Strategy: Issues, Speeches, Endorsements

from PolMach Forums
Some strategic questions:
1. Say my opponent has made The Environment the #2 national issue (which 100% of the voters agree with him). What's the best was to lessen the importance?
(a) Make my strongest issues more important through debates
(b) Make his less important by sending the appropriate operative to states where it's #1 or #2
(c) Anything else?
2. It seems that getting endorsements is very important. Does getting an endorsement provide a one-time bomus or a permanent bonus? Is it better to give speeches on, say, tax cuts first, and then get that endorsement, or the other way around?
3. Let's see if I have these straight: speeches change the importance of an issue, and ads increase (or decrease) the ratings (those thumbs) per person? So, if you have a state where the top 3 issues are "your" issues, you shouldn't waste your time on speeches, just do ads?
4. Will doing a negative speech raise the importance of an issue? Is there any way of "downplaying" an issue through speeches or ads?
5. Is there a change in the effectiveness of ads with time; for instance, do longer running ads provide less awareness/bonuses?
6,984 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Jaguar,

1) You could go two ways with this.
a) Let him have THIS issue. Push 2 or 3 other issues to make them important. This will lessen the overall effect of his 1 issue. Kind of like out shouting the guy and spreading FUDD.
b) Raise your stance and/or lower his on the issue. It's an important issue and you can either get on par with his stance, or lie through your teeth, turning this issue against him.

2) Endorsements are a one time shot. They are important because they also provide a one time awareness boost. Someone has to win each state. Often, the person the higher awareness wins those states that no one travels to.

3) No, do speeches and ads. Speeches have a higher impact, and don't cost anything. The speeches, like ads, will affect both the stance and importance of an issue. Unfortunately, speeches take more stamina.

4) The only way to downplay an issue is not to talk about it. Talking about an issue, whether for or against, will raise it's awareness among people. You can't tell someone to disregard what you or your opponent said about War on Terror for instance, once you say it, people (or at least the media) remember.

5) Yes, they get stronger the longer they are in state. If you start running out of money though, the ads temporarily stop. Their time in state gets reset as if they had to be recreated. That's why some players choose to lay down newspaper ads right away instead of HQs.

Joe
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Thanks. Here's another question:
Is there an advantage of pushing controversial issues that have thumbs up for you but thumbs down for both the opposing party AND independents. It seems you'd lose those neutral voters. Maybe you could say your opponent agress with one of those to bring independents to your camp?
I usually just go with all positive issues because I'd rather not lose those opposing party votes, espeically if I want to try and take an opponenet party dominated state.
And another thought: what do you consider too large of a gap between party member percentages? For instance, in California, there are 8% more democrats than republicans...should republicans even bother? I consider "swing states" as <=5% difference between the parties. However, almost every state (except for Utah) could be won if you get all of the neutral voters to vote your way, but it's probably not worth it.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
It is not hard to win California as a Republican and, in fact, in later campaign matches it is easier to win California against the unlimited money of the AI than it is to win 55 electoral votes of smaller states.

Honestly, I have won the campaign through Clinton as a Republican through New York and I have never lost California and I have only lost New York to Gephardt. Don't sweat those startup percentages too much.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
There is an advatage to pushing some controversial issues in certain states, gay marriage in Cali for example. I wouldn't try to make it a national issue but it can give you a nice boost with the largely dem population there.