Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Fixes for exploits, loopholes, ranking etc.


vcczar

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how the rules for wars work (just going to put ideas here as I get them so this may not be all I think of), but I think if there is a war, particularly one that is chosen by the President to start, it should begin with an immediate point hit for the President, maybe the holder of the Sec. of State - maybe 300 points for Pres, 200 for State or something. Those points could be gained back by winning battles maybe. Didn't really look heavily into it, but adding a point deduction for starting wars would be good. I know sometimes there is a feeling behind wars starting at first (rally around the flag), but also there's a lot of resistance to joining wars (before WWI, after Iraq War, leaving Vietnam). 

Especially maybe a bigger deduction for choosing the "biggest war" with England. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting a major war should come with the following effects
-300 for the instigating president
-100 for the president's party
+1 opposite party preference UNLESS America was attacked first (Spanish-American War, WWII post Pearl Harbor, War on Terror after 9/11)

Double these numbers if the nation is in crisis.

Edited by Arkansas Progressive
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t necessarily agree that point loss should be immediate for declaring a war.  But I do think there should be acknowledgement of who started the war.  
 

Critics call Iraq “Bush’s war”, not “Obama’s war” even though he continued it through all 8 years of his presidency.  So some acknowledgement of who caused it so backlash isn’t entirely on whoever’s holding the bag at the end.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye, I know, as always, I don't really have as much say, but I was thinking a sliding scale would be better than a fixed set of penalties/boosts, as per what Cal proposed.  Now, if that specific set of numbers is what should be used, I can't say, but I think a system *like it* at least is what is probably best, even though it's a bit complicated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CABINET APPOINTMENT CRISES SAFEGUARDS

If a President makes a Cabinet-level appointment with a direct effect in the Lingering Phase on an on-going crisis that has an Administrative Ability of 2, the President loses 100 points and rolls 3-6 for lowering incumbent party preference by 1 (Reflecting that the populace is very upset with a poor appointment). Such appointees are not eligible for Iron Fist Presidents to usher through confirmation without a vote. Senators with Integrity have a 10% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, Senators with Harmonious have a 10% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, and those with both have a 20% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers. 

If a President makes more than one such appointment, every subsequent appointment rolls 2-6 for decreasing incumbent party preference by 1, and lowering Ideological Enthusiasm of the President's Party by 1 (reflecting the president's supporters growing displeased with the president's actions) and a 3-6 roll for adding Controversial to the President and a 5-6 roll for adding Controversial to the cabinet appointee. The President loses 500 points per such appointment. 

Such appointees are not eligible for Iron Fist Presidents to usher through confirmation without a vote. Senators with Integrity have a 25% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, Senators with Harmonious have a 25% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, and those with both have a 50% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers. 

If a President makes a Cabinet-level appointment with a direct effect in the Lingering Phase on an on-going crisis that has an Administrative Ability of 1, the President loses 100 points and rolls 2-6 for lowering incumbent party preference by 1 (Reflecting that the populace is very upset with a poor appointment). Such appointees are not eligible for Iron Fist Presidents to usher through confirmation without a vote. Senators with Integrity have a 50% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, Senators with Harmonious have a 50% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers, and those with both have a 100% chance of opposing these nominees on top of their normal modifiers. 

If a President makes more than one such appointment, every subsequent appointment rolls decreases incumbent party preference by 1, and decreases Ideological Enthusiasm of the President's Party by 1 (reflecting the president's supporters growing displeased with the president's actions) and a 2-6 roll for adding Controversial to the President and a 3-6 roll for adding Controversial to the cabinet appointee. The President loses 1000 points per such appointment.

Such appointees are not eligible for Iron Fist Presidents to usher through confirmation without a vote. Senators with Integrity or Harmonious have a 100% chance of opposing these nominees. All other Senators by default have a 10% additional chance to oppose the nomination. This is ignored for the President's Party if they have Iron Fist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cal said:

Here is what I recommended a

STARTING WAR PENALTIES/BONUSES
Starting a war should always have a chance to impact party preference and depend on your current Military Preparedness. If you start a major war while horribly unprepared, your citizens are likely to be pissed off. On the flip side, starting a minor war while your military is in the absolute best shape possible, your citizens are probably GEARING for war!

Starting a Major War
(1) Very Unprepared - Decrease incumbent party preference by 1. Roll a second time for a 1 for decreasing party preference by 1. (can get both or just 1)
(2-3) Slightly Unprepared - Roll 2-6 to decreasing incumbent party preference by 1. Roll 1 for no effect. 
(4-6) Possibly Prepared - Roll 1-2 to decrease party preference, 3-4 to increase party preference, 5-6 for no effect.
(7-8) Slightly Prepared - Roll 2-6 to increase incumbent party preference by 1. Roll 1 for no effect. 
(9) Very Prepared -  Roll 2-6 to increase incumbent party preference. Roll a second time for a 1 for increasing party preference by 1. (can get both or just 1)

Starting a Minor War
(1) Very Unprepared - Roll 1-2 to decrease incumbent party preference by 1.
(2-3) Slightly Unprepared - Roll 1 to decrease incumbent party preference by 1.
(4-6) Possibly Prepared - No effect.
(7-8) Slightly Prepared - Roll 1 to increase incumbent party preference by 1.
(9) Very Prepared -  Roll 1-2 to increase incumbent party preference by 1.

Multiple Major War Rule
If you start a second major war while a major war is currently on-going and the military preparedness meter is below the middle, roll a 1-5 to decrease incumbent party preference. 1 for no effect. 

War Declaring President Future Penalties
The faction controlling the President who began a Major war that is lost during another president's term loses the same amount of points as the president presiding over the end of the war. Additionally, if the Major War ends in a game over, the original president is barred from winning (due to causing the nation to fail).

If a President starts multiple major wars that end in a loss after their presidency, they lose double the amount of points that the president(s) presiding over those wars lose as a result of the loss.

Totally agree with everything here. Presidents that start a war while prepared should have the chance for their party preference to gain. I don't think it should be an automatic negative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest answer might be to just build a limit to the number of wars that can be attempted at the same time.  Tie it to military preparedness.

At the lowest level, we can’t declare war at all (though of course others can declare war on us).

At the second-to-lowest level, you can declare one war as long as we’re not already in a war.

At the middle level, you can declare a second war, as long as you’re not already in two wars.

And at max level, you can declare a third war as long as you’re not already in three wars.

Also, when multiple wars are happening, there should be a way to assign specific Generals and Admirals to certain areas.  It would be weird for a General to be fighting in Canada, in the US, and in Brazil all at the same time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thought I had for @vcczar about career tracks. 

Perhaps we could put a ceiling on how high skills can raise during career tracks. For example, no skill can be increased to the maximum level of 5 from the career track. That way we don't end up with super military commanders like we have had thus far, or if someone puts someone who starts with 3 governing on the track they aren't immediately the best possible governor after 20 years being mayor, Lt. Gov, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cal said:

One thought I had for @vcczar about career tracks. 

Perhaps we could put a ceiling on how high skills can raise during career tracks. For example, no skill can be increased to the maximum level of 5 from the career track. That way we don't end up with super military commanders like we have had thus far, or if someone puts someone who starts with 3 governing on the track they aren't immediately the best possible governor after 20 years being mayor, Lt. Gov, etc. 

This may be entirely off base, and while I'm sure coding the actual video game can handle it, it might be more complicated than is desirable from a design standpoint (get out your bingo card, it's rare I preface something with that): But maybe we could make the chance of skill gain on the career track contingent on what the pol's existing level in that skill is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some positions like FED chair and FBI Director aren't really automatically newly appointed when a new President comes in. To hinder the CPU teams (and also the players) to always nominate someone new, there should be some criteria. I don't know how to handle this, because technically Biden could have fired Jerome Powell and Christopher Wray, so I think it should be possible somehow to get rid of the holdouts in such offices but the option should not be open for exploitation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Some positions like FED chair and FBI Director aren't really automatically newly appointed when a new President comes in. To hinder the CPU teams (and also the players) to always nominate someone new, there should be some criteria. I don't know how to handle this, because technically Biden could have fired Jerome Powell and Christopher Wray, so I think it should be possible somehow to get rid of the holdouts in such offices but the option should not be open for exploitation. 

Yeah, I haven't really put much thought in these positions because they don't do much. Let me put it on my to do list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Some positions like FED chair and FBI Director aren't really automatically newly appointed when a new President comes in. To hinder the CPU teams (and also the players) to always nominate someone new, there should be some criteria. I don't know how to handle this, because technically Biden could have fired Jerome Powell and Christopher Wray, so I think it should be possible somehow to get rid of the holdouts in such offices but the option should not be open for exploitation. 

How long do they serve?  Is it like a ten year term or something?  I could add it into the rules if it's something consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

How long do they serve?  Is it like a ten year term or something?  I could add it into the rules if it's something consistent.

Fed Chair is 4 years renewable

FBI is 10 years renewable

CIA/Director of National intelligence serves indefinitely at the pleasure of the president. 

Adding this to the rules would be great. Let's say that changing leadership carries some risk --- 10% chance - econ stab for the first one; 10% chance - dom stab for FBI, and 10% chance - mil prep for CIA/Dir NI

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

Fed Chair is 4 years renewable

FBI is 10 years renewable

CIA/Director of National intelligence serves indefinitely at the pleasure of the president. 

Adding this to the rules would be great. Let's say that changing leadership carries some risk --- 10% chance - econ stab for the first one; 10% chance - dom stab for FBI, and 10% chance - mil prep for CIA/Dir NI

 

@MrPotatoTed and to add. That's only if before their term is up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In J. Edgar Hoover's case,  he served as director of Bureau of Investigation from its inception in 1924 and then helped found the FBI in 1935, becoming an American celebrity in the process. Then led FBI until 1972. Maybe there's a way to keep the office if the statesman is manipulative or ironfist?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

In J. Edgar Hoover's case,  he served as director of Bureau of Investigation from its inception in 1924 and then helped found the FBI in 1935, becoming an American celebrity in the process. Then led FBI until 1972. Maybe there's a way to keep the office if the statesman is manipulative or ironfist?

FBI is 10 years renewable, so he would just keep getting renewed. I don't want to award permanence to anyone because then I think players will just always appoint iron fist to the office. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cal said:

I didn't see anything saying a Kingmaker can't take on another Kingmaker as a protege. 

@Cal Thanks for pointing that out. @MrPotatoTed if you're able to restrict that possibility in the rules that would be great. Otherwise, I'll add it to the rules whenever I'm not doing other "to do" list things. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Cal Thanks for pointing that out. @MrPotatoTed if you're able to restrict that possibility in the rules that would be great. Otherwise, I'll add it to the rules whenever I'm not doing other "to do" list things. 

@Cal and @vcczar Does it in fact need to be restricted?  I remember a previous version of rules actually rewarded creating "chains" of Kingmakers in this way.  I don't really care one way or the other, just asking.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...