Expansion Suggestions

Reply #1 August 16, 2004 10:19 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #2 August 16, 2004 11:54 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

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

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

Reply #3 August 17, 2004 6:02 AM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

Reply #4 August 17, 2004 10:04 AM from PolMach Forums Top

PoliticalMachine.com is controlled by Stardock, not Ubi So when you post here, the "creator" is reading them.

Reply #5 August 17, 2004 10:25 AM from PolMach Forums Top

Jscott,

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

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

--James

Reply #6 August 17, 2004 10:48 AM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

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

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

Reply #7 August 17, 2004 11:37 AM from PolMach Forums Top

I wasn't suggesting we pay for the expansion.

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

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

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

Reply #8 August 17, 2004 12:24 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #9 August 17, 2004 2:18 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

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

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

Reply #10 August 17, 2004 2:44 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Excellent points Laststand.

Reply #11 August 17, 2004 4:25 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Here's my list:

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

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

Reply #12 August 17, 2004 4:58 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Ok, I'm already adding to my list:

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

Reply #13 August 17, 2004 5:04 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #14 August 17, 2004 5:09 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

Reply #15 August 17, 2004 5:16 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #16 August 18, 2004 3:35 AM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

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

Reply #17 August 18, 2004 1:51 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

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

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

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

--James

Reply #18 August 18, 2004 2:08 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #19 August 18, 2004 2:12 PM from PolMach Forums Top

It has an extremely minor effect Laststand.

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

Reply #20 August 18, 2004 2:26 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

Reply #21 August 18, 2004 2:42 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

--James

Reply #22 August 18, 2004 7:32 PM from PolMach Forums Top

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

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

Reply #23 August 19, 2004 10:36 AM from PolMach Forums Top

Minor Suggestion:

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

--James

Reply #24 August 19, 2004 11:19 AM from PolMach Forums Top

There have been some good ideas here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply #25 August 20, 2004 4:46 PM from PolMach Forums Top

double post