The upcoming few months – what’s ahead

Now that the Australian election has come and gone, we are switching back to focus on President Forever 2016. In the next few months it will probably be:

1. President Forever 2016 will continue to be expanded – additional parties (starting with the Greens), scenarios, and features. The Editor will continue to be expanded.

We will also be taking the next step on a possible Mac version in the next week or so – it will be announced here when it happens.

2. Prime Minister Forever – Australia 2013 will also continue to be expanded – in addition to the 2013 scenario, a 2016 scenario will probably be the next to be added, and then 2010, 2007, and 2004. Beyond that, we’ll see.

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far – I look forward to continuing to move the games forward!

22 thoughts on “The upcoming few months – what’s ahead”

  1. I’m creating a scenario that would have more than 64 players. Is there any way I would be able to increase the maximum number of players?

  2. Recent polls have Clinton even stronger:

    Clinton should be strengthened. Biden and Warren are now ahead of Cuomo and O’Malley.

    For the Republicans, Christie and Ryan are about tied in the lead. Rand Paul isn’t far behind. The next tier is Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Santorum. Rubio is the most noticeable drop.

    Also, how about creating an independent candidate like Bloomberg. He has 10 billion dollars and may make a Perot like run.

  3. WIll the conventions be fixed in the update. I just finished a game now in which 3 candidates stayed in until the convention. The 3rd candidate was forced to drop, but his delegates weren’t reassigned to the remaining two candidates as they would be in real life.

  4. @Jonathan,

    Thanks for this – probably release after next.


    Thanks for the feedback! We’re not quite at the point of committing to a Mac version, but we’ll be taking the next step towards a Mac version. More news in about a week.

  5. A candidate declining to run means nothing until the pre-primary debates. A lot can still happen before 2016.

    I’d like to see at least two Green candidates. Perhaps have Bloomberg, and possibly Trump, as independent candidates. Bloomberg would have an insane amount of money to try and make a Perot like effort.

    I look forward to see some of the past scenarios. I created a hypothetical 2024 scenario in which both major parties split into moderate and radical factions. 70% of the time no party gets the 270 EVs necessary. I have the Republicans leading in Congress, so they’ll pick their party even if they fall a distant 3rd. I’m not sure if they’d do that without a huge backlash.

    I look forward most to the 1968, 1912 (which is mostly done already), 1880, 1876, 1860 elections the most.

  6. “The editor will continue to be expanded.” One of the best things I’ve heard all year. This 2024 scenario sounds interesting.

  7. @Jonathan,

    “I’d like to see at least two Green candidates.”

    Agreed. We’ll see.

    Re: Bloomberg, I think that would be an interesting possibility. It’s on the possible to-do list.

  8. You might want to check to see if any politicians have changed their view on military intervention since the whole Syria thing has been going on.
    Clinton and Biden were for intervention–supporting Obama. Rubio is against, but not convincingly so. Cruz and Paul are strictly opposed.

  9. Jonathan is right. Alan Grayson was another who was strictly opposed. He should be to the ‘left’, not the ‘right’ of people like Clinton and Biden on military intervention.
    Also, given their statements Paul shouldn’t be to Clinton’s ‘right’ on Iran.

  10. Haven’t downloaded and played this version yet but should sometime soon.

    Bloomberg would be interesting as an independent addition, probably should be set to off by default though.

    Bob McDonell should no longer be a candidate. In fact, he may even be in jail by 2016 if things go bad enough. He’s under investigation for taking improper gifts from a vitamin company, Star Scientific, in exchange for turning a blind eye to tax dodging and other financial improprieties. If he wasn’t leaving office soon anyway, he’d probably be impeached.

    Even though Clinton is even stronger now, in the interest of competitive gameplay I would hesitate to make her TOO much stronger than the rest of the field until we get closer to the election around 2015. A lot can change till then so projecting the present to the future should offer some wiggle room for the sake of fun gameplay. You especially don’t want to make it too easy to play as Clinton!

    Lastly, I hope the statement you get in the bottom of a state’s screen “Gov. [name] is supporting REP/DEM campaign. +1 to their footsoldiers.” goes away along with the actual advantage to their footsoldiers. I’ve played many a game where I’ve been able to gain the endorsement of governors from a different party, but that message and footsoldier bonus still appears for that party!

  11. @Jonathan and Jake,

    Thanks for this – noted.


    Re: McDonnell, thanks for this info. He should probably be turned to ‘off’ by default, either way. I’ll think about it.

    Re: “Gov. is supporting. +1,” this will probably be removed in the next update, as Governors are now included in the Endorsers. Thanks for this.

  12. A question about the development of the Australian game and Palmer’s party: when more information is known about the preference flows, is the PUP going to start at the 5 to 6% level they ended with, or are there going to be events used to simulate the increase in their vote that followed their big advertising buy? Not necessarily required, but it would add some realism.

Leave a Comment