AMPU: The Big Red Button (1960 Playtest)

[pman]

I do think today brings up a meaningful and important change which I think can (hopefully) be implemented that we can all (hopefully) get behind.

The whole point of a draft is to help a struggling team or faction from falling apart, folding, etc. No person ever said, man, I am glad I get to play for the Knicks or any last placed team. Every player rather jump to a winner. That's why rookie contracts exist. I think it's entirely unfair to be able to steal someone's rookies, career track or otherwise. The whole point of giving the worst performers the highest draft picks is so that they grow back. I'd like to propose making rookies ineligible to switch factions/party for something like 10 years. Obviously Teddy rather be with Jack's more robust faction however he got drafted by the loser faction for a reason. Taking him away from me goes against the very point of a draft. I know it came down to dice but it shouldn't even have been something @MrPotatoTedshould have been able to do. It's nonsensical to have a draft and then allow for a faction to lose the draft pick. And yeah, I know, players can refuse to sign with the team that drafts them but that almost never happens (except in baseball). My faction was bad, is bad. We needed Teddy Kennedy so we could less bad. The draft gave us that chance. Either have a draft or not but don't have one only to let someone else steal the franchise changing pick an hour after the draft. Again, not attacking Ted, he just exploited a bad rule. Good for him but I think we should change that rule. Just my 2 cents.

Edited May 28, 2022 by pman

[Mark_W]

I do think factions swapping in the year drafted isn't ideal. I wouldn't say 10 years, but they shouldn't be available to steal the year they're drafted.

[Willthescout7]

I would second this notion, though we can quibble about length of protection. I think whether or not they are on the career track should play a part.

[pman]

8 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I would second this notion, though we can quibble about length of protection. I think whether or not they are on the career track should play a part.

Sure, maybe 1 4 year cycle for non-career track people. 2, 4 year cycle for career track people.

Also there's a practical problem with that Ted did. You can't steal a faction leader right? I think it's pretty clear Teddy was going to be my faction leader. Again, not saying Ted did anything wrong. But maybe at least let someone make their draftee faction leader before someone can steal them. There just has to be some way to fix this process because what happened to my faction wasn't fair and wasn't in the spirit of a draft oriented competition. Legal within the rules, yes, of course it was. But it certainly wasn't fair. My #1 draft pick spent less than 24 hours on my faction before being converted. That can't be fair. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by pman

[OrangeP47]

I feel like we've had a successful playtest moment.

[MrPotatoTed]

15 minutes ago, pman said:

Sure, maybe 1 4 year cycle for non-career track people. 2, 4 year cycle for career track people.

Also there's a practical problem with that Ted did. You can't steal a faction leader right? I think it's pretty clear Teddy was going to be my faction leader. Again, not saying Ted did anything wrong. But maybe at least let someone make their draftee faction leader before someone can steal them. There just has to be some way to fix this process because what happened to my faction wasn't fair and wasn't in the spirit of a draft oriented competition. Legal within the rules, yes, of course it was. But it certainly wasn't fair. My #1 draft pick spent less than 24 hours on my faction before being converted. That can't be fair. 

Your faction leader is Senator Hubert Humphrey.  There is an opportunity coming up later to change that if you want, but it comes later for a reason. 

First, there's all the shifting of ideologies and conversions etc, because that can influence what cards you're eligible for.

Then there's the distribution of cards, which influences who your faction leader can be.

And then there's the selection of faction leader.

Ted Kennedy has pliable, and that's a major weakness for a politician, because it makes him stealable.  (It also makes him unreliable on voting -- he won't always do what his human player wants him to do...another weakness).   Don't get me wrong -- if I had the first draft pick, I'd have taken him too.  It's risk vs. reward, and I'd consider him to be worth the risk just like you did.  The chance that I would be successful at stealing him was extremely low.  I think maybe 10%?  It was just ridiculous luck that it worked out in my favor instead of yours.  

It's totally valid to swear vengeance against me and to act in opposition to my faction at every turn for the rest of the game, I would totally understand that.  Plus you'll have the opportunity to steal him back in 1962, and 1964, and 1966, and 1968, and etc forever.  So will every other faction.  I suspect he won't be mine for long.  Because he has that weak pliable trait.

I don't necessarily think we need a specific rule here because this is such a unique situation -- most first draft picks won't have pliable, and even if they do, most attempts to convert them will fail.

But there is good news -- I noticed on the main screen that your score was thousands in the negative.  We decided a few years ago that negative scores shouldn't be possible, so I boosted you up back to zero.

 

[pman]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Your faction leader is Senator Hubert Humphrey.  There is an opportunity coming up later to change that if you want, but it comes later for a reason. 

First, there's all the shifting of ideologies and conversions etc, because that can influence what cards you're eligible for.

Then there's the distribution of cards, which influences who your faction leader can be.

And then there's the selection of faction leader.

Ted Kennedy has pliable, and that's a major weakness for a politician, because it makes him stealable.  (It also makes him unreliable on voting -- he won't always do what his human player wants him to do...another weakness).   Don't get me wrong -- if I had the first draft pick, I'd have taken him too.  It's risk vs. reward, and I'd consider him to be worth the risk just like you did.  The chance that I would be successful at stealing him was extremely low.  I think maybe 10%?  It was just ridiculous luck that it worked out in my favor instead of yours.  

It's totally valid to swear vengeance against me and to act in opposition to my faction at every turn for the rest of the game, I would totally understand that.  Plus you'll have the opportunity to steal him back in 1962, and 1964, and 1966, and 1968, and etc forever.  So will every other faction.  I suspect he won't be mine for long.  Because he has that weak pliable trait.

I don't necessarily think we need a specific rule here because this is such a unique situation -- most first draft picks won't have pliable, and even if they do, most attempts to convert them will fail.

But there is good news -- I noticed on the main screen that your score was thousands in the negative.  We decided a few years ago that negative scores shouldn't be possible, so I boosted you up back to zero.

 

But didn't HH already retire? So technically I don't have a faction leader? Regardless, I am not saying we should un-do it. I get what you did was legal. I also understand the pliable part. But 10% or not, I just think it goes against the point of a draft. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, pman said:

But didn't HH already retire? So technically I don't have a faction leader? Regardless, I am not saying we should un-do it. I get what you did was legal. I also understand the pliable part. But 10% or not, I just think it goes against the point of a draft. 

Oh, maybe he did.  I missed that part.  It doesn't change the flow of the game regardless (it is possible to not have a faction leader for a while due to death, etc), but true point.

[pman]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

But there is good news -- I noticed on the main screen that your score was thousands in the negative.  We decided a few years ago that negative scores shouldn't be possible, so I boosted you up back to zero.

 

lol, that's too funny. 

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It actually is specified in the rules.  "If the minority offices have been created and are active, then this officer must be a member of the majority party" .

I'd defer to @vcczar on whether to change it to the above.  My general thought would be that @pman is of course welcome to vote on legislative issues, etc, with the Republican Party -- but that he's still a Democrat (even if he's a "Democrat In Name Only") and therefore can't vote for the Republican congressional leaders.  That's my thought at least, but I defer to @vcczar

I'm in agreement with @MrPotatoTed on this. 

[pman]

I have another rules question/suggestion. Again, maybe something for 2.0 version but I think it's a valid point.

Let's say 2 years from now, my faction is still -9000000. Then we have a mass exodus to the liberal GOP. Is it possible to create a free agent pool? Maybe cut the draft down by a 1/3rd and put that last third in a free agent pool. Let the faction that lost 10 pols take 10 extra rookies from the free agent pool. Then the unpopular faction is punished by losing experienced pols but still get to fill out their ballot. Because it seems like you could run out of pols pretty quickly. I guess then it's just game over, like in a nuclear disaster. Though isn't the whole point of not letting factions switch parties is to keep it an even 5 on 5? How low could a faction get in terms of pols and still be viable? I do think a free agent pool  would be a way of keeping a struggling faction in the game. Just a thought. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by pman

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, pman said:

I have another rules question/suggestion. Again, maybe something for 2.0 version but I think it's a valid point.

Let's say 2 years from now, my faction is still -9000000. Then we have a mass exodus to the liberal GOP. Is it possible to create a free agent pool? Maybe cut the draft down by a 1/3rd and put that last third in a free agent pool. Let the faction that lost 10 pols take 10 extra rookies from the free agent pool. Then the unpopular faction is punished by losing experienced pols but still get to fill out their ballot. Because it seems like you could run out of pols pretty quickly. I guess then it's just game over, like in a nuclear disaster. However I do think it would be a way of keeping a struggling faction in the game. Just a thought. 

We actually did do something like this in a very early version of the game.  There was a limit on how many politicians a faction could have, and whoever wasn't in a faction was a free agent.  I think free agents could even hold office, if I remember correctly.  

But keep in mind, zero points is the lowest you can get.  I believe the score also resets at the end of each era.  I know it's frustrating to be in last place (actually tied for last place) in the moment, but the moment will pass.  The game spans 1772 to like 3000.  Things will turn in your favor again.

[OrangeP47]

7 minutes ago, pman said:

I have another rules question/suggestion. Again, maybe something for 2.0 version but I think it's a valid point.

Let's say 2 years from now, my faction is still -9000000. Then we have a mass exodus to the liberal GOP. Is it possible to create a free agent pool? Maybe cut the draft down by a 1/3rd and put that last third in a free agent pool. Let the faction that lost 10 pols take 10 extra rookies from the free agent pool. Then the unpopular faction is punished by losing experienced pols but still get to fill out their ballot. Because it seems like you could run out of pols pretty quickly. I guess then it's just game over, like in a nuclear disaster. Though isn't the whole point of not letting factions switch parties is to keep it an even 5 on 5? How low could a faction get in terms of pols and still be viable? I do think a free agent pool  would be a way of keeping a struggling faction in the game. Just a thought. 

Now that you guys are aware of how the flips work, I'd be surprised if you allow us to get the meters in a place where we mass-flip blue again in the future. Plus there's diminishing returns.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Now that you guys are aware of how the flips work, I'd be surprised if you allow us to get the meters in a place where we mass-flip blue again in the future. Plus there's diminishing returns.

I mean, not to re-litigate old wounds, but part of why we were so effective this cycle is because we had the element of surprise, lol

[pman]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

We actually did do something like this in a very early version of the game.  There was a limit on how many politicians a faction could have, and whoever wasn't in a faction was a free agent.  I think free agents could even hold office, if I remember correctly.  

But keep in mind, zero points is the lowest you can get.  I believe the score also resets at the end of each era.  I know it's frustrating to be in last place (actually tied for last place) in the moment, but the moment will pass.  The game spans 1772 to like 3000.  Things will turn in your favor again.

Out of curiosity, why did you guys get rid of the free agent pool?

Haha, I am not frustrated actually. It's just a game on the internet(a fun and addicting one, but a game none the less). I am just trying to be a good playtester and spitball ways to try and improve things. I know y'all been at this a lot longer than me so I am sure my ideas are mostly redundant,lol. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Fair enough.  Not sure why we got rid of the free agent pool, it was years ago.  It may have come from a realization that factions didn't have enough politicians and there was no need to actually limit faction populations.  Or maybe it just wasn't fun. ha.

[MrPotatoTed]

And, no, I can't imagine a situation where a faction literally ran out of politicians.  We've never had anybody get close to that in any playthrough.  Factions tend to have like 80 or more politicians at any given time.

[themiddlepolitical]

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough.  Not sure why we got rid of the free agent pool, it was years ago.  It may have come from a realization that factions didn't have enough politicians and there was no need to actually limit faction populations.  Or maybe it just wasn't fun. ha.

I think I remember it just wasn't fun it's just better to have more politicians 

[Willthescout7]

41 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm in agreement with @MrPotatoTed on this. 

The boss has spoken haha

[Arkansas Progressive]

6 hours ago, Vols21 said:

@Arkansas Progressive

ideolgy shifts

the following conservatives are becoming more traditional in their thinking 
James Martin
Winton Blount
Jack Edwards
 

Mack Mattingly
Kirk Fordice
Winfield Dunn

John Howard Pyle
Bud Wilkinson
Bob Stump

and the following Conservatives are Moderating their views 

Raymond Baldwin
John Coolidge
Ed Derwinski
Guy Vander Jagt
Houston Flourney

Fails, flip-flopper
Pass, flip-flopper
Fails, flip-flopper
Fails
Fails
Fails, flip-flopper
Fails, flip-flopper
Fails, flip-flopper
Fails

Fails, flip-flopper
Fails
Fails, flip-flopper
Pass

[bradleyg223]

Kingmakers

• John Connally - TX
  • Bill Archer

Edited May 29, 2022 by bradleyg223

[Vols21]

Some very interesting rule debates and discussions out of this playtest.   Even If most don’t get adopted, it’s better to ponder or even test them now (so we know they don’t work as well as the original, or if it’s a viable option).   Here’s my quick thoughts after reading the above:

1) Majority Leader:   I think the time it makes some sense if the margin is 1-2 or less in which case, based on metrics or party flip/independent traits a roll might determine if an individual statesmen decided to switch over and change the majority (and leader).   Process similar to vote sways during Legislative phases, but would be triggered only in rare instances and only a handful of possible people affected, 

2). Safeguards for recent draft picks.   Kind of makes sense.  Not that the draftee is usually going to make much of a difference for a few years anyway.   He’d at least get to run for Congress and gain some experience before being stolen, but his big contributions usually won’t happen for a decade plus.
**.  i Was trying to think of some kind of compensation for losing a player, but not sure what might work best (like get 3 players whose values total up to the player lost.   Or maybe an extra draft pick the next time - first, second or third round maybe based on the value of player lost).    Might help soften the blow a little.

****. The outcome I saw coming out of the Kennedy steal that might need to be looked at.    Would a 25 year “fresh out of college” really attract 3 protégés eager to be mentored by him?   Kingmaker, just like command, seems to be in play on day 1.     Should it have an age (or something) at which it activates?     It just seems to be unrealistic.    The age 35 used for “youth and inexperience” under the misc. section might work since that means they’ve had 10 years to develop their network and make a name for themselves.    It’s also by law the age that command could become effective.
in general, noticed several rookies coming In with higher ratings (Leg 3) that most starters.    No comment just an observation.

3). Free agents and trades.     Interesting as the game is sort of billed as John Adams  meets John Madden.     Could get messy 😂

[Vols21]

Just reading back over the rules section 2.1

Kingmaker (2.1.7) comes after the conversion. (2.1.6) so in theory Ted Kennedy would not have aligned his 3 protégés yet.    But the rule also says Kingmaker must be 35 and not on career path, therefore Kennedy was not eligible to even be Kingmaker yet.

so can I post an appeal on behalf of the distinguished Pman to get his 3 protégés returned?

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, Vols21 said:

Just reading back over the rules section 2.1

Kingmaker (2.1.7) comes after the conversion. (2.1.6) so in theory Ted Kennedy would not have aligned his 3 protégés yet.    But the rule also says Kingmaker must be 35 and not on career path, therefore Kennedy was not eligible to even be Kingmaker yet.

so can I post an appeal on behalf of the distinguished Pman to get his 3 protégés returned?

Yep good catch.  @pman should get his protégés back (but still loses Teddy).

[Arkansas Progressive]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yep good catch.  @pman should get his protégés back (but still loses Teddy).

Yep Kennedy couldn't even have been activated. My bad. Pman regains Tip O'Neil and Edward Boland