Hm. That's what I've been doing, and they do seem to be the best options. RNG is just not favoring me, I suppose. Or maybe I need a different VP.
The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.
- Thread starter DTanza
- Start date
I get nationwide popular vote wins and electoral college defeats with Bryan quite frequently.
However, I've gotten a nationwide popular vote loss and electoral college victory as Bryan by giving one speech in New York, getting the Tammany Hall question, Bryan gives a pro-Tammany Hall answer and carries New York. Usually the pro-Tammany Hall answer just costs Bryan votes in the Midwest without carrying New York, but on occasion he will carry New York and that is enough to win an electoral college victory. However, in most games, the question doesn't come up.
If Bryan goes to the West Coast, he carries those states, though it seems to come at the cost of Indiana.
It seems a moderate pro-labor, moderate on other policies than labor and silver coinage, go to the West Coast is the right strategy, but Bryan is still at a disadvantage and you are still at the mercy of the randomness of the algorithm to win. Granted, I have not tried running with Stevenson as Bryan's running mate and that might be the key.
However, I've gotten a nationwide popular vote loss and electoral college victory as Bryan by giving one speech in New York, getting the Tammany Hall question, Bryan gives a pro-Tammany Hall answer and carries New York. Usually the pro-Tammany Hall answer just costs Bryan votes in the Midwest without carrying New York, but on occasion he will carry New York and that is enough to win an electoral college victory. However, in most games, the question doesn't come up.
If Bryan goes to the West Coast, he carries those states, though it seems to come at the cost of Indiana.
It seems a moderate pro-labor, moderate on other policies than labor and silver coinage, go to the West Coast is the right strategy, but Bryan is still at a disadvantage and you are still at the mercy of the randomness of the algorithm to win. Granted, I have not tried running with Stevenson as Bryan's running mate and that might be the key.
Played as Hughes and consistently gave the most left wing answers possible, just to see what happens. The result is a bit of a disaster:
www.americanhistoryusa.com
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
I've done it with Bryan.
www.americanhistoryusa.com
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
Here is how not to win as Bryan:
www.americanhistoryusa.com
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
Here's an example of a decent Bryan win using what I've come to find is a pretty effective strategy. Sometimes I'll also get Wisconsin, and I think I got New York once or twice before too, and on the other hand, sometimes I lose Maryland and one or two other Midwest states but still win handily. This is going with a lot of the stuff said here. generally going moderate, I've found that there's generally little need to visit the west coast and that even without going there, it should be possible to usually win those states by around 5%.
And in a different direction, here's a McKinley win with a kind of interesting looking map (not legit tho)
And in a different direction, here's a McKinley win with a kind of interesting looking map (not legit tho)
No this isn't even remotely correct. You have to be Moderate on just about every policy that it is possible to be Moderate on without edging towards Republican arguments or "out there" ideas, including the Labor and Silver issues; if you don't Moderate on those two you are going to lose a lot of potential support in the Midwest and Pacific West. In doing so you should have California and Oregon more or less secured, meaning all your attention can and should be focused on the Midwest where the true battleground is.
Here's a Bryan run I just did. I tried to go for New York, which didn't work and probably cost me Wisconsin, but overall I did fairly well
www.americanhistoryusa.com
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
I tried some of the strategies suggested above as Bryan (Stevenson as running mate, moderate or slightly left answers, no going to the West Coast).
It wasn't a fair trial, since I got both the Tammany Hall and the Hearst questions, and gave pro Tammany and pro Hearst answers.
Unfortunately, the game link URL did not work, so I can't link to the results or see how much better than I did with standard Bryan. Bryan carried the West Coast and New York, but lost Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia by narrow margins, and probably would have gotten Illinois and Indiana at least, which had more EV than New York, without the Tammany Hall question. He also lost Maryland, Delaware, and North Dakota, all of which are winnable by Bryan in other situations. EV count was 236 to 211, and popular vote percentage was 51.2% for Bryan to 47;.6% for McKinley.
It wasn't a fair trial, since I got both the Tammany Hall and the Hearst questions, and gave pro Tammany and pro Hearst answers.
Unfortunately, the game link URL did not work, so I can't link to the results or see how much better than I did with standard Bryan. Bryan carried the West Coast and New York, but lost Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia by narrow margins, and probably would have gotten Illinois and Indiana at least, which had more EV than New York, without the Tammany Hall question. He also lost Maryland, Delaware, and North Dakota, all of which are winnable by Bryan in other situations. EV count was 236 to 211, and popular vote percentage was 51.2% for Bryan to 47;.6% for McKinley.
I've been playing around with the newer 2016 scenario as Trump, and have noticed that there is not much you can do as Trump. Yes, you can tone down his act somewhat and act more of a traditional conservative, but these don't seem to have much effect. I actually did a try to win as Trump on easy, and a self-sabotage of Trump on impossible, with different VP picks and completely different answers, and got the exact same result back to back in terms of states carried and almost the same in terms of popular vote percentages.
Best self sabotage of Lincoln yet, though it was on impossible. Drove Lincoln down to third place in the popular vote and fourth place in the electoral vote:
www.americanhistoryusa.com
There were 3.1% of games on impossible where Lincoln did worse.
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
There were 3.1% of games on impossible where Lincoln did worse.
Has anyone had any success in sabotaging the post 1968 Democratic candidates,, to the point where they don't even carry DC?
I doubt it and I doubt it is even possible (unless you use exploits/hacking). Democrats generally start with something like 90% of the vote or more, and while you can make some big shifts with "sabotage" games, there's still only so much you can shift things even with a terrible campaign. I've seen some talk about an older version of the game where you could do a 25 question game or a 100 question one, and maybe the 100 question one would give enough room for shifting it that much, but with just 25, there's only so much you can do to lose a 90% lead
Actually, wait, I think you can do it in 2000 though, if you run as far right as possible, and also get lucky by getting all 3 or 4 of the potential questions that give you a bigger boost than usual to Nader. I think I've also seen some games where Nader takes RI and MA that way, maybe? But I'm pretty sure you can at least get him to take DC that way. I don't think there's any legit ways to get a Republican to take DC but that at least works to get it not Democratic
WIth a Gore self sabotage on impossible, where Gore still did better than in 24% of the games on that level, always giving the most right wing answers possible as Gore, Nader got within 4,000 votes of carrying DC. Other self sabotages of Democrats on impossible, even in games where the Democrat did worse than in 92% of the games on that level, DC has never been close.
Really the million-dollar question regarding Bryan on Normal is whether he can win New York without taking equivalent losses in the Midwest consistently (we're talking surpassing 318 EVs), and given how rare the Tammnny Hall and Hearst questions are, it's hard to vet such a strategy.
Lost the PV but won by 7,000 votes in FL handing me the election. A weird result I was not expecting considering it’s a reverse 2000 except with a weird combination of states. I ran as a somewhat conservative/independent Democrat going more right wing on Abortion and Gun Control.
Ironically I lost the PV more than Bush IOTL yet won more EV. Even better is Nader did better (and he generally get’s blamed IOTL for taking Gore votes). It would be fun to see the Republicans react to this election ITTL.
Last edited:
I’m going to assume the guy will add 2020 in the next week or he’s working on more elections or he’s busy I’m supried I was able to wait this long for it I don’t play the game at all any more because I know how to win every election the worst case is that he might add it in the summer he never answers his emails so we will have to keep waiting
Did better than 92.3% of players with Romney 2012 on Normal.
Mitt Romney: 311 electoral votes
President Obama: 227 electoral votes
I won the popular vote by 1.14% as well.