That’s logical/fair assement. I’m still with you.

    “Then maybe the result may end up Clinton 11%, Bloomberg 37%, and Bush 51%.” The crazy train just left, lol. So, due to an endorsement, 19% abandon Clinton, and despite the endorsement, 80% of those go to Bush over Bloomberg. My head just exploded! Wait! 10% of bloomberg voters, are alienated by the fact that he’s the defacto democrat (Fair assesment). So, he’s at 34%, but 10% of his voters, (NOT the entire electorate.) leave = that’s 3.4%.

    Moreover, those people were attracted by the fact that he WAS a 3rd party candidate, and thus will most likely move to another 3rd party candidate, or stay home. Very, very, very few, will jump to Bush.

  118. Unfortunately my post with the link is still stuck in “moderation”, but if you cant search a statute number on Google then I am not sure how much good a URL will do you anyhow.

    I think my math makes sense… (aside from rounding) Don’t forget I made 10% of Clinton voters just not vote for POTUS. So, just with the exact same quantity of votes for Bush, he goes from 36% to 40%. Idk, it very well might be 10% of the total electorate jump the Bloomberg ship. Look at what happened with Orman in Kansas last year (even with the Dem completely off the ballot), if you added Orman and Chad Taylor’s percentages in polling before he dropped out together, would give Orman over 50%. But Orman was getting a ton of cross over support from dissatisfied Republicans at that time in the polls and got MUCH less GOP voter support come election day after the Taylor endorsement.

    I didn’t say or mean to say that 80% of Clinton’s 19% that leave voters go to Bush. Clinton would get some cross over anyhow, lets say 5% of her voters so that’s 1.5% of the total electorate before and about 1.7% of the new 90% electorate. My main point in all of that was that 1. A chunk of Clinton’s voters would still vote for her. 2. Some of the GOP voters going Clinton would turn to Bush maybe some indies too. 3. A sizable chunk of Bloomberg’s votes would likely migrate to Bush which would negate a large portion of the pickup Bloomberg would get from would be Clinton voters.

    In all reality, a 3-way with Bloomberg, Clinton and Bush would be Clinton 48%, Bloomberg 5% and Bush 47% anyhow in a more likely scenario. Out of Bloomberg’s 5% there 4 is from Clinton and 1 is from Bush. I used an average where Clinton is ahead of Bush by 5% in a 2-way race.

    **As a side note, by 11% of Clinton’s voters would still vote for her, I mean that 11% would be Clinton’s new vote share. So when I said that 5%10% would abandon Bloomberg I meant that Bloomberg would lose 5%-10% off his 34% starting point.**

  119. Since this conversation went to Kansas, my state. I thought, I would jump in, and give my two cents. This is in reference to Kansas’ senate race. Where to start… The Marley’s were dead to begin with, Nevermind. Kansas hasn’t elected a democrat to the senate in over 80+ years.

    Roberts won with 60% in 2008, and the democrat got right at 40%. That’s a baseline for 2014. In June, polling was Roberts low 40’s, Taylor low 30s, Orman single digits. Roberts is vulunerable. Middle August: Robert’s mid 30’s, Taylor upper 20’s, Orman lower 20’s. Roberts is getting roughed up by a primary challenger.

    Pretty much everything that can go right for the Democrats; has by the middle of September. Broke Democrat Chad Taylor drops out. Shortly after, he gets his name stricken from the ballot. Orman surges into the lower 40’s he absorbs 90%+ of Taylor’s support. It’s obvious, Democrats will support (what they believe to be more moderate) Orman, before they will support Roberts. They are not running to Roberts.

    Roberts stays in the mid 30% despite winning a contested primary. The key here is Milton Wolfe, (Roberts primary challenger), will not endorse Roberts, and considers endorsing Greg Orman. Orman is an independent, and not a democrat; quickly becomes a motto for the Orman campaign. Roberts tries to paint Orman as a democrat in independant clothes.

    The race goes down to the wire. Milton Wolfe endorses Pat Roberts, 5 days before the general election. Pair that with the facts, it’s a deep red state, and the democratic machine never got started, (because they couldn’t endorse Orman, without killing his campaign). Every poll that came out overestimated the non-white turnout. Finally, a republican wave, and you got Pat Roberts was re-elected with a 10%+ victory margin. Both endorsements, (overtly or otherwise), by Taylor and Wolfe were actually highly successful to both the Democrats (via Orman), and the Republicans (Roberts). Neither back fired.

    Oddly enough the 3rd party candidates got right at 5% as suggested by Aaron Booth’s alienation argument. People do get alienated. Polls have a tendency to overestimate 3rd party votes. The first poll, I mentioned in June 2014. had Greg Orman, “the 3rd party candidate” at 5%. The protest votes did finish with about 5% of the total vote.

  120. Last comment tonight, I promise.

    To anthony_270admin:

    Great game! Really look forward to the “favorability” element coming out. Been playing your games since President 2000. I hope you all made that, otherwise never mind.

    Suggestions: Debt and Fundraising.

    Debt: Should be self explanatory. If not, certain candidates have great wealth. A system similar to a “scandal”, could be implemented. For each $1 million you borrow, you have a 2% chance you will generate a negative headline tomorrow/next week. This chance grows like a scandal being researched, or is compounded until the loan is repaid.

    Loaning money to your own campaign usually implies desperation, thus the negative headline. In real life, Candidate X, will get desperate in December 2015-January 2016. If they don’t make a move; soon, they will have to throw in the towel. So, they will loan their campaign $5 million dollars, since their fundraising has dried up (Trump, Perry, Webb?). Will it pay off?

    Fundraising: General vs. Primary

    Currently: Candidate X raised $250,000 dollars at a fundraiser. Next day, again another $250,000 at another fundraiser. Hmmm. My suggested implementation… select to hold a fundraiser, a question pops up, “Hold Fundraiser for Primary, or General Election Fund?”

    Today, primary… $250,000 has been raised. Nothing changed. However, the next day, I select “General”. You raised $375,000, it has been added to your general election funds. This is not the lump sum grant money. This is the general election funds you can implement usually for 3rd party candidates, who don’t qualify for the government grant. The good: You get “X” amount, more money. The bad: You have to win your parties’ nomination to be able to use/spend said money.

    Only Criticism: Statewide Ads, or Unicorns, which two don’t actually exist?

    In real life: I understand a Nationwide ad, especially on Cable, or a network. However, what is a statewide ad? How can I explain to a local TV station, I would like to run an ad only in this state? I vacationed in Maine recently, and saw ads from the Boston market, (The area of Boston, MA, not the company with that name). Frankly, you have to run an ad by district/viewing area. So regrettably, I don’t see this being addressed anytime soon. Unless you changed it to 538 regions, instead of 50 plus a few districts/providences. Even then, I think your in-game Electoral college, will have an few issues with that arrangement (Making a cluster of districts (a state’s worth), vote for the popular vote winner of that closer, as a all-or-nothing vote).

    That’s my 2 cents, I will need some change back.

  121. A senate election and a Presidential election are different things. And, since this has never happened before, you do not know what would happen. Must of my voters came from Hillary already. So, most of them were Democrats that wanted Bloomberg. With Bloomberg as the more moderate, I severely doubt that a majority of Clinton supporters vote for Bush. There are states that Clinton won in my campaign that do not have elector laws. If you do the idea of allowing the candidate the have faithless electors, you would need to look in the laws and electoral voted from the states with laws against it could not or have a very low percentage of being faithless. But, it also says that faithless elector laws are not really enforced when there is a faithless elector. In my scenario, New Hampshire, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, New Jersey, South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island could have voted for Bloomberg. That is 50 electoral votes. Those 50 electoral votes would have given Bloomberg 277 giving him the win with 7 votes to spare.
    @Greg
    I know that.

  122. @Greg – While you’re right about there being television markets, it’s too much micromanagement to add into the game IMO. I like the way it is — simplified state by state.

    I would also shy away from anything having to do with faithless electors — way too complicated for this kind of game. We don’t want this to turn into Hearts of Iron 3 (for anyone missing the reference, it was 1000x more micromanagement oriented than its predecessor and was truly horrible).

  123. Faithless electors would be a great part because it would add realistic results. In historical campaigns, you could design faithless electors that are accurate. It would be cool if they were in all scenarios where in 2016 there could be faithless electors.

  125. @Nick

    President Forever 2004 had ‘media markets’… Ads could be run in groups of linked regions

    It does not add any “micromanagement” at all

  126. Is there some way that the second debates/debate that is not the main debate could be modeled? Because it was important in Fiorina gaining a lot of ground.

  127. In regards to the faithless electors, I’m not really a proponent of the particular idea. At least not in the near term. I was just citing certain facts about them. @NIck: Hearts of Iron… Wow! that takes me way back, and there is an equally annoying sequel coming soon. @C: I was thinking it congress forever, but it might have been PF04, but yes; one of those did have media markets. However, state ads are nice too.

  128. Fixed bug with random graphics filler being displayed around edges of certain screens in Windows 10 (and perhaps other operating systems).
    Fixed bug > Campaign Editor > Regions > if no leader from a given party on primaries ballot, no longer causes error.
    Main Screen > if in 7 day mode, +-s for percentages and seats now relative to previous turn.
    Strategy Screen > Primaries > when mouse hovers over region, date format (for example) 01/01/2016 -> Jan. 1st, 2016.
    Fixed bug > Select Campaign Screen > if ‘not seeking’ option selected for last candidate on a row, no longer causes graphical glitch.
    Main Screen > if hover over Issue Knowledge or Debate Prep. buttons, displays respective attribute and upgrade values.

  130. @Greg,

    Thanks for this feedback!

    The idea of a candidate being able to loan themselves money is a good one – idea noted.

  131. One Quick thing for ’68, can you possibly add Strom Thurmond as a Veep for the AIP. Just a fun What-If.

  132. Come on… 2 more weeks, can you just release what’s done now? You could just do a bi-weekly update, if there’s not much work in an update no big deal

  134. Playing as Perry, I’ve been investing CPs in improving my attributes, specifically Command from Level 2 to 3. As I approached Level 3, I got an error, although I was able to continue the game. However, on the main screen the bit where it tells you how many CPs you’ve got, EPs, and money has frozen on what it was when I got the error (I think, I didn’t notice until after I’d got rid of the error message and moved on a couple of turns.)

  135. Also, the date and the polling have frozen, although the game is still progressing and the polling is still changing, it’s just not changing on the main screen.

  136. Can we have an option to turn off primaries in certain states (or all states) for particular parties? This would be useful for Bloomberg for example.

  137. I agree with Nick, it would be interesting to start the 2004 election after the Iowa caucus to see if you can keep up Dean’s momentum

  138. I know it’s been mentioned several times before, but will there be updates to how conventions work so they’re more dynamic?
    Also, I have a couple of situations in the last couple of games I’ve played where one of the candidates is declared to have secured the nomination despite being several hundred delegates short of the required number.

  139. Is there any way to make Super Pacs more prominent? Because people like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush are relying heavily on their Super Pacs for advertising and Gotv operations and what not.

  141. Given that more people watched the debate two weeks ago than voted in the Republican primaries in 2012 (granted, it’s likely that many of the viewers were Democrats and independents, who might or might not vote in the Republican primaries), I think the in-game news story about the debate should have a variable profile. Could be random, could be based on the profile of the candidates in the debate. A lot of speculation is that Trump helped bring viewers; an alternative is that it was hyped for so long (and all that discussion about Fox’s admission rules might have helped).
    Second, I think the post-debate effects should be a bit less forgiving. The pundits’ consensus about Walker, for example was that he didn’t stand out, not that he did particularly poorly, yet his poll results have fallen all the same. Similarly, although the debate is considered to have been “won” by either Rubio, Kasich, or nobody, the real winners (by post-debate poll performance) have been Cruz and Carson (Carly, too, but she won the other debate).
    Third, I think the “attack backfired” effect should be changed. Instead of being a +1 boost to the attacked, it should really backfire and be a negative effect on the attacker. The magnitude of the effect can be determined as the effect of a regular attack are (a modifier based on the IF/DS differences between the two candidates with random error, I presume).

  142. If voters support their most favored candidate, how will undecideds be modeled? If the difference between #1 and #2 is below a certain threshold?

  145. Hi was wondering if there will be any Senate based scenarios coming up for President Infinity like the 08 President Forever has. Was really hoping that the Kentucky Senate from 2014 would be a possible scenario remembered it was mentioned that the Steering Council wanted to see the race in the game.

  148. Apparently the Kentucky change is dependent upon Rand Paul paying the quarter million dollars he promised to pay the Kentucky Republican Party by September 19th. Still wouldn’t address which ballot he would chose to be on in the unlikely even he would actually get the nomination.

  149. He has the money Aaron. He just has to transfer it. And, a caucus is not a ballot which allows him to still win Kentucky as well as be the nominee for the Senate.

  152. @Falcon yeah i really hope they create that scenario woulde so cool to play as Alison Lundergan Grimes or even be against Matt Bevin 🙂

  154. @Jesse well he has already said that he transferred the money before but never did. So I guess this time with a date ultimatum he may be more likely to actually do it. And I didn’t say that he couldn’t be the nominee for both POTUS and the Senate. I only said that he couldn’t be on the ballot for both. So if he were the nominee for both Senate and POTUS, he would have to decide whether he will concede the Senate race to the Democrat or concede Kentucky’s electoral votes to the Democrat. (Not sure about the legality of a write-in for him under Kentucky law for either office.)

  155. If he is the nominee for both, he has said that he would challenge it in court. Write-ins are also totally allowed.

  156. He wouldn’t win that one in court and could potentially hurt him in which ever he would be on the ballot as. There is no legal precedent for superseding ballot access laws set by a state. The closest cases at the SCOTUS level show a precedent of deciding against him: Burdick v. Takushi, Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, American Party v. White, and Libertarian Party of Michigan v. Johnson (this last one was not taken up by the SCOTUS which effectively upheld the 6th Circuit ruling.)

    And yeah, I looked up Kentucky laws and there is a way he could do one of them as a write in. Since it wouldn’t be printed on the same ballot. (Law doesn’t prohibit him to register as a candidate for both offices, though that is sketchy as it bucks legislative intent which could bruise him a bit) He would have until October then the file as a write-in candidate. He wouldn’t fall under the sore loser law since he would have won both nominations.

    Then if he were to win both races, he would obviously resign from his Senate seat. If the Democrat wins the Gubernatorial race this fall (most likely), then Paul would be replaced with a Democrat (likely the Democrat on the ballot in 2016 or possibly even Grimes). So then the Democrats would pick up the Senate seat at least until a special election which would probably take place in the fall of 2018, though Kentucky State Law doesn’t appear to set a specific time take for holding the election.

    This is probably all moot anyhow since the odds of him winning the GOP primary are quite remote at best. So he is probably just banking on losing the GOP POTUS nomination and then just running for his Senate seat. I really don’t see any GOP candidate in the race that would ever even consider him as their VP so that would probably be irrelevant anyhow though that would cause the same problems for him as if he was at the top of the ticket.

  157. @Charlie re individual Senate campaigns,

    We don’t have plans to add any to President Infinity right now – closer to 2016 I’ll be looking at whether to add any individual campaigns. We have Congress Infinity, which includes a national campaign for the Senate.

  158. @Eric re debates, thank you for this feedback – noted. Having a variable news profile for a debate is a good idea – I’ll think about it.

  159. @Falcon re Carson in list,

    Campaign designers will have the option to automatically list candidates based on %s. This goes along with being able to add in poll numbers with dates associated. So, once that happens, ordering will simply reflect %s unless the campaign designer wants to customize it.

  160. @Moderate Guy re Super PACs, yes, Super PACs could use some changing. With the greater reliance by some candidates on them, their larger role in fundraising, and at least one candidate eschewing them, that feature should be expanded. Feedback noted.

  161. @Will re conventions, yes, this will be modified in an upcoming release. Don’t have an ETA for it at this point.

  162. @Nick re turning off primaries in certain states – maybe. For independents who don’t have to win a primary battle, it just has them uncontested (and therefore winning any of their ‘party’s primaries).

  166. @Aaron
    If he won the nomination, he could have a chance in court to challenge the law. Also, if he was the nominee, he might be able to have another Republican in the sate be his nominee instead. This caucus gives him options. Also, the Kentucky governor race is not a most likely Democrat. It is a toss up with recent polls showing a close race.

  169. I know that this has been mentioned before but I really think that the pictures should be updated, Jeb Bush etc.

  172. Thinking about the population units and favorability, is name recognition involved? Like if a voter might be a good match for Lincoln Chafee or Bobby Jindal but doesn’t know who they are, so the voter wouldn’t support them. It has another use: in most elections, people who don’t like either major-party candidate don’t vote third party; without this, you might have the Libertarian pick up 5% of the vote in an election in which both the Republican and Democrat are despised.

  173. @Jacob
    That would be awesome. Eventually we would have all declared candidates of the major parties.

    @Anthony
    Three features I have thought on:

    First, will it be possible to split the EVs of Nebraska and Maine like in reality?
    Secondly, I think it would be pretty cool if you can switch the pictures in the final election screen between the candidates and their running mate.
    Finally, is it possible that the info boxes of the candidates without EVs are ranked by their votes (in the final election screen)?

  176. I think if certain surrogates and the candidate barnstorm in the same state in the same day it should be an added bonus, (such as Bill and Hilary, George and Jeb) or they make surrogates add momentum to a rally perhaps?

  177. @Anthony

    I don’t know if that is already reported but when I select a scenario which doesn’t have a primary election all other scenarios I later select don’t have a primariy option too.
    Seems like a bug.

  179. @Aaron,

    Aiming for a double release today (Prime Minister Infinity – Canada and latest President Infinity). We’ll see as the day progresses.

  181. @Mike,

    All release date estimates are *estimates*. This is bolded in each update post.

    It is in no way intended as a promise to release on a certain date – rather, it is a best-guess.

  182. Thanks for the correction! I will wait *patiently* until it’s released — just very excited about the new features.

  183. Estimated release date changed to Wednesday, Sep. 2nd.

    This is due to the release of Prime Minister Infinity – Canada.

    The good news is that PMI – Canada is now substantially done, and focus will to a large extent return to PI.

  184. Looking forward to the release of the next version with the new favourability addition and campaign editing capabilities. Will these also be implemented to the UK version as that would make constituency editing and scenario creating more straightforward etc.

  185. A while ago, my power went out. My electric company said it would take 6 hours to get the power restored. They had it back on in half an hour.
    When you estimate the release date to be imminent, people get their hopes up. When you find it takes more time than you thought, they get frustrated.
    I know coding is a tough job, and things don’t work out the way you expect. Even after you take Hofstadter’s law into consideration. My advice is to say updates will take a long time; that way, should you solve it in less time, people will be pleasantly surprised.

  186. Here are some updated convention dates and locations.

    The Republican and Democratic conventions are the same. The Libertarian convention starts 2 days early. It should start on May 26th. The Green Party will have their convention from August 4–7, 2016. It will be in Houston, TX.

    And, if the Constitution Party is added, their convention is on April 13–16, 2016. It will be in Salt Lake City, Utah.

    http://ballot-access.org/2014/06/11/libertarian-party-moves-into-national-party-headquarters-that-it-owns/

    http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/02/green-party-will-probably-hold-presidential-convention-in-houston/

    http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/20/constitution-party-selects-city-and-dates-for-presidential-convention/

  187. People need to calm down. Comments like these make producers want to be less inclusive. Be thankful and take a seat.

  188. We can wait. These things take time to develop and I’m excited to see what he has in mind.

    Anthony – I think that one game you’d like to look at is President elect 1988. One major feature it had is that it had variables that put the election in a very different context, e.g, the economy, war and peace, etc. I think that you should add models after favorable and demography that incorporates the economy and whether we’re at war or peace. These additions could make for a more realistic game (or these options should be available to those of us who would prefer that atmosphere maybe?)

    In any case great game. 🙂

  190. My remark was not intended to be nagging or critical. I am notoriously clumsy with words, so it may have come off that way. I meant it as a marketing thing: your die-hard fans (like most people here, including me) will wait however long it takes (and likely complain the whole way), but we are only a small part of the market (for now), and I’m concerned pushing back deadlines (even for very good reasons) may cause less-attached buyers to forget about this game, which means less money for you, and so on. It’s happened to bigger names: “Burn Notice” lost two million viewers after the channel decided to take a three-month break in the middle of seasons 3, 4, and 5 (each time), for example (I’m sure there are better ones).
    This is a great game, and I know you’re making it better. I’m not complaining that it’s taking too long; if you had said in July that this feature wouldn’t be ready until now, I don’t think anyone would have complained. I’m just suggesting that you should overestimate the time it takes to do things so your fans are pleasantly surprised when the new features come out “early”.

  191. @Eric,

    I think I understand what you’re saying – it’s best to say it will take longer. Having said that, estimating release dates is not even an art-form, it’s guess work when there’s a specific feature that is being talked about. For awhile, I stopped giving estimates for this exact reason, but people kept saying ‘When?’ I think I’ll just stop giving estimates again.

  193. @Anthony Stopping giving estimates might not be a bad idea. That being said, saying that the next update being worked on is for which particular game and which features have been implemented in the update as of this point and what features are still being worked on. Those are probably the most significant things from a user standpoint in these posts anyhow.

  194. Main Screen > removed ‘takes 1 CP and 5 EPs’ pop-up box after click Issue Knowledge.
    Debate Prep. Screen > removed ‘takes 1 CP and 5 EPs’ pop-up box after click Do Debate Prep.
    Keycode Screen > can now paste entire keycode into first box.
    General Election > Debates > can now set which parties invited.
    Campaign Editor > fixed bug where Save As would save to same folder.
    Turn Summary > first turn > Goal > “out of” > now calculated dynamically based on number of electoral votes.
    7 days per turn > Upcoming debate note only added once.

  196. @Everybody,

    Thanks for your patience on this! And for the feedback. I know this update has been a while coming.

    It’s pretty clear that the way update features are being announced should change.

    First, the next release probably will not contain Favorability, as it’s not ready.

    Second, as of now I’ll be posting what’s done for a release, not what is intended to be done.

    I also won’t be posting estimated release dates. Especially when working on bigger features, there is no real way to know this.

    This was my mistake as a developer – I’m sorry for any frustration this has caused. Again, thank you for helping to make these games happen!

  198. So, if I’m reading this right, we should expect a smaller update with the fixes listed above, and at some time in the future there will be an update with major changes (like Favorability).

    I understand things taking time, which is why this approach makes more sense, keep the major changes for 2.1, but it would be good to have the corrections to the 2016 scenario in the update to 2.0 so the game can seem more realistic.

  199. Good move. If favorability is as complex as it seems, keeping an open deadline gives you the time to get it right (as opposed to Rome 2: TW, which didn’t work on release and took 6 patches to get to work, so I hear).

  206. @anthony
    In 2012 campaign, I think there is a mistake in the name of Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber. There is a long space between his first name and his last name. Could you fix it?

    However, I have a suggestion for 2016 campaign. To me, it would be more realistic to have different % when you decide to start the game on 15 july/ 15 october/ 15 december. Maybe you are waiting for more polls to develop it, but it would be very pleasant.

  207. The game seems to have trouble dealing with situations when the player gets significant momentum (usually from big endorsements, or a really good debate performance) and has a whole lot of extra CPs at the start of the 7 day turn, but by the end of the turn has lost all of that momentum. I get sent 300-400 energy points in the negative when this happens. Also (I think related to that problem) I ‘lose’ CPs each turn for the rest of the game. The game says CPs are being spent (it shows 42/49) but I cannot find what they are being spent on. When click on the CPs button in the top right of the main screen it shows they are being spent on endorsers/regional spin but I did not choose for them to be. Once this happens I have to start over or just do without full CPs, because those CPs will be ‘missing’ for the rest of the game.

    Anyone else experiencing these problems? When players get momentum are we supposed to stop using 7-day turns?

  209. The Libertarian convention starts 2 days early. It should start on May 26th. The Green Party will have their convention from August 4–7, 2016. It will be in Houston, TX.

    And, if the Constitution Party is added, their convention is on April 13–16, 2016. It will be in Salt Lake City, Utah

  210. @Anthony

    Will it be possible that we can enlarge the tracking poll screens by clicking on them?

    I just thought about such a feature.

  211. @Anthony

    I’ve noticed that everytime a state is won in the primary by a small margin it is shown in white instead of the candidates’ color.
    Is that indended or a bug?

  224. @Luki,

    “I don’t know if that is already reported but when I select a scenario which doesn’t have a primary election all other scenarios I later select don’t have a primariy option too.”

    Thanks for this – noted.

  225. @Anthony

    Maybe all the candidates should also be potential endorsers. Now that Perry dropped out, I think he should be a Texas endorser.

Leave a Comment