http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/36710Bryan/Sewall 53.76 - 330 EV
McKinley 45.31 - 117 EV
Palmer 0.92
I think the 1968 scenario is bugged as Wallace. I played on easy and literally campaigned only in NC and SC to try to throw the election to the house. I took a hard line on Vietnam, Segregation and a moderate one on the Great Society. I tailored all my answers for the South perfectly, yet I can never manage to do much better than Wallace did historically. I can win SC, about half the time but cannot win NC. Nixon always wins the election.
You might want to try being more conservative, so you take more votes from Nixon and fewer from Humphrey.
Somehow I always lose with Carter on normal, as I always collapse after they ask me about the Playboy Interview and the debate , any tips on how to deal with those questions
Those are scripted events.
Anyway, the strategy for this game is to
listen to the advisers and experiment with different answers to the same question to find out what the best response is. Also, campaign in the states that are rich in electoral votes and where you are slightly behind, keeping in mind any scripted events. And choose the VP who seems the most likely to have crossover appeal (usually not the historical choice).
From best to worst, the adviser blurbs are:
1. Any praise ending with an exclamation mark!
2. X is the
best idea
3. X is a
good/interesting idea/X helps you
4. X appeals to moderates (no caveat)
5. X appeals to the base (no caveat)
6. X helps with some voters and hurts with others but helps overall
7. X appeals to moderates but might turn off the base
8. X is the party line/a standard answer
9. No blurb
10. X appeals to the base but might turn off moderates
11. X helps with some voters and hurts with others but hurts overall
12. Negative statement about X
Some theories I have that may or may not be true:
- Your answers to the questions affect the state you're campaigning in the most.
- You get diminishing returns from repeatedly campaigning in the same state.
- At least in the 1896 scenario, the advisers are somewhat unreliable. (The Republicans are too pro-tariff/anti-segregationist and the Democrats are too pro-labor/rural-oriented).
