Interested, but need more information

[JamesM]

I am interested in this one but I want to make sure it accurately (as possible) reflect the differences in the Westminster system in UK and Australia and the US and other countries political systems.

However, if the other countries political systems are essentially clones of the US system I am not interested in it.

[JudgeDredd]

I like the sound of it, I've never owned a political game before, but I was going to ask they same thing as the poster here...are the models of Government reliastically modelled or is there a "generic" model...I don't want to be part way through governing the UK only to be told my ministers have been asked to attend the Senate!

[Adam Parker]

From what I've read the voting model is very simplistic is D1 so I couldn't imagine anything like the gerrymander or the proportional reprsentation of Oz.

It looks like in D2, the designers decided to leave out Congress too! Big shame. I've been waiting for something like this but I'm not buying.

Here's a recent boardgame that should have been great too - by the designers of Twilght Struggle. A card driven game, with a Big heavy box full of goodies but from what I've read, with gameplay lacking:

1960: The Making of the President

[Hanal]

I think I would have more interest in this game if it was more "historical" in nature, such as Czarist Russia in 1900 or trying to keep the Weimar Republic alive.

[Adraeth]

I tried the demo, and i liked it, a bit of educational - game but it is amusing.
 
I am wondering about a Collective Game via Forum (objective oriented) to stay on the Chair but winning as a single player (sound like Republic of Rome YES! eheheheh)
 
For just 15 € i think i will buy it next days

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

I think I would have more interest in this game if it was more "historical" in nature, such as Czarist Russia in 1900 or trying to keep the Weimar Republic alive.

The board game Triumph of Chaos does a remarkable job but way too complex for me right now.

Do you recall the Tom Clancy PC game "Politica" based on Glasnost-era Russia? Think it had a few interface issues IIRC but a nice try.

[Erik Rutins]

Feel free to give the demo a try - it's at the developer's site. I'm not sure if it's an older version or the fully updated one though.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: jamesm
I am interested in this one but I want to make sure it accurately (as possible) reflect the differences in the Westminster system in UK and Australia and the US and other countries political systems.

However, if the other countries political systems are essentially clones of the US system I am not interested in it.

The game does not focus on modeling the _system_ of each different nation, so much as modeling the differences in issues, constituent groups, economy, taxes, debt, etc. that make each nation a different challenge. It's not so much a game of elections, but a game of managing a country and staying in power by making more people happy than unhappy.

With that said, there are differences. For instance, when playing the UK you'll have the House of Commons and may face dilemmas related to support for the Monarchy, immigration, religious extremists, etc. It's not generic, but this is not focused on each system of government as its prime focus.

[Ladmo]

I think it sounds intriguing.

Any chance that patches in the future might add countries, or issues that have to be dealt with?

[Erik Rutins]

As noted elsewhere, this is the "fully updated" version so we don't expect the need for any more patches and no additional feature/content updates are planned. The only reason to patch would be a critical issue that has gone undiscovered.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The game does not focus on modeling the _system_ of each different nation, so much as modeling the differences in issues, constituent groups, economy, taxes, debt, etc. that make each nation a different challenge. It's not so much a game of elections, but a game of managing a country and staying in power by making more people happy than unhappy.

With that said, there are differences. For instance, when playing the UK you'll have the House of Commons and may face dilemmas related to support for the Monarchy, immigration, religious extremists, etc. It's not generic, but this is not focused on each system of government as its prime focus.

I do hope it isn't a stereotyped nationalities thing: the monarchy is not a mainstream political issue in UK and hasn't really been for years (if ever). Religion is not a factor in UK at all - to a degree that I think a lot of Americans would struggle to believe (noting that I differentiate 'religion' from the cultural/political and historically derived issues surrounding conflict between the west and the middle east). The make up of the House of Lords now is a different issue... Also I think a failure to differentiate between a Presidential republic and a parliamentary constitutional monarchy would be a killer for me. The leader (prime minister) of UK does not have to worry about personal election (he obviously has to get elected to the House of Commons but that is a sure thing given his/her party will make sure they have a safe seat), and can never have the Commons against him after an election (well maybe in theory but never in practice). This gives a very different feel to elections in UK to US I believe. The personal popularity of the PM (leader of the party) can be a very poor predictor of electoral success - look at Churchill in 1945. In effect the only way we can send a message to an unpopular PM away from a general election is in local elections which have no effect on national government and hence would be irrelevant in a game such as this.

On the other hand, managing the party for a PM can be at least as important as keeping the people happy - look at Thatcher: lost control of the party (and the support of the electorate) so the party dumped her and Major survived another 6 years (including an election).

Issues Britain should cover are (in no order) immigration (I'll give you that one!), Europe, the conflict(s) in the east, US relationship (to an extent as a flip side to Europe, but also asymmetric extradition issues and so on)), environment, security vs personal freedom, etc as well as all the usual economic things.

Not trying to start a political flame war here, just advise what would maybe make me interested in the game...

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
I do hope it isn't a stereotyped nationalities thing: the monarchy is not a mainstream political issue in UK and hasn't really been for years (if ever). Religion is not a factor in UK at all - to a degree that I think a lot of Americans would struggle to believe (noting that I differentiate 'religion' from the cultural/political and historically derived issues surrounding conflict between the west and the middle east). The make up of the House of Lords now is a different issue... Also I think a failure to differentiate between a Presidential republic and a parliamentary constitutional monarchy would be a killer for me. The leader (prime minister) of UK does not have to worry about personal election (he obviously has to get elected to the House of Commons but that is a sure thing given his/her party will make sure they have a safe seat), and can never have the Commons against him after an election (well maybe in theory but never in practice). This gives a very different feel to elections in UK to US I believe. The personal popularity of the PM (leader of the party) can be a very poor predictor of electoral success - look at Churchill in 1945. In effect the only way we can send a message to an unpopular PM away from a general election is in local elections which have no effect on national government and hence would be irrelevant in a game such as this.

Note: I'm not an expert in British politics. I've only played as the UK once in Democracy, so please take this with a grain of salt. In my try, I ended up being deposed by my party. One of the many dilemmas that came up had to do with one of my ministers taking a stand on the Monarchy that was unpopular and whether I agreed with it or not. Another dilemma had to do with a minority of religious extremists - I'd say you guys do have that problem actually, at least based on the subway bombings. These dilemmas are not major issues by definition, they are random events that pop up as time goes on and how you deal with them affects the public's view of you and your policies.

I believe the game is faithful to the basic system for each country. However, that is not its focus and that's what I was trying to get across. I think it does enough to make sure you don't have to suspend your disbelief, but this is not a game that tries to model the inner workings of each government. It tries to show you what it would be like if YOU were in charge as President or Prime Minister and it's much more focused on how you deal with crises, what policies you enact and how that affects your people and your party and thus your political fortunes.

Regards,

- Erik

[HMSWarspite]

OK - your latest answer did a lot to undo my conern from the earlier on. If the game knows that being challenged and removed by your party is the second most common way of ceasing to be PM it can't be too bad (most common of course being to lose the election, but Blair and Thatcher both fell foul of the party). I cannot believe that the country/Commons would create hassle over a monarchist opinion - the minister concerned would just be viewed as an idiot (whichever way his opionon was, rabidly for or anti) and have to resign or moderate his/her views in public.

On the subject of religion, I was carefully trying to differentiate between religion and terrorism, even when nominally labelled as 'Islamic'. In US, religion is a real issue: presidents can get elected or fail on how they appeal to Mid-West, or liberal coasts, on religion and religious issues. For instance, abortion does not have anything like the political resonance here as the US, and religion is not really an organised force in the debate. In UK religious influence on elections is just is not possible in the same way. The subway bombings here were nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with incitement of impressionable and disaffected young men (mostly) due to current geopolitics and a lot of history (creation of Isreal and earlier through the 70's and 80's etc). These issues are not even the same in the US and certaintly not true here. You might as well say that the Irish troubles of the 70's-90's were a continuation of the wars of religion from the 17th century since one side was 'protestant', and the other 'catholic'. These are labels for divided groups in society (with historical and current issues and different aspirations) and not the root cause.

Negative issues I can think of off hand in the press at present/recently: Iraq (still rumbles on that we were involved under false pretenses), treatment of the armed forces, government competance - they keep losing personal data including bank details, inflation/public pay, and the sub-prime mortgage issue and the economy generally. Almost all the 'random events' we have had recently (last 6 months+) would have been scandals to do with illicit donations to election funds, with a healthy dose of government incompetance accusations to follow!

[Venator]

the monarchy is not a mainstream political issue in UK and hasn't really been for years (if ever)

 
 Well if a party were to suggest abolishing the monarchy, it would become a fairly major political issue... and a good few MPs do believe that we should have a president instead.
 
 Also I believe that the powers of the monarch may have been a slight issue in the C17 (Civil Wars...) and even as late as the C19, the monarch had to be taken into account (even if her views were often ignored).
 
 I do agree that at the moment the position of the monarch isn't really an issue - but as I say that's merely because no party has as yet proposed its abolishment.
 
 Religion is also slightly more a factor than you'd believe. How many Catholic PMs can you count for instance? And the reason all PMs have been Anglican (at least nominally) is because of the position of the church. Again, I agre - not a major issue as such but like the monarch, it could become a vote winning/losing issue and is thus worth considering.

[Hertston]

Never mind... don't want to talk politics!

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, I realize this is a real challenge considering the subject of the game, but I'm hoping we can keep this forum from becoming a big political discussion. I appreciate the info on British politics, but my main goal is just to describe what I see in the game so that you all can decide if it's right for you. If you'd like to continue filling me in, please do it by PM.

Note that the game simply said "religious extremism" in the dilemma so that can be interpreted in a number of ways based on the country. Given that I was playing the UK, I didn't really think that the Anglicans were threatening to assassinate me, my guess was that it was islamic extremists since that seems to be the only type of extremist that's really tied to any religion over there. Keep in mind this is not the "War in the Pacific" of political games, it doesn't try to be, but it's a fun and good game. See the first impressions thread another customer posted as well.

Regards,

- Erik