Baze0195 Baze0195

Expansion Suggestions

▼

Expansion Suggestions

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

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

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

- Primaries - Primaries for Republican and Democratic parties

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

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

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

Just some ideas. Reply with your own!
46,640 views 71 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
1. Conventions, with prime time convention speeches where you pick and choose what you say. Kind of like how you do in an interview

2. 4 debates. 3 Presidential and 1 VEEP.

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

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

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

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

5. Campaign bus tours

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

7. Primaries

8. Street fights between the 2 candidates. You could have them fight during the debates, or perhaps have Bush attack Kerry at the Dem convention or vice versa. And whoever wins the fight would get major "macho" points with the American people (but would also lose 'sensitive' points with women). All of those NHL hockey games that are made have fighting in them, so why not in politics as well?
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
My biggest problem with the game right now is that winning doesn't take strategy as much as it takes following the exact same plan over and over and over. Sure you can change which issues are important and which states are battle grounds but even thens its just, build HQ, run ads, rinse, repeat.

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

i know this was designed to be more of a game than an election simulator but the fun of the game is disappearing because so many sim elements were left out.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
LastStand makes some very good points, which I echo. I'll add that the strategy remains the same as to the battle for the states - the battle is over the same states, no matter what.

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

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

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

I know, I know, this is supposed to be a "fun" game, not a totally serious strategic gaming experience. I just think even the casual political geek knows quite a bit, and perhaps more depth is needed in general.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
Great ideas.

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

Long term, I think the game needs more strategic depth in the form of lessening the impact of ads and political operatives, more length by adding things like debates, and ceilings and floors on support. As someone mentioned, there are some states that Democrats just can't win and vice versa. The game now acts like each candidate starts with 0 built in state support. That's kind of ridiculous. Also, there is no state in the union that is going to split 80-20 in favor of one candidate or the other (save DC). Pol Machine states that are neglected by one side routinely are won or lost by 80-20 margins.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
I HAVE ONE--------- HOW ABOUT AN EXPANSION THAT MAKES THE GAME WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
I think the game should include sex and race. The voters should be broken that way too. If a female canidate is running that should have some impact. Appeal to black and hispanic voters should account for something.
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Some good stuff here, I hope the game developers are reading.
Here's my list:

Improvements to current features:

- Get rid of the dopey illustrations and use real photographs. Virtually all of the candidates are news figures, there shouldn't be any legal restrictions on the use of public domain photos of public figures? Anyway, I'd like to see the real people.
- Make endorsements more politically realistic.
- Make more candidates available at the start of the game.
- More "news" stories on the effects of important events on tracking polls (vp selection, major speeches, scandals, etc.).

Suggestions for new features:

- Add debates. This would be awesome!
- Expansion packs should most definitely be historical campaigns. This would also be awesome! Imagine replaying Kennedy-Nixon from 1960! You could tailor the maps and issues to the time period. The beautiful part of this is you could make this a real franchise game with a series of historical campaign expansion sets.
- Expand the role of the Vice-Presidential candidate.
- Expand the role of news media in the campaign. Not sure how you would do this, perhaps you tie media coverage to the changing importance of issues and voter perceptions.
- What would be really cool would be to add more in-depth analysis of the issues and make this an option you could turn on or off. So if I wanted to play a long detailed and in-depth game, I could turn on in-depth analysis and other deeper features. If I wanted to play a quick game, these features would be turned off. This could be tied to expanded news media roles or you could even add a Pundits feature as the way to present issue analysis.

Great game by the way! I was getting sick of fighting in wars and killing alien monsters!
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
I like the illustrations better than real pictures.

Try Power Politics 3 (but keep in mind there is no save game feature as of now) if you want a slightly more realistic game.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
When playing with candidates in campaign mode you should get more points to improve their characteristics as you beat tough opponents. The way it is, it's almost ipossible to beat the last few guys with a custom character.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Another suggestion is more of the issues should have republicans on one side and democrats on the other. There's way to many issues that both candidates support.
Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top
I'll comment a bit on some suggestions:

(a strategy game should be played over days ideally, not hours) I'd rather keep it this way, play in hours, not days.
About the VP: VP's definitely should be able to do something. They currently increase awareness a little bit and cost money/stamina to move... A consultant is way better.
Debates could be a good thing.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
I think debates and conventions are a must. I believe we should have an Independednt option and historical scenarios would be good.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
I think it would be better if you had to WIN endorsements. You would have a score based on the things you speak on, issues you advertise on, etc. If your speeches and advertisements are consistently on workers and their jobs, you would win the Union Endorsement, and so forth. That would eliminate the "rush" to spend stamina points on capital just to win endorsements. That's pretty much how it's done in real life isn't it? I mean a Gay and Lesbian Organization wouldn't endorse George W. Bush no matter how much political capital he has.
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
I agree with almost all of the ideas suggested above - some great ideas there.

From a big picture level, much as I love this game, it feels more like a resource allocation sim than a political campaign sim. The strategy is pretty generic and the only difference between Republican and Democrat is that it's easier to take the lead on certain issues depending on which party you represent. While this is true to life, you really should be able to (maybe even be compelled to) make some key decisions about things like how you want to run your campaign (ie clean or dirty) and whether you want to focus on hard issues (ie taxes, environment, War on terror) or soft issues (ie character, integrity, opponent's war service record, etc).

Fundamentally, I think we need to have the option to play more dirty tricks - if successful, this would lead to a reduction in the voters' assessment of your opponent's character, record, or stance on issues, but there should also be a risk that such tricks will backfire and be exposed, which in turn would reduce your own public standing. Arguably, this could be simulated by agreeing to divert funding to 527s (guess we could debate whether is dirty play or not!).

Re. focussing on soft issues, this would again have to be a two-edged sword - while you can attack your opponent's integrity, he/she can do the same to you. This would add a dimension to the decision of which candidate to play as, given that some are more vulnerable than others. I can see the integrity characteristic in the candidates profile, and the manual says that it impacts on voters' perception (hence the scandal-monger operative) but I'd like it to be available as a stronger card to play - some would argue that Dubya used Clinton's integrity as an issue in the 2000 campaign against Gore.

I also think that there needs to be more random or uncontrollable factors thrown into the game which would prevent each stage of the campaign game being a virtual repeat (albeit increasingly difficult) of the previous stage. This reflects the real-life struggle for all candidates to "stay on-message".
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
I have a few ideas myself to share with the group...I'm not sure if it has been posted before, though.

1) More Newspaper News: Gossip, What's happening in the world, etc.- It seems that the newspaper only comes up when you attack the other candidate with a radio, tv ad or something like if your spin doctor withdraws from your campaign, etc. The newspaper should have some other articles as well (or headlines). That should include gossip (scandals, etc.), what's happening in the world (war, hurricanes, etc.) and polls. It would be a much better layout, and would provide more detailed information to what is important to the American people.

2) Being able to hold an election night speech- It would be so interesting if you could hold an election night speech...kind of type out what you're going to say...it would be very interesting & exciting. Also, more drama on election night. Not just who is who in each state. I mean something like Florida 2000, you being able to hold a recount, etc., etc.

These are just a few of my ideas...expect a lot more...tons more...
---Deaniac
Reply #42 from PolMach Forums Top
I have a few ideas myself to share with the group...I'm not sure if it has been posted before, though.

1) More Newspaper News: Gossip, What's happening in the world, etc.- It seems that the newspaper only comes up when you attack the other candidate with a radio, tv ad or something like if your spin doctor withdraws from your campaign, etc. The newspaper should have some other articles as well (or headlines). That should include gossip (scandals, etc.), what's happening in the world (war, hurricanes, etc.) and polls. It would be a much better layout, and would provide more detailed information to what is important to the American people.

2) Being able to hold an election night speech- It would be so interesting if you could hold an election night speech...kind of type out what you're going to say...it would be very interesting & exciting. Also, more drama on election night. Not just who is who in each state. I mean something like Florida 2000, you being able to hold a recount, etc., etc.

These are just a few of my ideas...expect a lot more...tons more...
---Deaniac
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry for posting two times!!!!
Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top
I like the election night speech. If there was a list of possible topics (culled maybe from what you're polling well/badly on?) and you could choose which ones you wanted, then that would make a last-minute comeback possible. As it stands it's difficult to seriously change standing in the last few weeks of the campaign; a final speech would add an extra dose of realism.
Reply #45 from PolMach Forums Top

There are some good ideas here.

I can tell you that we are working on a v1.02 that does make a few tweaks:

1) There will be endorsement penalities in terms of cost. Some endorsements will cost more than others depending on your political party.

2) Updated issues / interview questions

3) Some AI tweaks

That should come out in the next couple of weeks.

Please be aware that unlike with Galactic Civilizations, Stardock cannot release updates on its own. It is contractually bound to go through Ubi Soft. And only Ubi Soft can "okay" releases and they have a very tight budget.  So our ability to give tons of "free" updates is more limited.

However, if we self-publish an expansion pack then we can go nuts on that and just keep updating it whenever we choose.  But I can say that it won't happen until after the election. From a strictly marketing point of view, both Stardock and Ubi Soft are happy with the game. 

I agree with many of you who say it would be nice to have all these various features. But if we had done that, it wouldn't have been a $20 game. It would have been a $40 to $50 game like Galactic Civilizations was and that wasn't the price point that Ubi Soft / Stardock wanted to target. 

So after 1.02 comes out, we'll have a good idea of how things are doing at retail. The reviews of the game are positive and most people seem to like the game a lot.  If the game does well enough, we can do an expansion pack.

Reply #46 from PolMach Forums Top
Primaries would be a nice addition to the game. It think that it would be great to include it, but keep it to a 10 week sprint. It would be limited, and you won't be able to build Hqs, but everything you do would have more impact. The primaries would also be centered on "character issues" because since you're from the same party, your views would be pretty much the same. This way, primaries would be a nice and easy? addition, but won't take anything away from the game.

Also, I think it would be cool to have single-"mission" scenarios. You can unlock other historical characters playing them and they range in difficulty. Most issues would be more historically accurate and with a different breakdown of des/reps. Maybe you will be placed into the campaign at week 20 and try to outwit them even though the opponent already has strong leads in some states. Anyways, these are just my suggestions.
Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
Things that should be added/changed:

-Definitely the addition of debates between the 2 candidates, somewhere inside of week 30.
-Maybe the inclusion of party conventions, get more awareness countrywide?
-Would be nice to see the VP's have some greater role in the election than just increasing awareness.
-See random events that pop up (example: Bush catches flu, all actions take 2X stamina until end of week)
-Give an advantatge of awareness to whoever is the incumbent (determined randomly). Conversely, they should see a slight decrease in stamina due to the fact that they have to campaign AND run the country simultaneously.

BTW, can someone tell me where to find the button that lets me talk to the state's media?
Reply #48 from PolMach Forums Top
IMHO the most important addition this game needs is random events. Big ones, like a foreign war or an attack on a US military base or a Columbine/Waco-type event. These dramatically change people's opinions and often cause candidates to switch positions. I would buy an expansion of just random events.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top

1) Convention; as a somewhat more streamlined interface, I thought the convention could be run like this: you get a certain number of "message points", say 100, and you allocate these to different issues. Just like you were giving a speech or running an ad, you have the "I support/I oppose/Opponent Supports/Opponent Opposes" options for each issue. The number of points you put into each determines how much of you convention and/or acceptance speech emphasizes those messages. Probably there should be a maximum limit of, say, 25 points per issue. You should be able to include your personal qualities and those of the opponent in the message (e.g. I'm experienced, opponent lacks integrity, etc)

2) For debates, a scripted interview model might work, as long as there were enough different questions (the importance of different issues nationwide, and issues where the candidates vary, should be weighted into the choice of questions).

3) In general, I think there should be a lot more money floating around, and it should be possible to run the same ad in several places, paying the startup costs only once. Giving the players more options would be a good thing.

4) Add more endorsements, and make it cheaper to get them if your position aligns with the interest group. Additional groups to add: AARP (Social Security, Prescriptions for Seniors), Teachers Association (Public Education, Unions), Chamber of Commerce (Lower Taxes?, Government Regulation?), Police Officers (Fighting Crime, Homeland Security?), VFW/American Legion (Strong Military, War on Terror, etc)

5) Making the VP like a mini-candidate is a good idea. A nifty wrinkle would be the option to leave him under AI control, if you want a faster game.

6) Random events would be good, especially if they are not overwhelming. Some of these could involve interactivity, like your position on pending legislation (e.g. Congress is considering a new defense/jobs/tax bill; do you support it?)

7) Primaries would be nice; particularly if the AI is controlling a bunch of candidates who fight it out with each other first. Then your eventual opponent may have staked out positions to win the nomination that will damage (or help) him during the general election.

8) A scenario editor and a scripting interface into the AI would also be good. Many other strategy games have these.

9) I don't think the game should be made a lot longer; I like being able to finish a game in one sitting. If things move in that direction, I hope there will be an "arcade" mode. Another option would be to have choice of one-day or one-week turns. After all, it's very common for candidates to visit a different state every day. Stamina and money costs could just be scaled accordingly.

Fun game, and it could be the starting point for something truly mind-blowing.
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top

We intentionally don't have such big random events because we feared it would make people feel they're at the mercy of blind luck in winning.

Even in GalCiv we stayed away from random events.