AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[vcczar]

23 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar The legislative proposal "Land grants to encourage settlement in Ohio" requires that Ohio is not a state yet -- but also gives points to the Senators and Governor of Ohio.  Since the law requires that Ohio not be a state, there naturally cannot be Senators or a Governor.

Ok. I’ll delete the points. The requirement for statehood was added later and I didn’t delete the bonus points. I’m not home yet but will get to it when I get back. Thanks !

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar The legislative proposal "Land grants to encourage settlement in Ohio" requires that Ohio is not a state yet -- but also gives points to the Senators and Governor of Ohio.  Since the law requires that Ohio not be a state, there naturally cannot be Senators or a Governor.

ok fixed. 

[MrPotatoTed]

On 9/16/2022 at 4:16 PM, Cal said:

1. Pre-12th Amendment elections could be made more historically accurate and unpredictable by accounting for the individual desires of the Kingmakers/Governors that are making the decision. Also, there's nothing saying if states all vote at once or if there's a particular order that they'll vote in. I'd say that all states should vote at once so that players can't account for decisions in other states. 

2. I've tested the only pre-12th Amendment election so far under the new rules. They're definitely better than the old rules, but it's one of the very few areas of the game that doesn't take traits and rogue statesman into account. 

3. Change the rules to this, reflecting traits and making it definitive when voting occurs. (changes in bold)

Election: Once both parties select their Pres nom, VP nom, and alternates, then voting will proceed in every state simultaneously. Every elector gets 2 votes (technically 1 for Pres and 1 for VP). Use the standard Election Day rules for states that allow the popular vote with the top two finishers in that state getting 1 vote each in that state.

Otherwise, the election is a two-step process: initial orders from the player or CPU, and then an opportunity for individual Kingmakers and Governors to change their vote based on traits.

Step 1: players will instruct politicians kingmakers and the two candidates that get the most kingmaker votes will get 1 vote each in that state. Should no politicians with kingmaker exist in a state, then the player controlling the Gov will make the initial decision. 

[CPU: The CPU will support the party leaders pick for president 100% of the time, and the VP picked by the party leader 75% of the time. 25% of the time, they will select the one of the alternatives of their party (randomly). There are two exceptions. See the George Washington 1st President below.  The other exception is if an alternate comes from their home state, they will pick that person for their 2nd vote (VP choice) 50% of the time. 

Step 2: Individual Kingmakers and Governors may, if their traits allow, cast their vote for a different candidate than agreed upon by the player or CPU. 

Disharmonious: has a 50% chance to refuse to vote for a candidate of the opposite party, even if they were instructed to in the previous step. If the Disharmonious elector is a candidate, they will always vote for themselves. Otherwise, will randomly select from a same-party nominee.

Pliable: has a 50% chance of bending to the will of the Party Leader's selection, even if they were instructed to vote for an alternate candidate in the previous step. 

Puritan: has a 50% chance of voting for a same-ideology candidate, regardless of party, if they were instructed to vote for a candidate with a different ideology in the previous step. If also Disharmonious, only consider same-party candidates. If the selected candidate is two or more steps from the Puritan's personal ideology, make this a 90% chance.

Debater: has a 25% chance of converting the vote of another same-state Kingmaker, as long as that Kingmaker does not have Puritan. If the same-state Kingmaker has Pliable, make this a 50% chance. Add 10% a chance each for Orator, Charisma, and Likable. 

Integrity: A Kingmaker/Governor with Integrity has a 25% of refusing to vote for a candidate with "Controversial". The politician will instead vote for a random same-party candidate, preferring those with Integrity. If no other same-party candidates exist, they will vote for an opposite-party candidate with Integrity. If still no candidate exists, they will revert to their original vote. 

A Kingmaker/Governor who's personal ideology is maxed in the opposing party's direction has a 50% chance to vote for an opposite party candidate sharing their personal ideology if there is one. This increases to a 75% chance if the Kingmaker/Governor also has Puritan. 

Result: The top two finishers, regardless of party, when the 2 votes for each state are added up, the top vote getter will be President and 2nd vote getter will be VP. Both will lose “obscure.” If a tie, the vote goes to the US House. 

Took a quick peak at the new official rules, and felt like CPU was underdeveloped (VPs would always be from the same high EV state for both parties, and CPU always runs an alternate candidate if they aren't the incumbent, so you still have a ton of active candidates in mostly-CPU games, which was the problem we were trying to fix.)

So, taking a look at yours now.

Yours doesn't really address the CPU alternate issue either, so we'll need to come up with something for that.

Maybe Disharmonious should impact whether a CPU faction leader backs the party leader's candidate?  And/or puritan ideology mismatches?

[MrPotatoTed]

For CPU alternate rules, maybe something like:

CPU Factions will nominate an alternate if they can.  However, alternates cannot be from the same state or same ideology as any other same-party candidate, and cannot be on a career track.

[MrPotatoTed]

And VP choices should consider whether the state is "winnable."  As written, CPU always prefers highest EV state exclusively.  Not only will this lead to both party's nominating a VP from the same state 99% of the time, but it will often even be the same state election to election unless there's a huge population shift.

Meanwhile, in modern playtests, Republicans would be consistently nominating Californians for VP, something that has never happened in the modern era.

VP selection should focus on either a state that leans toward their party (pump up the base) or a "swing" state.  Not enemy territory, so to speak.

[Cal]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

And VP choices should consider whether the state is "winnable."  As written, CPU always prefers highest EV state exclusively.  Not only will this lead to both party's nominating a VP from the same state 99% of the time, but it will often even be the same state election to election unless there's a huge population shift.

Meanwhile, in modern playtests, Republicans would be consistently nominating Californians for VP, something that has never happened in the modern era.

VP selection should focus on either a state that leans toward their party (pump up the base) or a "swing" state.  Not enemy territory, so to speak.

Since it’s predictable who will get to make that decision, that seems like a good change.

Mahbe they only pick from a state if either A. 1/2 of the kingmaker electors in the state or more are from their party or B. There are no kingmakers in the state and the Governor is of the same party. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Just ran a test of my new CPU alternate rules above, using my 1772 single player game as a test case.

RED
President nominee:  EllsworthCPU Former Pres (and current party leader) Abraham Whipple (RI Moderate)
VP Nominee: @10centjimmy Rep. John Marshall (VA Conservative)
Alternate: EllsworthCPU Oliver Ellsworth (CT Liberal)

BLUE
President nominee: RandolphCPU President Peleg Arnold (RI Moderate)
VP Nominee: BooneCPU Thomas Mason (VA Conservative)
Alternate: PaineCPU Thomas Paine (PA Progressive)

That looks a lot better, in my mind. 
 

[vcczar]

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Just ran a test of my new CPU alternate rules above, using my 1772 single player game as a test case.

RED
President nominee:  EllsworthCPU Former Pres (and current party leader) Abraham Whipple (RI Moderate)
VP Nominee: @10centjimmy Rep. John Marshall (VA Conservative)
Alternate: EllsworthCPU Oliver Ellsworth (CT Liberal)

BLUE
President nominee: RandolphCPU President Peleg Arnold (RI Moderate)
VP Nominee: BooneCPU Thomas Mason (VA Conservative)
Alternate: PaineCPU Thomas Paine (PA Progressive)

That looks a lot better, in my mind. 
 

I altered the rules for the CPU picking a VP just now based on your comment in 2.9.4.

[vcczar]

I also added rules for CPU picking an alternate.

[Willthescout7]

12 hours ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Third Parties

In the Civil War playtest we are entering a presidential election with the Free Soil Party even triggered, so we will have that third party active in the election. We are also sitting on the cusp of the meters allowing for a third party to happen too, so would there be the possibility of there being two third parties akin to our 1860 election? Either way that might need to be clarified in the rules to allow or disallow this. 

Also when a third party triggers, can it ever come from the faction of a faction running for president? Example, Red faction 1 is running as their party's presidential candidate. A third party challenge can be triggered from their faction, would they be able to run as the third party presidential nominee as well?

Also also if three ideologies can run third party challenges, do all of them have the chance to do so? This would very likely be extremely rare, but something that could happen.

@vcczar tagging to make sure you saw this

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. Mod is +1 and -1 in the Era of Normalcy

2. Checking the historical era, and yes, Mods get a +1 and -1 in Indiana in the Era of Normalcy.

3. Pick a bonus.

[vcczar]

17 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

1. Mod is +1 and -1 in the Era of Normalcy

2. Checking the historical era, and yes, Mods get a +1 and -1 in Indiana in the Era of Normalcy.

3. Pick a bonus.

Historical Era biases have been replaced with AMPU Census. Fixed the issue there. 

[vcczar]

26 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

@vcczar tagging to make sure you saw this

Do I have it in the rules where the Civil War requires or prohibits 3rd parties? If so, where? I haven't read my own rules in this regard in maybe 2 years, so I'm unsure if this is on a scripted event or in rules 3.0 or elsewhere. I just need the rule referenced and so I know where to amend it. Otherwise, I'll just leave it as is.

[Willthescout7]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Do I have it in the rules where the Civil War requires or prohibits 3rd parties? If so, where? I haven't read my own rules in this regard in maybe 2 years, so I'm unsure if this is on a scripted event or in rules 3.0 or elsewhere. I just need the rule referenced and so I know where to amend it. Otherwise, I'll just leave it as is.

There was an event that fired that mandated a free soil third party challenge. Plus the meters are now in a place to allow a separate third party challenge which follows the normal rules. We just need the clarification to make sure we do it right. @Ich_bin_Tylerknows the exact event.

[vcczar]

13 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

There was an event that fired that mandated a free soil third party challenge. Plus the meters are now in a place to allow a separate third party challenge which follows the normal rules. We just need the clarification to make sure we do it right. @Ich_bin_Tylerknows the exact event.

Thanks! I added this note to the Third Party rules section:

Note: If a Scripted Event mandates a 3rd party run, then it overrides the meter calling for a 3rd party run. That is, it does not create an instance of where there is more than one third party run.

[Willthescout7]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Thanks! I added this note to the Third Party rules section:

Note: If a Scripted Event mandates a 3rd party run, then it overrides the meter calling for a 3rd party run. That is, it does not create an instance of where there is more than one third party run.

Final question: could this third party candidate come from a faction that already has the Presidential nomination for their team? So in this case, could the Progressive Conscience Whigs have the third party challenge when they already have the Whig Presidential Candidate?

Edited September 18, 2022 by Willthescout7

[Willthescout7]

@MrPotatoTed @Ich_bin_Tyler @OrangeP47 @Cal

I've been thinking that compromise candidates are an option too early in the convention. Whigs have now had compromise candidates twice in the past two elections, which means that none of the original candidates win. Both times one or two more ballots would have had an original candidate win. But the rules as they are written mandate a winner has to win quickly, which doesn't happen with these stubborn CPU. 

I believe historically 5 ballots wasn't a lot at a convention, but in this game we are treating it like it is. I propose doubling the length of time original candidates have to win. So instead of 5 ballots it becomes 10, and 10 ballots after compromise candidates a dark horse is available.

I feel like this would allow more time and fit better with the CPU behaviors, while still having a significant time limit for the player to win. I know it would be harder to do by hand, but the computer program version could easily handle that.

[vcczar]

19 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Final question: could this third party candidate come from a faction that already has the Presidential nomination for their team? So in this case, could the Progressive Conscience Whigs have the third party challenge when they already have the Whig Presidential Candidate?

Somewhere in the rules I believe it says it comes from the faction with the lowest ideological enthusiasm. At least it did at one point. So many rules have changed over time, that I can't keep track of them since I'm not micromanaging the creation of the game. Let me add something to the rules to clarify this. 

[vcczar]

21 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Final question: could this third party candidate come from a faction that already has the Presidential nomination for their team? So in this case, could the Progressive Conscience Whigs have the third party challenge when they already have the Whig Presidential Candidate?

Yeah. It's already there. 

The player with the faction of the dissatisfied ideology card will select one of their politicians of the applicable ideology that is of age, has 1 command, and has the trait “independent.”

[Willthescout7]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah. It's already there. 

The player with the faction of the dissatisfied ideology card will select one of their politicians of the applicable ideology that is of age, has 1 command, and has the trait “independent.”

Even if they already have a candidate in the race? 

Essentially, just confirming that you intend for one faction to be able to run both a Red/Blue nominee and a 3rd party nominee at the same time in the same election? 

So we could, for example see the Conscience Whigs run Jacob Broom II as the Whig Presidential nominee, AND Alexander Cambell as a 3rd party at the same time.

 

This seems weird to me and like the faction is self-sabotaging themselves. I would suggest making a clause where a faction won't run a 3rd party if they control the nominee even if able.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Even if they already have a candidate in the race? 

Essentially, just confirming that you intend for one faction to be able to run both a Red/Blue nominee and a 3rd party nominee at the same time in the same election? 

So we could, for example see the Conscience Whigs run Jacob Broom II as the Whig Presidential nominee, AND Alexander Cambell as a 3rd party at the same time.

 

This seems weird to me and like the faction is self-sabotaging themselves. I would suggest making a clause where a faction won't run a 3rd party if they control the nominee even if able.

Note: If the lowest enthusiasm faction has a member on the party ticket, then it nullifies the 3rd party challenge.

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

@MrPotatoTed @Ich_bin_Tyler @OrangeP47 @Cal

I've been thinking that compromise candidates are an option too early in the convention. Whigs have now had compromise candidates twice in the past two elections, which means that none of the original candidates win. Both times one or two more ballots would have had an original candidate win. But the rules as they are written mandate a winner has to win quickly, which doesn't happen with these stubborn CPU. 

I believe historically 5 ballots wasn't a lot at a convention, but in this game we are treating it like it is. I propose doubling the length of time original candidates have to win. So instead of 5 ballots it becomes 10, and 10 ballots after compromise candidates a dark horse is available.

I feel like this would allow more time and fit better with the CPU behaviors, while still having a significant time limit for the player to win. I know it would be harder to do by hand, but the computer program version could easily handle that.

I'd not be opposed to making it like 7-8 or something.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Once someone gets the right to vote, can they be denied it?

In our single-player playthrough, we granted all races the right to vote in the Constitutional Convention.

Years later, can we propose and pass the law that gives white property owners the right to vote?

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Once someone gets the right to vote, can they be denied it?

In our single-player playthrough, we granted all races the right to vote in the Constitutional Convention.

Years later, can we propose and pass the law that gives white property owners the right to vote?

I don't have any bills/Amendments that take away the right to vote. If the Amendment is repealable, then the Amendment could be repealed and something more restrictive could be passed, I guess.

[MrPotatoTed]

58 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't have any bills/Amendments that take away the right to vote. If the Amendment is repealable, then the Amendment could be repealed and something more restrictive could be passed, I guess.

Ok.  Does it have to be repealed first?  Or does passage of one automatically replace the other?