*** More evenhandedness in determining how voters will react to stands on certain issues. In the 1st version, I felt the game was tilted to the right a little too far. Especially where it came to independent voters, who always seemed to go with the GOP on most relevant issues where that vote might be more split or left leaning than the game portrays. Also, the candidate selection seemed to be a little more favorable for the republican party. No JFK? RFK? FDR? More candidates and better candidates would be a nice add.
*** At the start of each turn, the computer player has too big of an advantage to "jump" and collect something in a given state before the player even has a chance to scan the map and react. The timing of the beginning of the turn when the computer is being played would help a bunch.
I also played this game and like it.
I don't agree with the first point. I always thought it was slightly more challenging to win as the republican. NY and CA favor democrats, Florida was fairly evenly split and TX favored republicans.
To win as the republican, you pretty much had to get FL and TX. After you had those two you needed to do some interesting stuff to nail down enough of the in-between states... Not the only way to win as an (R), but the easiest.
While as a democrat, you really only needed to nail one of the big four. If you had two, it was usually not that hard to win, if you got three it was over...So really you only have to win two states that favor you and you are in pretty good shape.
Mind, I think this is probably realistic.
More candidates would always be good. Perhaps even some from before the the (D)/(R) two party system.
I would absolutely echo your second point. That was always an irritant to me.
I would add a third one. You shouldn't be able to get endorsements from both pro and anti groups on a single subject...I managed to get myself endorsed by both the pro and anti abortion forces one time, something I'm sure would never happen in real life.
