AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[OrangeP47]

16 minutes ago, Rezi said:

I kinda agree with you here. I agree that Admin, Private, Backroom, Judicial, Military should be kept. But I don't think the others should be removed. I think that Governing and Legislative should be nerfed a bit. Too many people who were real-life no-names coming out with 4 legis despite never having served in Congress.

I mean, the mere act of placing someone on the track is altering history, so of course they're deviating. You're actively promoting someone in those cases at the expense of someone historical.  If anything, you just made an argument for everyone starting with 1s and the only way to get better being the track, and even historical people having to be placed on them to get better.

[Rezi]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, the mere act of placing someone on the track is altering history, so of course they're deviating. You're actively promoting someone in those cases at the expense of someone historical.  If anything, you just made an argument for everyone starting with 1s and the only way to get better being the track, and even historical people having to be placed on them to get better.

what

my point is that it should be damn near impossible for anyone to have a 4 legislative ability without having ever served in Congress. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Rezi said:

what

my point is that it should be damn near impossible for anyone to have a 4 legislative ability without having ever served in Congress. 

And my point is if we nerf the career tracks anymore we should nerf people's inherent starting abilities too if we're true to the same logic, because they're both stats from nowhere.

[Rezi]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

And my point is if we nerf the career tracks anymore we should nerf people's inherent starting abilities too if we're true to the same logic, because they're both stats from nowhere.

That's completely different logic though.

Career Tracks, specifically legislative which is where my issue comes in, is experience gained in state legislatures, city council, etc etc. 

Starting abilities come from what said politician historically accomplished. They exist to maintain some sense of being historical

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Rezi said:

That's completely different logic though.

Career Tracks, specifically legislative which is where my issue comes in, is experience gained in state legislatures, city council, etc etc. 

Starting abilities come from what said politician historically accomplished. They exist to maintain some sense of being historical

I see it as the same logic, and thus, you can't have it both ways.  Being "historical" means you respect the timeline you create within the game too, not just the timeline we're living now.  The argument can be made when you draft someone they're a blank slate, they shouldn't have anything over 1, and there yours to mold as you see fit. Nothing that happened historically matters.

[OrangeP47]

I mean, to be completely transparent, I *do not want* everyone's stats reset to 1.  I'm just saying we can't railroad too much our the internal cohesion of a run breaks down.

[Rezi]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I see it as the same logic, and thus, you can't have it both ways.  Being "historical" means you respect the timeline you create within the game too, not just the timeline we're living now.  The argument can be made when you draft someone they're a blank slate, they shouldn't have anything over 1, and there yours to mold as you see fit. Nothing that happened historically matters.

But my problem with career tracks has nothing to do with "being historical". My problem with career tracks comes from the fact that it should be extremely rare to be one of the best legislators in Congress without having ever served before. But with the current system, we are very regularly having people come out of the career track with a legislative ability of 4.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Rezi

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Rezi said:

But my problem with career tracks has nothing to do with "being historical". My problem with career tracks comes from the fact that it should be extremely rare to be one of the best legislators in Congress immediately after election. But with the current system, we are very regularly having people come out of the career track with a legislative ability of 4.

Okay, so game balance concerns I can appreciate a bit more. TBH I'd probably personally say there need to be more ways for the actual office holders to *gain* skill rather than taking away the skill gains from career track. It's solve some periphery problems too such as the facts that govs seem to always fail their actions. I've thought gains for congress and govs have been a bit too "unfocused" for some time now, if that makes sense. Granted, it's good to get a lobby, that's nice, but maybe nerf the chance to do that and buff the chance to gain legis, for example.

[Vols21]

18 minutes ago, Rezi said:

But my problem with career tracks has nothing to do with "being historical". My problem with career tracks comes from the fact that it should be extremely rare to be one of the best legislators in Congress without having ever served before. But with the current system, we are very regularly having people come out of the career track with a legislative ability of 4.

right now after 20 years, they get +2 and 50% chance of a 3rd.   I can see capping the Legis. at 2 (since they were a big fish in a small pond in their state house and might take time to adjust to Washington).  But to counter that, maybe give them a higher chance to gain some beneficial skills like debate, orator, etc. that they would have learned in their state capital.   They would have to earn that 4th and 5th star in their actual job.

some other roles like Military or Admin, they need to learn the ropes before they get the job since they hit the ground running (and most have done exactly that in their previous jobs).   They won't get as much chance to improve on the job and have a somewhat limited time window to be effective.  (Governors can fall into this category since most will have 4-8 years to make their mark, so if they come in as a 2- they will just flame out and never do anything without some luck unless the success rates are adjusted some.  There's not many ways to improve the Gov skill outside of career track, so most are stuck with what they start with).

[MrPotatoTed]

11 hours ago, Vols21 said:

right now after 20 years, they get +2 and 50% chance of a 3rd.   I can see capping the Legis. at 2 (since they were a big fish in a small pond in their state house and might take time to adjust to Washington).  But to counter that, maybe give them a higher chance to gain some beneficial skills like debate, orator, etc. that they would have learned in their state capital.   They would have to earn that 4th and 5th star in their actual job.

some other roles like Military or Admin, they need to learn the ropes before they get the job since they hit the ground running (and most have done exactly that in their previous jobs).   They won't get as much chance to improve on the job and have a somewhat limited time window to be effective.  (Governors can fall into this category since most will have 4-8 years to make their mark, so if they come in as a 2- they will just flame out and never do anything without some luck unless the success rates are adjusted some.  There's not many ways to improve the Gov skill outside of career track, so most are stuck with what they start with).

Oooh....I kind of like this.  So for legislative track for example, it's not that you emerge from the career track as a super star.  It's that you emerge from the career track with the traits that can MAKE you a super star, helping you rise to prominence and climb the ranks quickly in congress.

[OrangeP47]

13 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Oooh....I kind of like this.  So for legislative track for example, it's not that you emerge from the career track as a super star.  It's that you emerge from the career track with the traits that can MAKE you a super star, helping you rise to prominence and climb the ranks quickly in congress.

It's a fair idea, I think it goes well with what I was proposing too.  We could make the career track about "soft" skills and then boost the actual gains of the numerical stats when actually doing gov/legis while reducing trait gains there.  I think a lot of people would like that dichotomy.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar We need rules for what to do if a state/territory becomes permanently lost via war (or refusal to go to war to defend them).  What becomes of the politicians who live there currently and in future drafts?

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar We need rules for what to do if a state/territory becomes permanently lost via war (or refusal to go to war to defend them).  What becomes of the politicians who live there currently and in future drafts?

My suggestion:  Percent chance they are removed from the run, % chance they are reassigned to a state that is already a state (not a territory) at the time of their draft.  Probably like a 75/25 split.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar For events where we can lose permanent opportunity to claim the territories/states that we historically grabbed, I'd propose to make those events repeatable (when plausible) unless you actually lose them in a war.

Simply deciding to not press our claim on independent Vermont or to fight Natives in the Northwest territories in the 1700's shouldn't necessarily mean that the issue never comes up again.  A more expansionist/military minded President might decide to take up the cause in a later year.  (Maybe even as an executive action rather than an event?  Or just leave it as a repeatable event).

[vcczar]

16 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar For events where we can lose permanent opportunity to claim the territories/states that we historically grabbed, I'd propose to make those events repeatable (when plausible) unless you actually lose them in a war.

Simply deciding to not press our claim on independent Vermont or to fight Natives in the Northwest territories in the 1700's shouldn't necessarily mean that the issue never comes up again.  A more expansionist/military minded President might decide to take up the cause in a later year.  (Maybe even as an executive action rather than an event?  Or just leave it as a repeatable event).

I feel like I just need a follow up event. You get one more chance to press the claim. Hopefully, I can get to this before Sept 19th.

It might help if someone reading this thread can get me a list of Scripted Events in which selecting an option can cause the nation to lose rights to states. That would probably save me a day or more of AMPU time, which is a lot considering we got about a week left of suggested fixes until I set things "in stone" until early release is out.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I feel like I just need a follow up event. You get one more chance to press the claim. Hopefully, I can get to this before Sept 19th.

It might help if someone reading this thread can get me a list of Scripted Events in which selecting an option can cause the nation to lose rights to states. That would probably save me a day or more of AMPU time, which is a lot considering we got about a week left of suggested fixes until I set things "in stone" until early release is out.

I like this approach better, and we did have that conversation earlier (like a month or two ago) about Vermont getting a follow up during the War of 1812, but I don't recall if the event actually got written or if we just all liked the idea.

[Willthescout7]

35 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar We need rules for what to do if a state/territory becomes permanently lost via war (or refusal to go to war to defend them).  What becomes of the politicians who live there currently and in future drafts?

I vote they are permanently gone unless they start with an alternate state.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I like this approach better, and we did have that conversation earlier (like a month or two ago) about Vermont getting a follow up during the War of 1812, but I don't recall if the event actually got written or if we just all liked the idea.

I don't remember either. Everything AMPU-related all kinds of just blurs together for me since January. I had a much better memory for what was did, what I did, what others did, etc, the first two years of this project.

The more people that get involved in helping out, and the more suggested, and etc., the more difficult it is to keep mentally organized about this. Although a lot of this deficiency is because I'm just mentally done with AMPU. I keep working because it's a duty and I have the responsibility for finish it for all of you and the 750ish donors.

Basically, I feel like a US President that got elected to a 4-year term and who only wanted to serve one term, but then Congress made the office a lifeterm sentence without grandfathering me into the old rules. Working on this game takes the entirety of my free time, ruins relationships because I'm working on this, makes me less effective at my other jobs, and takes me away from other projects that I'm currently more interested in. I don't even have the satisfaction of a paycheck really. Since the game is delayed so long and will take longer, the money is going to go mostly to Anthony and anyone he needs to hire. If I don't make enough to pay off my student loans after all this, I'll consider this my personal Vietnam War. 

I think when I thought Anthony was on schedule, it was still endurable, but now the end date is really unknown, despite Anthony adjusting release dates. He hasn't even restarted on the game. So I kind of feel like I'm waiting for a judge to give me my sentence so I can at least look forward to when I get out of prison. 

The only joy I get is seeing you all have fun and this one small ray of light that might be the end of the tunnel. The fact that I have so many volunteers certainly keeps me going. Without all of you, I think I would have stopped working on the game at the first Anthony delay. I was considering making other games in the future, but now I'm less sure. I just don't have the personality for this, and I'm not a "focus on one project" sort of person, and this has really forced me to be that for however many years it's been (don't even know how much time has passed). 

So that said, yeah, I don't think I'll make the follow up events to events that cause the US to lose rights to future states unless someone can find all the events that need follow ups. And with that, I need to start planning my classes for the upcoming quarter. I've barely done anything. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't remember either. Everything AMPU-related all kinds of just blurs together for me since January. I had a much better memory for what was did, what I did, what others did, etc, the first two years of this project.

The more people that get involved in helping out, and the more suggested, and etc., the more difficult it is to keep mentally organized about this. Although a lot of this deficiency is because I'm just mentally done with AMPU. I keep working because it's a duty and I have the responsibility for finish it for all of you and the 750ish donors.

Basically, I feel like a US President that got elected to a 4-year term and who only wanted to serve one term, but then Congress made the office a lifeterm sentence without grandfathering me into the old rules. Working on this game takes the entirety of my free time, ruins relationships because I'm working on this, makes me less effective at my other jobs, and takes me away from other projects that I'm currently more interested in. I don't even have the satisfaction of a paycheck really. Since the game is delayed so long and will take longer, the money is going to go mostly to Anthony and anyone he needs to hire. If I don't make enough to pay off my student loans after all this, I'll consider this my personal Vietnam War. 

I think when I thought Anthony was on schedule, it was still endurable, but now the end date is really unknown, despite Anthony adjusting release dates. He hasn't even restarted on the game. So I kind of feel like I'm waiting for a judge to give me my sentence so I can at least look forward to when I get out of prison. 

The only joy I get is seeing you all have fun and this one small ray of light that might be the end of the tunnel. The fact that I have so many volunteers certainly keeps me going. Without all of you, I think I would have stopped working on the game at the first Anthony delay. I was considering making other games in the future, but now I'm less sure. I just don't have the personality for this, and I'm not a "focus on one project" sort of person, and this has really forced me to be that for however many years it's been (don't even know how much time has passed). 

So that said, yeah, I don't think I'll make the follow up events to events that cause the US to lose rights to future states unless someone can find all the events that need follow ups. And with that, I need to start planning my classes for the upcoming quarter. I've barely done anything. 

Yeah, this is definitely a lot. With the 1772 sheet going out and so many 1772 tests cropping up it definitely seems like it's cranked into overdrive and it's a lot to keep up with. Totally understandable to feel this way.  I think, by and large, the recurrence issue after losing a chance to gain a state isn't a critical thing so it can easily be placed on the back burner, so to speak.  While I think we all agree giving everyone two chances is good, it's also being generous so the players can just deal with not having that option if need be/for awhile.  In the mean time the rest of us can rustle up the needed info, I think maybe I saw an old chart about states being added/subtracted that I might try to find again.

[MrPotatoTed]

39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't remember either. Everything AMPU-related all kinds of just blurs together for me since January. I had a much better memory for what was did, what I did, what others did, etc, the first two years of this project.

The more people that get involved in helping out, and the more suggested, and etc., the more difficult it is to keep mentally organized about this. Although a lot of this deficiency is because I'm just mentally done with AMPU. I keep working because it's a duty and I have the responsibility for finish it for all of you and the 750ish donors.

Basically, I feel like a US President that got elected to a 4-year term and who only wanted to serve one term, but then Congress made the office a lifeterm sentence without grandfathering me into the old rules. Working on this game takes the entirety of my free time, ruins relationships because I'm working on this, makes me less effective at my other jobs, and takes me away from other projects that I'm currently more interested in. I don't even have the satisfaction of a paycheck really. Since the game is delayed so long and will take longer, the money is going to go mostly to Anthony and anyone he needs to hire. If I don't make enough to pay off my student loans after all this, I'll consider this my personal Vietnam War. 

I think when I thought Anthony was on schedule, it was still endurable, but now the end date is really unknown, despite Anthony adjusting release dates. He hasn't even restarted on the game. So I kind of feel like I'm waiting for a judge to give me my sentence so I can at least look forward to when I get out of prison. 

The only joy I get is seeing you all have fun and this one small ray of light that might be the end of the tunnel. The fact that I have so many volunteers certainly keeps me going. Without all of you, I think I would have stopped working on the game at the first Anthony delay. I was considering making other games in the future, but now I'm less sure. I just don't have the personality for this, and I'm not a "focus on one project" sort of person, and this has really forced me to be that for however many years it's been (don't even know how much time has passed). 

So that said, yeah, I don't think I'll make the follow up events to events that cause the US to lose rights to future states unless someone can find all the events that need follow ups. And with that, I need to start planning my classes for the upcoming quarter. I've barely done anything. 

Honestly, I think it's 100% bullshit that you haven't gotten your cut of the kickstarter money.  It feels like Anthony took the money and ran.  Especially with closing down his forum at the same time, there isn't much to really hold him accountable to the people who paid.  I'd at least be pushing for your cut of the money a lot harder, especially as he isn't offering any commitment to when he'll ever work on the game, at this point.

As for the workload, I can take lead on incorporating the feedback we receive for the rules, if you want.

Up to you if you want me editing events, etc.  Historically, I haven't messed with your master sheets before.

[MrPotatoTed]

Per our discussion in the PM, I've added a draft rule (pending V's approval, though it was his idea) that Key Advisor is an optional position.  This will help save playthroughs as it's hard to get a good advisor and a bad advisor can destroy everything. Ha.

I also added a rule that CPU will only appoint a key advisor if they have a valid option who has at least 3 admin.

[Cal]

50 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Per our discussion in the PM, I've added a draft rule (pending V's approval, though it was his idea) that Key Advisor is an optional position.  This will help save playthroughs as it's hard to get a good advisor and a bad advisor can destroy everything. Ha.

I also added a rule that CPU will only appoint a key advisor if they have a valid option who has at least 3 admin.

God bless. So many future playthroughs can be saved 😛 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Honestly, I think it's 100% bullshit that you haven't gotten your cut of the kickstarter money.  It feels like Anthony took the money and ran.  Especially with closing down his forum at the same time, there isn't much to really hold him accountable to the people who paid.  I'd at least be pushing for your cut of the money a lot harder, especially as he isn't offering any commitment to when he'll ever work on the game, at this point.

As for the workload, I can take lead on incorporating the feedback we receive for the rules, if you want.

Up to you if you want me editing events, etc.  Historically, I haven't messed with your master sheets before.

He isn't running with the money, he's just not paying me to work unless he's also working on AMPU. The main thing is that he's paying himself what he pays himself to develop games. I'm not paying myself as much, but I am owed half the KS money. The reason I'm not paying myself as much as he is paying himself is in the event we need to hire a 3rd person. At that point, it's either that 3rd person starts getting paid some of the KS funds I'm not taking myself or the profits first go to this 3rd person. We might also run into the situation in which the KS funds run dry and Anthony has to pay himself more of the profits. I think that's how it works. The main difference is I'm freelance. He isn't. I'm paying him to code my game, and I keep the rights to it, say for AMPU 2, etc. We split the profits, minus any extra payment was needed to complete the game, presumably if we need to hire someone else. I'm just a full-blown pessimist now, so I expect the development of the game will take much longer until I can see how quickly he can code the events. That will determine the most for me. As I've stated, initially I really didn't even care about the money because I just wanted to play the game. However, the more working on AMPU became a burden in my life, the more I'm liking compensation for all this time, at least to pay off my student loans.

Anyway, I'd like to give you access to make changes, but the thing is I need a way to be the historical check on changes since I want the game to be historically reasonable. I guess we can try it, I just need to know what changes are being made. Just let me know which sheets you need an upgrade on. I'll start with scripted events and give you editing powers. Watch out because sometimes typing something in a cell will copy something from a cell with similar language. Sometimes I have to type something twice to show the cell that I'm not just copying language in another cell. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. In brief, what is the issue? CPU rules for appointing committee chairs in Congress, as written, could give the opposition party committee control. Also House and Senate Committee chair requirements need to mirror each other.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? Current language, "The CPU will choose eligible chairs that have the highest legislative power. If there is a tie, they’ll favor their own party, then leaders who match their primary faction ideology, then random." By this logic, a Blue Speaker would choose a Red chair if they have a Legis 5 vs a Blue with Legis 4.

 

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

Have the CPU always favor own party for committee chairs, especially since the rules now have the CPU favoring its own party for the leadership elections.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). Unless someone has examples of cross party chairpeople, I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? CPU rules for appointing committee chairs in Congress, as written, could give the opposition party committee control. Also House and Senate Committee chair requirements need to mirror each other.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? Current language, "The CPU will choose eligible chairs that have the highest legislative power. If there is a tie, they’ll favor their own party, then leaders who match their primary faction ideology, then random." By this logic, a Blue Speaker would choose a Red chair if they have a Legis 5 vs a Blue with Legis 4.

 

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

Have the CPU always favor own party for committee chairs, especially since the rules now have the CPU favoring its own party for the leadership elections.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). Unless someone has examples of cross party chairpeople, I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

Thanks!  I think the party thing was just an oversight, so I've fixed it in the rules (in draft form, pending @vcczar's approval).

As for Senate Chair giving more than House Chair does, I intentionally have the Senate be a little more rewarding in general than the House, as it seems to be more prestigious.  But I'm open to more feedback on this.