The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

This is a pretty neat game, but it's got a far-from-ideal difficulty level scaling, at least on Impossible.
There are scenarios in which you have to play dumb to lose, like in 1860 (although this one makes sense), 1896, 1968 or 1988 - while there are others in which even after applying a close-to-ideal strategy you still may very well fail, like in 1844, 1916, 1976 or 2000. I've honestly got no idea how to win with either Clay or Polk in '44, barring some "perfect" set of questions I've yet to encounter; same with '76 Ford (with Carter is just somewhat challenging). Any of you folks has fared better?
 
Tried Gore using the advice above on normal, won 327-211, flipping FL, OH, AR, TN and NH from OTL (but lost IA), and won the pv by 0.9%. My best Gore win in 2000 I believe.

 
This is a pretty neat game, but it's got a far-from-ideal difficulty level scaling, at least on Impossible.
There are scenarios in which you have to play dumb to lose, like in 1860 (although this one makes sense), 1896, 1968 or 1988 - while there are others in which even after applying a close-to-ideal strategy you still may very well fail, like in 1844, 1916, 1976 or 2000. I've honestly got no idea how to win with either Clay or Polk in '44, barring some "perfect" set of questions I've yet to encounter; same with '76 Ford (with Carter is just somewhat challenging). Any of you folks has fared better?
I mean do bear in mind it is impossible difficulty, so I could see it making sense that while some elections had enough wiggle room for a candidate to win even with things being rather more difficult than OTL, that it wouldn't always be assured

As for some of the ones you mentioned, I might have managed to win as Ford in '76 at one point, but I didn't save that result, and I tried a bunch of times now and couldn't do it. I might have gotten a Polk win too, but I am not sure, similarly. I don't think I ever got a Gore or Bush win either. In 1916, I got this as Wilson, but iirc it took a while and some luck, and idk if I ever got it as Hughes. I just managed to come close, a bit more focus in West Virginia and Maine might have been enough, but I'm kind of short for time at the moment, I might try it more times later to see if I can pull it off

The thing is, in terms of the nuts and bolts, every election year has the same difficulty scaling, so that could make a difference in terms of some elections just having more ability to shift things vs others not having as much
 
I mean do bear in mind it is impossible difficulty, so I could see it making sense that while some elections had enough wiggle room for a candidate to win even with things being rather more difficult than OTL, that it wouldn't always be assured
Yeah, I'm aware of that, it's just that after a session of trying to win with '44 Polk and getting consistently close to winning without never actually achieving to do so (even after perfecting all the answers) while when casually playing with '68 Humphrey I'm still able to get a Normal-like victory... welp, bruh moment.

As for some of the ones you mentioned, I might have managed to win as Ford in '76 at one point, but I didn't save that result, and I tried a bunch of times now and couldn't do it. I might have gotten a Polk win too, but I am not sure, similarly. I don't think I ever got a Gore or Bush win either. In 1916, I got this as Wilson, but iirc it took a while and some luck, and idk if I ever got it as Hughes. I just managed to come close, a bit more focus in West Virginia and Maine might have been enough, but I'm kind of short for time at the moment, I might try it more times later to see if I can pull it off
Ah, that's too bad. Seeing the Wilson victory is encouraging though, thanks.

The thing is, in terms of the nuts and bolts, every election year has the same difficulty scaling, so that could make a difference in terms of some elections just having more ability to shift things vs others not having as much
Exactly!
 
Yeah, I'm aware of that, it's just that after a session of trying to win with '44 Polk and getting consistently close to winning without never actually achieving to do so (even after perfecting all the answers) while when casually playing with '68 Humphrey I'm still able to get a Normal-like victory... welp, bruh moment.


Ah, that's too bad. Seeing the Wilson victory is encouraging though, thanks.


Exactly!
So, I ended up doing a couple '44 and '16 games, I managed to get both a Polk win and a Hughes win on impossible

Since the answers don't show up, for comparison here's some old games on easy for 1844 and 1916, I used the same sort of strategy here on impossible that I used for those

Oh! And there was another thing I forgot to mention earlier... there used to be a thing on the site called the "hall of fame" that showed the top 10 results for each candidate on each difficulty (except easy). For months if not over a year, that function hasn't worked at all, and for a while before that, it worked sometimes but sometimes didn't load. Now, one of the things with that was, some of the results appeared unusually high, and it was later figured out that it is possible to "hack" the site with some very simple inspect element/console stuff, which clearly accounted for at least some of the results. But even with that going on, I don't think I ever saw a Clay result in the top 10 for impossible that had won. Took quite a while, too, for there to even be any Ford or Clay wins on normal from what I remember. I do think I saw a Ford win on impossible eventually, though I'm not sure if that was done fairly or via hacking

Now, you can't see that, and even if you could, all the leaderboards would likely just show hacked results all the way down. One thing you can still look at is the stuff on the front page, if you scroll down to "Campaign Trail results and averages by election:", you can look at the win percent, and the popular and electoral vote averages and ranges nationally and state-by-state for each election, difficulty, and candidate. It used to be that looking at the "range" stuff would allow you to see the maximum that people could regularly get, but now you have things like, just as an example, the "impossible" results for 1844 showing the range of popular votes being so wide that it goes from Clay getting just 14 votes, to Polk getting literally zero votes... and there's also Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein who got inserted into some people's games via "hacking", which leads to an interesting thing where, under the "Win %" section, Clay wins 94% of the time, Polk wins 6% of the time, and Clinton wins 100% of the time
 
So, I ended up doing a couple '44 and '16 games, I managed to get both a Polk win and a Hughes win on impossible

Since the answers don't show up, for comparison here's some old games on easy for 1844 and 1916, I used the same sort of strategy here on impossible that I used for those
Damn man, followed your advice and worked amazingly. Managed to win with both Hughes and Wilson; in the latter got very lucky too, now in Hall of Fame. Thank you!
 
I feel like it well be cool if thay add national polling or where you could click on a state to see witch county is red or like big city's if they are in your favour or not like that 1992 game
 
I heard they included screens about Wallace winning on 1968 but I didn't knew they planned cases of ties.
I think they have them for every election, and it isn't specifically just for ties. In addition to most (but not all) elections having the chance of a tie, there's also other elections where you can have a 1968 style thing, like 1960, 1948, 1896 if Bryan causes the southern Dems to split, and of course 1860. Plus while it doesn't seem to get much attention, there's also the "proportional" mode, where you can have third parties getting some votes despite not winning any states in elections like 1844, 1916, 2000 and both 2016s. Actually, looks like some of them do mention that, like 1844, where there was an odd number of electors, and thus the only way to get a lack of a majority would be due to a third party getting electoral votes
 
1988 flipped, Dukakis win on easy is basically the real world Bush win for Dukakis. 422 to 116 in the electoral college.
 
Who's the Southern candidate in this case?
As Caesar said, Palmer

Technically, he doesn't start off as an explicitly "southern" candidate (he wasn't even from the south, he was an Illinois senator), he's just a national third party candidate for Democrats who are opposed to the "free silver" that Bryan advocates for. Palmer usually gets 1% or less in most states, north and south. But if you go as Bryan and do pro-civil rights answers, the southern Democratic voters will defect in large amounts from Bryan's ticket to Palmer's, since Palmer was a more or less standard "Bourbon Democrat" and not the sort to rock the boat on racial issues
 
HHH on impossible. This was annoying as it would have almost certain gone to the House if only I hadn't gotten the least favourable debate outcome.

 
Top