Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.1.8

Hi everyone,

This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.1.8.

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):

  • fixed a problem using a Windows emulator on Linux that caused ‘DLL not found’ error messages
  • Main Screen > fixed bug if clicked Main Screen before Turn Summary Screen would appear on first turn
  • fixed bug with rounding negative momentum numbers (for example, would display ‘-2.9’ instead of ‘-3’
  • Surrogates > 7 days per turn > fixed bug where wouldn’t fundraise in location set
  • fixed bug where scandal research chance not increasing right amount
  • 7 days per turn > fixed bug where could get wrong number of CPs if less than 7 days left in election
  • can now specify dates for leaders ‘on’ or ‘off’
  • can now specify dates for leaders ‘official’, ‘undecided’, ‘not seeking’
  • Editor > can now specify dates for leaders ‘on’, ‘off’, ‘official’, ‘undecided’, not seeking’
  • 2016 > set all ‘on’ by default candidates to ‘undecided’, set their ‘official’ start dates, set their ‘off’ dates if have withdrawn (note: I set Scott Walker and Jim Webb’s official start dates to July 1st, 2015 instead of July 2nd, simply so they would start ‘decided’ with the July 1st campaign start date – it is highly likely they had decided at this point)
  • 2016 > start dates now July 1st, 2015, Oct. 1st, 2015, and Jan. 1st, 2016
  • 2016 > updated Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada primaries and caucuses dates
  • fixed bug (“=11”) that would occur when computer player ran out of primaries opponents but was still in primaries electoral strategy mode, would occur same turn as final primaries opponent withdrew
  • 1912 > Bull Moose > theodore_roosevelt -> theodore_roosevelt_bull_moose, this fixes bug with selecting Vice-Leader
  • 2016 > Endorsers > KY > Steve Beshear -> Matt Bevin
  • 2016 > Reps > Christie > Leadership 5 -> 4
  • 2016 > Reps > Jindal > Primaries > Debating 4 -> 3
  • 2016 > Reps > Graham > Debating 3 -> 4
  • 2016 > Dems > O’Malley > 4 -> 3
  • 2016 > Reps > Trump > Endorsers > added Ivanka Trump, 1 Barnstorming, 2 Spin, 1 Fundraising
  • Main Screen > if leader has secured nomination, party %s now has leader’s last name
  • Spin Screen > if leader has secured nomination, poll headline now has leader’s last name
  • 2016 > Primaries > Reps > all debates set to 10 candidates max.
  • 2016 > Dems > Clinton > Debating 3 -> 4
  • 2016 > Dems > Webb > Debating 3 -> 2
  • 2016 > Reps > Trump > Issues > Tax Rates > Far-Right -> Center-Right
  • 2016 > Reps > Huckabee > Issues > Tax Rates > Center-Right -> Far-Right
  • 2016, 2012, 2008 > Issues > Abortion > Far-Right > fixed typo
  • 2016 > Primaries > Republicans > Kentucky > FPP -> PR, 5% threshold
  • 2016 > Endorsers > Al Gore > Momentum 0 -> 1
  • 2016 > Endorsers > Dick Cheney > Momentum 0 -> 1
  • 2016 > Debates > Reps > Nov. 15th -> Nov. 10th, 1% -> 2% to qualify
  • Editor > added Events
  • 2008 > fixed bug in events.xml that was causing error when trying to edit id’s in Editor (Note that 2008 descended campaigns can be fixed, but it has to be done manually. Open events.xml in an XML editor, then add the line <conditions/> just after the line <name>Sarah Palin at convention</name> .)
  • 2016 > Reps > Jindal > set to ‘off’ on Nov. 17th, 2015
  • 2016 > updated Presidential and Vice-Presidential debate dates
  • scripted events now cause profile 5 news stories (was 3)
  • 2016 > added 42 events
  • 2008 > Condoleezza Rice > female
  • Select Campaign Screen, Select Leader Screen > fixed bug where last line of blurb might not be displayed

146 thoughts on “Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.1.8”

  1. Every time I play through the primaries it crashes at some point before the election. I have not and cannot complete a full scenerio.

  2. @Paul,

    Can you tell me a) what game version number you are using, b) what kind of setup you are playing a game with, c) what operating system, and d) what error message(s) (if any) you receive?

  3. @Bjorn,

    Yes – and possibly Webb. ‘On’ and ‘off’ are now set by date, so Biden would be ‘off’ for any start date after Oct. 21st, 2015, ‘undecided’ before that, probably.

  4. I know that an “undecided” candidate will get in if he/she accumulates enough points based on her “ideologue” rating. Other than failing to accumulate enough points, is there a way for a candidate to decide not to join the race? Also, can events hinder/accelerate the accumulation? For example, a strong frontrunner would reduce a candidate’s inclination to join the race while a muddled mess would encourage it.

  5. @Eric,

    By points do you mean the scores in the Crystal Ball rankings?

    If so, yes, a candidate’s decision to enter the race uses a similar algorithm to the one used in the Crystal Ball rankings.

    Events can hinder their choice is those events cause negative momentum.

    I believe a strong front-runner affects the likelihood as primaries start occurring.

  6. @Anthony
    ”Yes – and possibly Webb. ‘On’ and ‘off’ are now set by date, so Biden would be ‘off’ for any start date after Oct. 21st, 2015, ‘undecided’ before that, probably.”

    Sounds very good! 🙂

  7. After playing a few games in President Infinity, I have noticed that the endorser element seems to need improvement.

    in many states, the only available local endorsers are the governor and the two US senators. This means that in states where all three are in the same party, there is no opportunity for candidates in the other party to seek an endorser in the primary, nor are there any ‘neutral’ endorsement opportunities in the general election.

    I suggest that you consider adding local endorsers for both parties if necessary (i.e., Cong. Clyburn in South Carolina or former Gov. Schwarzenegger in California) to create balance, at least in the primary, as well as adding newspapers or other non-partisan endorsers that might provide a boost to momentum or visibility in some way in the general election.

    Also, more generally, it should be a LOT harder than it currently is to garner endorsements that lean toward the other party. I’ve earned more than a few endorsements from individuals and groups that in the real world would never endorse the opposition, simply because it took no more work to get their endorsement than a friendly group.

  8. @anthony

    I remember from an earlier patch that “undecided” or “not running” candidates had to accumulate 100 points to enter the race; “undecided” started at 50/100 and “not running” at 0. If I’m recalling right (it was several patches ago and I used the system only once or twice), the candidate’s “Ideologue” rating (if AI) determined how quickly he/she entered the race by adding a certain number of “entry points” (for lack of a better word) until the candidate reached 100. I do not remember if there was some mechanism for a candidate getting in faster/slower than the raw Ideologue rating would allow.
    The Crystal Ball ratings (does Larry Sabato know you’re using that term?) would answer my question about a strong frontrunner warding off challengers. But how can a candidate who’s not in the race get positive/negative momentum?

  9. @Don,

    Thanks for this feedback – I think you’re right that getting endorsements that lean towards the other party should be more difficult.

  10. @Eric,

    It’s trickier to get momentum if a candidate is undecided. The algorithm for deciding whether to enter the race or not could be improved – we’ll see.

  11. When I save and quit, then go to reload, I get an error message saying, “X is not a valid integer value.” It has happened with the 2016 Senate scenario and 2012.

  12. @Anthony
    Could you perhaps improve the vice leader function ‘covert to leader’?
    I think it would be better, when the converted vice leader would remain as an option for all other leaders. Please correct me, if it functions already that way.

  13. @Anthony what Luki said. The default for changing a vice leader to leader is that the vice leader turned leader is no longer a vice leader option for anyone unless you go through and change it for everyone.

  14. Editor > can now specify dates for leaders ‘on’, ‘off’, ‘official’, ‘undecided’, not seeking’.
    2016 > set all ‘on’ by default candidates to ‘undecided’, set their ‘official’ start dates, set their ‘off’ dates if have withdrawn (note: I set Scott Walker and Jim Webb’s official start dates to July 1st, 2015 instead of July 2nd, simply so they would start ‘decided’ with the July 1st campaign start date – it is highly likely they had decided at this point).
    2016 > start dates now July 1st, 2015, Oct. 1st, 2015, and Jan. 1st, 2016.

  15. Anthony_270admin —

    A quick question. Is it possible for you to evaluate the General election bug and see why it’s happening that the Republican candidates have such an advantage in 2016? (Could be because there are a ton of more Republicans campaigning than Democrats in 2016)

  16. Scratch that. I saw your recent response in the other thread. Let me know please if there’s anyway I can help troubleshoot and offer feedback.

  17. Trump made some unseemly remarks towards Iowans, and his poll numbers there have suffered as a result. However, they do not seem to be affected anywhere else. Is there some mechanism for state-level gaffes? It could also cover 1884, when a Republican operative said the Democrats were the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion”; while it was spread nationwide, it seems to have had its biggest effect in New York, where lots of Irish Catholics lived, costing the Republicans the election.

  18. @Anthony
    Just a minor thing: I think at the far-right position of abortion there is a typo. I believe it should read ‘rape and incest’, instead of ‘rape incest’

  19. Will you do something about the “undecided %” thing? Because every time you play a scenario with a primary the undecided % always turns sky high in about May. For example California, 60% Democratic, 17% Republican and the rest is undecided.

    And other weird things with the %, like Vermont tied, which will never happen OTL.

  20. @Lucas re load error,

    Are you saying it is occurring only in Congress Infinity, for the Senate 2016 and Senate 2012 campaigns?

  21. @Eric,

    It might make sense to have region-specific gaffes – we’ll see. Another possibility would be to say there was a campaign gaffe on a specific issue (ethanol subsidies), which would disproportionately affect (in this case) Iowa – this would of course require adding that as an issue.

  22. I don’t think Bobby Jindal’s debate ability should be at 4. He doesn’t perform as well as Fiorina and Rubio.

  23. Hey Quick question
    will this work only on a windows surface and computer or and tablet that runs on windows?

  24. After having watched all three Republican debates, including the under card debates, I advise the following alterations to the candidates:

    – Carson debate from 3 to 2. I think ultimately his stamina is going to go from 3 to 2, just you wait. I’m not quite sure how his leadership is a 3. In fact, on paper, he’s probably the worst candidate. Maybe it’s charisma that’s helping him? No. Integrity 5? He just doesn’t make sense, and he doesn’t make sense.

    – Bush’s leadership should probably be a 3. Perhaps at a time it was a 4, but he doesn’t seem to be taking control of the establishment or in anyway handling his campaign with anymore skill than anyone else.

    – Huckabee could be either experience 4 or issue knowledge 4, rather than 3.

    – Christie’s leadership should probably be a 4, rather than a 5. He may be an innate leader, but he’s sort of in the dog house among moderate Republicans, at least, temporarily.

    – Jindal should be a 3 in debate, and probably in leadership as well.

    – Graham should be a 2 in charisma but a 4 in debate (he’d be a 5 if he refrained from personal attacks and comic exaggeration).

    For Democrats:
    – I think Clinton could be a 4 in leadership
    – O’Malley should probably be a 3 in issue familiarity and in debate. He barely even holds a 3 in charisma. He’s definitely not a better debater than Clinton or Sanders.
    – Webb charisma 2 (Chafee should be 2 when he’s added).
    – Elizabeth Warren’s charisma should probably be 3 at this point. She’s got more appeal than she had when she was first added to the game.I know she isn’t running.

  25. Is there any plan to update the issues or a plan to enhance the speech section? I hate that I can only give one speech per issue in the primaries and then one in the general. Maybe even build in like an option to give a “stump speech” then you can build what your stump speech focuses on (income inequality, abortion, etc.)

  26. @Les,

    Yes, updating the issues is on the to-do list.

    Speeches – maybe. Thanks for this feedback – we’ll see.

  27. @Jacob,

    It works on Surface 3 because that uses Windows. It doesn’t work on Windows RT, which was the operating system for the previous Surface.

    It won’t work on tablets that don’t use Windows.

  28. fixed bug (“=11″) that would occur when computer player ran out of primaries opponents but was still in primaries electoral strategy mode, would occur same turn as final primaries opponent withdrew.
    1912 > Bull Moose > theodore_roosevelt -> theodore_roosevelt_bull_moose, this fixes bug with selecting Vice-Leader.

  29. Matt Bevin has won as governor as Kentucky. He is a Republican. So, he should be put in as the governor endorser from Kentucky.

  30. 2016 > Endorsers > KY > Steve Beshear -> Matt Bevin.
    2016 > Reps > Christie > Leadership 5 -> 4.
    2016 > Reps > Carson > Integrity 4 -> 5.
    2016 > Reps > Jindal > Primaries > Debating 4 -> 3.
    2016 > Reps > Graham > Debating 3 -> 4.
    2016 > Dems > O’Malley > 4 -> 3.
    2016 > Reps > Trump > Endorsers > added Ivanka Trump, 1 Barnstorming, 2 Spin, 1 Fundraising.
    Main Screen > if leader has secured nomination, party %s now has leader’s last name.
    Spin Screen > if leader has secured nomination, poll headline now has leader’s last name.
    2016 > Primaries > Reps > all debates set to 10 candidates max.

  31. 2016 > Dems > Clinton > Debating 3 -> 4.
    2016 > Dems > Webb > Debating 3 -> 2.
    2016 > Reps > Trump > Issues > Tax Rates > Far-Right -> Center-Right.
    2016 > Reps > Huckabee > Issues > Tax Rates > Center-Right -> Far-Right.
    2016, 2012, 2008 > Issues > Abortion > Far-Right > fixed typo.
    2016 > Primaries > Republicans > Kentucky > FPP -> PR, 5% threshold.
    2016 > Endorsers > Al Gore > Momentum 0 -> 1.
    2016 > Endorsers > Dick Cheney > Momentum 0 -> 1.

  32. Editor > Main Screen > added ‘Events’ button.
    Editor > Events > can now create new event.
    Editor > Events > can now delete event.
    Editor > Events > can edit event id.
    Editor > Events > can edit event name.
    Editor > Events > can edit event start date.
    Editor > Events > can edit event end date.

  33. In the game, the low-polling (1%, 2%) candidates tend to go up to 3-4% because nobody bothers attacking them, so they have only positive momentum. Until likability is implemented, I propose that an event be added for those candidates adding negative momentum to reflect their struggles for attention. It can be overcome if they clear a certain level of attention (poll numbers or candidate profile). Nothing major, just a profile 2 or 3 story every week or so.

  34. @Jonathan,

    I’ve been thinking about it. It might happen. From the design perspective, it would be just add a debate, with a new variable ‘undercard’, and then everything else should stay the same. In the game engine, undercard debates would have lower profile news stories, all things equal.

  35. @Eric,

    It’s a good idea – perhaps a news story could be added similar to the ‘so-and-so not on the campaign trail!’ type. We’ll see.

  36. Editor > Events> can edit event chance occurs.
    Editor > Events > can edit event times can occur.
    Editor > Events > can edit whether event will occur.

  37. (I thought I had posted this before, but I can’t find it).
    What about reworking how attacks in debates backfire? Currently, the game gives +1 to the target; it seems like it would make some/more sense to have it detract from the attacker. Some of the remarks about Kasich and Bush in the last debate were that their attacks on Trump and Rubio, respectively, backfired and reflected poorly on their performances. In Bush’s case, Rubio was able to exploit to have what pundits agreed was a good moment for him.
    To that end, I propose three types of “backfire”: 1) the target is able to turn the attack around: penalty to the attacker. 2) the target is able to turn the attack into an advantage: bonus to the target (same as current). 3) the target (high charisma and debate skill) is able to turn the attack into an advantage while implying the attack is petty and undignified: bonus to the target and penalty to the attacker.
    Maybe even option 4: target counterattacks such that they both look foolish (like Christie’s attack on Rand Pau lin the first debate about “blowing hot air on a subcommittee” and Rand Paul’s counterattack “I know you gave Obama a big hug” was petty sniping).
    Besides all this, the biggest change that I think needs to be made is the post-debate momentum. Currently, it’s always based on Issue Familiarity; at least sometimes, it ought to be based on an actual issue.

  38. One more idea. Currently, debate performances are based on issue familiarity, debate skill, charisma, energy, and a random factor. These are all “style” factors: candidate positions have nothing to do with it. Tying into the “momentum should be based on a real issue” could be like what was supposed to happen with the CNBC debate and (may) happen with the Fox Business debate in that a topic was announced in advance (a problem in-game could be that “the economy”, which is a fine topic for a real-life debate, would be an amalgamation of “role of government”, “tax rates”, “energy”, and two or three other issues in-game, and it would be difficult to sort them out in any plausibly codeable fashion). Then a candidate with an unpopular opinion on an issue would be harder-pressed to gain supporters after the debate, which is what winning the debate and gaining momentum is all about, and the in-game debates would incorporate substance as well as style.
    I hope the future of this game includes a “Political Tycoon”-like element by which candidates can actually shift popular opinion on topics. It could be done by rare events after well-received interviews, speeches, ads, or barnstorming (to local issue centers). After favorability, perhaps.

  39. Editor > Events > Event > can now view outcomes.
    Editor > Events > Event > can create new outcome.
    Editor > Events > Event > can delete outcome.
    Editor > Events > Event > can edit headline.
    Editor > Events > Event > can edit chance.

  40. Will you update the candidates pictures this time?

    However, I don’t think Ben Carson integrity should be moved to 5. We have just heart he lied about his admission to join the military school of West Point.

  41. A very slight oddity just occurred for me, in the American Samoa primary (9 delegates) I (Rubio) won 2 seats because I won 25% and my nearest competitor finished with 14%. All the other candidates got 1 delegate, the problem of course being that there were not enough delegates for all of the candidates still in the race. Huckabee who finished 10th with 2.9% got one delegate while Bush who finished 3rd did not get a delegate.

    One delegate probably won’t make a difference in any campaign but it made me wonder how sound the logic behind proportional primaries is behind the scenes. The problem might just be isolated to states with fewer delegates than candidates with no cutoff, in which case it is a very small problem.

  42. @Rophil re candidate pictures, maybe. It’s at the top of the to-do list.

    Re Carson’s integrity, it’s not clear to me that he lied. His claim is that it was an informal offer, and in the same book he says he only officially applied to one university (Yale). We’ll see what happens.

  43. @Anthony

    Carson’s politifact score is the lowest among all the candidates running for president. I posted their truth-to-lie numbers in the forum. Really his only strength is favor-ability. On paper (leadership, experience, issue knowledge) he’s probably the least qualified candidate in US history. His integrity probably isn’t that great either, definitely not a 5.

  44. @Jonathan,

    You might be right, and I might move his Integrity back to a 4 before the next release, but my initial question here is whether PolitiFact is treating Carson fairly vis a vis the other candidates. Given journalists tend to lean left in the U.S., and given the Tampa Bay Times’ reporters and editors don’t seem be an exception to this rule, I wouldn’t simply refer to PolitiFact when judging Carson’s integrity. Consider Ostermeier’s 2011 analysis, in which many more “false” ratings were given to Republicans than Democrats (almost 5 times as many) by PolitiFact.

    Also, there is a difference between believing something that is factually incorrect and deliberately putting forth a falsehood. Carson’s budget plan, for example, might be a case where he believes it will lead to a balanced budget, even though many others don’t think it will. It doesn’t mean he lacks integrity, even though he might be wrong.

  45. This is a good point about Integrity you just made Anthony. In a nutshell, there is a difference between being wrong on purpose (lying) and then just being wrong on “accident” (for example being mistaken or misunderstanding). For example, Carson’s tax plan. He might think it works even though economists prove that it leaves a large budget gap. He could sill honestly believe that the math will work out somehow. In this instance, I would say that would be more an argument for lowering his Issue Familiarity rather than his integrity.

    But, in regards to Carson, he apparently made up the story about being held at gunpoint at a Popeye’s. He was, at best, mistaken about the Westpoint situation. (not just in his book, he has reiterated in interviews that it was a scholarship offer. He also apparently got the month of the meeting wrong as well.) If he is mistaken, even though he would be wrong in fact, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he has low integrity. But then with the issues in his youth, which are drawn into question now since he made up the popeye’s story. That, I believe, would be the best argument for lowering his integrity if it turns out he wasn’t completely honest about trying to hit his mother with a hammer (or actually hitting her, I really don’t remember at the moment) and then trying to stab a guy. And then he mentioned something with a baseball bat. That would really would be a good reason to bump him down to a 2.

    Right now, I honestly feel he should be a 3 with what we now know. Not enough evidence to make it any lower. I feel a 4 is a bit high, but I would say just leave it at a 4 since that is where he was coming into this upcoming update. I don’t see any justification for making him a 5 at this point. Especially until we see more of this play out in the coming weeks.

  46. @Anthony

    I understand the liberal bent to politifact, but there must be some truth to placing Bush, Kasich, Rubio in about the same range as Clinton (those that speak the truth half the time) and Carson below Trump. In fact, last time I looked at politifact, Carson has 0 comments that were truth or near-truth. They were all half-truth, mostly false, false or pants on fire.

    I’m not calling for Carson’s integrity to necessarily be a 2, or even a 3. My understanding of “integrity” in the game might be different than how it applies in your game. I believe Carson is straight and true within his own view of the world, meaning his integrity is pristine among those that share that view. I think the fact that he was a surgeon works in his favor, since he comes from a profession that carries favorable prestige with it, much more so than a politician. I think a 3 or 4, for now, would be accurate. I won’t be surprised if his integrity takes a hit as he begins to receive attacks from other candidates, who had been previously avoiding taking Carson on.

  47. @Aaron re Carson’s Issue Familiarity, it’s already a 2 for games starting in the primaries, so to an extent that’s covered.

  48. I’ve set Carson’s Integrity back to what it was before, 4. We’ll see how these issues play out – if the evidence mounts he embellished details in his books, or what have you, I might reduce it to 3.

  49. @Jesse The problem with the CNN story is that it doesn’t address the fact that west point doesn’t have scholarships (because there is no such thing as tuition). Also, they glance over the time frame. Apparently he attended a $10 a plate dinner (which was apparently just for certain military personnel that were invited and some ROTC students which included Carson, in Detroit at the time). What CNN misses (at to my knowledge wasn’t included in the initial politico report either) is that the General would not have been able to Carson. So the general couldn’t offer a scholarship that didn’t exist or a nomination that he couldn’t give.

    Carson would have had to either get a Congressional or Service-Connected nomination. The only Service-Connected nomination for Carson would have been through ROTC. Per guidelines, the channel for that would be: “A request for a ROTC Nomination should be made through your Professor of Military Science or Senior Instructor who must fill out and submit a Request for ROTC Nomination (Form 5-497) to the Director of Admissions, U.S. Military Academy.” At the time, Westmoreland was the Chief of Staff of the Army. The Chief of staff isn’t eligible to nominate so the General couldn’t have even offered his nomination.

    What likely happened (if anything at all) was that Carson was told by Westmoreland that he should see his Professor of Military Science and ask him for a nomination. Westmoreland might have said that his nomination from that professor would be likely since he was doing very well in the program. But of course, the Chief of Staff of the Army would know better than to promise that someone else would nominate him. So, at best he may have told Carson that his nomination prospects were better than most would have. Even if nominated, his application chances would be uncertain since only a small percentage of applicants are accepted.

    Again, I think (though I could be wrong) that Carson was honestly mistaken as to the process and structure of acceptance into West Point. So it wouldn’t say much either way for his integrity. Maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but his story, as told in his book and (more importantly in my opinion) later interviews, is not accurate of as to the facts. Maybe of his flawed understanding, but not of the reality of the situation. You could read into his mistaking Memorial Day for a day in the winter of that year as telling of intentional deceit. But he may have just been wrong about that too.

    I guess without anymore information, we can’t know what is going on inside his head as to his motive and intent behind what he has shared. Which is why Integrity is so hard to quantify objectively.

  50. Saying scholarship might have been a mistake. This was just showing the things that politico left out. It might have been on purpose just to attack him with politico being on the left.

  51. Is there going to be any more updates for Congress Infinity noticed i still cant change state Percentages or Edit Candidate names on the Candidate Editor like i used to be able to do .

  52. @anthony

    Elizabeth Warren should keep 2 charisma. Have you ever heard her speak? Her accent drives people insane, and the way she goes about her Senate business and campaigning does not indicate any great charisma.

    Also, would you consider giving Clinton a boost in leadership to 4 if you dropped her integrity to 2? It’s that no one doubts her leadership skills, but they do doubt her integrity very deeply.

    Glad to see Christie’s leadership dropped down. He may be a good leader, sure, but he’s nigh impossible to beat in a General Election as a Democrat.

    Would like to see undercard debates if possible.

    Finally, Gov. Kasich banned assault rifles in Ohio. Yet he’s marked as “right” on the Gun Control issue. Could this be rectified? After all, Kasich does tend to be quite a bit to the left of almost all his GOP pals.

  53. @Joshua

    I wouldn’t give Warren a charisma of 2, she’s got a pretty large following. I don’t see anything in her accent that drives people away. That would be like giving George W. Bush a 2 in charisma for his terrible accent. In faults in her campaigning would be addressed in campaign organization and not in her charisma. You’d have to make a much stronger argument for a charisma of 2.

    Initially, I thought should should be a 2, because I thought the Warren Democrats were as fringe as say a Kucinich Democrat, but she’s been able to gather more influence and more supporters than Kucinich ever did. She virtually the leader of the Progressive wing of the Democrats. She’s very well-spoken in interviews and she draws enthusiastic crowds to the interviews that allow crowds.

    I will agree that she’s about as “cool” and as “personable” as Hillary Clinton, but even Clinton is a 3 in charisma.

    I think a stronger argument is that she’s at least moderately charismatic. So, a 3.

  54. Do debates have locations in-game? If so, candidates should be automatically moved there at the end of the day.

  55. @Eric

    and, if they do, I think the boost or collapses should have more of an effect in the state of the debate. I also think a home-team candidate should have a slight boost–Kasich in the first debate, for instance.

  56. @Joshua,

    Re Kasich, noted – thanks for this.

    Clinton’s staying at 3-3 for now. We’ll see as things unfold.

  57. @Charlie,

    What version of Congress Infinity are you using? In 2.1.7, you can edit both candidates and %s.

    Go to Regions > select a fundamental region, such as Alabama-3 > Percentages and Candidates tabs will appear.

  58. @Anthony
    I’d consider making Kasich’s charisma a 2. Republicans just don’t like him. Logically, he was a very reasonable debater for the most part, solidifying a 4 in debate. However, most people are saying he lost the debate, even the The Atlantic and myself consider him the winner of the debate. To me, he only had one bad moment and that was because he was rushing to explain something that required much more time to explain (when he was responding to the Cruz attack).

    I think despite Cruz’s gaffe on cutting departments, he is still a 4 or higher in debating.

    I can’t think of any other adjustments bases off this debate other than lowering Kasich’s charisma.

    I think a new debate skill should be added to the algorithm for making a score. That would be aggressiveness, which is slightly different than debate skill, although also a part of it. Bush and Rubio are good debaters, but they aren’t aggressive, which means they are less likely to get a surprise boost or hit in the polls. I think where myself and the Atlantic saw a win for Kasich was that he was successful when he was aggressive. Likewise, Cruz was successful when he was aggressive. I think Bush isn’t great at being aggressive, which is why he just takes the questions given to him. Carson for the same reason. If he really knew what he was talking about he’d probably interject. I don’t expect him to do well when people start attacking him, but right now he’s so favorable that it’s suicide to attack him–see Kasich (who both won the debate through reason but lost it by moving fithet from the Republican values, including giving slight praise to Obama regarding China).

  59. @Jonathan

    It may be charisma: when he criticizes his opponents’ occasionally pie-in-the-sky proposals, he often does so with condescension. The thing about politics is one really awful moment can outweigh a dozen decent moments because it sticks out. It’s not what the candidates say; it’s what gets remembered. And what Kasich is good at getting remembered for is saying things that the base doesn’t want to hear. Kasich may have some more mainstream social policies that might help him with moderates and independents in the general election, but it doesn’t seem to be helping him even in moderate/establishment-friendly New Hampshire, where he’s stuck at 8%.

  60. @Jonathan re Kasich,

    I think his Charisma is a solid 3. The idea of an ‘aggressiveness’ rating is interesting. We’ll see.

  61. Is the game going to be ready this week or next week or.
    I’m not trying to rush you at all. Take your time, just was curious.

  62. Kasich made a mistake when he said that 11 million illegal immigrants were law abiding people. They broke the law to get here. Also, at times, he sounded whiny at times. He didn’t fail at the debate, but he was not the best. He should stay about the same.

  63. Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can edit issue chance.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can edit issue profile change.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can now view effects.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can create new effect.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can delete effect.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > Effect > can edit type.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > Effect > can edit change type.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > Effect > can edit change amount.

  64. Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can edit issue target.
    Editor > Events > Event > Outcome > can edit issue distance.

  65. @Jesse,

    Right – it sounds a little silly to say ‘illegal immigrants who are law abiding’. I take it he meant ‘otherwise law abiding’.

  66. @Anthony

    Just a minor hing, I don’t know if that was already mentioned before, but you could turn off Biden, after he ruled out.

  67. General election. I played it without the primaries influencing it and I was very pleasantly surprised and happy about the product. I fought three losing campaigns as Marco Rubio but the game was really miles better than with the primary turned on.

    I think seriously, there should be some thought paid to allowing campaigns to build an organization through primaries but only activating the impact starting May 1 or so.

  68. You could also maybe create “offense/defense” ratings to help decide when debate attacks succeed or fail. For instance, Rubio would be good on defense, Trump on offense and Bush would be poor at both. However, when they’re just talking issues and not going after one another, the playing field is fairly even.

  69. I was playing a regular 2016 game — all of the GOP were on (computer), and I only played as Hillary (no other Dems). By the time the election year came around, Republican momentum was so high that I was polling at 2% in each state despite heavily fundraising and casually campaigning.

    Not sure how you would fix this, but there needs to be more of a balance as to who momentum affects.

  70. @anthony

    With regards to Nick’s point – which seems to have come up a lot – I may have a suggestion.

    What about making the power of an event dependent in part on a candidate’s standing in the polls? If you’re Lindsey Graham and polling at 0% in every other survey, your attacks on Hilary Clinton aren’t likely to have the same effect as those of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

    This would also reflect the fact that TV advertising matters quite a lot. With statewide ads conferring a few momentum points, just like a town hall or a rally, the latter is given an outsize importance in the game – especially when the largest rallies that PI allows are a few thousand, nothing like what you’ll see in the fall of an election year. An event with 500 attendees won’t have the same reach in New York as a statewide ad blitz reaching 100,000 viewers.

    If it’s harder to score points with your campaigning (which would be the case, with the effect of attacks/appearances dependent on your support in a state), TV ads are relatively more significant, reflecting their importance in any presidential campaign. Not all of the 15+ candidates can attack Hilary Clinton and get national coverage – making the power of their message dependent upon support would reflect this, and keep the Dems’ negative momentum from the primaries at a reasonable level.

  71. @Eric

    I was finally able to use that link and saw how the delegates played out. I had Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich staying in through the convention. Kasich won the most delegates and the most states (he surged in mid-March once the primaries hit more moderate states). Trump came in a not too distance 2nd and Rubio was barely behind Trump. Cruz had a lot of delegates but was a distant 4th, after once being #2 for awhile. The convention was deadlocked, so the website didn’t pronounce a winner. Cruz would have endorsed Rubio. So Trump would have decided the election between Kasich and Rubio, most likely.

  72. 2016 > updated Presidential and Vice-Presidential debate dates.
    scripted events now cause profile 5 news stories (was 3).

  73. Has its limitations. Rep. Steve King (IA, just endorsed Cruz) is not 1 point. Neither is Speaker Paul Ryan (WI). The numbers are a good way to gauge across-the-party consolidation of support, though.

  74. According to the tables they’ve put together, Trump has 0 endorsements at the House, Senate, or Gubernatorial levels, although he’s been leading national polls for around 4 months. So while H. Clinton has consolidated official party support at an unprecedented level for this stage of the primaries, my guess is that Trump’s is also unprecedented in the opposite direction.

  75. @John Doe, thanks for this feedback. You’re right that local or national coverage of a campaign is a finite resource, and so with large numbers of candidates barnstorming takes on too much importance. We’ll see.

  76. Could you change the color of Donald Trump or of Ben Carson? Both of it are very similar, it could brings confusion. (Sorry for bad English, my native language is French 😀 )

  77. Eek posted this on the wrong thread:

    Here’s an idea to consider, not sure how difficult it would be to implement.

    Allow users to create scenarios to play through. This would be like a traditional campaign you’d see in Starcraft, (or Diablo) mission after mission — but in this instance it’s campaigns.


    You start as a player in the Democratic primary in 1992, say Bill Clinton. You win the primary, then the general. Perhaps there are 5 questions that you have to answer that after that and an element of randomness — this will set the stage/odds for the next election. You’re then thrust into the 1996 election. I suppose you could create a means to continue going after you (hopefully) win that election.

  78. @Anthony

    I’m wondering what the criteria would be for a candidate to have a 1 in leadership, issue knowledge, charisma, experience, or debate.

    Somehow Ben Carson had me thinking about this as I was waking around this morning. I’m not saying he should be a 1 in anything, but what would make someone a 1 in these? We have had 5’s, but never a 1.

  79. @Jonathan,

    A 1 would mean they are very weak for the attribute. A 2 means they are weak. A 3 means medium. 4 strong. 5 very strong.

    In practice 1s and 5s are given rarely. There is an asymmetry, because basically all the candidates in the game are good enough to have a national profile, and so it’s less likely they would have a 1 than a 5. People with 1s in any of the attributes probably wouldn’t be able to make it to a national profile.

  80. @Anthony
    I think Mitt Romney poll in Maryland for 2016 campaign is at 48%, when he is at 20% in Massachusetts. Isn’t it a mistake?

  81. @Aaron,

    Changing the Gov’s (or anyone else who is an endorser) is a bit trickier – if someone starts in July 2015, Edwards isn’t Governor or really on the national map. Until Jan. 2016 Jindal is still the Gov. Perhaps having a tag that states an endorser appears at a certain date would fix this problem.

  82. @anthony If I were you, I would have both Jindal and Edwards as an endorser from Louisiana. I would label Edwards as the Governor, but don’t open his endorsement till January 2016. Both of their endorsements would mean something. This would be supported with the current game engine. (Likewise for Bevin & Beshear in KY since Bevin is only the Governor beginning December 8th which is a ways into the primary campaign)

  83. @Aaron

    Good idea. I think any politicians that stepped down this year should probably be an endorser. Possibly even high profile state politicians that didn’t make it to office, such as Grimes in KY and Carter in GA.

  84. @Anthony

    Just a suggestion: You could add an option field for the primary-percentages to change them in all states at the same time. In this field you should be able to simply write in +1/2/3… or -1/2/3… to change the candidate’s %s in all states. I don’t know if such an option is desired by more players, but I’d like it. 😀

  85. Select Campaign Screen, Select Leader Screen > fixed bug where last line of blurb might not be displayed.

  86. I think to boost statewide support, you should have local support. For example, high ranking Idaho Democrat and well known California Republicans

  87. @Wilson,

    Thanks for this feedback – it might happen. Right now, we just have Congressmen, Senators, and Governors, but delving into other statewide office holders might be a good idea.

  88. @Rophil,

    The colors of Trump and Carson look fairly different on the system I’m testing on. Can you say what version number you have installed?

Leave a Comment