AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[Vols21]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

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.

to piggyback a little - I think Command should have a "start date" that it becomes active within the game, unless it is actually earned earlier within the game (like winning a Gov or Senate race).   This would prevent a certain Hollywood movie actor running for President in 1960 before he did anything else in politics (and then retiring when he gets beat).   This activation date might be a 8-10 years prior to their real date of running (or being in consideration for VP).   danger is we could be limited on the number of candidates with command.

then it can also have a "sunset date" (8-10 years past their prime Presidential candidacy years).     In the 1960 test, we had Herbert Hoover and Thomas Dewey both throw their names in the hat for the primary.  These and many of the names you mentioned would have probably been retired by the game had it been playing during their prime years).   I'm leery of a set rule that penalizes someone for not running every year - again you'll burn thru all your command guys pretty quick.  Example from our 1960 test, Nelson Rockefeller is a prime candidate but he's also the boss Gov of New York.  He can bide some time and pick a "better" moment to jump in (as he did in real life turning down Nixon's offer as VP, but later accepting Ford's).   Maybe there's a window of opportunity (maybe based somewhat on age) to jump in.  I like having some flexibility and not forced to act at a specific time.    Using an activation and sunset date with 10 years or so of prime time in the middle, would give a pretty good sized window to run.

[Willthescout7]

To add, while it might be difficult to add by hand but easily doable by cpu, you can add an expiration date for each additional command they earn, so each point has a 10 year limit. That way someone's time can be extended, but only if they are continually in the public eye

[Willthescout7]

Thinking about Command more (this is me spitballing but something interesting I think could be considered),

 

What if no politician started with Command? You only get command via doing something to earn it (passing legislation that fixes a crisis, winning a major battle, keynote speech or any of the other ways you earn command) and it has a 10 year time limit before it disappears. This would solve several problems. 1. People like Pete Buttigieg in the game start with command, while other mayors don't. This would solve that problem as everyone would have to earn the right to possess it. 2. You have to remain relevant to run for President. We won't see Thomas Dewey or Ronald Reagan running for President in 1960 because they either would have lost the command or not have earned it yet. It would keep things more historical that way while still giving the player room to do their own thing. 3. It encourages contested primaries and conventions between players. Since you only have so long to run for President, you have to go while the iron is hot. Otherwise, your perfect candidate will fade into the background and miss their opportunity. Since everyone has a limited time, that part of the game will get more heated and important. 

The only downside could be that it potentially overly narrows the candidate pool for faction leaders and such. A few options I see could include upping the chances to get command via appointments to Secretary of State, or career tracks and Congressional Leadership. That could be worked around. 

This could also just be an option to toggle at the start of the game if players don't want that.

[MrPotatoTed]

21 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

This could also just be an option to toggle at the start of the game if players don't want that.

I know it's been important to @vcczar that, say, a Thomas Jefferson or a Teddy Roosevelt "feels" like a Thomas Jefferson or a Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why people are born with the skills they had in real life.

But I think this is a good alternative for those of us who don't want Presidents coming out of nowhere regardless of what they achieved in real life.  Just make it a toggle-able option, that those who wouldn't have earned command by your start date don't have it.

[Willthescout7]

4 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I know it's been important to @vcczar that, say, a Thomas Jefferson or a Teddy Roosevelt "feels" like a Thomas Jefferson or a Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why people are born with the skills they had in real life.

But I think this is a good alternative for those of us who don't want Presidents coming out of nowhere regardless of what they achieved in real life.  Just make it a toggle-able option, that those who wouldn't have earned command by your start date don't have it.

Thinking about it more, I would add that this should only apply to politicians that are not part of starting drafts. So if you start in 1840, Harrison, Tyler, Clay, etc. would start with their command. That way people still feel like their historical counterpart. 

Also that way all the work assigning traits doesn't go to waste.

[Murrman104]

I mean to bring up a counter Example how would you account for a Pete Buttigieg in 2020? Where would he have he been able to get command, or a Thomas Dewey when he tried for the nomination as a New York district attorney in 1940? How would people who have no stats other than command work (I believe Lyndon LaRouche and Gus Hall for example is in game with that). Lots of people have run for President or tried for the nomination based off of pretty much nothing other than their own ego and ambition and not accomplishments. 

[Willthescout7]

3 minutes ago, Murrman104 said:

I mean to bring up a counter Example how would you account for a Pete Buttigieg in 2020? Where would he have he been able to get command, or a Thomas Dewey when he tried for the nomination as a New York district attorney in 1940? How would people who have no stats other than command work (I believe Lyndon LaRouche and Gus Hall for example is in game with that). Lots of people have run for President or tried for the nomination based off of pretty much nothing other than their own ego and ambition and not accomplishments. 

Are you arguing for or against the idea? I'm dense.

It would change how career tracks are utilized probably 

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, Murrman104 said:

I mean to bring up a counter Example how would you account for a Pete Buttigieg in 2020? Where would he have he been able to get command, or a Thomas Dewey when he tried for the nomination as a New York district attorney in 1940? How would people who have no stats other than command work (I believe Lyndon LaRouche and Gus Hall for example is in game with that). Lots of people have run for President or tried for the nomination based off of pretty much nothing other than their own ego and ambition and not accomplishments. 

 

2 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

Are you arguing for or against the idea? I'm dense.

It would change how career tracks are utilized probably 

Career track.  For Buttigieg specifically, you could argue he got it from governing, military, or private sector career tracks.

[Willthescout7]

12 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

 

Career track.  For Buttigieg specifically, you could argue he got it from governing, military, or private sector career tracks.

If you start at a late date, otherwise he just has it I believe. Otherwise the career track cannon works

[MrPotatoTed]

Just a quick note that I've drafted some changes in the rules for @vcczar's approval/denial, related to Senate and House leadership eligibility.

Specifically, I've removed the controversial and confusing requirement that leadership have a certain level of legislative skill (my bad -- I'm the one who wrote it in the first place. Haha).  I've also removed the requirement that top leaders have the leadership trait.

Leaders and whips now need only to have prior experience in their chamber (House or Senate) leadership, whip, or committee chair roles, and to not have easily overwhelmed/incompetent.

You guys won't be able to actually see that rule change until V approves it.  So up to you on whether to implement in your test playthroughs right now or not, pending V's review.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Just a quick note that I've drafted some changes in the rules for @vcczar's approval/denial, related to Senate and House leadership eligibility.

Specifically, I've removed the controversial and confusing requirement that leadership have a certain level of legislative skill (my bad -- I'm the one who wrote it in the first place. Haha).  I've also removed the requirement that top leaders have the leadership trait.

Leaders and whips now need only to have prior experience in their chamber (House or Senate) leadership, whip, or committee chair roles, and to not have easily overwhelmed/incompetent.

You guys won't be able to actually see that rule change until V approves it.  So up to you on whether to implement in your test playthroughs right now or not, pending V's review.

I'll probably get to it and any suggested fixes in here on Friday. That's going to be my look at suggested fixes day, I think. I've more or less been treating it as such this past month.  

[Willthescout7]

11 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Just a quick note that I've drafted some changes in the rules for @vcczar's approval/denial, related to Senate and House leadership eligibility.

Specifically, I've removed the controversial and confusing requirement that leadership have a certain level of legislative skill (my bad -- I'm the one who wrote it in the first place. Haha).  I've also removed the requirement that top leaders have the leadership trait.

Leaders and whips now need only to have prior experience in their chamber (House or Senate) leadership, whip, or committee chair roles, and to not have easily overwhelmed/incompetent.

You guys won't be able to actually see that rule change until V approves it.  So up to you on whether to implement in your test playthroughs right now or not, pending V's review.

So to clarify, you have removed the requirement that they need to have a 5 legi for example to serve as Speaker? 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

So to clarify, you have removed the requirement that they need to have a 5 legi for example to serve as Speaker? 

Tentatively.  All rule changes need V's approval and he'll review on Friday.  But yet, that's what my draft did (plus removes the leadership requirement, and adds that having previously served as speaker, maj/min leader, or whip makes you eligible to serve in those or similar roles again.)

[Willthescout7]

Not necessarily a playtest fix, but this is the appropriate thread for this I think.

 

There should be in 3.0 (Miscellaneous rules) a brief segment concerning the process upon a President's death if the player is in a game with lifetime presidents. What makes sense to me is that the VP takes over until the next election cycle, wherein the normal Convention/primary process takes over. Probably the easiest way to code that, but probably needs to be mentioned somewhere or the option simply removed as a possibility.

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. Ideology enthusiasm for new party leader after election

2. New party leader "gains +2 enthusiasm for each leader's cards", while re-elected party leaders "gain +1 for the personal ideology of the party leader"

3. Specifically specify that new party leaders only gain +2 to their personal ideology, rather than the ideology of all their cards.

Just wanting to make sure the reading is correct (and not something misstyped)

Edited July 6, 2022 by Arkansas Progressive

[ShortKing]

1. Iron Fist Party Leaders can only share cards with faction leaders who do not have Puritan or Leadership, despite leadership being a requirement for faction leaders.

2. In the 1960 playtest, our Iron Fisted Blue Party Leader wishes to share a valuable lobby (part of why we made him Party Leader) but because every blue faction leader has leadership, we could not choose to accept.

3. Specify that only Puritans automatically reject.

[vcczar]

Alright, I went through all of these and made several adjustments based on the feedback. I didn't make all the suggested changes. I like @MrPotatoTed's suggestion of Command being something that is very temporary and the idea command having possibly a trigger date (forgot who suggested that).

However, I didn't make these changes for two reasons: 1) Anthony has already coded all the categories for politicians. A Command Trigger Date would be another category, and then I'd have to go through and put historical trigger dates on every politician that is born with command. The issue with that is that those not born with command haven't trigger dates, so I'd have to create hypothetical trigger dates for everyone. 

I really dislike and am strongly opposed to the idea of no one being born with command. That's in place so that playthroughs will at least be somewhat historical as to who is running for president. 

The issue with Reagan running for president too early could be an issue. Same with Trump. Both have events that give them celebrity, so it's definitely risky to run them until those hit. I probably won't think of a way to dissuade people from running them until we can playtest this on CPU. I might just have to change their draft year dates and make them old rookies, which is the easiest solution. 

[matthewyoung123]

1. In brief, what is the issue? During the 1840 playtest, only 1 state has been admitted to the Union from two different regions (IL Great Plains and TX for Southwest).  These states now must each have a cabinet member or a roll comes up for impacting the Domestic Stability meter. 
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?  In the 1840 playtest, the President appointed someone from every region except the two regions that had only 1 state in them and Domestic Stability dropped as a result. Regions with only 1 state in them shouldn't have that much of an impact on the Domestic stability meter as there are not many people in those new states yet.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?  Make it so that a region has to have all their states admitted, or at least 2/3 of the states admitted to the Union before they are factored into the "regional" cabinet impact on domestic stability.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

[OrangeP47]

43 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue? During the 1840 playtest, only 1 state has been admitted to the Union from two different regions (IL Great Plains and TX for Southwest).  These states now must each have a cabinet member or a roll comes up for impacting the Domestic Stability meter. 
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?  In the 1840 playtest, the President appointed someone from every region except the two regions that had only 1 state in them and Domestic Stability dropped as a result. Regions with only 1 state in them shouldn't have that much of an impact on the Domestic stability meter as there are not many people in those new states yet.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?  Make it so that a region has to have all their states admitted, or at least 2/3 of the states admitted to the Union before they are factored into the "regional" cabinet impact on domestic stability.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

While I marked this as agree I think the % of states in a region before it kicks in should be lower. Even 2/3 is way too much, but it is indeed an issue, and the thing is, the way states are admitted to the unit, it's going to be an issue nearly every single time in the exact same years every single play through unless something is done.  You can't not admit new states to avoid it (well, you can, but you know what I mean).

[matthewyoung123]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

While I marked this as agree I think the % of states in a region before it kicks in should be lower. Even 2/3 is way too much, but it is indeed an issue, and the thing is, the way states are admitted to the unit, it's going to be an issue nearly every single time in the exact same years every single play through unless something is done.  You can't not admit new states to avoid it (well, you can, but you know what I mean).

So maybe 1/2 of the states in the region then, or 1/2 of the states +1 state?  And the cabinet wouldn't take the roll until the following Presidential election year after the states are admitted?  

So if a region had 6 states, it would take 4 in the Union to activate it as a region (1/2 of states (3)+1).   Or just 3 states if we use the 1/2 states in the region guideline.

Or maybe the regions should "adjust" in the different eras?  The Lower South in 1788 is 2 states, GA and SC.  But by 1840, it's SC, GA, AL, FL, AL, & MS.  So in 1788, the Lower South wouldn't qualify yet under these guidelines since there aren't 3 states (or 4 if you do the 1/2 states+1 state).  

I think it's a discussion worth having since the impact to the Domestic Stability is pretty important.

 

[OrangeP47]

8 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

So maybe 1/2 of the states in the region then, or 1/2 of the states +1 state?  And the cabinet wouldn't take the roll until the following Presidential election year after the states are admitted?  

So if a region had 6 states, it would take 4 in the Union to activate it as a region (1/2 of states (3)+1).   Or just 3 states if we use the 1/2 states in the region guideline.

Or maybe the regions should "adjust" in the different eras?  The Lower South in 1788 is 2 states, GA and SC.  But by 1840, it's SC, GA, AL, FL, AL, & MS.  So in 1788, the Lower South wouldn't qualify yet under these guidelines since there aren't 3 states (or 4 if you do the 1/2 states+1 state).  

I think it's a discussion worth having since the impact to the Domestic Stability is pretty important.

 

That's a good point about the regions not being filled at game start.  Perhaps it should, alternatively, be something like "the region is activated for cabinet purposes X cycles after the first state is admitted" which would also prevent people cheesing it.  Not sure what a good balance would be though.

[Vols21]

The smallest regions have 4 and 5 states, so could just use the rule that a region must have 3 states to qualify.    In the meantime until the other states are added, could the new state be included in another neighborhood region?

another point to remember is as new regions are added, you about need to add a new cabinet member.    Not sure exactly how many there are in early eras, but could grow past the number of cabinet slots (just need to have the cabinet positions being available to coincide with dates that states/regions would be joining the union.

[Cal]

On 6/10/2022 at 12:00 PM, vcczar said:

 

1. In brief, what is the issue?

 

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?

 

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

1. Kingmakers can give military skill to a statesmen with no military skill or background at all. This can leas to a strange scenario where someone can lead a boring desk job life, be taken under the wing of a Kingmaker who has military ability at all (even if unused) and suddenly be general material. 

2. Thomas Lowndes receiving military skill from a kingmaker-protege chain in the 1772 play through. 

3. Bar Kingmakers from transferring Military skill unless the protege already has at least 1 military skill. If they already have military skill, it’s at least plausible that military tactics could be shared to improve the protégés ability. Allowing Donald Trump, for example, to gain military ability would be barred in a Kingmaker-Protege chain with John McCain but he could still pick up Legislative or Command.

[Rezi]

32 minutes ago, Cal said:

1. Kingmakers can give military skill to a statesmen with no military skill or background at all. This can leas to a strange scenario where someone can lead a boring desk job life, be taken under the wing of a Kingmaker who has military ability at all (even if unused) and suddenly be general material. 

2. Thomas Lowndes receiving military skill from a kingmaker-protege chain in the 1772 play through. 

3. Bar Kingmakers from transferring Military skill unless the protege already has at least 1 military skill. If they already have military skill, it’s at least plausible that military tactics could be shared to improve the protégés ability. Allowing Donald Trump, for example, to gain military ability would be barred in a Kingmaker-Protege chain with John McCain but he could still pick up Legislative or Command.

The problem with this idea is that the rules state "When the Kingmaker-protege chain is first formed, a protege gains 1 random expertise, 1 random interest, 1 random trait, and 1 random ability that the kingmaker has but that the protege does not have (no gain if nothing applies).

The link is meant to give proteges a skill that they don't have, which could include military skill. In your example, Trump would not be eligible to pick up Command from McCain, only legislative or military.

[Cal]

17 minutes ago, Rezi said:

The problem with this idea is that the rules state "When the Kingmaker-protege chain is first formed, a protege gains 1 random expertise, 1 random interest, 1 random trait, and 1 random ability that the kingmaker has but that the protege does not have (no gain if nothing applies).

The link is meant to give proteges a skill that they don't have, which could include military skill. In your example, Trump would not be eligible to pick up Command from McCain, only legislative or military.

I see. Maybe change it to be where it can be a skill the Protege has, but only if the Kingmaker’s skill is higher? That way they can transfer a higher understanding of a skill but it’s limited to the level of the Kingmaker.