AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[Hestia]

27 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. 

I think you could make a stronger argument she was born with it/learned early than others. She learned in her childhood from her father who was a legislator in Maryland/Baltimore area. I'm not quite sure what people mean by being 'born with it' since most people are defined by what happens in their lives. I don't know what differentiates McConnell being 'born with it' and Pelosi not. 

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

I think you could make a stronger argument she was born with it/learned early than others. She learned in her childhood from her father who was a legislator in Maryland/Baltimore area. I'm not quite sure what people mean by being 'born with it' since most people are defined by what happens in their lives. I don't know what differentiates McConnell being 'born with it' and Pelosi not. 

I feel like McConnell had a sort of iron-handed leadership that thwarted Obama fairly regularly in a way that I don't think Pelosi had as much against Trump. As said, I'm kind of on the fence. Let's see what @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 @matthewyoung123 and some other people who are probably less inclined towards Pelosi might say. For instance, I gave it to McConnell despite disliking his part intensely, which has to say something. Can someone who disliked Democrats and Pelosi agree that she deserved to be "born with" iron fist?

[Pringles]

52 minutes ago, 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

 

51 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 concur with the suggestion. I think Pelosi's management of a razor thin majority is significant, alongside fending off multiple challenges and criticisms from her own party (Both wings). When shit's on the line, she'll make sure she gets it done. I think she's a bit of a McConnell-Lite Democrat in the House. 

[ConservativeElector2]

56 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I feel like McConnell had a sort of iron-handed leadership that thwarted Obama fairly regularly in a way that I don't think Pelosi had as much against Trump. As said, I'm kind of on the fence. Let's see what @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 @matthewyoung123 and some other people who are probably less inclined towards Pelosi might say. For instance, I gave it to McConnell despite disliking his part intensely, which has to say something. Can someone who disliked Democrats and Pelosi agree that she deserved to be "born with" iron fist?

I don't know.. for me Pelosi seems like a weaker leader than McConnell. I am not opposed to you giving her iron fist, but if asked who came to my mind when it comes to awarding iron fist, I would probably not have mentioned Pelosi. I could make the case for her, by saying she deserves to be born with it because she worked herself through the ranks to achieve her position, but again when being in said position finally, she doesn't seem to me like a very powerful leader - I also do not believe that her endorsement would get someone across the finish line for sure. Anyway it's up to you, but those have been my two cents on this.

[Willthescout7]

I lean no. She struggled to rally support for this term as Speaker, but I will grant that she has done a masterful job of strangling Trump's final two years and pushing legislation through these last two years. I would rather give her a trait that helps politicians push stuff through and grease wheels. 

[jvikings1]

23 hours ago, vcczar said:

I feel like McConnell had a sort of iron-handed leadership that thwarted Obama fairly regularly in a way that I don't think Pelosi had as much against Trump. As said, I'm kind of on the fence. Let's see what @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 @matthewyoung123 and some other people who are probably less inclined towards Pelosi might say. For instance, I gave it to McConnell despite disliking his part intensely, which has to say something. Can someone who disliked Democrats and Pelosi agree that she deserved to be "born with" iron fist?

I am inclined to agree with your initial judgment. She doesn't seem to have the power of McConnell and doesn't seem to have a monumental party line block (like McConnell with Garland). Gingrich is the last speaker that would seem to me like an ironfisted political leader.

[vcczar]

Just now, jvikings1 said:

I am inclined to agree with your initial judgment. She doesn't seem to have the power of McConnell and doesn't seem to have a monumental party line block (like McConnell with Garland). Gingrich is the last speaker that would seem to me like an ironfisted political leader.

Yeah, I tend to lean with this assessment, even though I could kinda go either way.

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

I am inclined to agree with your initial judgment. She doesn't seem to have the power of McConnell and doesn't seem to have a monumental party line block (like McConnell with Garland). Gingrich is the last speaker that would seem to me like an ironfisted political leader.

I mean, how do you have a party-line block when you're in the House? That's not really a thing there.

 

She gets Iron Fist because there is never an issue with getting something passed in the House when Pelosi is Speaker. No matter how small her majority, it is always the Senate that's the issue, not the House. And that's even with reconciliation votes. No one asked "Will Pelosi be able to push the IRA through the House? Or will 5 moderate dems defect?" because no one was worried that Pelosi wouldn't get the votes. I mean, she was able to get how many Blue Dogs to support the ACA when they knew that it would destroy their chances at reelection?

[MrPotatoTed]

After yet another election blowout (1792 was 100% blue, 1794 is 98% red), I think it’s time to tweak meter impacts.

I’d propose leaving them all as is…but that party preference can only swing a maximum of +3 in either direction.  So if red is incumbent and party preference is already +3 blue, then the fact that there’s also a Great Depression doesn’t necessarily matter to party preference because it’s already as bad as it can get.

1792 was +8 blue party preference from the meters and there wasn’t even any point to red running in nearly any race.  Dice didn’t need to be rolled, every race was a blow out.

Comparitively, 1794 was +3 red.  It was still a blowout, but blue at least had a chance if dice had gone their way.

[vcczar]

57 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

After yet another election blowout (1792 was 100% blue, 1794 is 98% red), I think it’s time to tweak meter impacts.

I’d propose leaving them all as is…but that party preference can only swing a maximum of +3 in either direction.  So if red is incumbent and party preference is already +3 blue, then the fact that there’s also a Great Depression doesn’t necessarily matter to party preference because it’s already as bad as it can get.

1792 was +8 blue party preference from the meters and there wasn’t even any point to red running in nearly any race.  Dice didn’t need to be rolled, every race was a blow out.

Comparitively, 1794 was +3 red.  It was still a blowout, but blue at least had a chance if dice had gone their way.

I’m okay with that change. I’d like to hear from the other playtesters in regards to their elections first ideally. 

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

After yet another election blowout (1792 was 100% blue, 1794 is 98% red), I think it’s time to tweak meter impacts.

I’d propose leaving them all as is…but that party preference can only swing a maximum of +3 in either direction.  So if red is incumbent and party preference is already +3 blue, then the fact that there’s also a Great Depression doesn’t necessarily matter to party preference because it’s already as bad as it can get.

1792 was +8 blue party preference from the meters and there wasn’t even any point to red running in nearly any race.  Dice didn’t need to be rolled, every race was a blow out.

Comparitively, 1794 was +3 red.  It was still a blowout, but blue at least had a chance if dice had gone their way.

 

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m okay with that change. I’d like to hear from the other playtesters in regards to their elections first ideally. 

I'd like to test this system out first but I like the idea. If a +3 cap makes things a little too close, then maybe a +5 cap could be good for testing too, since that's the max state preference.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

So, for the Civil War playtest, we haven't had any blowout elections except some midterm swings but they haven't been do bad as to wipe out a party. Right now we apply the meters to each election (both general and midterm) and have found that they are giving pretty accurate results and the swings aren't dramatically like you're experiencing. Here are the election results (don't have the meter info off hand but we've had things mostly near the middle in terms of party pref but the enthusiasms have been maxed out about evenly most of the time).

1842: WH Harrison Midterm

• House: 33 Dems, 21 Whigs
• Govs: Dems 14, Whigs 10

1844: Marcy (D) defeats Harrison (W) (Before crisis penalties were toned down)

• President: 223 Dem, 58 Whig
• House: 42 Dems, 13 Whigs 
• Govs: Dems 15, Whigs 7

1846: Marcy Midterm (most meters were bottomed out and in crisis mode)

• House: Dems 12, Whigs 45
• Govs: Dems 4, Whigs 21

1848: Fillmore (W) very narrowly defeats Marcy (D)

• President: 140 Whig, 141 Dem, 6 faithless electors
• House: Dems 24, Whigs 33
• Govs: Dems 11, Whigs 13

1850: Broom Midterm (Fillmore died in office)

• House: Dems 36, Whigs 21
• Govs: Dems 16, Whigs 9

It could be that maybe we're all applying the rules differently leading to some varying results of the meters, so I would advocate for applying the meters how we have been doing in our playtest to see how things work out. Keeping in mind the first time they are applied they might have wonky results from things leveling out. I will also say that I was at first very much for weakening the meters, but the way that that have been working out in our playtest has won me over to them.

[MrPotatoTed]

21 minutes ago, Rezi said:

 

I'd like to test this system out first but I like the idea. If a +3 cap makes things a little too close, then maybe a +5 cap could be good for testing too, since that's the max state preference.

Test away!  But like I said, I just had another blowout just with +3, so +5 will almost certainly be too much.

[Rezi]

20 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

So, for the Civil War playtest, we haven't had any blowout elections except some midterm swings but they haven't been do bad as to wipe out a party. Right now we apply the meters to each election (both general and midterm) and have found that they are giving pretty accurate results and the swings aren't dramatically like you're experiencing. Here are the election results (don't have the meter info off hand but we've had things mostly near the middle in terms of party pref but the enthusiasms have been maxed out about evenly most of the time).

1842: WH Harrison Midterm

• House: 33 Dems, 21 Whigs
• Govs: Dems 14, Whigs 10

1844: Marcy (D) defeats Harrison (W) (Before crisis penalties were toned down)

• President: 223 Dem, 58 Whig
• House: 42 Dems, 13 Whigs 
• Govs: Dems 15, Whigs 7

1846: Marcy Midterm (most meters were bottomed out and in crisis mode)

• House: Dems 12, Whigs 45
• Govs: Dems 4, Whigs 21

1848: Fillmore (W) very narrowly defeats Marcy (D)

• President: 140 Whig, 141 Dem, 6 faithless electors
• House: Dems 24, Whigs 33
• Govs: Dems 11, Whigs 13

1850: Broom Midterm (Fillmore died in office)

• House: Dems 36, Whigs 21
• Govs: Dems 16, Whigs 9

It could be that maybe we're all applying the rules differently leading to some varying results of the meters, so I would advocate for applying the meters how we have been doing in our playtest to see how things work out. Keeping in mind the first time they are applied they might have wonky results from things leveling out. I will also say that I was at first very much for weakening the meters, but the way that that have been working out in our playtest has won me over to them.

Y'all should do a writeup on how you interpret the rules, since the meter rules clearly seem to be rules that everyone applies slightly differently

[MrPotatoTed]

21 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

So, for the Civil War playtest, we haven't had any blowout elections except some midterm swings but they haven't been do bad as to wipe out a party. Right now we apply the meters to each election (both general and midterm) and have found that they are giving pretty accurate results and the swings aren't dramatically like you're experiencing. Here are the election results (don't have the meter info off hand but we've had things mostly near the middle in terms of party pref but the enthusiasms have been maxed out about evenly most of the time).

1842: WH Harrison Midterm

• House: 33 Dems, 21 Whigs
• Govs: Dems 14, Whigs 10

1844: Marcy (D) defeats Harrison (W) (Before crisis penalties were toned down)

• President: 223 Dem, 58 Whig
• House: 42 Dems, 13 Whigs 
• Govs: Dems 15, Whigs 7

1846: Marcy Midterm (most meters were bottomed out and in crisis mode)

• House: Dems 12, Whigs 45
• Govs: Dems 4, Whigs 21

1848: Fillmore (W) very narrowly defeats Marcy (D)

• President: 140 Whig, 141 Dem, 6 faithless electors
• House: Dems 24, Whigs 33
• Govs: Dems 11, Whigs 13

1850: Broom Midterm (Fillmore died in office)

• House: Dems 36, Whigs 21
• Govs: Dems 16, Whigs 9

It could be that maybe we're all applying the rules differently leading to some varying results of the meters, so I would advocate for applying the meters how we have been doing in our playtest to see how things work out. Keeping in mind the first time they are applied they might have wonky results from things leveling out. I will also say that I was at first very much for weakening the meters, but the way that that have been working out in our playtest has won me over to them.

I Believe we’re already applying the meters the same way that you are, as far as I can tell.  

[jvikings1]

19 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

After yet another election blowout (1792 was 100% blue, 1794 is 98% red), I think it’s time to tweak meter impacts.

I’d propose leaving them all as is…but that party preference can only swing a maximum of +3 in either direction.  So if red is incumbent and party preference is already +3 blue, then the fact that there’s also a Great Depression doesn’t necessarily matter to party preference because it’s already as bad as it can get.

1792 was +8 blue party preference from the meters and there wasn’t even any point to red running in nearly any race.  Dice didn’t need to be rolled, every race was a blow out.

Comparitively, 1794 was +3 red.  It was still a blowout, but blue at least had a chance if dice had gone their way.

I like this idea. There should be blowout elections. But absolute wipeouts shouldn't be too easy.

[OrangeP47]

So, this is a pre-emptive, more like open question.  There's a very real possibility in 1840 we're about to see a North California and South California.  We can't use NC and SC for them, those are taken.  Alta California and Baja California would be cool names, but AC/BC.... BC is British Columbia.... that's still already taken.... how do we name/code these forsaken states.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar

Upper California (UC) and Lower California (LC)?  
 

good question, might need to check abbreviations for all potential alternate states.

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar

Upper California (UC) and Lower California (LC)?  
 

good question, might need to check abbreviations for all potential alternate states.

That's a good answer. Probably as good as it'll get.

You should have seen me sitting in the chat though, like "Well, if the US has *British* Columbia, surely it's just Columbia... we can call it CO.... wait NO!"

[MrPotatoTed]

22 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

That's a good answer. Probably as good as it'll get.

You should have seen me sitting in the chat though, like "Well, if the US has *British* Columbia, surely it's just Columbia... we can call it CO.... wait NO!"

I mean, this is too perfect.

 

 

[vcczar]

40 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar

Upper California (UC) and Lower California (LC)?  
 

good question, might need to check abbreviations for all potential alternate states.

There's a spreadsheet. I think it's called states and territories that has all the abbreviations. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar I think if I'm understanding the rules right, "Joint Chiefs of Staff" eventually replaces "Senior General/Chief of Staff."

I'd propose having Joint Chiefs of Staff be it's own stand-alone role.  Specifically because the leader of any branch of service can become the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so it should be open to Senior Admirals as well.

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar I think if I'm understanding the rules right, "Joint Chiefs of Staff" eventually replaces "Senior General/Chief of Staff."

I'd propose having Joint Chiefs of Staff be it's own stand-alone role.  Specifically because the leader of any branch of service can become the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so it should be open to Senior Admirals as well.

Yeah, Senior General is replaced by Chief of Staff and this is replaced by JCoS. Let's just say an Admiral can be appointed to it, but not make it stand alone. I think I have it so that Senior Admiral is replaced by Chief Naval Ops. I thought I mentioned JCofS can have Naval ability. 

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, Senior General is replaced by Chief of Staff and this is replaced by JCoS. Let's just say an Admiral can be appointed to it, but not make it stand alone. I think I have it so that Senior Admiral is replaced by Chief Naval Ops. I thought I mentioned JCofS can have Naval ability. 

It's kind of complicated because there's a penalty for not nominating incumbent Generals to the top leadership position -- so saying Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top Army position but is open to admirals blurs the lines a bit.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It's kind of complicated because there's a penalty for not nominating incumbent Generals to the top leadership position -- so saying Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top Army position but is open to admirals blurs the lines a bit.

Make it incumbent admirals to that position as well. Any military incumbent. 

I just added Legis Props --- amendment to allow Senators to remove and replace cabinet and a bill to do so when the amendment is active.