The 2020 Democratic Primary - Robust Testing Forum

[OrangeP47]

22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Changed it to this: 

• Is the nominee facing a 3rd party that sprung from their “party”? 50% chance -1 party pref for that party in the home region of the 3rd party pres nominee. Expand nationwide if the 3rd party nominee has charisma at 50% chance. 

• Is the nominee facing a 3rd party presidential nominee with the same personal ideology? If so, 50% chance  -1 party pref nationwide. Expand to 75% chance if 3rd party pres nom has “charisma.”

• Is the nominee the incumbent facing a major 3rd party candidate? If so, 50% chance of -1, if party pref is turned away from the incumbent party.

The reason for the latter is because historically the major 3rd parties sometimes affect the incumbent party, even when they don't spring from the incumbent party --- Anderson in 1980 and Weaver in 1892 are examples off the top of my head. 

I very much like this set of rules.

[MrPotatoTed]

39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Changed it to this: 

• Is the nominee facing a 3rd party that sprung from their “party”? 50% chance -1 party pref for that party in the home region of the 3rd party pres nominee. Expand nationwide if the 3rd party nominee has charisma at 50% chance. 

• Is the nominee facing a 3rd party presidential nominee with the same personal ideology? If so, 50% chance  -1 party pref nationwide. Expand to 75% chance if 3rd party pres nom has “charisma.”

• Is the nominee the incumbent facing a major 3rd party candidate? If so, 50% chance of -1, if party pref is turned away from the incumbent party.

The reason for the latter is because historically the major 3rd parties sometimes affect the incumbent party, even when they don't spring from the incumbent party --- Anderson in 1980 and Weaver in 1892 are examples off the top of my head. 

I like it.  Should there be a % of -1 party preference if the 3rd party nominee has a personal ideology that only one party has?

So if there’s at least one moderate faction in each party and the third party candidate is also moderate, no impact.

But if only red party factions have traditionalist and the 3rd party candidate is traditionalist, then they’re taking red votes.

This is independent of what the main candidate’s ideologies are.

[vcczar]

39 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I like it.  Should there be a % of -1 party preference if the 3rd party nominee has a personal ideology that only one party has?

So if there’s at least one moderate faction in each party and the third party candidate is also moderate, no impact.

But if only red party factions have traditionalist and the 3rd party candidate is traditionalist, then they’re taking red votes.

This is independent of what the main candidate’s ideologies are.

I'll think about it. 

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed @Cal

New rule for Influential US Rep. I changed it from having them having equally (as much as possible) divided portions of the total US Rep vote for their state. This allows unequal dividing, which will allow me to set historical US Rep #s accurately:

Once you've determined the number of influential US Reps for each state, you’ll have to determine their voting power, as each influential Rep will have a % of a portion of their total delegation’s votes. Naturally, a solo influential US Rep of a small state will have 100% of their US Reps.  Use a point system to help determine who gets how many reps. Here is how to determine the voting power of the Influential US Reps of Small or Big States using the State Biases tab in the Historical Era Spreadsheet:

• Does the US Rep match the US Rep District (see House Deviation)? If yes, give 1 pt. 

• Does the US Rep match the Ideology preference of the state? If yes, give 1 pt. 

• Does the US Rep match the least preferred ideology of the state? If yes, -1 pt. 

• Does the US Rep have higher legis ability than the other influential Rep(s) in the delegation? If yes, give 1 pt.

• Does the US Rep have “Magician?” If yes, give 1 pt. 

• Is the US Rep an incumbent US Rep office holder? If yes, give 1 pt. 

• Does the US Rep have “Provincial”? If yes, give 1 pt. 

• Is the US Rep “Easily Overwhelmed”? If yes, -1 pt

• Is the US Rep “Incompetent”? If yes, -2 pt

 

Sum up the numbers above. And then do the following:

• If a two-way tie in a Medium State, then divide as equally as possible, giving any odd # to the US Rep with the higher Legis Ability (randomize if tied)

• If a three-way tie in a Big State, then do the same as above. 

• If one US Rep gains more points than the other US Rep in points in a Medium State, then roll a 100-sided die to determine the % of the top influential Rep. The number must be between 51-75 (re-roll until it does). Once you get a valid #, that will be the % of the reps that influential rep controls. The remainder % goes to the less influential US Rep. 

• If one US Rep gains more points than the other US Reps in points in a Big State, then roll a 50-sided die to determine the % of the top influential Rep. The number must be between 35-50 (re-roll until it does). Once you get a valid #, that will be the % of the reps that influential rep controls. The remainder % is then rolled between the remaining US Reps using the rules for a Medium State, unless they are tied in points in determining influence, in which case the remainder is divided as evenly as possible with any odd number going to the higher legis ability (randomize if tied).

[Willthescout7]

I like that a lot

[MrPotatoTed]

Ok.  I’ll need someone’s help in automating that.  @Arkansas Progressive, is this something you could help with on the 1772 game?

[Arkansas Progressive]

32 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ok.  I’ll need someone’s help in automating that.  @Arkansas Progressive, is this something you could help with on the 1772 game?

More collumns lols but yes I can do that. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

@MrPotatoTed TX was 0,0,1 after die rolls 

[Arkansas Progressive]

50 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ok.  I’ll need someone’s help in automating that.  @Arkansas Progressive, is this something you could help with on the 1772 game?

I'll be doing it for 2022 and for 1960 as well

[Arkansas Progressive]

@MrPotatoTed @Timur @OrangeP47

Ooops Texas went to Buttigieg (since Sanders doesn't get a roll) 50.1-49.9

Edited May 21, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[MrPotatoTed]

Status update:

Red factions have made 40 draft picks each.

They still have about 56 draft picks each to go.  And then on to the blue team.

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed @Cal @ConservativeElector2 I'm wondering if I should make the gaining a lobby not based on raw #s but based on per capita. 

This was a faction with 152 members doesn't dominate the lobbies if the other party factions have like an average of 105 members. Say, Faction A has 56 Environmentlists, while Faction B has 52. In the current system, it would like go to Faction A (unless they have a lobby that bars it). In the new system, it would go to Faction B because a higher % of them have the Environmental politicians

[MrPotatoTed]

Interesting.  I’d think your current system is fine, especially since many interests and lobbies have so many restrictions that having the most doesn’t mean you necessarily get the card.

But fine with whatever you want to do.

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Interesting.  I’d think your current system is fine, especially since many interests and lobbies have so many restrictions that having the most doesn’t mean you necessarily get the card.

But fine with whatever you want to do.

I'll just leave it then, if you aren't seeing any issues in playtesting with the current system. 

[10centjimmy]

Could that be a rule toggle? Basing Lobbies on sheer numbers vs. Percentages of faction members. Might change up players' playstyles knowing they can outcompete based on who they are drafting. 

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Could that be a rule toggle? Basing Lobbies on sheer numbers vs. Percentages of faction members. Might change up players' playstyles knowing they can outcompete based on who they are drafting. 

It's an idea. I'll ask Anthony wants he gets to adding that aspect. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

Still working on that pesky calculation

Edited May 22, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[MrPotatoTed]

Blue draft is done!

That means I can calculate starting cards for each faction, working on that now.

[MrPotatoTed]

CalCPU: Moderates -- Expansionist -- Big Corporations, Wall Street, Private Educations

DakotaCPU: Moderates -- Theocrats -- Big Oil & Gas, Isolationists, 

ArkansasCPU: Conservatives -- Expansionist -- Big Corporations, Big Oil & Gas, Big Pharma, Military-Industrial Complex, Free Trade, Transportation

ConserveCPU: RW Populists, Traditionalists, Conservatives -- Nationalists, Theocrats, RW Activists -- Law and Order

JVIkingCPU:  Conservatives, Traditionalists -- Nationalists, Reformists, Theocrats, RW Activists -- Big Agriculture, Wall Street, RW Media, Protectionists

HestiaCPU: LW Populists, Progressives, Liberals -- Civil Rights, Pacifists, LW Activists, Reformists -- Public Education, Environmentalists, Public Healthcare, Public Housing, Human Rights, Welfare

ReziCPU: Moderates -- Civil Rights -- Technology

10CentCPU: Moderates -- Civil Rights -- Public Education

WVPCPU: Progressives, Liberals -- LW Activists -- Environmentalists, Labor Union, 

TMPCPU: Moderates -- Civil Rights -- Globalists, Human RIghts


The following did not get a faction: LW Media and Science lobbies.  Nobody had enough science politicians for the science lobby, and the only blue faction with enough media guys was a moderate faction (not qualified)
 

[MrPotatoTed]

Starting 2022 Faction Leaders:

CalCPU: Utah Senator Mitt Romney (Moderates -- Expansionist -- Big Corporations, Wall Street, Private Education).  Other non-obscure members include Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Karl Rove, and Jared Kuschner.

DakotaCPU:  Former Governor Jeb Bush (DakotaCPU: Moderates -- Theocrats -- Big Oil & Gas, Isolationists).  Other non-obscure members include Ted Cruz, George W Bush, and Ivanka Trump.

ArkansasCPU: Florida Senator Marco Rubio (Conservatives -- Expansionist -- Big Corporations, Big Oil & Gas, Big Pharma, Military-Industrial Complex, Free Trade, Transportation).  Only other non-obscure member is Condoleeza Rice.

ConserveCPU: Former President Donald Trump (Party Leader) (RW Populists, Traditionalists, Conservatives -- Nationalists, Theocrats, RW Activists -- Law and Order).  Other non-obscure members include Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Steve Bannon, Dr. Oz, and Herschel Walker.  NOTE:  Donald Trump was actually drafted by JViking -- but JViking didn't get the RW Populist card, which meant Trump couldn't be his faction leader, and therefore couldn't be Party Leader.  So I traded him for Rick Santorum, who has about the same political value.

JVIkingCPU:  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Conservatives, Traditionalists -- Nationalists, Reformists, Theocrats, RW Activists -- Big Agriculture, Wall Street, RW Media, Protectionists).  Other non-obscure members are Ron DeSantis, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Alex Jones, Donald Trump Jr, Rick Santorum.


 

[MrPotatoTed]

Ugh...actually, I think I'm going to have to redo the draft.  

1)  Some of the "added" guys were too overpowered (state legislators getting charisma or leadership, which should be rare)

2)  There were no CPU rules about prioritizing politicians in office.  CPU was passing the sitting President of the United States to grab people who haven't been relevant in a decade.  (I'll draft some rules on that).

3)  A lot of people have command (even 2 or 3 command) who probably shouldn't.

4)  The ideology spread was too wide.  Trump ended up in a faction that he wasn't even allowed to lead, Joe Biden is in charge of Bernie Sanders and AOC, and Rep. Seth Moulton is the only one who can lead Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.  Flagging @vcczar on this one, for awareness.

I'm going to trim assigned ideologies (for draft) to:

RW Populist, Traditionalist
Traditionalist, Conservative
Traditionalist, Conservative
Conservative, Moderate
Conservative, Moderate
Moderate, Liberal
Moderate, Liberal
Liberal, Progressive
Liberal, Progressive
Progressive, LW Populist

Pain in the ass to do it again, but that's why we playtest, right?

[MrPotatoTed]

I'm also going to give "obscure" back to people who may have lost it in the Bush/Obama years, but haven't been relevant since Trump came to power.  This will hopefully prohibit faction leaders coming out of nowhere at the start of the 2022 election.

[MrPotatoTed]

I'm also going to draft a rule that CPU might try to draft dynasty members of politicians it already has.

[vcczar]

18 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

The ideology spread was too wide.  Trump ended up in a faction that he wasn't even allowed to lead, Joe Biden is in charge of Bernie Sanders and AOC, and Rep. Seth Moulton is the only one who can lead Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.  Flagging @vcczar on this one, for awareness.

I'm going to trim assigned ideologies (for draft) to:

RW Populist, Traditionalist
Traditionalist, Conservative
Traditionalist, Conservative
Conservative, Moderate
Conservative, Moderate
Moderate, Liberal
Moderate, Liberal
Liberal, Progressive
Liberal, Progressive
Progressive, LW Populist

Pain in the ass to do it again, but that's why we playtest, right?

What was the cause? Was it that a faction had three ideologies to draft from? Should it be limited to two?  I remember we settled on three because someone (forgot who) thought being forced to draft according to one's ideology card was too restrictive. We also had people that wanted no restrictions. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

What was the cause? Was it that a faction had three ideologies to draft from? Should it be limited to two?  I remember we settled on three because someone (forgot who) thought being forced to draft according to one's ideology card was too restrictive. We also had people that wanted no restrictions. 

I think it's probably fine for a rookie draft... but maybe it just doesn't work so well for a starting year draft, if that makes sense.  There's no "established baseline" to temper the factions, in essence.  I've not been helping with the 2022 game, but that's just my thought.  For 1960 we had manual balancing for the starting pols so things didn't go off the rails.