What Exactly Is This Supposed To Be?

from PolMach Forums
As I'm looking at my notes of issues with the game, I read a post saying this was "a fun game" and not "intended to be an election simulator." Going back over my notes things that to me are major issues for a simulation (like no Washington DC) can be overlooked if this is just supposed to be a fun game. Was this supposed to be a realistic election sim or just a game? Thanks.
10,628 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm not going to speak for Brad (the creator of the game), but while working on it, I felt we were making more of a game than an election simulator. We tried to make sure the data we were using in the game was as accurate as possible, but in the end it came down to "Will this be fun to play?", not "Is this as realistic as possible?".

In the end, I feel the game works well as both...a fun game to pick up a play, as well as a too to inform and cultivate interest in our political system. Of course, my opinion is questionable since I helped make the game but perhaps other 'Non-Stardock Employees' can back me up.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
That would explain some things then. When I bought the game I was expecting an election simulation and not just a game. I'll have to change my expectations accordingly. It's not that I'm not enjoying the game...I was just expecting more going in. Probably that wasn't fair to you guys.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I'd hope that patches and updates maybe make it more of an election simulator as time goes on. Certainly Galciv can't really be described as just a fun, superficial game and I'd like to see some more depth start to develop in Pol Machine.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
I don't understand why it has to be either a fun game or an election simulator. Maybe I am just too much of a political junkie but a few things an election simulator should have, like endorsements based on position rather than buying them or character attacks, would be fun.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
I agree that some things should be added to give it a bit more realism, don't think it would hurt, you could even make them options to turn on and off for a sim/arcade choice kind of. I do think that endorsements should be won on your stance on issues and the substance of your ads or speeches, not buying them. The fact that George Bush can get the endorsement of the National Women's Association is clear proof that this way of handling endorsements is wrong.

I also think that the state a candidate comes from shouldn't automatically be counted for that person, such as Edwards in NC, or Arnold in CA.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Make sure you drop these Sugestions in the Sugestions Thread....
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
I like the way endorsements are handled in the game. In real life, a candidate usually courts a political action group for their endorsement. Using the political clout to achieve them is great.

I do, however, have a problem with endorsements from the opposite end of the political spectrum (e.g. NRA endorsing Bill Clinton) not hurting the candidate with their base. I'd like to see endorsements always create increased awareness (as they do now) but could backfire, if you radically change viewpoints (George W getting the NOW endorsement would cause his polls to drop amongst conservatives).

I'll post this to suggestions, too.

--James
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Trust me, your home state is not automatically "counted", whatever that means.

I always play as a custom GOP candidate from NY, and winning my home state takes a lot of effort. Being from a state gives you only one advantage: a high awareness to start. If you want to win NC from Edwards or California from Arnold, all you have to do is build a double HQ early and throw up one radio/tv ad in the early stages on an important issue. If the opponent doesn't respond quickly enough, as your awareness grows, so does your insurmountable lead on that issue.

Plus any state can be flipped by having good awareness and placing a smear merchant/spin doctor combo in it.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Buying endorsements probably isn't the way to handle them, but it would take a very serious change to make it any other way.

Would getting NOW's endorsement really hurt Bush among conservatives? Would they really then vote for the liberal party to just spite a conservative reaching out to different groups? No, they probably wouldn't. They might not vote for Bush in great numbers, but in Pol Machine turnout is measured by awareness and awareness is a statewide trait (ie. its not different for Dems, Ind, and GOP voters). So you can't possibly be arguing that getting NOW's endorsement should reduce Bush's awareness?

The penalty for getting this pro-choice endorsement is very minor. Having your abortion position shifted a little bit isn't usually going to cost you many voters, unless abortion happens to be a top 3 issue somewhere. That is probably the major problem. The AI uses endorsements as free national awareness boosts and often takes just whatever ones he can get, without caring about how it costs him in terms of issues. I've seen someone get both the CC and NOW. I've seen them get the Chamber of Business and Unions. Actually, I sometimes have let the AI get all but one or two of the endorsement groups because I needed spin doctors and smear doctors in key states, more than I needed a slight boost to my awareness in Montana.

I'd like to see endorsements reworked, but unless you just make them endorse candidates who advertise for their issues or make them cost a ton if you don't agree with their positions, I'm not sure what can be done.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Good points. Maybe if the candidate comes out and spends a ton of money on ads or gives a lot of speeches on an issue, the endorsers could approach them with an offer to endorse?

Maybe my above suggestion coupled with a thirdparty candidate would make more sense. For example, Bush seeks NOWs endorsement and gets it. This pisses off the conservatives and they vote for the independent (maybe even if the independent isn't necessarily Pro-Life. The conservatives would want to teach him a lesson )?

--James
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Or those people who are pissed off would move to the other candidate if his stance on the issue isn't clear.

--James
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
I like the game the way it is, being a fun game to play.

As a major political junkie and campaign staffer for a congressional campaign, this game provides much needed relief and comedy into an otherwise boring world of political data processing and cleaning up left over pizza boxes after rallies.

This game isn't something I would use if I was Karl Rove to see how my campaign strategies would work, thus its not an election simulator. Thought it does provide a semi-releastic experience based on stereotypes of characters (like the Kook who is obviously Moore). So yeah, it is semi-releastic in that a Republican candidate will have to work harder to get traditionally Blue states and a Democrat will hvae to work harder to get the Red states (took me 4TV ads and many newspaper ads to get California as Bush, good thing I had a Webmaster!).

The way I see it, for me at least, its just a fun game to play based on the current political climate (or custom climate in Fantasy Scenario) and not a "simulator" on the scale of Microsoft Flight Simulator or Warbirds.