Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Dynamic State Leans Brainstorm


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Gotcha. 

If we do away with the historical biases like you describe, then we would have to rebook how politicians come into the game. 

A red California at the modern day, or a Red Rhode Island or Blue Idaho or Wyoming could create issues with standard politician parties.

That’s a fair point.  I actually used to try to get V to get rid of hard coded political parties altogether and just let random alliances emerge and change naturally between factions. But he hated that idea. Haha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

That’s a fair point.  I actually used to try to get V to get rid of hard coded political parties altogether and just let random alliances emerge and change naturally between factions. But he hated that idea. Haha 

I'd like to remind both you and Will that both of you are already married before this gets out of hand.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Willthescout7 said:

I'm down to play it out in 1840 to see what happens. 

Yeah part of it was me sitting in my cube at like 7:15 and being like "aha I can get this rolling before we even start this half-term without actually doing any work myself"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is super important in terms of game development. The only thing I have to add is from the 1948 Playtest @ebrk85 and @Bushwa777. I think there's a handful of (at most) events could supersede the game's era/state biases. One of those hit in the 48 Playtest when Bushwa's Red President Taft ended Jim Crow by executive action in 1953, a full 10 years before LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act of 63 and shifted American politics for the next 60 years (and counting). This should be one of those events that override the era biases both in macro and micro ways. From the macro perspective, biases would shift. If the Republicans ended Jim Crow in 53, no way does the South turn in 64 (or as the game puts it, in 72).  I also think you'd see  a stronger, more prolonged negative reaction from the South towards the Red side. On the flip side of that, I think more diverse states like New York, Illinois would see a more pronounced bias towards the reds and wouldn't turn in (63 or again 72). On the smaller scale it would also impact incoming pols. Specifically, Dr. King is party switch in 60, just as he does irl. However in our Playtest, Dr. King, a Republican in 53 would have stayed with the Republicans after they ended Jim Crow in 53. If we're testing dynamic eras and biases, I submit this scenario to you. It's one that already playing out and seems perfect for what you are discussing here. 

Edited by pman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is important because if we don't address dynamic state leans and party switches as they relate to a handful of landmark events in American history, then this game loses some of it's potential.  You notice playing The New Campaign Trail that everything is tied to the era which negates many of the cool counter-factual historical aspects of it.  (though, I do enjoying playing it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pman said:

I have a question for those who have play tested Reconstruction. Do the era bias differentiate for when Reconstruction was going strong versus when Hayes ended it? 

Yes, reconstruction already includes bias shifts before anything we do here.  It's generally worked well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interesting discussion.     First thing I thought about as I read over it, was if the Great Depression triggered with a Democrat in office as President, the state biases would still swing blue.    They are hard coded to real history, and our alternate time line seems to have little impact on them.    As written, if FDR was President when the Great Depression hits, then Hoover comes in after for the recovery, FDR’s party would still get all the election bonuses for the era because that’s how it happened in real life.

the danger in going too far the other way is you could have politicians acting out of character (Southern Democrats trying to end slavery instead of Abe Lincoln just to swing some state biases in their direction).    I like the concept of the people staying In character (with strong penalties for a human going against that) but states and election variables being more fluid based on how the game is playing out (with new wars, economic events, etc that could influence them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...