AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[vcczar]

17 hours ago, Vols21 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?    Outside of the career path, there is no way for someone with only Judicial to gain any additional experience.  If they are a 1 or 2, they are pretty much dead in the water.   

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?    simple approach to creating a "Circuit Court" that does nothing outside of allowing some additional skills.   Allow the President to appoint 1 (or 2) judges to the Circuit Court ever 2 years (if you allow two, then mandate that at least one must come from outside the President's faction).   These must be no higher than level 1 or 2 Judicial.   Their "term" could be 10 years when they rotate out so the current Pres can appoint someone else.   At that time, they would get to roll on the 8 or 12 year career path chart - either could give them 1 additional Judicial (12 gives a good chance to get a second)/   Not intending this to help make super judges, but to at least give these something to do and maybe help build a bench of possible replacements outside of the obvious choices.

 

*** something else that I was thinking of, is should certain Justices have some sort of Kingmaker trait since they have a record of putting their law clerks on the Supreme Court too?   Or another possible solution to my above issue is that each Justice can have a level one Judicial as their law clerk, and when they leave the court, the "clerk" could roll on the appropriate "Career Path" chart (and yes, I'd allow the clerk to leave early and be replaced with another).   I think Judicial is a unique skill, since about the only way to earn more is to serve on the Supreme Court which has limited space (unlike lots of opportunities to grow Leg or Gov if they get elected in their state)

A complicated court system isn't something I'm considering for AMPU (maybe for AMPU 2). I've resolved this issue by modifying the "Increase the number of lower court justices." When this is activated, each faction belonging to the president's party will have one of their non-officeholding politicians that have at least 1 judicial gain +1 judicial. 

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Just went to that section. Seems like I overlooked it at first. Sorry about that.

no prob. 

[Vols21]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

A complicated court system isn't something I'm considering for AMPU (maybe for AMPU 2). I've resolved this issue by modifying the "Increase the number of lower court justices." When this is activated, each faction belonging to the president's party will have one of their non-officeholding politicians that have at least 1 judicial gain +1 judicial. 

thanks I didn't want complicated either (do nothing but get a gain at end of 10 years).  Your idea is simpler and is random instead of choose who gets the gains which works great for me.   How often would those gains come along?  once every 4 years?  (or is it just a one time deal?)

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, Vols21 said:

thanks I didn't want complicated either (do nothing but get a gain at end of 10 years).  Your idea is simpler and is random instead of choose who gets the gains which works great for me.   How often would those gains come along?  once every 4 years?  (or is it just a one time deal?)

It can be passed once every presidential administration. So every 4 years, possibly. 

[matthewyoung123]

1. In brief, what is the issue?  The military hierarchy system in place for modern time game starts (with a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and such) is impractical and unhistorical for use before the era of the Chief of Staff, or about the mid 1930's.  Before this time, many Army Generals and Navy Admirals led personally in the field.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?  In real life, Winfield Scott (General in Chief) led the attack on Mexico City but under the current rules, he wouldn't be allowed to leave Washington DC.  McClellan (General in Chief) in 1862 and then Grant (General in Chief) in 1864 led the Army of the Potomac in Virginia against Lee (Meade was in command of the Army, but Grant was in command of Meade in 64).  Pershing (General in Chief) led the American Expeditionary Force in France in WW1.  They were all considered "Generals in Chief" and they all led their forces personally on the ground.  We have the Head Admiral's position as well.  There are a number of instances in the Civil War with Farragut & Porter where they led in person.  
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?  Make a rule that says the head or lead Generals in Chief/Admirals in Chief CAN take the field and lead an Army or a Squadron until, say, 1925 or the creation of the Joint Chiefs or Army/Navy Chiefs of Staff law by Congress.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War_campaigns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse–Argonne_offensive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dixon_Porter

 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, matthewyoung123 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?  The military hierarchy system in place for modern time game starts (with a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and such) is impractical and unhistorical for use before the era of the Chief of Staff, or about the mid 1930's.  Before this time, many Army Generals and Navy Admirals led personally in the field.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?  In real life, Winfield Scott (General in Chief) led the attack on Mexico City but under the current rules, he wouldn't be allowed to leave Washington DC.  McClellan (General in Chief) in 1862 and then Grant (General in Chief) in 1864 led the Army of the Potomac in Virginia against Lee (Meade was in command of the Army, but Grant was in command of Meade in 64).  Pershing (General in Chief) led the American Expeditionary Force in France in WW1.  They were all considered "Generals in Chief" and they all led their forces personally on the ground.  We have the Head Admiral's position as well.  There are a number of instances in the Civil War with Farragut & Porter where they led in person.  
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?  Make a rule that says the head or lead Generals in Chief/Admirals in Chief CAN take the field and lead an Army or a Squadron until, say, 1925 or the creation of the Joint Chiefs or Army/Navy Chiefs of Staff law by Congress.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War_campaigns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse–Argonne_offensive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dixon_Porter

 

where in the rules does it say the Senior General and Senior Admiral can't lead in battle? 

[matthewyoung123]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

where in the rules does it say the Senior General and Senior Admiral can't lead in battle? 

It doesn't say it...but it doesn't say they can either. 

So you are saying that the Senior General/Admiral CAN be the battle leader as well?  So essentially, their traits are used to calculate battle results twice then (once as the Senior, and then again as the battlefield commander)?

[vcczar]

5 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

It doesn't say it...but it doesn't say they can either. 

So you are saying that the Senior General/Admiral CAN be the battle leader as well?  So essentially, their traits are used to calculate battle results twice then (once as the Senior, and then again as the battlefield commander)?

Yes

[Willthescout7]

1. In brief, what is the issue?  Former Congressional officers, if they were unqualified for the position (speaker not having 5 legi for example) are unable to run for other leadership positions in the House or Senate if they don't meet the requirements. This artificially narrows possible candidates.

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In the 1960 playtest, Joseph W Martin Jr was elevated to the Speakership due to nobody having the required qualifications. He jumped over the then House Majority Leader who only had 4 legi. As we approach another leadership election, Martin is ineligible to run for Minority Leader despite having served as Speaker. 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Allow unqualified congressional officers to run for the same or lesser congressional offices even if they are unqualified. However, they face an additional roll for 'easily overwhelmed' and 'pliable.'  This would allow more candidates for offices especially at the earlier start dates. 

4. Historical Evidence? Nancy Pelosi and Sam Rayburn serving in lesser congressional offices, though not because they were unqualified.

[10centjimmy]

12 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?  Former Congressional officers, if they were unqualified for the position (speaker not having 5 legi for example) are unable to run for other leadership positions in the House or Senate if they don't meet the requirements. This artificially narrows possible candidates.

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In the 1960 playtest, Joseph W Martin Jr was elevated to the Speakership due to nobody having the required qualifications. He jumped over the then House Majority Leader who only had 4 legi. As we approach another leadership election, Martin is ineligible to run for Minority Leader despite having served as Speaker. 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Allow unqualified congressional officers to run for the same or lesser congressional offices even if they are unqualified. However, they face an additional roll for 'easily overwhelmed' and 'pliable.'  This would allow more candidates for offices especially at the earlier start dates. 

4. Historical Evidence? Nancy Pelosi and Sam Rayburn serving in lesser congressional offices, though not because they were unqualified.

Also seen in the 1772 playtest

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. The Senate Pres pro tem can serve as floor leader

2. In the 1960 playtest, Carl Hayden was defeated and replaced by Richard Russell, who is the incumbent Majority Whip. The Democratic Caucus keeps Russell as Whip, but he also serves as Pres pro tempore.

3. Historically and traditionally, floor leaders (Leader and Whip) were not in said position while serving as president pro tempore, and there should be a limitation preventing Pres pro tempore serving as Majority Leader and Majority Whip, either having it take precedence (and banning the longest serving member of the majority party from serving in floor leadership), or it should move to the next elligible member (in 1960s case, Dennis Chavez (D-NM), if the caucus elects Russell Jr as Whip. In the playtest, I've gone with the second option (as the automatic selection is in the same turn as the nomination and vote on floor leaders)

Edited July 1, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[Willthescout7]

1. In brief, what is the issue? The current bonuses/negatives for causing or ending a crisis during a President's term need to be scaled back. 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In the 1840 playtest, President Harrison lost in a blowout to William Marcy. Marcy was 'easily overwhelmed' and had several other negative traits. The meters were all favoring Harrison's reelection bid and it should have been close after the meters and lobbies. However, he faced a -3 across each state because of the crisis' that started. This was too much and swung the election too far away from historical reality. In addition, it gives players the ability to min/max and effectively tank the country in order to win the Presidency, especially if they are the congressional majority. While this type of playing should be encouraged (especially in multiplayer games), there needs to be limits set on it to protect the game's integrity.

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Cap the bonuses/negatives for crisis at 2. This will allow a President that did poorly to be booted from office, but protects the integrity of the meters and state leans. A President can still survive the start of a crisis, but has to legislate well or have a favorable environment.

4. Historical Evidence? N/A

[Rezi]

1. In brief, what is the issue? Playtests have seen very few House members last more than a few terms, as there have been plenty of big swings which wipe out most of the chamber. Almost every single election in the House is an absolute wipeout, with frequent supermajorities seen.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? In the 1772 test, the 1802 and 1804 elections saw the Blue Party take over 90% of the House, and then in 1806 this become Red Party controlling over 80% of the House. This has happened in other playtests as well, utter wipeouts House elections.

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue? Compound incumbency bonus in the House of Representatives. Rather than a +1 for all incumbents, +1 for 1-2 term incumbent, +2 for 3-4 term incumbent, +3 for 5+ term incumbents.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).  Generally, while House control does fluctuate more than the Senate, it doesn't fluctuate this much. A 1 term incumbent is viewed much differently from a 5+ term incumbent in their districts, as long-lasting Congressmen can become entrenched.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Rezi

[Cal]

1. In brief, what is the issue?
The rules are not specific about how many times a statesman can relocate in a single turn from an overpopulated state to an underpopulated state.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
In the current 1772 thread, I have politicians who are lined up to attempt to move to 4 different states one after another because the rules don't have any limit on them trying again in the same phase. 

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Make the bolded changes to the rules: 
Additionally, if any historical state or territory is underpopulated (less than 20 politicians in the state), any politician from an overpopulated state may attempt to relocate to it at this time.  A politician from the historical state’s region has a 50%  chance of successfully moving.  A politician from outside the target region has a 25%  chance of successfully moving.  The faction with the “expansionist” card has a 75% chance of successfully moving within the region and a 50% chance of moving outside their region if the targeted state has been admitted to the union within the previous four-years. A politician may only attempt to relocate to a specific state once every two years, and may only attempt to relocate to two different states within the same region, or that were admitted in the last four years, in that period. The faction with the Expansionist card and politicians with the Expansionist interest may attempt to relocate a 3rd time if the final targeted state has been admitted to the union within the previous four-years. A politicians second failed relocation attempt in the same two year period has a 20% chance of a -1 in state level elections for 6 years and a 15% chance at gaining Easily Overwhelmed. For politicians with the Expansionist interest or belonging to a faction with the Expansionist card, this instead occurs on the 3rd failed relocation attempt. 

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 
Frontiersmen such as Daniel Boone, Sam Houston, John Grizzly Adams, and others who moved frequently between the frontier states, often even within a two year period. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?
Once command is gained, politicians tend to retain it forever.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
In creating the 2022 playtest, I realized that countless has-beens could technically run for President in 2024 despite being irrelevant for decades.  People like Carol Moseley Braun, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Dick Gebhardt, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, etc. There is a 0% chance of these people even bother running in 2024, much less that they actually gain any traction at all, but they all start with command because they've run in real life at some point in the past.

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Politicians lose -1 if they choose not to run for President in a given election -- gotta strike while the iron is hot.  Could make this a 50% chance, which increases or decreases depending on traits.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 
See the list on question 2, for modern day examples.

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?
Starting scenarios outside of 1772 won't be realistic reflections of their time period.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
Every starting scenario has needed to be extensively hand-crafted prior to beginning. Traits and skill levels aren't accurate for a specific date for all politicians, because that's not what the game was built to do.  

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Remove the "start any year" component of the game, because the game can't support it.  Instead, specifically craft scenarios and make sure all details are correct for those individual scenarios.  For example, I'd recommend creating the following scenarios, in this order of preference: 1772, 2024, 1960, 1860, 1788.

 

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

[Arkansas Progressive]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?
Starting scenarios outside of 1772 won't be realistic reflections of their time period.

 

2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?
Every starting scenario has needed to be extensively hand-crafted prior to beginning. Traits and skill levels aren't accurate for a specific date for all politicians, because that's not what the game was built to do.  

 

3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?
Remove the "start any year" component of the game, because the game can't support it.  Instead, specifically craft scenarios and make sure all details are correct for those individual scenarios.  For example, I'd recommend creating the following scenarios, in this order of preference: 1772, 2024, 1960, 1860, 1788.

 

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

wouldn't it make sense to just replace "start any year" with "start any era" so that the politicians who are first year/midway/peak year abilities are curated for the era rather than a set scenario?

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

wouldn't it make sense to just replace "start any year" with "start any era" so that the politicians who are first year/midway/peak year abilities are curated for the era rather than a set scenario?

Potentially -- but someone would have to do the work of hand-crafting every era.  I assumed that was too high of a workload at this stage, so thought more limited "scenarios" might be more practical.

[Arkansas Progressive]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Potentially -- but someone would have to do the work of hand-crafting every era.  I assumed that was too high of a workload at this stage, so thought more limited "scenarios" might be more practical.

I see. 

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

wouldn't it make sense to just replace "start any year" with "start any era" so that the politicians who are first year/midway/peak year abilities are curated for the era rather than a set scenario?

 

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Potentially -- but someone would have to do the work of hand-crafting every era.  I assumed that was too high of a workload at this stage, so thought more limited "scenarios" might be more practical.

It's currently "start any era" and I've handcrafted who holds office, what laws/actions are active/inactive. I'm curious what you think still needs to be done. 

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

It's currently "start any era" and I've handcrafted who holds office, what laws/actions are active/inactive. I'm curious what you think still needs to be done. 

Main thing is traits/skill levels, I think.  I know you have the "start/middle/end" of career thing for skill levels, which may or may not be sufficient.  But no equivalent for traits.  They're either born with it and thus have a trait long before they demonstrated it, or they don't have it all despite earning it later in their career.  

[vcczar]

17 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Main thing is traits/skill levels, I think.  I know you have the "start/middle/end" of career thing for skill levels, which may or may not be sufficient.  But no equivalent for traits.  They're either born with it and thus have a trait long before they demonstrated it, or they don't have it all despite earning it later in their career.  

Yeah, I think it's mainly the trait thing. For historical people, they are "born" with the traits if they ever have them in their career. I only allow gaining them because there's like 8,000 politicians and only about 750 of these have enough data to really determine if they have these traits or not. 

As such, I'm not really seeing an issue worth changing here. I'm open to advice, however. 

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, I think it's mainly the trait thing. For historical people, they are "born" with the traits if they ever have them in their career. I only allow gaining them because there's like 8,000 politicians and only about 750 of these have enough data to really determine if they have these traits or not. 

As such, I'm not really seeing an issue worth changing here. I'm open to advice, however. 

Fair enough.  Also on this track, and related to my other thing about command, I'd set command in the starting eras to "is there a realistic chance they run for President/Vice President within, say, two election cycles of whatever the starting era is.  Otherwise, you've got ancient has-beens and/or "comes out of nowhere" candidates running for President based on the fact that they did run in real life at some point in their career, even if there's a huge gap between when that was and when a given scenario/era begins.

[Willthescout7]

I agree with Vcczar. The 1840 playteat used the handcrafted era start with the mid-level skills for each politician and we've avoided the start issues that 1960 faced. Everyone has been able to handle what was thrown at them in a realistic ability level.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough.  Also on this track, and related to my other thing about command, I'd set command in the starting eras to "is there a realistic change they run for President/Vice President within, say, two election cycles of whatever the starting era is.  Otherwise, you've got ancient has-beens and/or "comes out of nowhere" candidates running for President based on the fact that they did run in real life at some point in their career, even if there's a huge gap between when that was and when a given scenario/era begins.

Yeah, I might have an aging thing at the end of half-term or full-term that has a chance of loss of command after a certain age, perhaps.