White House Race

[slashtacular]

Every once in a while, I've considered and discussed the possibilities of creating a web-based version of my infamous White House Race series of computer games. (For those of you not in the know, they're mock political simulations about the presidential race in a fictional country. You are paired with a "celebrity" vice president like Ozzy

Comments

[thevortex]

I really like the concept, but I am wondering if the algorithms for attitudes and such will be too simplistic. For example, what about candidates lying and such?

The Risk-type element is interesting, but I think that to make it more reflective of reality, states should start with their current leanings (e.g., CA = Democrat) and that winning them over means beating the opponent by a sufficient margin relative to the degree to which the state is Dem/Rep.

The Vortex

[slashtacular]

The simplistic algorithm for candidate and state attitudes is one of my biggest concerns. In particular, I'm worried that some candidates will never be able to beat other candidates in a given state, so if you choose the wrong candidates, you might be totally out of luck. This is what I'm trying to get at with the "training", "confusion", and "news event" elements of the game, but I'm not sure if it'll be enough.

I'm not so sure about starting each state with the current party alignment. For one thing, many states (Florida, Ohio, etc.) don't have a well-determined party alignment. For another thing, that would limit the game to two parties, and I'd prefer to have it handle lots of parties. Winning a debate against a well-loved candidate in a strongly party-aligned state would also be next to impossible. Besides, "make it more reflective of reality?" I think you're forgetting who you're talking to here. :)

Keep the suggestions coming!

[thevortex]

For one thing, many states (Florida, Ohio, etc.) don't have a well-determined party alignment

For your game, I think that can be helpful. Some states might have a "base" party alignment (as many parties as you want), while others are going to be more contentious.

Winning a debate against a well-loved candidate in a strongly party-aligned state would also be next to impossible.

Isn't it *usually* impossible without lying? That's part of why politicians are so good at it! =P

I'm worried that some candidates will never be able to beat other candidates in a given state

You're talking to someone whose presidential vote never counted because he always lives/d in a Democratic state.

Also, what about creating primaries?

The Vortex

[slashtacular]

Some states might have a "base" party alignment (as many parties as you want), while others are going to be more contentious.I'm hoping that this will come out based on the states' beliefs. States with strong beliefs one way or the other, like CA or TX, are going to be a lot more receptive towards extreme candidates, whereas others with more moderate beliefs could be won by candidates from either side of the aisle. I don't think there's a need to include an explicit bias towards one party or another

[thevortex]

I don't think there's a need to include an explicit bias towards one party or another.

Fair enough. Perhaps you want to put more into the idea of some states leaning toward extreme beliefs in general (regardless of party), and other states preferring moderate views...

Maybe you spend the first 10-20 rounds with just a president and then pick a vice president after that, giving you the opportunity to try a different angle.

Great idea!

[slashtacular]

Perhaps you want to put more into the idea of some states leaning toward extreme beliefs in general (regardless of party), and other states preferring moderate views...

That's been the idea all along. :)

Keep the ideas coming!