President Infinity next release sneak-peek, Windows only

I’m finishing up the next release of President Infinity, but if you want to get a sneak-peek at the release before everyone else does, you can download it here.

Note: Windows only at this point. Requires you already have the game installed.

Feedback welcome!

Version details here.



  • fixes ‘Code = 27’ bug

73 thoughts on “President Infinity next release sneak-peek, Windows only”

  1. The first turn always crashes the game with:

    TGameEngine::ProcessTurns () > Code = 27 ‘0-1’ is not a valid integer value.

  2. I finished the general election as Gary Johnson, and as soon as I clicked the “X” to exit the election results, I got the following error: “Access violation at address 0056A265 in module ‘pi.exe’. Read of address 000000A0.”

  3. (I’m just gonna repost this over here since this is the most recent post now)
    Hi, I’ve been playing President Infinity for a few months, and I have several questions about what later updates may contain.

    First, I love the game to pieces, it’s well designed and leagues above other election simulators. Unfortunately, there are several things that break immersion and ruin the experience a little. I’ve also included a few things at the end about not important features I’d like to see.

    1. The voters are too fluid.In real life, there are several voting blocs that aren’t going to vote for a candidate that’s ideologically opposed to them. I feel that understanding voting blocks are necessary to getting elected, and they are not represented as of yet. Any candidate can win any state with a bit of time, regardless of how conservative/liberal the voters should be, and the amount of minorities that should severely hinder candidates. (Sanders with blacks in the South and Trump with Latinos/Muslims)

    If voters were to be categorized by political ideology, race, gender, etc, and have more of an individual feel than just a number like an other voter it could improve the game a lot.

    2. The game is very skewed to the Republican side. While I switch between the two parties and several third parties,

    the Republican party is almost always decimating the general election by nearly double digits by the time it rolls around. I feel that voting blocs might fix a large amount of this, with democrats no longer leaving in drones, but I’m uncertain.

    3. The AI focuses way too much on Iowa/New Hampshire, and oftentimes seems to ignore many other states.

    I’ve tested the game with frontrunner candidates with 1s in every stat/complete opposite platform, and they can still win the nomination because the other candidates just don’t compete outside of the first few states, and then only have a week or two to try and gain support in another state, only to not make a dent in the lousy frontrunner. I’m unsure of exactly what mechanic you could put in place to fix this, but I figured I’d mention it.

    4. The candidates feel impersonal, and any candidate plays just like any other, just a different number to a stat in most cases.

    This qualm I definitely believe could be partially fixed with the addition of voting blocs, as some candidates would have traits that make them more appealing to certain parts of the population, but the addition of some type of personality and way the candidate presents them self would be great, and I look forward to the favorability mechanic you plan on adding.

    5. The endorsement system is too easily abused, and endorsements can end up going to someone with the opposite of their platform.

    This one is due mostly to the major impact of momentum I’ve witnessed. I played a game as Eugene Debs in 1912, and due to my ads I got endorsements through the roof. Maybe by making the endorsements care more about their platform and less likely to endorse candidates from certain parties and candidates with outlandish personalities would help?

    6. The debates and interviews are way too impersonal.

    I feel like debates and interviews have a lot of potential in this game, I truly do. Debates could be used to showcase your platform on certain issues in contrast to others, and gain momentum that way. It can also be used to try and shift another candidate further left or right on an issue. One option I can see is for the debates to actually be somewhat playable, and be able to give responses and bring up platforms of yourself and others. This can make a candidates platform evolve and their voter base grows based on what they say instead of where they barnstorm. Talking about being Prolife could vet you some voters in the south, but it might cost you some in more urban states. This is another way to make the candidates and voters feel less like numbers.

    7. I’d like to see the ability to branch off and form your own third party if you don’t make the nomination, bringing your supporters with you to this new party.

    Obviously this is a much smaller complaint, but it would add a way for your campaign to go on if you didn’t clinch the nomination. For example, I played a very long and difficult game as Rand Paul, and game second to Donald Trump. I imagined my supporters (Libertarian-Republicans) would be outraged, and press Paul to run on an independent bid for presidency. It’s a smaller feature, but I’d love to see it nonetheless.

    8. Further interaction between candidates, including the ability to start a #Never(Candidate) pact if there is a frontrunner with outlandish ideas like the #NeverTrump movement.

    Honestly this one is more for fun, but it opens a lot of interesting ideas and scenarios. It would be hard to balance it seems. In general, I’d like to see candidate-candidate interactions improved upon since you mostly just ignore them other than trying to lower their support.

    9. Voting bloc endorsers.

    This one is pretty self explanatory, but essentially it’s that many endorsements belong to a certain voting bloc and will endorse accordingly.

    10. More personal feeling to each state.

    This would mostly be fixed with voting blocs, but being able to click on, say, Virginia and see what voters it’s comprised of, what’s important to them, and how they view the other candidates and I would be a big feeling of immersion. Home states are also completely irrelevant as far as I can tell, and the impact of losing your home state should be almost campaign ending.

    Overall, I’m very very pleased with this game, and I’ve spent countless hours running as Paul, Sanders, Kasich, Huntsman, or even Mr. Eugene Debs! I remember my Paul campaign and all my uphill struggles and it’s an amazing memory. I adore President Infinity, and I’ve loved seeing how interactive you are with the community around it, and I hope that my suggestions will be able to find a place in your game! Cheers!

  4. One note: Have you been able to look into making things like organization strength carry over from primary to general? As of right now, any of that built up in the primary disappears and takes away from the capabilities to build it up in the subsequent general.

  5. Here is an issue I have had for a while that may be related to another issue I am having right now with the sneak peek:

    Sometimes I accidentally right click after advancing to the next turn and the window jumps off the screen and the only way to get it back is to hook up a second monitor and drag it back onto my laptop screen. The other option is to just shut down the program and restart it.

    Now, I am having an issue where when I advance to the next turn (doesn’t always happen but I have been able to recreate it twice now) the news window isn’t present and I am unable to do anything but a hard shutdown of the app through the task manager. The program thinks the news window is up but it is not visible to me. I have tried to look through all the off the monitor space and have not been able to find it anywhere.

  6. @Caleb

    I agree with what you say. I think this is one of the most addictive PC games of all time (good job, Anthony), but the game is definitely unintentionally biased towards Republicans. It has been for awhile. I can’t wait for the game to be closer to complete, especially the conventions, so that the old campaigns operate more accurately. The great thing about playing a game that is always a work in progress is that you can see the improvements and the process, but it also means that it seems like it’s never finished/polished. This sometimes makes it more aggravating for a die-hard fan, because you become personally invested in the game. I’m sure Anthony feels like it is his baby (as it rightfully is), but for long-time fans, we feel somewhat similar to how he feels about his project.

    Anyway, good list Caleb. I’d like to see those changes made as well. I’m hoping my created scenarios 1788-1860 (minus 1912 and 1824, which I only helped make) are added sometime soon, officially.

    I think favorability will help fix things and make new additions possible.

  7. I do hope that if there are live primary results, it can show the evangelicals voter bloc, it would be interesting to see how it would look.

  8. @Dallas,

    I think Palin’s photo is fine. I don’t think she’s really changed how she looks.

  9. @Jonathan, thanks for this feedback!

    Yes, with Favorability will come a renewed look at how voters are shifting as well.

  10. I like a lot of the new additions, but some of these VP attributes (and some of the old candidate attributes) ought to be switched.

    Kasich-Possibly should have a 4 in either experience or integrity, or both. With his years in both House Leadership and as two term Governor, he certianly has the same experience as other 4s, like Klobaucher. On integrity, Kasich regularly chose not to launch negative attacks, continued to take the “high road,” didn’t engage in divisive politics, and is, beyond scandal free, viewed as an honest, family man who puts country above politics. Experience and integrity really were the two main selling points of his campaign.

    Booker-Possibly raise charisma to a 4. He is very good on the stump, his DNC speech was well received and, with his media persona, he has always been among the more flashier politicians.

    Warren-Not sure why her charisma is at a 2-she is beloved by activists, and is not at all a bad or tedious speaker, any more than Hillary, O’Malley or other 3s.

    Salazar-I am not sure exactly why he is a 4 in debating, and better than say, Booker or Biden, who are experienced debaters, or Castro, who is a persuasive speaker.

    McAuliffe-Ditto on debating. Additionally, integrity should definitely be lowered from a 4, possibly to a 2. He has been viewed more as a political crony of the Clintons, Rahm Emmanuel lite, if you will, than a principled statesman. No disrespect to his principles or policies, but this is simply many voters’ perception.

    Heinrich/McCaskill-Both have identical attributes, and are very strong VPs, stronger than many frontrunner VPs (like Castro), and I’m not sure why. I don’t know much about their ability as debaters or personal integrity to suggest any change, however. Is the 4 in debating just because they are senators? Then why do Warner, Booker and Gillibrand lack 4s in that category?

    Schweitzer-Should probably not have a 4 in experience. I don’t know why his two terms as a small state governor make him more experienced than all the two term governors with 3s in the game.

    Biden-Really needs to have a 4 in debating. He is an experienced debater, and was called the winner of both his VP debates, and some of the primary debates in 2008. No reason why he should be behind so many less tested debaters.

    Also: Will polling be changed for the candidates who begin on off? I recognize there is not official polling for them, particularly late into the elections, and that I can add my own percentages. It’s just that, with the current system, it’s almost pointless to add any of them, especially if it’s a late start date, as they begin with no money or polling, which probably does not reflect how they would actually be in the race.

  11. Hey @anthony

    I was wondering if you are going to include not only the Orlando Shooting, but also the current(as of time of posting) filibuster lead by Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) as possible events in the game?

    Also thoughts on adding other issues to the game, such as: Raising the minimum wage, #blacklivesmatter/police reform(I’ll let you decide which title to use), and also the refugee crisis in Syria (this one can work well with Trump’s call to ban all muslims).

    Once again, as always, thanks for your hard work on creating such an addicting game.

  12. @Anthony

    Are there any plans to allow Nebraska to split its EV’s? Since Obama picked up one there from NE-02, and the possibility that Clinton could do likewise this year if she puts up similar margins to 2008 Obama in Omaha, Nebraska.

  13. @Arjav

    To hold you over for the time being, I created a 2000 scenario (it’s rough but it is something) a while back that you can download from the campaigns section.

  14. I think you should add Vermin Supreme as a Libertarian candidate just for shits and giggles. Also i highly recommend the ability to switch to a 3rd party if you lose the nomination, a candidates’ ambition and favorability would be a measure of how likely this is, i think it’d be fun to have a 4 way race between Trump, Clinton, Cruz and Sanders

  15. @Anthony

    If you check the “538 challenge” post in the forums, the play-through described there brings up some possible issues regarding realism. Basically, the player won as Huckabee/Trump with 90% of the vote, winning every state. He played the game set on the hardest difficulty, and did not edit the game at all. Very impressive, but unrealistic, as you’d agree.

    As such, I’m wondering what could be done to prevent such fantasies? I’ve said in the past that I think there should be some sort of set number that the Republican and Democratic Parties cannot fall below. I’d say 30%. That way 70% popular vote is the highest one can get, which is accurate for all elections after James Monroe.

    I’m sure favorability, if done well, would prevent any state/region from favoring an ideologically different ticket from one that is much more natural. Huckabee/Trump would never win DC, MA, CA, RI, VT, NY, and maybe a few other tapes, even if Clinton’s scandals were even greater than they are now.

    Additionally, the player coached Trump into a debate and issue knowledge of 5, with a few months. This should probably be impossible. I don’t think anyone could be coached to debate like Gingrich or to have the issue knowledge of an incumbent president. Perhaps only allow coaching up to a 4, unless a candidate is a natural 5? Could Palin be coached to a 5 in either of these?

    Ideally, going back to a cap on how much a party can lose in a state, and this might be done with favorability, is to have the demographic only capable of endorsing certain parties or leaders at a certain percent. For example,
    Let’s say Massachusetts is 70% liberal. The 70% would be computed to highly favor Democrats, with some allowances for Green, and moderate Republicans like Kasich or Huntsman, but voting for other parties, unless moderate or liberal, would be set to “0” for this 70%. Likewise, the 30% conservative Massachusetts voters, who are mostly moderate, would vote Republican, prefer moderates, but have very small allowance for someone like Cruz, which would mean Cruz’s only real shot at getting all of these voters would be if Democrats selected someone too liberal for this 30%.

    Anyway, you may have a better method, but it would be nice if something like this was done to prevent impossible scenarios.

  16. @Aaron

    Sounds good. Thanks!

    Love Jonah’s suggestions, but Kasich’s debating/speaking skills in general are terrible. Needs to be a 2 at most.

  17. @Jonah, Those all sound like good points to me, noted.

    Re starting %s and $s for hypothetical candidates, it’s really tough to say what these would be. Since they didn’t run and didn’t raise money for a presidential bid, I think starting them at $0 is probably accurate (one of the first things they would have to do is fundraising, typically).

  18. @Dylan,

    Probably yes to the Orlando shooting. Don’t know about the Murphy filibuster. Plan is to significantly update the issues, there will be a blog post probably in a few days about this.

  19. @Aaron re Nebraska’s EVs by congressional district,

    Maybe – it would require some coding to handle the specific case (since they do both congressional district and statewide). We’ll see.

  20. Also, perhaps this has already been discussed, but is there a reason why if, say I set Trump or Clinton to “off,” their party’s general election percentages are super low? Like, I turned Sanders and Clinton off, and had numerous candidates with 1% or 0%, and the general election polls had Democrats losing 70-1.

    Sorry if this was already discussed.

  21. I think Gingrich’stamina should be at 2, and not at 3. In 2008 and 2012 campaigns, it also was at 2.

  22. @Anthony

    Should Trump’s leadership be reduced? It seems to me that his leadership skill in the Republican Party is quite terrible, since he can’t hold his donors, endorsers, etc. together. I’m not sure how you categorize leadership though.

  23. FYI, you might really want to give the CI templates an update. i.e. Toomey is not facing Sestak in PA, Rand Paul has a Dem opponent, as does John Isakson. Minor clerical stuff, really. No rush.

  24. I also still don’t understand why Romney’s integrity is at 2. After all, he is a good family father, with deep christian mormon faith. His speech against Trump (even if I disagree with it) shows he has strong convictions. I definitly think his intergrity should be at 3.

  25. @Rophil

    From what I remember, integrity also has to do with the integrity of the person’s platform consistence. If someone flip flops, a lot, and is perceived as a pure politician, with any real personal platform, then it affects the integrity.

    I think his attack on Trump certainly raises his integrity. Nearly every politician seems better when they are retired. For instance, Jimmy Carter would be a 3 or 4 integrity as a politicians. In retirement, I’d give him a rare 5.

    However, I think if Romney jumped back in the race, he would go back to flip-flopping. Very liberal Republicans will have a hard time because they have to appeal to a very conservative base, so they pretty much have to be inconsistent, which makes them seem insincere.

  26. @Anthony

    Should Trump’s firing of his campaign manager be implemented into the scenario? I wonder if it should be an event that reduces his organizational strength by one, or something.

  27. @Jonathan,

    As far as it being an event in the campaign, no, because it is an internal decision by a campaign.

    As for modifying Trump’s Command strength or something, I’m not sure if it will have that affect, because Manafort and Gates have (presumably) been prepping for this for some time. As far as I can tell, Manafort has been Trump’s de facto campaign manager for some time. Open to feedback on this.

  28. This election cycle’s polling data just keeps on getting crazier. CNN has Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 9, and Stein?! at 7. I don’t know when you plan on updating polling data but this could be one crazy election. If Never Trump Republicans flock to Johnson and Bernie supporters go to Stein it could easily throw the electoral college into chaos. I could easily see Trump winning Pennsylvania and losing Utah based on some of these pre-election polls. I know pre-election polls can be very unstable but I have not seen them be this crazy ever.

  29. I think the crazier part of this cycle isn’t the fact that there 4 parties polling above 5%- I’m hesitant on including Stein, due to her name not being in many polls- but the fact Donald Trump’s cash on hand according to the FEC is less than 2million, while Hillary has 43.

  30. @Dylan- I still think it will end up closer to normal in the end but I think there are just so many people dissatisfied with Trump and Hillary that things could get interesting. Actually there are a quite a few polls I’ve seen including Stein and she is usually around 3-4%, CNN is the first one breaking 5% for her. I don’t like getting into my personal political opinions on here but yeah I think that Donald Trump’s cash shortages just goes to show you of full of it he truly is (but I don’t really have a much better opinion of Hillary than I do Trump).

  31. @chris

    I feel Stein’s polling hinges on what Bernie does and doesn’t do. If Bernie gives Clinton a warm endorsement prior or at the convention, I can see Stein’s numbers drop. But say Bernie pulls a Pat Buchanan and try to hijack the convention, sure I can see the remaining Bernie supporters going to Stein.

    Libertarians though, however will have the indirect support of Mitt Romney, and will have Bill Weld’s extensive network of donors, so there should be no reason that the LP finish below 10% in November.

    But with Trump having only 1.2 Million in cash, should his fundraising ability be a 1?

  32. @Dylan,

    It’s not clear to me why Trump’s cash on hand values matter, as he is a billionaire and could lend himself more money. If he has to (and in the primaries he was doing very little fundraising), his ‘fundraising’ is lending himself money. The question is what to start him at in terms of cash – it’s tricky, because a player typically would not hesitate to use it, but in real life Trump wants to spend as little as possible while winning.

  33. @Chris,

    Keeping an eye on the polling. I will expand the ability to enter poll data for %s to the general election, which will allow for different %s at different start dates.

  34. @anthony

    I don’t want to bash Trump by saying he is cheap, but he is operating this campaign like shrewd businessman by spending little as possible.

    One can argue that he was able to get by due to constant press coverage, but that’s an argument of its own.

    But you’re right; if I were Trump, I would go the Ross Perot route and spam the media with a bunch of ads. LOL

    But too bad there aren’t any achievements in the game, because winning the election after starting out with 1.2 million on hand should be one.

  35. Regarding a future update for Congress Infinity. Marco Rubio today announced that he will be running for reelection in the Senate, and it looks like he will win the Republican primaries for the Florida senate race. I just wanted to let you know as you work on the next update.

  36. Third party polling in Presidential elections are always incredibly misleading. Usually they get half of what they are polling at this point. Third party options in a poll (especially at this point) become a catch-all for those that are the least likely to show up on election day. Stein won’t hit 1%. Johnson won’t get above a high of 2-3%.

    In June 1948, Henry Wallace polled at 6%. He won 2%.
    In June 1980, Anderson polled between 21-24%. He won 6.6%.
    In June 1992, Perot polled between 32-39%. He won 18.9%.
    In June 1996, Perot polled at 17%. He won 8.4%
    In June 2000, Nader polled at 6%. He won 2.7%.

    In 2012:

    Johnson hit 7% in a March PPP poll nationally and 6% in a PPP national poll in April. He got 0.99% on election day.

    In NM, in April, PPP had Johnson at 15%. On election day he got 3.55% there.
    In AZ, in May, PPP had Johnson at 9%. On election day he got 1.4% there.
    In MT, in May, PPP had Johnson at 8%. On election day he got 2.93% there.
    In NH, in May, PPP had Johnson at 7%. On election day he got 1.16% there.
    In WI, in May(?), ORC had Johnson at 6%. On election day he got 0.67%.


    There isn’t a whole lot to go on, but the pattern is fairly consistent. The only 3rd party candidate to perform at their June polling numbers was George Wallace in 1968. Though in September he polled ~7-8% over what he got on election day.

  37. @Aaron,

    Good historical analysis. I am also skeptical that Johnson’s numbers will hold – we’ll see.

  38. @Aaron
    If say Johnson gets 5% and Stein gets 1-2% that would still be huge considering what they usually get and could easily swing close states to one outcome or another.

  39. @Anthony/Aaron – I agree about the polling, although ’92 is a bit wacky since Perot dropped out then got back in, etc.

  40. @Jonah re %s being low if setting by-default ‘on’ candidates to ‘off’,

    This is a bug, and is on the to-do list. Thanks for this.

  41. @Jonathan,

    “I’m wondering what could be done to prevent such fantasies?”


    “the player coached Trump into a debate and issue knowledge of 5, with a few months. This should probably be impossible.”

    There should be an exponential scale, so going from 1->2 is a lot easier than going from 4->5. Not impossible, though, if given long enough.

  42. @Aaron re window and screen issues,

    Please let me know if this continues to occur with the next sneak peek release.

  43. @Caleb,

    Thanks for this comment.

    1. Favorability and Voter Blocks are on the to-do list.

    2. This should not be happening, and will be fixed with Favorability.

    4. Good point – having computer player attributes such as ‘Aggressiveness’ or something is a possibility.

    10. Yes, with Favorability and Voting Blocks, I want the ability to see more details about a given state.

    Thanks again!

  44. @Anthony
    While this is not a pressing concern, I’m curious if you ever plan to make issues more fluid. I feel like if different candidates become successful, then the primary issues can shift a bit. For example, had Sanders not run, I don’t think we would have seen a Democratic primary with nearly the same focus.

    The thing about fluid issues is that it seems like they’d be incredibly hard to balance and easy for a player to abuse if he knows what he’s doing, so I would completely understand if it was never implemented. As interesting of an idea as it seems, it seems too difficult too balance although I’d support it if it was able to be balanced.

  45. A small quality of life thing would just be a few shortcuts, though they might already exist. For example, being able to exit out of ad creation and other screens with the esc button, maybe the t button could target a state/make ad run in all selected states, a key to each of the major tabs upon the start of the turn (strategy, activity, ads, research, etc)

    It’s a small addition, but definitely useful if it’s not too hard to do. (Though I doubt it’s that simple)

  46. @DJH2036
    I think that would be a wonderful idea as well, and I’ve seen people post about it on the requested feature thread on the forums. Being able to shift your platform from debates is an idea, and the momentum from winning/losing a debate should definitely be strengthened.

  47. If we do interactive debates, I feel we should also do interactive interviews on those Sunday morning news shows. The ability to answer the questions effectively hinges on how in tuned with the issues you are. Say you haven’t studied on your issues and you were invited to Rachel Maddow, we know that the interview will probably be a train wreck.

    Also, i was thinking that since majority of the men/women running for president are sitting elected officials there should events where it requires the player to not campaign but to go to their home office/district to legislate. Or they can ignore what is going on and just campaign in another state- think Chris Christie campaigning, or Rubio campainging while barely showing up to vote. The less often you show up for a vote, it should affect your integrity.

  48. @EAY,

    Will be adding an official Canada – 2000 soon, probably no game engine updates for awhile (will be a Congress Infinity game engine update first, then Prime Minister Infinity game engine update).

  49. I don’t know it this is a glitch but since I updateded I don’t see the conventions in upcoming events and sometimes there will be no conventions I had a scenario where two candidates where 30 delegates apart and there was no contested convention is this a glitch?

  50. @Silkysmooth,

    Conventions have been redone in the latest internal – please let me know if you are experiencing these problems with the next sneak peek or official release.

  51. Hey @anthony

    There have been talks of Trump being a boon for downballet Republicans, will you implement a feature with turnout for a certain party can be affected by who is on top of the ballot?

  52. Bain. Not boon. Stupid autocorrect.

    Also another suggestion for the Congress Infinity is having the party leadership having to fend off primary challengers(. I know it’ll be most likely too complex to program,, but I think it’ll be cool to see if you could prevent Eric Cantor from losing his seat in 2014).

    But keep up the hard work. These games are more than addicting.

  53. BTW, what language are you programming this all in? I’d be interested in helping out with bug fixes as well.

  54. @Falcon re 7 days per turn feature for PMI,

    Probably with the next game engine update for PMI, but I don’t have an ETA for that.

  55. @Dylan,

    Have some sort of primaries feature for CI would be interesting, we’ll see.

  56. @Arjav,

    Thank you for the offer of helping with bug fixes and coding, but the best way to help right now is with detailed bug reports.

Leave a Comment