Jump to content
The Political Lounge

AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests


Recommended Posts

I've created a sort of ticket for fixing any issues found while playtesting. Please be concise and clear, as rambling text is likely to slow me down or get misunderstood during translation. If you don't follow the ticket form below, then I'll ignore the post. If anything is inapplicable, you can just put n/a or something like that.
 
When I've read and considered your feedback, I'll put an emoj. Playtesters can agree or disagree with a suggestion with emojis. Please try to not to make any comments unless it is absolutely necessary. I'd like this to just be the fix suggestions. 
 
Question #4 will deal mostly with historical things. For instance, "The Speaker should have the power to do _______ from 1950 on. Here's a link to the evolution of the Speaker's powers." Something like that. If you don't provide a link for a request like this, then I'll probably ignore it, as I need evidence for a historical change. 
 
We got to make our changes quickly. Once Anthony codes things, it might close the door on some changes. 
 
Copy+Paste the form below if you want to see the issue you've found resolved: 
 
1. In brief, what is the issue?
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue?     Using the Admin Level of Chairman of Joint Chiefs for Military Prep when all of the historic people with this job have 0 admin.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?     1960 playtest, General Twining who was Chairman JCOS under Ike and retained the job for us.  His 0 admin tanked military prep to as far negative as it can go (but every other General would have done the same)
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?    first rerate all the Generals to where most of the top ones have some admin (1), but especially those who served on JCOS and Chairmen.  Similar to how Supreme Court Justices start with 2 and Chief Justice J3, assign JC's 1-2 and historic chairmen with at least 3.     Another option could be to add their military and admin skills together
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).   Historic facts, while Chairman of Joint Chiefs, General Twining brought about ICBM's, improved Strategic Air Command, began the Polaris Submarine project which are examples of improving military prep, not tanking it.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Nixon  v United States fired without probable cause
  2. In the 1960 playtest Nixon v. United States fired unpromted, had no prerequisites, and under game rules would prevent the conviction and removal of a president who is impeached
  3. Nixon v. US needs to have two prerequisites:
    1. President had a scandal or blunder roll in the term or preceeding term's internal event phase
    2. President has controversial OR illicit, which is required to trigger an impeachment inquiry
  4. Evidence: Presidents who were impeached (Nixon, Clinton, Trump) had controversial presidencies and suffered a scandal into the leadup to said impeachment. The only other president (Andrew Johnson) was impeached due to a violation of a law, which I suppose could be a scandal if either Congressional leader has disharmonious, alongside controversial or illicit.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just making sure everyone involved with AMPU saw this thread. Please read the original post. I'll work on what is posted here on Friday:

@A man from Colorado @Arkansas Progressive @bradleyg223 @Hestia @Ich_bin_Tyler @jnewt @jvikings1 @Lars @Mark_W @matthewyoung123 @OrangeP47 @Rezi @Rodja @ShortKing @SilentLiberty @MrPotatoTed @themiddlepolitical @vcczar @Vols21 @Willthescout7 @WVProgressive @Cal @ConservativeElector2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue?
The rules do not specify that enthusiasm meters impact non-presidential elections.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
@Ich_bin_Tyler has brought it to my attention that the 1840 playtest has been running without meters impacting non-presidential elections during midterms, and I checked the rules to double check.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Add a line stating that all meter impacts are included.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue?   more of a suggestion to help when playing the Computer version of the game.   Would help when having lots of options to choose from for various tasks within the game (legislative, cabinet appointments, etc.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? -- 
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?    Similar to how in a chess game, you can have CPU suggest a move, or sports game, the AI Coach can suggest a play to call, I'd like to see an AI Help (call it Think Tank or Campaign advisor or something) that when selected could offer 1-3 choices for the current task.   I'm thinking it could be simple to add if it just relies on the AI logic that will already be used (or could be more detailed giving some reasons behind the suggestion, which could be more complex which I'm trying to avoid)
 
4.   I know a tutorial is planned which I think will be a great way to learn the game right off the bat.   This "guru" help function will help a player navigate some of the tough decisions that have to be made along the way - especially when playing solo without the benefit of team mates to bounce ideas off of).   Could give the guru a name like James Carville or Karl Rove (there are several possible names to choose from history) or make it more generic.   I think it will get a lot of use especially early on until the player gets a better feel for how things work (and even later it can be a sounding board or offer a second opinion)
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been an issue, but...

 

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Will the State of Washington be named after the first president in the game (like Arnold DC)?

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

---

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

The State of Washington should most likely be named after the first president.

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Territory#History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

1. Rules don't specify how to handle mutliple crisis bills passing or failing

2. In 1960 the Congress phase ended with 4 of the 5 proposed bills that handled the Military Preparedness crisis, and one was vetoed and not overridden.

3. Suggested rule changes: If Congress passes/repeals more legislation that deals with the crisis than fail then no blame is assigned, otherwise  assign blame as normal

In defense of the rules as currently written, since each bill carries only a chance of solving the relevant crisis usually, and not guaranteed, it incentivizes the player to leave no stone unturned in addressing ongoing crises, and if a bill to address a crisis has passed both chambers of Congress and gotten vetoed, I think it makes sense that there would be backlash to it, since even passing other relevant bills is not guaranteed to be enough to solve the issue. In 1960 where we're encountering this issue, none of the 4 other bills rolled to help improve the crisis, which reinforces the idea that vetoing a bill that could have helped would engender a backlash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShortKing said:

In defense of the rules as currently written, since each bill carries only a chance of solving the relevant crisis usually, and not guaranteed, it incentivizes the player to leave no stone unturned in addressing ongoing crises, and if a bill to address a crisis has passed both chambers of Congress and gotten vetoed, I think it makes sense that there would be backlash to it, since even passing other relevant bills is not guaranteed to be enough to solve the issue. In 1960 where we're encountering this issue, none of the 4 other bills rolled to help improve the crisis, which reinforces the idea that vetoing a bill that could have helped would engender a backlash. 

While that might be more realistic irl, i do not think that should be a rule in the game. In this case, the player did dealt with the crisis, but vetoed the bill that could cause another crisis to start. They dealt with the crisis the correct way, it is not their fault that the bills didn't get good rolls. Why penalize them unjustly for things they have no control over? That takes the fun out of thr game, and people will stop playing, and this all is for naught. 

In addition, that rule will easily lead to exploitation by players. Using 1960 as an example, with the Senate controlled by another party from the president, the blue team easily proposed bills with the intention of forcing this issue. We have already changed rules to avoid min/maxing by players (here referring to the platform and state biases). 

In short, I fully agree with ArkansasProgressive on changing the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue? Rules for confirming cabinet nominees and supreme court justices by the CPU are missing in 3.0 rules doc. There is a passage that says to roll randomly but then that leads to situations where an entire party might vote down their own party nominees.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? There are a few rules in place such as voting by traits or with the majority/minority leader; however, there are no rules for establishing what to do with a CPU outside of this. Example in the 1840 playtest, the CPUs often did not have a way to determine their vote for the cabinet beyond ideology and the traits listed in the document. Looking to the majority leader, he only had rules for votes on 2 of the 5 nominees. 
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Have the party of the President vote to confirm the nominees by default, unless the ideology/traits/etc come into effect as written. The minority party could default to no unless ideology/traits/etc flip their votes or they could be the random die roll.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 4:26 PM, Arkansas Progressive said:

1. Autoconfirmation of justices who fail to pass or get blocked by the Senate Majority Leader need ideological limits

2. Autoconfirmed justices should be a moderate of any party, or a member of the opposite party that matches the ideology cards of the president.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I feel like I'm missing something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 2:58 PM, Cal said:
1. In brief, what is the issue?
The rules do not specify that enthusiasm meters impact non-presidential elections.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
@Ich_bin_Tyler has brought it to my attention that the 1840 playtest has been running without meters impacting non-presidential elections during midterms, and I checked the rules to double check.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Add a line stating that all meter impacts are included.

The issue is whether or not they should, and if they should, to what degree. The meters were built primarily for presidential elections---national enthusiasm. An election in one state really isn't going to matter that much. If you can think of a reasonable way to allow these election to impact national ideological enthusiasm, then I might make a change. Perhaps if no progressives gets elected or something like that, they might lose enthusiasm or something, but apart from that, I don't see anything practical for game purposes at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I feel like I'm missing something. 

My bad. 

Basically, if a Justice fails to pass in the initial voting round, the president may propose an alternative that is automatically confirmed. Right now, the rules don't limit Presidential choices when choosing a justice to replace the blocked one. So we suggested that the justice (the auto confirmed replacement) 

Quote

The replacement justice must be moderate, an ideology of the other party, or a member of the other party. This justice is automatically confirmed.

We're simply asking that the ideology or member of the other party be limited to just the ideology of the president's cards in the opposite party.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 12:43 PM, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? Rules for confirming cabinet nominees and supreme court justices by the CPU are missing in 3.0 rules doc. There is a passage that says to roll randomly but then that leads to situations where an entire party might vote down their own party nominees.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? There are a few rules in place such as voting by traits or with the majority/minority leader; however, there are no rules for establishing what to do with a CPU outside of this. Example in the 1840 playtest, the CPUs often did not have a way to determine their vote for the cabinet beyond ideology and the traits listed in the document. Looking to the majority leader, he only had rules for votes on 2 of the 5 nominees. 
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Have the party of the President vote to confirm the nominees by default, unless the ideology/traits/etc come into effect as written. The minority party could default to no unless ideology/traits/etc flip their votes or they could be the random die roll.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

Cabinet confirmation (2.3) says CPU rules are 

  • They will otherwise vote with their party’s majority/minority leader 75% of the time.  The other 25% of the time, they will vote randomly.  They will always support nominees from their own faction.

Wasn't sure if you missed that rule, or if you're suggesting that it needs changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Following re-election for governors after more than one election (so 3rd term or more), there is no gain of random experience laid out in the rules. 
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
Most recently in the 2022 playtest,  Chris Sununu was reelected to his 4th term, but only received dice rolls for gov and admin,  but no added experience even though he had several options available to gain experience/expertise. 
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Apply the same random experience gain for multiple reelections, or apply a 50/50 dice roll to gain a new random experience.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example) 
N/a
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Cabinet confirmation (2.3) says CPU rules are 

  • They will otherwise vote with their party’s majority/minority leader 75% of the time.  The other 25% of the time, they will vote randomly.  They will always support nominees from their own faction.

Wasn't sure if you missed that rule, or if you're suggesting that it needs changed.

Yes, I saw that but it was weird when the majority leader didn't immediately have a stance on the nominee. And with it random you can get the majority party voting down a same party nominee for no reason. I was trying to find a way to avoid that happening. It says support same faction but should it also say same party?

Edited by Ich_bin_Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Yes, I saw that but it was weird when the majority leader didn't immediately have a stance on the nominee. And with it random you can get the majority party voting down a same party nominee for no reason. I was trying to find a way to avoid that happening. It says support same faction but should it also say same party?

I'll defer to @vcczar on what he actually wants it to be, but it was indeed written intentionally to be "same faction."  Once it's determined which was the Senate Majority Leader (or minority leader) is voting, roughly 89% of the party will fall in line pending traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'll defer to @vcczar on what he actually wants it to be, but it was indeed written intentionally to be "same faction."  Once it's determined which was the Senate

1 hour ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Yes, I saw that but it was weird when the majority leader didn't immediately have a stance on the nominee. And with it random you can get the majority party voting down a same party nominee for no reason. I was trying to find a way to avoid that happening. It says support same faction but should it also say same party?

Majority Leader (or minority leader) is voting, roughly 89% of the party will fall in line pending traits.

If you think there's an issue, just fill out a template in the suggested fix and I'll get to it when I work on AMPU next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In brief, what is the issue?    Outside of the career path, there is no way for someone with only Judicial to gain any additional experience.  If they are a 1 or 2, they are pretty much dead in the water.   
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?    simple approach to creating a "Circuit Court" that does nothing outside of allowing some additional skills.   Allow the President to appoint 1 (or 2) judges to the Circuit Court ever 2 years (if you allow two, then mandate that at least one must come from outside the President's faction).   These must be no higher than level 1 or 2 Judicial.   Their "term" could be 10 years when they rotate out so the current Pres can appoint someone else.   At that time, they would get to roll on the 8 or 12 year career path chart - either could give them 1 additional Judicial (12 gives a good chance to get a second)/   Not intending this to help make super judges, but to at least give these something to do and maybe help build a bench of possible replacements outside of the obvious choices.
 
*** something else that I was thinking of, is should certain Justices have some sort of Kingmaker trait since they have a record of putting their law clerks on the Supreme Court too?   Or another possible solution to my above issue is that each Justice can have a level one Judicial as their law clerk, and when they leave the court, the "clerk" could roll on the appropriate "Career Path" chart (and yes, I'd allow the clerk to leave early and be replaced with another).   I think Judicial is a unique skill, since about the only way to earn more is to serve on the Supreme Court which has limited space (unlike lots of opportunities to grow Leg or Gov if they get elected in their state)
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 12:43 PM, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? Rules for confirming cabinet nominees and supreme court justices by the CPU are missing in 3.0 rules doc. There is a passage that says to roll randomly but then that leads to situations where an entire party might vote down their own party nominees.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? There are a few rules in place such as voting by traits or with the majority/minority leader; however, there are no rules for establishing what to do with a CPU outside of this. Example in the 1840 playtest, the CPUs often did not have a way to determine their vote for the cabinet beyond ideology and the traits listed in the document. Looking to the majority leader, he only had rules for votes on 2 of the 5 nominees. 
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Have the party of the President vote to confirm the nominees by default, unless the ideology/traits/etc come into effect as written. The minority party could default to no unless ideology/traits/etc flip their votes or they could be the random die roll.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

I'm a little confused what you are talking about here. The rules for confirming SC nominees are not in 3.0. They're in 2.8.5 under computer movements. Let me know if you are talking about something else or if this clarifies the issue. Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm a little confused what you are talking about here. The rules for confirming SC nominees are not in 3.0. They're in 2.8.5 under computer movements. Let me know if you are talking about something else or if this clarifies the issue. Thanks! 

Just went to that section. Seems like I overlooked it at first. Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • vcczar unpinned this topic

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...