Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Conrad

New Round Discussion: Start Date

Recommended Posts

This will be the official thread for discussing the start date of the upcoming latest round of VGS. As always, the players will have a huge input over the reset era which will ultimately be selected. As discussion goes on, choices will be narrowed down and we will have votes if need be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So the fundamental question in my view is the political context in which players prefer to play.

 

2016 gives you the rise of right-wing and left-wing. So if players want intense primary fights and lots of party soul-searching, this is the year for it. Neither party has a clear advantage in this year.

 

2012 is pointless to play; there's nothing interesting here.

 

2008 is a policy-heavy year. So if players want to spend time trying to resolve the Great Recession, the Iraq War, the healthcare crisis, the national deficit, and all our other problems, this is the year to do it. The Democrats have a clear advantage in this year.

 

2004 is the post-9/11 year. People are still scared, and the big issues are foreign policy related. Want to have a war-focused and fear-focused game? This is it. Neither party has a clear advantage in this year.

 

2000 is the "good" year, especially if we decide not to have 9/11. Want to play in a positive period in which the economy is growing, there's a surplus, and America is the respected leader of the world? Pick 2000. Neither party has a clear advantage in this year.

 

Nothing prior to 2000 really offers anything that one of these dates does not offer, unless you want to go WAY back (e.g.: 1968, 1946, 1860, 1776).

Edited by Terrus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the Terrus Standard seen above, I'm all about 2004. 2009 has been totally beaten to death, 2016 and later frankly just results in half of one party acting like Trump and the other half like Sanders/AOC/etc, 2000 we tried when we first started out and while it went pretty well, mostly it just seemed to confuse the hell out of people under the age of 25, 1988 was a complete disaster and we've also already done like a '14 scenario. Of the reasonable 21st century century scenarios, its the only one we haven't done, and given some of the foreign policy shifts among ideologies these days, it might be quite interesting to see a more FoPo-focused era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an Owner, I obviously won't be playing, but I will say that I think 2004 would be a very interesting round and probably the best of the options presented so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself am leaning toward 2004, from an adminning aspect it would be interesting and as Terrus laid out above, also from a playing aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2004 would be good, IMO. That lets me relive my most active period in politics, ironically also when I had the ability to be most active playing these types of games. Like Terrus stated, political power was shifting, but still a toss up and it is not to far back in time to radically change cultural norms, technological development, or even party politics. If you try to play into the present and future, I think it is too easy for ideological beliefs to impact the story telling aspects of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a minor factor, but if you go in the past, you also have gov’t reports, etc. that you can use in shaping policy/debating. If you go into the future, you have to make up numbers or go without them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have time to play right now (and I'm not sure I will), I would be interested in 2004. Maybe 2000. I definitely wouldn't go any further back than that. While I think 2000 could be interesting, I agree with people who are saying 2004 has the most potential for player engagement so that's why it's my first preference.

 

I'm 100% uninterested in 2016 or later. It's so overdone at this point and 2016 is also being played on a different game right now already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 12:49 PM, Brady said:

I'm 100% uninterested in 2016 or later. It's so overdone at this point and 2016 is also being played on a different game right now already.

 

Two games actually. Three if you include PolUK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 11:21 PM, Tapp said:

I know this is a minor factor, but if you go in the past, you also have gov’t reports, etc. that you can use in shaping policy/debating. If you go into the future, you have to make up numbers or go without them.

If the admins can provide numbers which are unbiased, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Smith said:

If the admins can provide numbers which are unbiased, why not?

 

This is a fair point. But it brings the question of do we want to bring numbers which will ultimately be questionable by players or do we want numbers which are from IRL and can't be questioned unless an IG event changes them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

This is a fair point. But it brings the question of do we want to bring numbers which will ultimately be questionable by players or do we want numbers which are from IRL and can't be questioned unless an IG event changes them.

 

Have you looked at the news lately? The better question is what is NOT questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to rejoin with this reset. I'd enjoy either 2004 or 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That would mean the Congress would start on Jan 3, 2003?

 

I ask because the US had not invaded Iraq yet, nor announced the intention to. (Powell's address to the UN is February)

Edited by Smith
date correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smith said:

That would mean the Congress would start on Jan 3, 2003?

 

I ask because the US had not invaded Iraq yet, nor announced the intention to. (Powell's address to the UN is February)

 

I think if we were to start in 2004, we would have had to already have some type of Presidential contender set up. So perhaps starting in January 2003 isn't such a bad idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe do a April 2003 start date? have the first quarter of the year have passed yet plenty of time left for the presidential election. The Iraq War will be officially kicked off so y'all won't have to sim it as admins, just have it be a fact 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2019 at 1:45 AM, Mejia36 said:

Maybe do a April 2003 start date? have the first quarter of the year have passed yet plenty of time left for the presidential election. The Iraq War will be officially kicked off so y'all won't have to sim it as admins, just have it be a fact 

 

Also a good choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.