The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

Seleucus

The 2016 campaign seems very luck-dependent, since there are up to 6 random events that can occur, all of which boost Trump and hurt Clinton [affecting the margin by ~3-5% each] - probably as a means of balancing gameplay and give Trump a chance at victory:
- Terrorist Attack #1 [Berlin]
- Terrorist Attack #2 [un-specified American cities]
- Terrorist Attack #3 [London]
- FBI recommends indictment of several Hillary aides
- U.S. economic recession
- Hillary faints during a speech

There are some random events that can hurt Trump and help Hillary too, but they're less significant [ranging from stupid comments by Trump - which of course the player can avoid as Trump - to violence at rallies.]

Of course the choices the player chooses makes a difference, but unless you start advocating building a wall as Hillary or etc., it's kind of noise compared to the random world events. And if you play as Hillary and see 3 terrorist attacks, your aides indicted, an economic recession, and you faint during a speech, you're not going to win unless you're playing on Easy.
 

OAM47

Francisco Cojuanco said:
IIRC it was only massively Republican because most of the Southern Congressmen decided to walk out, or their states refused to hold any elections after Lincoln won, no? In a tie scenario Lincoln's election wouldn't be guarranteed, so it's unlikely the South would secede if the thought they had a chance of stopping Lincoln. Course, the Presidency would be a poisoned chalice, complete with accusations of a Corrupt Bargain and all...
Click to expand...

That and also keep in mind it's the *outgoing* Congress that votes, not the incoming one. Looking at the 1858 page, the House as elected then was 116 republican, 98 dem, 24 other.
 

AnywhereButOTL

Seleucus said:
The 2016 campaign seems very luck-dependent, since there are up to 6 random events that can occur, all of which boost Trump and hurt Clinton [affecting the margin by ~3-5% each] - probably as a means of balancing gameplay and give Trump a chance at victory:
- Terrorist Attack #1 [Berlin]
- Terrorist Attack #2 [un-specified American cities]
- Terrorist Attack #3 [London]
- FBI recommends indictment of several Hillary aides
- U.S. economic recession
- Hillary faints during a speech

There are some random events that can hurt Trump and help Hillary too, but they're less significant [ranging from stupid comments by Trump - which of course the player can avoid as Trump - to violence at rallies.]

Of course the choices the player chooses makes a difference, but unless you start advocating building a wall as Hillary or etc., it's kind of noise compared to the random world events. And if you play as Hillary and see 3 terrorist attacks, your aides indicted, an economic recession, and you faint during a speech, you're not going to win unless you're playing on Easy.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. There are always ways to bounce back from inconvenient events. My latest game I got a major terrorist attack and then fainted on stage but still won Utah for no apparent reason.
 

Kvasir

Has anyone managed to get better than this for Hillary?

CampaignTrail.png
 

Seleucus

AnywhereButOTL said:
I'm not so sure. There are always ways to bounce back from inconvenient events. My latest game I got a major terrorist attack and then fainted on stage but still won Utah for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it's more that if you hadn't gotten those events, you'd probably have won Texas/etc too. Barring shooting herself in the foot, Hilary on normal needs like four or five of those negative events to have any chance of losing
 

Octosteel

Francisco Cojuanco said:
IIRC it was only massively Republican because most of the Southern Congressmen decided to walk out, or their states refused to hold any elections after Lincoln won, no? In a tie scenario Lincoln's election wouldn't be guarranteed, so it's unlikely the South would secede if the thought they had a chance of stopping Lincoln. Course, the Presidency would be a poisoned chalice, complete with accusations of a Corrupt Bargain and all...
Click to expand...

Republicans had supermajorities in our timeline though even withou the Southerners bailing.
 
Ariosto

Ariosto

Octosteel said:
Republicans had supermajorities in our timeline though even withou the Southerners bailing.
Click to expand...
They did, but their Representatives were condensed in the more populous states like New York, whereas Democratic and Opposition Congressmen were spread out over more states. With each state delegation getting a single vote when the election is thrown into the House, it is ironically the Democrats who have the advantage, and they control the majority of the delegations. The problem is that those Democratic Congressmen are going to divide their votes between Breckinridge and Bell, with some sort of negotiations needing to be held to get past the deadlock.

However there is no chance of any of the Democratic or Opposition Congressmen supporting Lincoln.

The Senate is more clear cut, the contest almost certainly being between Joseph Lane and Hannibal Hamlin. I'm curious how the Northern Democrats or Unionists would vote in that match-up given the rhetoric Lane had been putting forth during the campaign, though they might ultimately opt to him out of fear that confirming Hamlin, especially before the situation in the House is resolved, would cause the South to secede.​
 

John Farson

Banned
Frankly, Hillary being asked whether or not she'd only serve one term is daft to me. No presidential nominee would set themselves up to be a lame duck like that, from the moment they were sworn in. Teddy Roosevelt did that right after he crushed Alton Parker, and almost immediately regretted doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top