AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[10centjimmy]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

if they have a valid option who has at least 3 admin.

Regardless of lobbies, I hope lol

[ConservativeElector2]

1. In brief, what is the issue? I wondered if there should be an option to bench your politicians intentionally, if you unsatisfied with them.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In our playthrough President Warner among others was accused of a Clintonesque scandal. Whatever people are accused or guilty of, they remain in the same status within the game.

 

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

Add an option to bench your politicians intentionally.

To make it a bit more spicy, I would also suggest that there should be a chance for them to go against your wishes after being told to be not welcome anymore.

Like Eric Greitens challenged the GOP senate field, there should be a chance that a benched politician from let's say AZ challenges your preferred candidate against your wishes. Merely as a retaliation to the player not planning with said politicians anymore because of inexcuseable actions (sex scandal, voting against your faction you name it)

 

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

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? I wondered if there should be an option to bench your politicians intentionally, if you unsatisfied with them.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In our playthrough President Warner among others was accused of a Clintonesque scandal. Whatever people are accused or guilty of, they remain in the same status within the game.

 

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

Add an option to bench your politicians intentionally.

To make it a bit more spicy, I would also suggest that there should be a chance for them to go against your wishes after being told to be not welcome anymore.

Like Eric Greitens challenged the GOP senate field, there should be a chance that a benched politician from let's say AZ challenges your preferred candidate against your wishes. Merely as a retaliation to the player not planning with said politicians anymore because of inexcuseable actions (sex scandal, voting against your faction you name it)

 

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

When you say intentionally bench, what do you mean in game terms?  Retiring them from the game?  Forcing them to resign their current position (but staying in the game)?  Not running them for available elections?

[Arkansas Progressive]

@MrPotatoTed Folks over in 1916 want to provoke war with Germany in the FA phase, but game rules only allow entry on the triggering of either the sinking of the lusitania (unrestricted submarine warfare) or the zimmerman telegram

[Arkansas Progressive]

and getting 1 relations with germany only provides a 10% chance of a military event

[0ccultist]

15 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

@MrPotatoTed Folks over in 1916 want to provoke war with Germany in the FA phase, but game rules only allow entry on the triggering of either the sinking of the lusitania (unrestricted submarine warfare) or the zimmerman telegram

To add on to this world wars seem incredibly hard to enter into. I had the option of provoking war with Germany during the FA phase of the game but, with how the rules are currently, a war with Germany this way wouldn’t enter us into World War I somehow?

 

On the Alt-History side of things it seems almost impossible, if not jus plain impossible, to enter on the side of the Germans. While this is probs 100% realistic a lot of players when the game comes out are going to be angry that they only get options to join the Entente or say Neutral and not the other important option for players to try out. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by 0ccultist

[MrPotatoTed]

Thanks guys!  I haven't explored the World War era myself yet, so I'll have to defer to @vcczar on that one.

I actually just watched a History Channel documentary that suggests US leadership felt the need to intervene in World War I against Germany, but that there wasn't a way to get popular support for doing so as Americans gave zero shits what was going down in Europe, generally speaking.  Then the Zimmerman Telegram changed that overnight.  

Likewise, American leadership found itself in a similar position during WWII, until the attack on Pearl Harbor changed this overnight.

I'm not aware of any historical basis for joining either war on the side of the Germans, though Vcczar would certainly know better than I would.

[Arkansas Progressive]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks guys!  I haven't explored the World War era myself yet, so I'll have to defer to @vcczar on that one.

I actually just watched a History Channel documentary that suggests US leadership felt the need to intervene in World War I against Germany, but that there wasn't a way to get popular support for doing so as Americans gave zero shits what was going down in Europe, generally speaking.  Then the Zimmerman Telegram changed that overnight.  

Likewise, American leadership found itself in a similar position during WWII, until the attack on Pearl Harbor changed this overnight.

I'm not aware of any historical basis for joining either war on the side of the Germans, though Vcczar would certainly know better than I would.

Both world wars had us isolationist until they poked our sleeping dragon, as it were

[Murrman104]

Forgive me I'm a bit tired rn so forgive me if I'm a bit incoherent.

That being said with major conflicts like the world wars (and possibly others e.g the Naploenic wars) I felt there should be two ways to enter the war. Via an event giving a cause for war like Pearl Harbour (and alt history wise say the XYZ affair or the sinking of the Lusitania) that allows an easy on ramp to enter the war vs say what happened irl with WWI which was basically entering the war for no reason other than the Election was over. The latter being an executive action where the President can join a major ongoing war on the side of an ally (or against an enemy) at the cost of a hit to party and / ideological or ideological penalties.

[0ccultist]

14 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm not aware of any historical basis for joining either war on the side of the Germans, though Vcczar would certainly know better than I would.

It’s less about the basis historically and more about the alt-history and giving the player the choice to do what most history nerds have wondered about.

 

besides that the speaker at the time did say he wanted to conquer Canada. Which would be a reason to do so.

[MrPotatoTed]

19 minutes ago, Murrman104 said:

Forgive me I'm a bit tired rn so forgive me if I'm a bit incoherent.

That being said with major conflicts like the world wars (and possibly others e.g the Naploenic wars) I felt there should be two ways to enter the war. Via an event giving a cause for war like Pearl Harbour (and alt history wise say the XYZ affair or the sinking of the Lusitania) that allows an easy on ramp to enter the war vs say what happened irl with WWI which was basically entering the war for no reason other than the Election was over. The latter being an executive action where the President can join a major ongoing war on the side of an ally (or against an enemy) at the cost of a hit to party and / ideological or ideological penalties.

I'd counter that we didn't enter WWI for basically no reason -- we entered because the Sinking of the Lusitania made political leaders feel that continuing to be isolationist/neutral was no longer feasible, and the Zimmerman Telegram (as evidence that Germany was conspiring to create and fund a Mexican invasion of the US) led the American people to believe the same.  

It may be that there should be a way to enter a World War voluntarily, but maybe it would need to be a Senate vote?  

As for siding with Germany, I imagine there would need to be a significant rewriting of events to support playthroughs that went that far off the beaten path.  I don't have the detailed level of WWII history needed to write those, and it doesn't sound like V is jumping at the chance to do a ton more events right now.  Haha.

[Arkansas Progressive]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'd counter that we didn't enter WWI for basically no reason -- we entered because the Sinking of the Lusitania made political leaders feel that continuing to be isolationist/neutral was no longer feasible, and the Zimmerman Telegram (as evidence that Germany was conspiring to create and fund a Mexican invasion of the US) led the American people to believe the same.  

It may be that there should be a way to enter a World War voluntarily, but maybe it would need to be a Senate vote?  

As for siding with Germany, I imagine there would need to be a significant rewriting of events to support playthroughs that went that far off the beaten path.  I don't have the detailed level of WWII history needed to write those, and it doesn't sound like V is jumping at the chance to do a ton more events right now.  Haha.

Might make some modded scripted events and legis props for the luls

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks guys!  I haven't explored the World War era myself yet, so I'll have to defer to @vcczar on that one.

I actually just watched a History Channel documentary that suggests US leadership felt the need to intervene in World War I against Germany, but that there wasn't a way to get popular support for doing so as Americans gave zero shits what was going down in Europe, generally speaking.  Then the Zimmerman Telegram changed that overnight.  

Likewise, American leadership found itself in a similar position during WWII, until the attack on Pearl Harbor changed this overnight.

I'm not aware of any historical basis for joining either war on the side of the Germans, though Vcczar would certainly know better than I would.

My reasons are many, but here are two:

1. Historically, there was no real rationale for the US to aid Germany against the historical allies in WWI or WII. It was neutrality or helping those that were the allies. 

2. While I do allow alternate history situations in which Mexico and the Confederacy join Germany, I thought making a "just for fun" USA as ally with Germany wasn't really worth going through and creating a whole alternate chain of scripted events from 1917 to the present. This is the kind of thing Paradox does as a $9.99 or $19.99 DLC for a reason. 

[Pringles]

5 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? I wondered if there should be an option to bench your politicians intentionally, if you unsatisfied with them.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In our playthrough President Warner among others was accused of a Clintonesque scandal. Whatever people are accused or guilty of, they remain in the same status within the game.

 

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

Add an option to bench your politicians intentionally.

To make it a bit more spicy, I would also suggest that there should be a chance for them to go against your wishes after being told to be not welcome anymore.

Like Eric Greitens challenged the GOP senate field, there should be a chance that a benched politician from let's say AZ challenges your preferred candidate against your wishes. Merely as a retaliation to the player not planning with said politicians anymore because of inexcuseable actions (sex scandal, voting against your faction you name it)

 

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

 

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

When you say intentionally bench, what do you mean in game terms?  Retiring them from the game?  Forcing them to resign their current position (but staying in the game)?  Not running them for available elections?

CE2 makes a good suggestion however reading Ted's point, yeah I wonder what would happen. It's not like the game has an AI faction that doesn't belong to the player (assuming it's a full game). Maybe add a disgraced politician free for all AI? Jk, not sure how that would work tbh. 😛 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Until the Presidential action is taken to set precedent for a President firing a cabinet member, these positions are basically "for life" unless random events, etc, intervene.

To my understanding, the historical question about whether President Adams could fire a cabinet member wasn't so much about whether the position was for life...but rather about whether the ability to fire a cabinet member resided with the Senate instead of with the President.

With that in mind, I'd propose creating a legislative proposal for firing a cabinet member, which can only be implemented if the Presidential Action Precedent hasn't been taken yet.

[ConservativeElector2]

9 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

When you say intentionally bench, what do you mean in game terms?  Retiring them from the game?  Forcing them to resign their current position (but staying in the game)?  Not running them for available elections?

I had 'not running them for available elections' in mind, but 'forcing them to resign their current position (but staying in the game)' sounds good as well! I would say these are the options I would give them.

I am just thinking about what incentive this move to distance yourself from controversial guys could have in the game.

@Pringles

Edited September 12, 2022 by ConservativeElector2

[vcczar]

8 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Until the Presidential action is taken to set precedent for a President firing a cabinet member, these positions are basically "for life" unless random events, etc, intervene.

To my understanding, the historical question about whether President Adams could fire a cabinet member wasn't so much about whether the position was for life...but rather about whether the ability to fire a cabinet member resided with the Senate instead of with the President.

With that in mind, I'd propose creating a legislative proposal for firing a cabinet member, which can only be implemented if the Presidential Action Precedent hasn't been taken yet.

Ok I can make that if you put that in suggested fixes. Since I’ll look there to see what I need to do when I finish the census and get back to AMPU after doing teaching things. 

[MrPotatoTed]

36 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ok I can make that if you put that in suggested fixes. Since I’ll look there to see what I need to do when I finish the census and get back to AMPU after doing teaching things. 

Haha, we’re already in suggested fixes! ;c)

[vcczar]

Alright everyone. Will tag @MrPotatoTed. Made the following changes:

• Teller Amendment is now repealable
• Added to 3.0.....'Note: With the exception of the 13 original states, VT, TX, CA, Deseret, Mexican Cession, and Quebec, all states and hypothetical states are required to go through territory status first. The states listed above that are not of the original 13, have the option of not going through territory status first, via legis props."...I didn't make the changes to each and every individual statehood legis prop under requirements because I don't have time. 
• I'm not trimming the Career Track because Anthony already created it. However, we can weaken it. Another purpose for it is that it helps people from running politicians for national office too soon. People are likely to put their best politicians on the track, which keeps them out of the spotlight until they're about 45, which is when most politicians aim for the Senate, governorship, etc. Maybe we can cap career track increases to 4 in an ability, but maybe just make it harder to improve in general. Actually, I think I used to have the % much weaker. 
• This was added to 3.0 rules on impeachment " If impeachment fails to convict a president that goes to trial, then there’s a 50% chance - party pref for the president’s party, 25% chance of - party pref only for the party that convicted the president, and a 25% chance that both parties are hurt, so no change in party pref. "
• This was added to 3.0 rules on impeachment " Politicians that vote to convict a president of their own party have a 25% chance of gaining “disharmonious” (if they aren’t likable), 50% chance of gaining “integrity” (if they president is controversial), and 25% chance of gaining nothing. They also have a separate roll for 25% chance “can be independent.” Lastly, these politicians get a 75% chance of -1 in the next primary and 25% chance of -2 in the next primary.  "
• Someone mentioned wanting a Gen Event that leads to party switching. This already exists, but I added one to give the "Can Party Switch" and "Can Be Independent" traits. This new Gen Event is called Ideological Differences.
• I saw that MrPotatoTed added the US Bank Pres. I rearranged the name of the title and added a requirement. " President of the US Bank (Economics). This office must go to a faction that controls the Wall Street Lobby." The requirement will be controversial, which should help lead to a battle of the banks. Someone might want to "kill" the banks to prevent this perk. This officer also gains 100 pts on appointment.
• New Legis Prop " Give the President the Authority to Fire Cabinet Officers" is possible so long as the Pres Action version has not occurred. 

[MrPotatoTed]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Alright everyone. Will tag @MrPotatoTed. Made the following changes:

• Teller Amendment is now repealable
• Added to 3.0.....'Note: With the exception of the 13 original states, VT, TX, CA, Deseret, Mexican Cession, and Quebec, all states and hypothetical states are required to go through territory status first. The states listed above that are not of the original 13, have the option of not going through territory status first, via legis props."...I didn't make the changes to each and every individual statehood legis prop under requirements because I don't have time. 
• I'm not trimming the Career Track because Anthony already created it. However, we can weaken it. Another purpose for it is that it helps people from running politicians for national office too soon. People are likely to put their best politicians on the track, which keeps them out of the spotlight until they're about 45, which is when most politicians aim for the Senate, governorship, etc. Maybe we can cap career track increases to 4 in an ability, but maybe just make it harder to improve in general. Actually, I think I used to have the % much weaker. 
• This was added to 3.0 rules on impeachment " If impeachment fails to convict a president that goes to trial, then there’s a 50% chance - party pref for the president’s party, 25% chance of - party pref only for the party that convicted the president, and a 25% chance that both parties are hurt, so no change in party pref. "
• This was added to 3.0 rules on impeachment " Politicians that vote to convict a president of their own party have a 25% chance of gaining “disharmonious” (if they aren’t likable), 50% chance of gaining “integrity” (if they president is controversial), and 25% chance of gaining nothing. They also have a separate roll for 25% chance “can be independent.” Lastly, these politicians get a 75% chance of -1 in the next primary and 25% chance of -2 in the next primary.  "
• Someone mentioned wanting a Gen Event that leads to party switching. This already exists, but I added one to give the "Can Party Switch" and "Can Be Independent" traits. This new Gen Event is called Ideological Differences.
• I saw that MrPotatoTed added the US Bank Pres. I rearranged the name of the title and added a requirement. " President of the US Bank (Economics). This office must go to a faction that controls the Wall Street Lobby." The requirement will be controversial, which should help lead to a battle of the banks. Someone might want to "kill" the banks to prevent this perk. This officer also gains 100 pts on appointment.
• New Legis Prop " Give the President the Authority to Fire Cabinet Officers" is possible so long as the Pres Action version has not occurred. 

Sounds good!  Yeah, career tracks used to be too weak.  Now they’re too powerful. We’ll find the right balance! Haha.

US bank President sounds good.  I assume there’s language for it Wall Street lobby doesn’t exist?

[Hestia]

1. In brief, what is the issue? I believe that Nancy Pelosi should have Iron Fist.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? Not necessarily an example, but I believe that there's ample evidence in real life to suggest that Pelosi has as much political acumen as Mitch McConnell and would qualify for Iron Fist. 

 

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

Add Iron Fist for Pelosi

 

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55518870

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/pelosi-latest-government-shutdown-1128577

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/nancy-pelosi-speaker-of-the-house-career-13506590.php

[ShortKing]

Just now, Hestia said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? I believe that Nancy Pelosi should have Iron Fist.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? Not necessarily an example, but I believe that there's ample evidence in real life to suggest that Pelosi has as much political acumen as Mitch McConnell and would qualify for Iron Fist. 

 

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

Add Iron Fist for Pelosi

 

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55518870

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/pelosi-latest-government-shutdown-1128577

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/nancy-pelosi-speaker-of-the-house-career-13506590.php

I actually agree, she's managed a razor thin majority in the House with surprising success, even on bills widely known to be doa in the Senate, most notably the BBB. 

[vcczar]

11 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I actually agree, she's managed a razor thin majority in the House with surprising success, even on bills widely known to be doa in the Senate, most notably the BBB. 

I'll do it if we get more concurrence. I'm on the fence. I want only a few people to be born with it. It's easier to judge historical figures if it is a life-long attribute or not. She might have just "earned" it over time. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll do it if we get more concurrence. I'm on the fence. I want only a few people to be born with it. It's easier to judge historical figures if it is a life-long attribute or not. She might have just "earned" it over time. 

Pelosi definitely earned Iron Fist after ascending to the Speakership the first time, rather than being born with it, I feel.

[OrangeP47]

I mean, is anyone "born" with iron fist?