Its always nice to see liberals congregating and reveling in their ability to bash conservatives on issues where the liberals are far more guilty. The pot calling the kettle black has become too cliqued, but I'll throw it out anyway.
Winning endorsements usually only helps at the beginning. The biggest advantage is an awareness boost. By the end of the game, you should have 100% awareness in almost every key state. The endorsement at that point is just an issue boost and usually the 10 or 15 point boost to your issue score is dwarfed by the massive effect of TV and even radio ads. The AI uses the endorsements to boost his awareness and that helps him steal little states
The AI on Tough uses better tactics than the AI on challenging. I'd like to play against that better tactical AI without playing against the massive monetary advantage that the AI gets on the Tough difficulty. Could the designers please consider that for future patches? I don't mind the cheating in the campaign game (since I don't play it), but I'd like the game to have some replayability in terms of enjoyment. I can beat the challenging AI
The best startup candidate is Chloe Sullivan for the Democrats. The GOP is pretty weak in terms of startup people, but W. can usually advance you far enough to open up someone better.
Its hard to outspend him, but you can remain competitive with him. Focus on picking states that are worth 270 electoral votes. Then use webmasters in key battleground states (for me, its usually California and Pennsylvania, but it can definetely change depending on the AI's strategy). Towards the end of the campaign, use spin doctor/smear merchant combos in the close states and they will flip to you almost definetely. Wait until late, beca
Thanks for clearing that up Frogboy. I'd still like to see a candidate pack because of the artwork issue (though I have no idea how hard it is for you guys to get the artwork needed to add in like McCain and others).
Thanks Jeff. I think I'm the one that told you about that. I'd still like to see an editor. I don't multiplay, but I'd still like the option.
I think they should allow you to edit the default candidates to suit your tastes, but I've probably ranted too much on the candidates issue. I'm not a fan of the ratings of the default candidates, the number of them, or the 5 point custom candidate system (custom candidates are really bad if you look at default candidate ratings).
We disagree. I think it is a far better strategy to be a Republican from a swing state or NY or California simply because if you flip those states to you, you win. Being from a state is only equal to an awareness bonus, plus a free HQ. Who needs a free HQ in Texas? Who needs an awareness bonus in a state that will end with 100% awareness anyway? A home state is not a significant advantage, so why not take it somewhere where the high initia
Its because Clark was designed to be an "easy" candidate and Kerry was designed as challenging. A lot of ratings make more sense in terms of scaling difficulty than reality. Its another problem caused by the game v. simulation debate.
I would buy it but replayability isn't one of its strengths. Until they add some more candidates, the replayability is limited unless you like "fantasy" scenarios like Lincoln v. Woodrow Wilson or Nixon v. Thomas Jefferson type races. The sequel to the Doonesbury game, Power Politics 3, is really just an updated Doonesbury using the 2004 demographics. I got the impression from a brief message b
The game suffers from almost no Republican candidates. There are two viable 2004 candidates (Bush, Cheney), 0 2008 GOP candidates, and one real historical GOP candidate, Bush Sr., available at the start. The GOP has three ridiculous candidates (B. Bush, L. Bush, and Rice), Mike Forbes, and Arnold (who can't legally run for president). Maybe you can see why I'm throwing names like Frist out there. The Republicans really were hosed in terms
Forbes switched parties to the Democrats and was beaten. I definetely don't think Mike Forbes is that Mike Forbes, the state difference aside.
Good call jefferson! That's exactly who she is! And you're right. She's way overpowered.
I think they could have added some people. John McCain springs to mind as a definite. There was talk of dropping Cheney and replacing him with McCain earlier in the year. I also think you could have added Ridge (a 2008 possible contender), Bob Taft (another 2008 contender), Jeb, Bill Frist, Guiliani (another definitely should be in the game kind of guy), and Colin Powell.
I wish Chloe was a Republican. She's a perfect VP fit for a lot of the default GOP candidates.
It has an extremely minor effect Laststand. Upon further review of all the stats, the AI suffers almost no damage to his Democraticloyalty score for getting the NRA endorsement. The entire loyalty score system seems a little broken, but I have run through two campaigns today and in both the Dem got the endorsement of the NRA and Chamber of Business (plus the Unions) and his democratic loyalty score did not change.
The former beauty queen? That definetely fits. Wonder why the state isn't Michigan.
Whitman's a Republican from New Jersey, so probably not. Good guess though. She fits a lot of the traits.
But what about the other "fake" default candidates? Who do people think Mike Forbes, Chloe Sullivan, Jeffory Jackson, etc. are? I thought Chloe Sullivan was Hillary until I saw that Hillary was already in the game. Mike Forbes could be Bill Frist, but Frist doesn't wear glasses and isn't rich. Steve Forbes wears glasses, but isn't from Tennessee. Anyone else have any guesses
It is not hard to win California as a Republican and, in fact, in later campaign matches it is easier to win California against the unlimited money of the AI than it is to win 55 electoral votes of smaller states. Honestly, I have won the campaign through Clinton as a Republican through New York and I have never lost California and I have only lost New York to Gephardt. Don't sweat those startup percentages too much.
You're right. I'm now getting a 5 for judgment. The loyalty scores are weird though. Mine are 5 and -5 (Rep and Dem), but the % of the weighted score I'm getting are vastly different from Clinton's (-5 and 5). He's getting 100% of the Democratic weighted loyalty and I'm getting 55% of the Republican weighted loyalty. Furthermore, the weighted loyalty score for the GOP is 30 while the Dem is 75. I'll leave it to Frogboy. I
Judgment should, I'd wait to hear from Frogboy on the loyalty score.
I suspect Republicanloyalty. But definetely judgment. Frogboy: I had a -5 Democraticloyalty in the files in question and won 36% of weighted score despite Richardson having a 5. He had a -5 in Republicanloyalty and won despite me having a 2 (which I think should be higher since I started at 0) and won 70% of the weighted score. Is that a bug also?
SPOILER Dean isn't in the game. Creating custom characters that are accurate is not easy given the 5 point limitation. You could make a good Dean probably, but probably not a good McCain and definetely not a good JFK.