AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[MrPotatoTed]

1.  Inconsistency on the wording of the law that creates the Supreme Court.

2.  The constitutional proposal that established a judicial branch says that it allows passage of "The Judicial Act", but the legislative proposal it's referencing is actually "The Judiciary Act".  This will cause issues when it comes to coding a connection between them, and also for playtesters trying to do the coding in their head. Haha.

3.  Change "Judicial Act" to "Judiciary Act" on the constitutional proposal to establish a judicial branch of the federal government.

[Willthescout7]

30 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@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.

I like it for the most part, but I'm trying to avoid using lowest scoring faction as an option for the CPU. But this mostly comes down to thr overall intent of thr CPU as a whole. 

Lowest scoring faction seems like an attempt to rubber band factions falling behind back into the points mix. While it makes sense in the game, I personally feel like it compromises thr general idea of the game. Factions rise and fall, with their fate hinging on one or two politicians. 

1840 is a great example. When we began, the State Rights Whigs were the dominant force in Whig politics. Even though they didn't hold the Presidency, they had people in almost every sector of the game. The Conscience Whigs were dead in last due to the overall conservatism of the time. But things started to change. The Democrats led by a human player took a hard right turn, and the Whigs reacted. All of a sudden, the Conscience Whigs and the Anti-Masons began to exert more influence in the party. The State Rights Whigs lost more and more ground as the party moved left, until finally their power was broken with their faction leader retiring in disgrace after losing the nomination. They found themselves locked out of the cabinet, losing their southern strongholds, until finally the fireeater movement decimated their ranks and their highest value pols deserted them. They are a shell of their former self. 

The Conscience Whigs, while still in last, now control the Presidency and are assuming more and more control of the party. The human player controlling the moderate Whigs was was hamstrung as fhe cabinet ran through them and the Anti-Masons. As Civil War approaches they are in the driver's seat of the party.

This happened without the rubber banding effect of the CPU choosing the lowest scoring faction. I personally feel that the CPU looking out for itself and their interests will lead to the most dynamic evolution of power in the game. And most importantly, this will challenge the player as the CPU strives to one up them at every turn. The player will have to make the right decision, because their fellow party members are just waiting there to supplant them. This is why I'm attempting to move the CPU away from the concept of "lowest scoring faction"

So the question becomes, what is the goal of the CPU? Is it trying to have their faction win, operating on a more big picture party first philosophy, or is it trying to merely exist in the background and let the player sandbox within reasonable limits? As most players will spend most of their time in single player against 9 AI, this is an important question.

Long post I know, but I think before more changes are made to the default CPU position we need to have a philosophy of their actions. Why does it do what it does? What is their end goal? This is will enable us to lock down their actions in a consistent manner. In addition, this will allow us to be able to approach a "difficulty" setting, and have a discussion about that concept and potential options there if there are any to be had.

 

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I like it for the most part, but I'm trying to avoid using lowest scoring faction as an option for the CPU. But this mostly comes down to thr overall intent of thr CPU as a whole. 

Lowest scoring faction seems like an attempt to rubber band factions falling behind back into the points mix. While it makes sense in the game, I personally feel like it compromises thr general idea of the game. Factions rise and fall, with their fate hinging on one or two politicians. 

1840 is a great example. When we began, the State Rights Whigs were the dominant force in Whig politics. Even though they didn't hold the Presidency, they had people in almost every sector of the game. The Conscience Whigs were dead in last due to the overall conservatism of the time. But things started to change. The Democrats led by a human player took a hard right turn, and the Whigs reacted. All of a sudden, the Conscience Whigs and the Anti-Masons began to exert more influence in the party. The State Rights Whigs lost more and more ground as the party moved left, until finally their power was broken with their faction leader retiring in disgrace after losing the nomination. They found themselves locked out of the cabinet, losing their southern strongholds, until finally the fireeater movement decimated their ranks and their highest value pols deserted them. They are a shell of their former self. 

The Conscience Whigs, while still in last, now control the Presidency and are assuming more and more control of the party. The human player controlling the moderate Whigs was was hamstrung as fhe cabinet ran through them and the Anti-Masons. As Civil War approaches they are in the driver's seat of the party.

This happened without the rubber banding effect of the CPU choosing the lowest scoring faction. I personally feel that the CPU looking out for itself and their interests will lead to the most dynamic evolution of power in the game. And most importantly, this will challenge the player as the CPU strives to one up them at every turn. The player will have to make the right decision, because their fellow party members are just waiting there to supplant them. This is why I'm attempting to move the CPU away from the concept of "lowest scoring faction"

So the question becomes, what is the goal of the CPU? Is it trying to have their faction win, operating on a more big picture party first philosophy, or is it trying to merely exist in the background and let the player sandbox within reasonable limits? As most players will spend most of their time in single player against 9 AI, this is an important question.

Long post I know, but I think before more changes are made to the default CPU position we need to have a philosophy of their actions. Why does it do what it does? What is their end goal? This is will enable us to lock down their actions in a consistent manner. In addition, this will allow us to be able to approach a "difficulty" setting, and have a discussion about that concept and potential options there if there are any to be had.

 

Sure, I don't disagree with anything you said.  I'd just flag something you may not have noticed -- if the lowest scoring faction is on your team, there's a points penalty to the other factions on the team.  That's why CPU favors low-scoring teams every now and then (but still prioritize serving themselves first).  They don't want to take the penalty.  Human players should be considering that element every now and then as well.

Plus, it can help the Human player.  If you find yourself in a situation where you are the worst faction...and logicially, the way you probably got there was that you lost elections and otherwise don't have much power to swing things your way again, then there actually isn't much to do in the game for the human player...so they may appreciate the CPU being slightly weighted towards throwing them a few bones in this scenario, so they can begin their comeback.

[Willthescout7]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Sure, I don't disagree with anything you said.  I'd just flag something you may not have noticed -- if the lowest scoring faction is on your team, there's a points penalty to the other factions on the team.  That's why CPU favors low-scoring teams every now and then (but still prioritize serving themselves first).  They don't want to take the penalty.  Human players should be considering that element every now and then as well.

Plus, it can help the Human player.  If you find yourself in a situation where you are the worst faction...and logicially, the way you probably got there was that you lost elections and otherwise don't have much power to swing things your way again, then there actually isn't much to do in the game for the human player...so they may appreciate the CPU being slightly weighted towards throwing them a few bones in this scenario, so they can begin their comeback.

I would advocate removing those penalties (you're right I didn't know about them). To me, being in last with no influence is a challenge to overcome, hence the fun of playing as a fringe faction. Playing the moderate factions in the middle are very rarely going to be the faction in last. If a player picks a fringe faction, they probably want the challenge of winning with them (this of course also assumes the player cares about points or wants to win).

But again, this also comes down to cpu intent. If the intent is to extend a helping hand and give a boost to a faction falling behind (which is fine, I'm not against that idea) then this all works. What I've been toying with, and hinted at in the previous post was scrapping the idea of difficulty settings, but doing something almost like "personality" settings. Essentially, the player could pick a default CPU setting that would determine if the CPU cares about keeping everyone together. 

For instance, there could be a "faction first personality." This would essentially see all forms of CPU assists removed (so if you were in last you would have to pull yourself up by yourself). Another could be a "party first personality" where the CPU is more concerned about keeping the party viable and everyone together (maximum CPU assists if you start lagging behind). 

These would essentially replace the difficulty selection found in Anthony's PI games. We would have 3 different systems (the current AI rules would be the default) and each would have their own challenges and advantages. 

Please note I'm not officially requesting or suggesting this yet. Just throwing it out there. I've been working privately on this concept, and once I have proof of concept ready I will think about officially suggesting it. This is just my private musings when I can't sleep. 

[MrPotatoTed]

34 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I would advocate removing those penalties (you're right I didn't know about them). To me, being in last with no influence is a challenge to overcome, hence the fun of playing as a fringe faction. Playing the moderate factions in the middle are very rarely going to be the faction in last. If a player picks a fringe faction, they probably want the challenge of winning with them (this of course also assumes the player cares about points or wants to win).

But again, this also comes down to cpu intent. If the intent is to extend a helping hand and give a boost to a faction falling behind (which is fine, I'm not against that idea) then this all works. What I've been toying with, and hinted at in the previous post was scrapping the idea of difficulty settings, but doing something almost like "personality" settings. Essentially, the player could pick a default CPU setting that would determine if the CPU cares about keeping everyone together. 

For instance, there could be a "faction first personality." This would essentially see all forms of CPU assists removed (so if you were in last you would have to pull yourself up by yourself). Another could be a "party first personality" where the CPU is more concerned about keeping the party viable and everyone together (maximum CPU assists if you start lagging behind). 

These would essentially replace the difficulty selection found in Anthony's PI games. We would have 3 different systems (the current AI rules would be the default) and each would have their own challenges and advantages. 

Please note I'm not officially requesting or suggesting this yet. Just throwing it out there. I've been working privately on this concept, and once I have proof of concept ready I will think about officially suggesting it. This is just my private musings when I can't sleep. 

I could see tying it to certain faction leader traits.  Harmonious leader factions would help their weakest ally.  Disharmonious leaders wouldn’t care.  Not sure what other traits should impact it.

[MrPotatoTed]

1.  It's not specified when in the game to actually do the census -- like, what phase does it take place in?

2.  Same as 1.  For example, doing it right before an election would mean that Gov Actions that phase impacted the census.  Whereas doing it at the start of a turn (before 2.1) would mean the Gov Actions don't apply.  

3.  I propose doing it after the "census election" (meaning an election year that ends in 0).  Therefore, immediately after the results of the 1790 election are known, you then calculate the census results, which will not be implemented until the 1792 election.

[MrPotatoTed]

1. Need to clarify what "incumbent party" means.

2.  If President is Red and majority of Congress is Blue (or vice versa) should the President's party alone be blamed for any crises?  

3.  Rather than penalize a specific party, I propose that the penalty (or bonus for high meters) apply to incumbent CANDIDATES (for all elected offices), in both the primary and general.  

4.  Drain the Swamp. Get these bums out of office.  "Not a Beltway Insider".  "Outsider Appeal."   Moderate Republicans resigning/retiring because they know they'll lose to Tea Party/MAGA.  Boehner and then Paul Ryan both surrendering and going home.  Same for Moderate Democrats resigning/retiring because they know they'll lose to Progressives (not sure if that's as wide spread as the Republican thing, but maybe it will be one day).  

[Willthescout7]

16 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. Need to clarify what "incumbent party" means.

2.  If President is Red and majority of Congress is Blue (or vice versa) should the President's party alone be blamed for any crises?  

3.  Rather than penalize a specific party, I propose that the penalty (or bonus for high meters) apply to incumbent CANDIDATES (for all elected offices), in both the primary and general.  

4.  Drain the Swamp. Get these bums out of office.  "Not a Beltway Insider".  "Outsider Appeal."   Moderate Republicans resigning/retiring because they know they'll lose to Tea Party/MAGA.  Boehner and then Paul Ryan both surrendering and going home.  Same for Moderate Democrats resigning/retiring because they know they'll lose to Progressives (not sure if that's as wide spread as the Republican thing, but maybe it will be one day).  

My concern is that this could blunt the midterm effect and get weird election results. Maybe their could be a roll to see who the public blames for the crash? 

[ShortKing]

13 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

My concern is that this could blunt the midterm effect and get weird election results. Maybe their could be a roll to see who the public blames for the crash? 

I agree with this and think there could even be a chance for the President to respond to a new crisis when a meter drops down to crisis level by trying to blame Congress if it's held by the opposite party in either chamber and party pref moves back in favor of the party in the White House. A good roll (5-6) means it succeeds, like Obama in 2012 painting the GOP as obstructionists to great success, a 3-4 means it's ineffective and nothing changes, maybe add the election penalty for incumbents across the board, and a bad roll (1-2) means there's a backlash to the President trying to escape accountability and party pref moves even further against the party in the White House. Just a thought

[Murrman104]

Ford and Truman also both tried this Gambit to varying degrees of success 

[Willthescout7]

23 hours 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.

I was thinking about this again, and it could mess with end of term retirements. A pol is supposed to retire for losing the Presidential election (primary or general), but wins another office at the same time. The game has two options: ignore the retirement (which allows players to save their pols by jumping into another race) or force the retirement anyway (which then leaves an open office that needs filled). For these reasons I come down even more on ignoring the state laws and even if it isn't the most accurate, limiting pols to one election a cycle.

[Willthescout7]

1. Losing 'Acting President' doesn't make real world sense as a Presidential Action.

2. In the game, when a VP becomes President for the first time, they become 'acting president' until they do an Presidential Action that removes that term and they become President for real. However, this doesn't make real world sense. The Presidential Actions come after the legislative phase which is where in the real world the political battle over the job would be. If the President just signs everything sent to him then when it comes to the Presidential Actions the fight would be over and precedent set. 

3. My proposed fix is to make it a roll instead that takes place the first time the Acting President disagrees with Congress. Essentially, if Congress sends a bill that the President would normally veto, then their is a roll to lose the term Acting President to represent the political battle being fought. I think this roll should be a 75% chance of passing to make it very likely the pol will lose the term (as was historically accurate). Different traits could have an effect on the roll. Passive makes it harder to pass, manipulative or iron fist make it easier, stuff like that. If the roll is failed, they remain acting President and a future VP who becomes President would need to have Iron Fist or manipulative to redo the roll.

4. N/A

[vcczar]

Okay, I've gone through all of these. See the delegate thread to see which changes I made. I opted not to go with every proposal here. 

I've added the "Acting President" conundrum to the "to do" list because I need to figure out a way to apply the historical example that John Tyler refused to be treated or addressed as Acting President. It's fairly considerable precedent he set. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. Can politicians drafted from American possessions (not states) be appointed to Military positions

2. In 1916 Emilio Aquinaldo (from the Philippino draft) was appointed to General in the Wilson Administration.

3. Clarify if this is allowed under 2.3 Rules

[MrPotatoTed]

11 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

1. Can politicians drafted from American possessions (not states) be appointed to Military positions

2. In 1916 Emilio Aquinaldo (from the Philippino draft) was appointed to General in the Wilson Administration.

3. Clarify if this is allowed under 2.3 Rules

Yep, it's allowed.  I believe rules already say that politicians from US Territories (as Philippines was long before 1916) can be appointed to offices, just not elected. 

In fact, I think we later added that territory politicians can even run for President, though at a penalty. 

[10centjimmy]

1. The traits "Passive" and "Overeager"  shouldn't exist in the same pol

2. In 1772 playtest,  statesman Alexander Hamilton (possessing the Overeager trait) named faction leader. On trait dice roll under , Hamilton gains passive. May be semantics, but these traits should be at odds with each other. 

3. Recommend that if this dice roll takes place after a faction leader is named in 2.2, it makes both traits cancel each other out. 

[Cal]

1. "Tariff rate set by states" shouldn't be active by default once the US Constitution is passed. 

2. IRL, the passing of the Constitution gave the power to set tariffs exclusively to Congress. 

3. change "No federal tariff law" to "US Constitution not adopted."

[Willthescout7]

@vcczarwould the acting President still serve as Party Leader? We ask because in 1840 Acting President Broom II failed his role and declined to assume the title of President. According to the rules, the President is automatically the party leader, but Broom II isn't the president. We have a hard time thinking the other Whig leaders would consent to yield to an Acting President who has no real power.

Do the Whigs in this case stick with Broom II as party leader even though he isn't President, or would they have a party vote to pick a leader? 

[0ccultist]

@vcczar It seems way too easy for gov actions to fail. There should be some form of nuance in the rules too allow for certain laws, in certain ages and certain regions to pass easier. With the current system it could take the south decades to set up Jim Crow for example.
 

an idea i came up with is like allow for regions to have easier time passing just the major laws of the era they made. Easier for the south to segregate in the 1880s-1920s, easier for more religious regions to push for prohibition in the 1910s or like making it easier for liberal regions too allow for progressive laws in the 2020s. 
 

the current system at its worst makes it so it could take decades for 1-2govs to pass historically important or significant legs.

 

to counteract this (and to make it not railroading the player) you could make it so trait gains have a lesser chance of happening if they go down the historical route. Meaning if. A southern governor does this and gets segregation passed he wouldn’t have as likely a chance to get traits from it.

Edited September 1, 2022 by 0ccultist

[Willthescout7]

8 minutes ago, 0ccultist said:

@vcczar It seems way too easy for gov actions to fail. There should be some form of nuance in the rules too allow for certain laws, in certain ages and certain regions to pass easier. With the current system it could take the south decades to set up Jim Crow for example.
 

an idea i came up with is like allow for regions to have easier time passing just the major laws of the era they made. Easier for the south to segregate in the 1880s-1920s, easier for more religious regions to push for prohibition in the 1910s or like making it easier for liberal regions too allow for progressive laws in the 2020s. 
 

the current system at its worst makes it so it could take decades for 1-2govs to pass historically important or significant legs.

I propose instead that we model some of those major historical gov actions the same we did slavery. Where the first to do it gets points everytime someone else does it. This will encourage an arms race and make it so significant historical actions happen.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar From my extreme speedrun of future events/legislation...

1)  It's fun!

2)  Should we still lose coastal cities to rising water if climate control technology becomes available?  Felt like that should be more of a game changer than it was.

3)  Some of it felt super crazy to have happen so soon into the modern future.  I only played through to 2032 and it was already wildly off the rails -- half the animals that currently exist went extinct...but the ones who are still here gained the ability to talk.  Within the next ten years.

For number 3, I'd propose splitting the future into two eras:  The Near Future (2024-2050), and the Distant Future (2050-2100).  You don't necessarily need to add more events/laws.  Just sort by what's realistic/feasible within the next 25 years and what isn't.

[OrangeP47]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar From my extreme speedrun of future events/legislation...

1)  It's fun!

2)  Should we still lose coastal cities to rising water if climate control technology becomes available?  Felt like that should be more of a game changer than it was.

3)  Some of it felt super crazy to have happen so soon into the modern future.  I only played through to 2032 and it was already wildly off the rails -- half the animals that currently exist went extinct...but the ones who are still here gained the ability to talk.  Within the next ten years.

For number 3, I'd propose splitting the future into two eras:  The Near Future (2024-2050), and the Distant Future (2050-2100).  You don't necessarily need to add more events/laws.  Just sort by what's realistic/feasible within the next 25 years and what isn't.

Your animals don't talk back to you NOW?

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Your animals don't talk back to you NOW?

I have the quietest cats in the world.

[Willthescout7]

@vcczardo you have a ruling on whether an Acting President is party leader?

 

Also, I don't know if you made a ruling on contingent elections.

[vcczar]

59 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

@vcczardo you have a ruling on whether an Acting President is party leader?

 

Also, I don't know if you made a ruling on contingent elections.

It says elected president, I think. I typed it that way to exclude VPs that become an unelected president.