AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Inconsistency on who decides matters related to the military during continental congress.

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

Rules mostly give the Foreign Chairman control over appointing Generals, but random and maybe scripted events give decisions about whether to replace Generals to the President of the Continental Congress.

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

Change the events to go to the Foreign Chairman instead, as the President of the Continental Congress held little/no power.

 

 

[Rodja]

9 hours ago, Rezi said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

There aren't enough options for primary actions that don't have to do with dropping out. IIRC we only have speeches and rallies.
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

See 2.9.1 rules section 3.3.
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Add 2 new primary actions:

• Seek Local Endorsements: Pick a state to seek endorsements from local leaders. Roll a 6-sided die:

1. Local Leaders denounce your campaign. -1 in that state, 50% chance of avoiding if you have teflon
2. No change.
3. +1 if you have kingmaker.
4. +1 if you have kingmaker or efficient.
5. +1 unless you have provincial and are from a different region.
6. +1 but +2 if you have kingmaker or efficient

 

• Campaign on local issues: Campaign on issues specific to that state. Roll a 6-sided die.
• Can only do if you have a corresponding expertise (Trade or Naval in Maritime industry state. Business or Labor in manufacturing industry state. Agriculture in plantation industry state. I'm sure there could be others).

1. Your ideas are not well received. -1 in that state.
2. No change.
3. +1 if you have charismatic or likable.
4. +1 if you have charismatic or likable.
5. +1, 50% chance of +2 if you have charismatic or likable.
6. +1, +2 if you have charismatic or likable.

 

Seek local endorsements is meant to work with different traits than current actions, while campaign in local issues is meant to be stronger, but harder to fit the requirements for.

 

I 100% back this one.If @vcczarapproves this change,i would prefer using it in my 2016 playtest.

[Pringles]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

When endorsing, or in my case, mass endorsing in modern presidential primaries, the endorsements didn't contribute to the momentum or the prospects for the candidate we endorsed. (Think a Biden 2020 style dropout failing miserably.) 
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

A total of 3 candidates (2 major, 1 minor) Dropped out and endorsed Mike Pence in the modern playtest. No momentum boost is present for doing this in presidential primaries.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

An endorsement from a candidate adds +1 momentum. 

Or a major candidate supplies +2 momentum, minor +1 momentum.

I'm not the most knowledgeable on AMPU yet so if others would like to suggest fixes for this, feel free. I just consulted with others before doing this and felt it should be checked out. 
 

[Willthescout7]

Instead of making the momentum gain absolute, I would give a % chance it gives momentum. Sometimes people really care, other times people don't notice

[Willthescout7]

1. CPUs don't take region into account when selecting cabinets.

2. In 1840 President Millard Fillmore completely neglected the Deep South because he never got "lucky" and selected someone from that region. As a result, Dom stab plummeted, and he took a penalty for something he never had the opportunity to avoid. Right now CPUs can only select based off ability or keeping lobbies happy.

3. Adjust the percent that the CPU will select cabinet members: 33% abilities, 33% lobby, 33% region. If selecting for region, the CPU will select from a region not yet represented in the cabinet, randomized if multiple.

4. N/A

[ConservativeElector2]

I would also tie this excellent suggestion to a percentage for doing a mass dropout around one candidate if that person is a Mod or at least no populist. The establishment rallying behind Pence to stop Palin was really realistic.

[MrPotatoTed]

33 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Instead of making the momentum gain absolute, I would give a % chance it gives momentum. Sometimes people really care, other times people don't notice

Agree.  I’d say 0% for minor, 25% for major endorsers?

[Willthescout7]

21 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Agree.  I’d say 0% for minor, 25% for major endorsers?

Also taylor it for when the endorsement occurs. Has their state gone yet? Is the delegate count close? 

[vcczar]

Just letting you know I've put these recent suggestions on my To Do list for tomorrow. Thanks everyone!

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Lack of clarity on what is meant when an event automatically leads to a legislative proposal
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

Compromise of 1790, automatically creates DC as the nation's capital, and creates the assumption of debt as an automatic legislative proposal.  Does it take up one of the legislative slots?  Who proposes it?  Can it be overturned by a committee chair, and if so, what does their legislative ability level have to be?  Can it be defeated in committee?  Defeated overall?  
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Clarify this process -- for this one specific bill, I'd actually propose that they both automatically pass, since surely those who were opposed to the DC capital would switch their vote to nay if they didn't receive their half of the compromise (debt assumption).  For other events that create bills, make the process more clear.

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. The issue

Where does voting power matter in house voting.

2. Example

The rules state Each faction’s # of votes equals their number of Representatives. (2.2) 

3. Fix

Clarify that voting power, rather than the assumed focus reps are used in these instances

Edited August 25, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[Willthescout7]

37 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

1. The issue

Where does voting power matter in house voting.

2. Example

The rules state Each faction’s # of votes equals their number of Representatives. (2.2) 

3. Fix

Clarify that voting power, rather than the assumed focus reps are used in these instances

In addition, clarify that focus reps only are used for committees. If voting power is used, committees will be weird. For example: you could have 10 Republicans on the Domestic committee, but 20 on the Economic committee, but have still have the same number after voting power. It would make things weird and ungainly. For ease of access, limit committees to focus reps only.

[ConservativeElector2]

On 8/24/2022 at 6:18 PM, Pringles said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

When endorsing, or in my case, mass endorsing in modern presidential primaries, the endorsements didn't contribute to the momentum or the prospects for the candidate we endorsed. (Think a Biden 2020 style dropout failing miserably.) 
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

A total of 3 candidates (2 major, 1 minor) Dropped out and endorsed Mike Pence in the modern playtest. No momentum boost is present for doing this in presidential primaries.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

An endorsement from a candidate adds +1 momentum. 

Or a major candidate supplies +2 momentum, minor +1 momentum.

I'm not the most knowledgeable on AMPU yet so if others would like to suggest fixes for this, feel free. I just consulted with others before doing this and felt it should be checked out. 
 

I don't know if it's feasible, but I think it could be interesting to implement a mechanism that certain figures reject supporting nominees if they are marked as populist and especially if the opponent is a moderate. For example people tagged as Mod, having integrity or maverick could withhold support from any populist or even endorsing a moderate opponent. Like McCain endorsing Manchin over Trump or Manchin endorsing Murkowski over Sanders or at least withholding support.

The same mechanism could be used when the nominees are establishment moderates/conservatives and extreme Tea Party figures or socialists marked as disharmonious would openly reject to endorse them. 

[ShortKing]

1. In brief, what is the issue?
The new trait "Master Kingmaker", currently only has one method of being gained, which is through backroom track, and I think, historically, there have been more ways to become a national kingmaker.

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
Even the best rolls for becoming Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader will only get you kingmaker, giving you influence in your own state and no further when these positions typically allow for more influence on a larger stage.

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Introduce a roll for a small chance (1%-5%) of gaining the trait "Master Kingmaker" for being elected or reelected Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Key Advisor, and maybe Faction Leader though I'm open to counter-suggestions. 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 
Harry Reid comes to mind as a congressional leader who exercised his influence in races beyond Nevada. 

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/apr/26/new-epilogue-reid-recounts-encouraging-obama-run/

In his own book and in other reporting, Harry Reid made some behind the scenes moves to encourage then-Senator Obama to run for President against Hillary in 08, to the point that Obama would later say that he would not have been President if not for Reid. 

https://www.newsweek.com/harry-reid-wants-chuck-schumer-next-minority-leader-317329

Reid exercised his influence in helping NY Senator Chuck Schumer succeed him as Leader. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. The issue

Federal Reserve Chair missing from StartDate GoogleSheet.

2. Example

1916 has a Federal Reserve Chairman, William P. G. Harding, but since he wasn't on the start date info he wasn't added to Wilson's cabinet.

3. Fix

Add Fed Reserve Chair to the Era of Normalcy start date and later, and give these guys appropriate Admin

4. William P.G. Harding and List of Federal Reserve Chairs

Edited August 27, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[Willthescout7]

1. The election rules don't specify when candidates are filed for elections. 

2. In general, the game will follow the order of actions listed in the rules: President elections first, then Gov, then Sen, then Rep. However, it never mentions when candidates are submitted for each of those elections. It goes without saying that each candidate can only run for one election at a time. And that's the issue. Most playtests have just had players enter in candidates entered at the same time. However, since the rules don't specify you could also have it where you enter each candidate for a race, then run that election and then enter candidates in for the next set. So theoretically, a player could run a candidate for President, lose, then run the same person for Gov, lose, run for Sen, lose, and finally run for House, all in the same election cycle. Outrageous, yet, but possible and something that a player trying to min/max will try.

3. Specify how you want candidates filled in. Every race that cycle at the same time, or separate. I vote all at once so there is stakes to running candidates for a higher office (for instance, Mike Pence running for Pres in 2016 playtest was a risk since he wouldn't be able to run for reelection as Gov). However, whatever you envisioned would work.

4. N/A

[Willthescout7]

1. The rules have ambiguity regarding trait gains or when certain traits block the gaining of other traits.

2. 1916 playtest had some questions about whether traits canceled out during faction leader rolls or blocked traits. The language used was different (harmonious blocks as opposed to harmonious and disharmonious cancels out). We weren't sure what your intention was.

3. Clarify intention and use the same language throughout for whether traits block or cancel.

4. 

N/A

 

@Arkansas Progressive @pman can provide more info.

[Willthescout7]

1. Vice Presidential selections could be cleaned up to give the CPU a better chance at selecting a great candidate. 

2. The rules have the CPU picking almost by random (different % chances for where the nominee comes from). The VP pick can give boosts for the Presidential candidate so the pick really matters. The CPU can get either really lucky or really unlucky.

3. Change the VP rules so the CPU attempts to pick the best VP nominee. I suggest having the CPU try to max out the possible bonuses. Since it won't be possible to do all of those (or to find the perfect VP nominee) the CPU should drop restrictions until someone is. You know your intents best, so I'm not going to weigh in on which ones. This would be similar to how requirements for faction leader get less strict as you try to find one. 

4. 

N/A

[Willthescout7]

1. Supreme Court selections can see weird happenings.

2. The CPU currently will roll to see how they fill an opening on the court. Since one of the options is selecting from the lowest scoring faction in your party, some eras could see a Traditionalist President appoint a Liberal or a progressive to the court. This doesn't make real world sense to me. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is a valued position as it is the culmination of having judicial ability. 

3. I suggest changing the CPU appointment rules to match the other CPU rules. Something like this:

• 5 judicial ability from own faction
• 5 judicial ability from same party
• 4 judicial ability from own faction
• 4 judicial ability from same party
• 3 judicial ability from own faction
• 3 judicial ability from same party
• 3 judicial ability from any faction

and so on. This would keep the CPU thinking in line with the other appointments.

4. N/A

 

Sorry for the suggestion dump. I'm done now.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

1. The election rules don't specify when candidates are filed for elections. 

2. In general, the game will follow the order of actions listed in the rules: President elections first, then Gov, then Sen, then Rep. However, it never mentions when candidates are submitted for each of those elections. It goes without saying that each candidate can only run for one election at a time. And that's the issue. Most playtests have just had players enter in candidates entered at the same time. However, since the rules don't specify you could also have it where you enter each candidate for a race, then run that election and then enter candidates in for the next set. So theoretically, a player could run a candidate for President, lose, then run the same person for Gov, lose, run for Sen, lose, and finally run for House, all in the same election cycle. Outrageous, yet, but possible and something that a player trying to min/max will try.

3. Specify how you want candidates filled in. Every race that cycle at the same time, or separate. I vote all at once so there is stakes to running candidates for a higher office (for instance, Mike Pence running for Pres in 2016 playtest was a risk since he wouldn't be able to run for reelection as Gov). However, whatever you envisioned would work.

4. N/A

Seconded for running all at once, as that's realistic.  However, just flagging that state law varies on whether you can run for multiple offices at the same time.  I'd recommend we either just default that a candidate can run for President/VP and a second office simultaneously, or make it a Gov Action to restrict that.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

1. The rules have ambiguity regarding trait gains or when certain traits block the gaining of other traits.

2. 1916 playtest had some questions about whether traits canceled out during faction leader rolls or blocked traits. The language used was different (harmonious blocks as opposed to harmonious and disharmonious cancels out). We weren't sure what your intention was.

3. Clarify intention and use the same language throughout for whether traits block or cancel.

4. 

N/A

 

@Arkansas Progressive @pman can provide more info.

My rule of thumb was always that conflicting traits cancel out.  So if you are harmonious and gain disharmonious, you are now neither harmonious nor disharmonious.

@vcczar later added language to the Faction Leader section that you could not gain disharmonious if you have harmonious (and vice versa) -- rather than cancelling out, I believe it's worded that you keep your original trait.

I'd support making a blanket rule for this so that it's always consistent -- either traits "cancel each other out" or the first trait you get always takes priority and can't be cancelled/overwritten.

Personally, I'd prefer that we keep the "cancel each other out" rule.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

1. Supreme Court selections can see weird happenings.

2. The CPU currently will roll to see how they fill an opening on the court. Since one of the options is selecting from the lowest scoring faction in your party, some eras could see a Traditionalist President appoint a Liberal or a progressive to the court. This doesn't make real world sense to me. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is a valued position as it is the culmination of having judicial ability. 

3. I suggest changing the CPU appointment rules to match the other CPU rules. Something like this:

• 5 judicial ability from own faction
• 5 judicial ability from same party
• 4 judicial ability from own faction
• 4 judicial ability from same party
• 3 judicial ability from own faction
• 3 judicial ability from same party
• 3 judicial ability from any faction

and so on. This would keep the CPU thinking in line with the other appointments.

4. N/A

Sorry for the suggestion dump. I'm done now.

Agreed, I'll actually implement this now by adding it to the 3.0 section of how CPU appoints, and then add a thing in the supreme court rules that say "see the 3.0 section."

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar I'm thinking we should move the "Foreign Affairs/War" section to be AFTER the Congressional section.  I'd do it myself in the rules, but I'm not sure how to reorder it since they're different documents.

My reasoning is that (especially during Revolutionary War) this will give congress a chance to pass laws to help win a war that may have just initiated during the events phase.  Creating an Army, starting a draft, etc.  This will also ensure (if congress acts appropriately) that we'll have an Army for the Revolutionary battles, rather than having no army for two years of battles until congress can act.

[Willthescout7]

54 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Seconded for running all at once, as that's realistic.  However, just flagging that state law varies on whether you can run for multiple offices at the same time.  I'd recommend we either just default that a candidate can run for President/VP and a second office simultaneously, or make it a Gov Action to restrict that.

Actually talked about this is in the discord. My personal feeling is that we ignore that. So few states have passed that legislation and the potential difficulty in coding that makes that piece not seem worth it. Which is why I didn't mention it.

[MrPotatoTed]

52 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Agreed, I'll actually implement this now by adding it to the 3.0 section of how CPU appoints, and then add a thing in the supreme court rules that say "see the 3.0 section."

@Willthescout7  Here's what I've added in the 3.0 rules (pending Vcczar's approval)

 

How CPU appoints Supreme Court Justice: 
 

"Appoints the highest judicial ability from their party.  When considering multiple factions, ties are broken in favor of their own faction, then the lowest scoring faction.  When considering multiple candidates, ties will be broken in favor of the candidate matching the appointer’s personal ideology.  Otherwise, ties are broken randomly."

This will (I hope) strike a balance between CPU choosing strategically and Presidents choosing realistically.