AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

On the LegisProp sheet, there are multiple proposals referring to temporary wartime tax hikes -- but there are no requirements in place for them, so there's no requirement that it actually be wartime.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

See LegisProp sheet.
 

Temporary wartime income tax hike on highest incomes to 67%

Temporary wartime income tax hike on highest incomes to 77%

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

Put a prerequisite that it can only be enacted during a (major?) war -- and that it automatically dissolves back to the prior tax rate after the war?

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

N/A

As a general follow-up to this, we'll need to take another look at the triggers and expirations for the full LegisProp tab in general.  For example, I'm setting up the 2022 Legis tabs right now, and I've discovered things like it's possible to demand immediate repayment for WW1 expenses from European countries, slap a retaliatory embargo on Germany for no clear reason (WWII, I assume?), and add Missouri as a free state despite the fact that not only has the Civil War already decided the issue of free/slave states but also the minor fact that Missouri is already a state and has been for quite some time.  ;c)

[Vols21]

1. In brief, what is the issue?    In the wars, there is no risk/reward outside of the main Generals.   The battles offer little flavor

 

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?   I'd like to introduce the concept of War Heroes.   For any unemployed statesmen (maybe between ages of 25-35, and could limit to those with at least 1 military experience), there would be a roll to determine if there were any heroic acts and randomly choose the hero(s).   The more difficult the battle, the higher chances of at least one hero.  (50% for difficult, 25% for moderate, 10% for easy / half this number in losses).     We could write some detailed acts (ex.  "Sgt Alvin York" charged a machine gun nest killing 25 and capturing over 100 enemy soldiers) or have it just be a generic statement (John Doe was the hero of the Battle).  The hero could earn different traits in the game as reward (lose obscure, gain celebrity, earn +1 military, or something else that might help them gain political success when they return home (maybe even a small 1-5% chance of command or leadership).

During an easy battle loss, there could be downsides like easily overwhelmed as they got shell shocked.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).  History is full of wartime heroes.    PT Boat Lt. John Kennedy, "Ace of Aces" Major Joe Foss and others became celebrities back home and went on to some political success.   You can have heroes during a lost battle as well (see the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and other battles as examples)

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, Vols21 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?    In the wars, there is no risk/reward outside of the main Generals.   The battles offer little flavor

 

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?   I'd like to introduce the concept of War Heroes.   For any unemployed statesmen (maybe between ages of 25-35, and could limit to those with at least 1 military experience), there would be a roll to determine if there were any heroic acts and randomly choose the hero(s).   The more difficult the battle, the higher chances of at least one hero.  (50% for difficult, 25% for moderate, 10% for easy / half this number in losses).     We could write some detailed acts (ex.  "Sgt Alvin York" charged a machine gun nest killing 25 and capturing over 100 enemy soldiers) or have it just be a generic statement (John Doe was the hero of the Battle).  The hero could earn different traits in the game as reward (lose obscure, gain celebrity, earn +1 military, or something else that might help them gain political success when they return home (maybe even a small 1-5% chance of command or leadership).

During an easy battle loss, there could be downsides like easily overwhelmed as they got shell shocked.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).  History is full of wartime heroes.    PT Boat Lt. John Kennedy, "Ace of Aces" Major Joe Foss and others became celebrities back home and went on to some political success.   You can have heroes during a lost battle as well (see the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and other battles as examples)

I like the concept!  Just a point of order: there were no surviving heroes of the Alamo.  At least, not on our side.  Ha.  Literally almost everyone died, and the extremely few people who survived mostly did so by running away before the battle really started.

[Vols21]

True. Alamo wasn’t the best example - it wasn’t even part of the US at the time either, and the ones we remember were pretty much legends already.     Losing battle heroes was an afterthought, and tried to think of some quick examples.

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

New Jersey is not an actual state in the game, and never can become one.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

On the Legis Prop tab, the "default era" start for 1772 only has statehood for 12 states instead of 13.  New Jersey is missing.  I also haven't found it under any other era -- so it's not that it's mislabeled, it's missing altogether.

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

Add New Jersey statehood to the LegisProp tab, with the era set to default.

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

In 2019, the Governor of New Jersey official declared that "Central Jersey exists!"  This heavily implies the existence of other parts of New Jersey as well, because otherwise, the title "Governor of New Jersey" would be less likely to exist.  ;c)  https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2019/12/10/nj-gov-phil-murphy-declares-central-jersey-exists-he-didnt-need-to/4385140002/

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Inconsistency on when our first 11 of our first 13 states become states.  They are listed as "default" era, which suggests that they start as states in a 1772 playthrough.  However, the requirement " Land Ordinance of 1785 is active" is listed, suggesting that they can't become a state until later (which makes sense, as there were no actual states in 1772.)  Further, North Carolina has no such requirement, and as noted in the previous report, New Jersey has never and will never exist.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

Details listed above.

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

All 13 states should be put into the Era of Independence, not default.  Also, the requirement should be given to North Carolina and New Jersey (after New Jersey is added as a potential proposal). 

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

The Legisproposal tab shows the evidence, that the first 13 states didn't become states until 1787-1789.

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

There is no capital in 1772.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

On LegisProposal tab, none of the national capital options are listed as "default."  They all say "move capital to (x)" -- implying that there is a capital somewhere that it would be moving from...but said capital is unspecified.  Philadelphia, New York, and DC are all listed as options, but not as the default.

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

Admittedly not sure.  We didn't have a capital in real life until 1776.  Maybe "move capital to" should be "establish capital as".  

Maybe it's a two step process.  Step one:  "Temporarily establish capital as".  Then, after step one is complete, you can either "Permanently establish capital as" or relocate to a new temporary capital.  Permanently establishing a capital removes the option to relocate elsewhere.

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

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

[matthewyoung123]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:56 PM, Vols21 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?    In the wars, there is no risk/reward outside of the main Generals.   The battles offer little flavor

 

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?   I'd like to introduce the concept of War Heroes.   For any unemployed statesmen (maybe between ages of 25-35, and could limit to those with at least 1 military experience), there would be a roll to determine if there were any heroic acts and randomly choose the hero(s).   The more difficult the battle, the higher chances of at least one hero.  (50% for difficult, 25% for moderate, 10% for easy / half this number in losses).     We could write some detailed acts (ex.  "Sgt Alvin York" charged a machine gun nest killing 25 and capturing over 100 enemy soldiers) or have it just be a generic statement (John Doe was the hero of the Battle).  The hero could earn different traits in the game as reward (lose obscure, gain celebrity, earn +1 military, or something else that might help them gain political success when they return home (maybe even a small 1-5% chance of command or leadership).

During an easy battle loss, there could be downsides like easily overwhelmed as they got shell shocked.

 

4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).  History is full of wartime heroes.    PT Boat Lt. John Kennedy, "Ace of Aces" Major Joe Foss and others became celebrities back home and went on to some political success.   You can have heroes during a lost battle as well (see the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and other battles as examples)

4. Jefferson Davis and the "Mississippi Rifles" during the Mexican War.  While he was already a West Point graduate, the war made him famous in Mississippi, and it resulted in a cabinet post as Secretary of War and a seat in the US Senate before becoming the Confederate President.

The Mexican War really made a name for several people who would, 15 years later, be leading figures in the Civil War on both sides.

[matthewyoung123]

Expanding on your suggestion above; what about taking politicians from EVERY faction that are on the military career track and having them randomly show up in the battles?

And there should absolutely be a chance they are killed, the younger the person, the higher the chance (generally speaking a company level line officer, a 25 year old Captain, is much more likely to be killed in battle than a 45 year old Colonel on a general staff in the rear). 

There should also be the possibility of being wounded and losing skills or gaining traits like disharmonious, or unlikeable.  There were several military generals in US history that fit both of those categories.

But there should also be a chance they GAIN military or leadership traits from being in combat.  The more battles that are fought in a war, the more your politicians fight and have the possibility to gain (but also to be wounded or killed).  If the battle is lost, there should be a greater chance to lose military or command points, gain negative traits, or to be killed.  A victory should be the opposite; greater chance to gain points, gain positive traits, and be a war hero.  But an individual should still have the possibility of gaining points or positive traits in a loss.  Experience is the best teacher!

You could expand it even further and state that any politician that has a military point is eligible to serve.  Perhaps when the war breaks out, every faction is given a random number between 2-6 and they have to provide the names of 2-6  politicians from their faction that are going off to fight from ages 25 to 49.  They risk losing the politicians, but they could also reap the rewards from a successful war.

It would certainly add more flavor and interesting aspects to the military side of the game which needs some beefing up!  Thanks.

 

[MrPotatoTed]

21 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Expanding on your suggestion above; what about taking politicians from EVERY faction that are on the military career track and having them randomly show up in the battles?

And there should absolutely be a chance they are killed, the younger the person, the higher the chance (generally speaking a company level line officer, a 25 year old Captain, is much more likely to be killed in battle than a 45 year old Colonel on a general staff in the rear). 

There should also be the possibility of being wounded and losing skills or gaining traits like disharmonious, or unlikeable.  There were several military generals in US history that fit both of those categories.

But there should also be a chance they GAIN military or leadership traits from being in combat.  The more battles that are fought in a war, the more your politicians fight and have the possibility to gain (but also to be wounded or killed).  If the battle is lost, there should be a greater chance to lose military or command points, gain negative traits, or to be killed.  A victory should be the opposite; greater chance to gain points, gain positive traits, and be a war hero.  But an individual should still have the possibility of gaining points or positive traits in a loss.  Experience is the best teacher!

You could expand it even further and state that any politician that has a military point is eligible to serve.  Perhaps when the war breaks out, every faction is given a random number between 2-6 and they have to provide the names of 2-6  politicians from their faction that are going off to fight from ages 25 to 49.  They risk losing the politicians, but they could also reap the rewards from a successful war.

It would certainly add more flavor and interesting aspects to the military side of the game which needs some beefing up!  Thanks.

 

We have some of this already -- I believe we already have a chance of a random military career track guy dying in battle, and the military career track carries the chance of gaining various things, presumably from battles fought.  But always worth taking another look at it.  Thanks!

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

The Revolutionary War begins before a military is formed.  If processed as written, this would presumably lead to the war being lost and the game ending prematurely in nearly all playthroughs.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

The Lexington & Concord event specifies that the Revolutionary War will begin in the next military phase, and that Congress must create an Army and Navy in the next legislative phase.  But military is before legislative, so the war begins prior to the creation of the Army and Navy.  With no generals appointed yet, etc, the war may create defeat before US even gets to the legislative phase.  Game over.

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

Either rewriting the event to specify the battles don't happen yet, or moving the entire Foreign Affairs phase to happen AFTER Congress Is In Session.

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

N/A

[matthewyoung123]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

The Revolutionary War begins before a military is formed.  If processed as written, this would presumably lead to the war being lost and the game ending prematurely in nearly all playthroughs.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

The Lexington & Concord event specifies that the Revolutionary War will begin in the next military phase, and that Congress must create an Army and Navy in the next legislative phase.  But military is before legislative, so the war begins prior to the creation of the Army and Navy.  With no generals appointed yet, etc, the war may create defeat before US even gets to the legislative phase.  Game over.

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

Either rewriting the event to specify the battles don't happen yet, or moving the entire Foreign Affairs phase to happen AFTER Congress Is In Session.

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

N/A

Or, maybe just have an event that automatically creates the US Army and US Navy...and have it fire AFTER Lexington/Concord...just another way to approach the issue.  Thanks!

[MrPotatoTed]

• 
   

1. In brief, what is the issue?

There are no CPU rules...or even any rules at all...about who can write the Declaration of Independence.  
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

"Lee's Resolution" legislative proposal gives Continental Congress President the power to choose someone to be the author of the Declaration of Independence, and that person will gain celebrity.  But there's no rules on how CPU chooses someone, and no limitations on who it can be.

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

Give specific limitations on who can write it.  For example, "Must be a delegate and must have efficient."  Or "Must have Command."  Should probably have foreign affairs expertise too, since it was a treatise to other nations.  And then CPU can prioritize giving it to someone from his own faction or his team, or potentially choosing the highest PV regardless of party...but it will still be limited to realistic options.  

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

This lovely song, explaining why the Declaration of Independence couldn't be written by the first person to come along.  

 

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Lee's Resolution (the Declaration of Independence) is listed as repealable.  It probably shouldn't be.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

See above.

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

Switch "repealable" on Lee's Resolution to "No."

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

The ancient law of "No Takesie Backsies".  Can't undeclare independence -- no unringing that Liberty Bell. ;c)

[MrPotatoTed]

41 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Lee's Resolution (the Declaration of Independence) is listed as repealable.  It probably shouldn't be.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

See above.

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

Switch "repealable" on Lee's Resolution to "No."

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

The ancient law of "No Takesie Backsies".  Can't undeclare independence -- no unringing that Liberty Bell. ;c)

Same issue for the actual declaration of independence.  In fact, given that Lee's Resolution automatically creates the Declaration of Independence as an immediate proposal, and there's nothing about what happens if the Declaration fails to pass...maybe merge the two into a single proposal?

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Inconsistent guidance on when the 13 states become 13 states.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

12 of the first 13 states are listed as "default" era, suggesting that they begin as states.  1 state is missing altogether.  Of the 12 states, 11 say they are contingent on passing a law that is not on at the start of the game, conflicting with the idea that the states begin as states.  Then once independence is declared, it says governors and governor actions are now automatically turned on, but there's no time to actually propose the states become states (partially because there's too many to pass into law when you only get six proposals and have a war to win, but also because the Declaration of Independence is processed as a last minute proposal, after Lee's Resolution.)

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

Make a consistent rule for when the first 13 states become states -- perhaps they're automatically admitted once they vote in favor of the declaration of independence?  What happens if a state doesn't vote in favor?

Or specify that they're just territories with special governor abilities or something.

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

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

[ConservativeElector2]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Request from the Discord server to make Pete Buttigieg eligible to run in Michigan as well.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue? 

See above.

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

Add MI as an alternate state for Pete

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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10995499/Pete-Buttigieg-changes-official-residency-swing-state-Michigan.html

[Willthescout7]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

 

There is no guidance on what order Presidential Candidates get to take Convention or Primary actions or how many actions they may take. 

 

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

 

Each playtest. 

 

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

 

I see a few potential fixes: 

 

Option 1: Specify that candidate take turns from those leading in delegates to those in last. Each candidate can take one of each type of action if they are eligible too. As certain actions are taken, they are locked for the rest of the turn. EX: the frontrunner does a Speech about their integrity. For the rest of the round, no more speeches about integrity can be made. This would give the frontrunner an advantage each round while ensuring that candidates that are fading will struggle to catch up unless they get some lucky breaks or people start moving to them. This is my preferred approach.

 

Option 2: Minor candidates go first and can take one of each action. Actions are allowed to be duplicated. This would allow for the major candidates to see what their opponents do and counteract. My concern is that candidates trailing in delegates would too easily be able to consolidate support and win, though it could also depend on the CPU's being smart enough to handle it. 

 

Option 3: Random order each round with one action of each type. This could potentially be the fairest option. 

 

Option 4: Connect the number of actions to command points and use any of the above systems.

 

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

N/A

[vcczar]

Here are the changes made based on feedback for this Friday:

• Added @jvikings1's to the to do list since it will require editing several cells on several pages. I have to determine what Gov actions can stil be done in contradition to federal actions and which are certainly banned. It may be quicker for me to just say which Gov actions can defy federal law but at a reduced benefit. This probably won't take me long but I just need to be more motivated a clearheaded. 
• @Arkansas Progressive the two events you mention don't end at the end of the Progressive Era. That's just when they can first fire. This allows for WWI to begin as early as 1896, but it can also happen beyond the Era of Progressivism. So no changed needed. 
• @ConservativeElector2, I expect a way to view dead/retired politicians, definitely show previous office holders. The only way I can think of all this not being the case, is if keeping all the information slows that game down so much that it's unplayable. 
• @MrPotatoTed fixed the Scandalous President general event. 
• @MrPotatoTed added the the inconsistencies to the to-do list. I've been aware of this and other similar things for awhile. It's the case on most spreadsheet, mostly due to a lack of a spell check in google sheets, but also because i had flip-flopped in how I was going to name things through the years. I'm also terrible at catching my own typos because my eyes correct my own mistakes, so I expect it will be an issue even after I "fix" these things. 
• @MrPotatoTed added the issue to the Wartime Tax to the to-do list. Similar to @jvikings1's request, this won't take long. Maybe I'll feel up to it tomorrow. 
• @MrPotatoTed added your follow up to the to-do list in regards to triggers. I caught most of those issues when I last went through every single Legis Prop, but I probably skimmed too fast when doing it. it's easy to get stuck on that spreadsheet for a month without skimming. I'll probably just keep skimming it and catching some things and just waiting for you and other to catch any other things I missed. If I do a close reading, I might catch everything, but it would probaby take me a month, assuming I'm not busy with other things. 
• @Vols21 added your suggestion regarding wars to the to-do list, but I may not act on it. The military aspect is sort of like a secondary or tertiary part of the game that I sort of just reluctantly fleshed out at all. The focus of the game is politics--especially the relations of president and congress. I think if it does get fleshed out even more, it will likely either be in an update or in AMPU 2. However, I saved your suggestion in case I change my mind. 
• @MrPotatoTed added New Jersey Statehood to Legis Props. The old one must have been deleted on accident, probably by me at some point. 
• @MrPotatoTed fixed the issue with the Land Ordinance of 1785 being an issue. I think I had copy+paste it en mass to all the early states at some point or maybe I had another reason for doing that. I can't remember. Anyway, that's been removed. Under special rules, it is now clear that these states begin in the 1772 startdate as "states." They are still listed as default because they actually aren't Legis Props. They're automatically on. They're on Legis Prop only because that's where the other states are and they do have lingering effects. 
• @MrPotatoTed excellent catch regarding no default capital. I don't know how I didn't think about that. Anyway. "Move the Capital to Philadelphia" is now default and special rules make it clear that it is the capital at 1772. 
• @matthewyoung123 good suggestion about career track military people. I had strongly considered doing this, to this point that when I read what you wrote, I thought, "Did I make that change?" If it isn't in the rules, then I'll likely make this rule. On the to-do list. Ok, just saw @MrPotatoTed's follow up. So I do have it. I'll consider a hero aspect perhaps. 
• @MrPotatoTed regarding Rev War happening before the a military is in place. The Lexington & Concord Event now triggers a special session of congress to vote on creating the army and navy and fill these offices. If they aren't supported, then the battles can't be won. @matthewyoung123 just now read that you were thinking the same thing. 
• @MrPotatoTed author rules set for Declaration of Independence. The author must come from VA, PA, or MA. They must have egghead, orator, debater, or must already have celebrity.
• @MrPotatoTed Fixed issue with Lee's R. It is no longer repealable. 
• @MrPotatoTed Regarding Declaration of Ind failing. There's nothing barring it from being reproposed if it fails as the legis prop mentions that only Lee's R has to have been proposed. However, I've made it clearer that that's possible in Special Rules for the Dec of Ind legis prop. 
• @MrPotatoTed I think I fix your issue with the inconsistency of the states above. The 13 states are now automatically states, but they will still need to be independent to have Gov actions. 
• @ConservativeElector2 Pete Buttigieg now has MI as alternative state
• @Willthescout7 added your suggestiong about the Conventions, but I feel like I had/have something in place regarding that as we never had that confusion through any previous playtests. However, I've edited that Convention rules so many times, it could have gotten deleted somehow. On to do list. 

Probably not going to go through the rules doc today as I was expecting to do. 

[Willthescout7]

Do you know which option you are leaning towards, or are you doing something else?

[vcczar]

33 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Do you know which option you are leaning towards, or are you doing something else?

I'm going to do whatever I originally had. I'm going to find the old version of the rules when I have time. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar I started to draft some new rules expanding what kind of traits an elected official might gain (usually just a 1% chance of them gaining a reputation for, say, having integrity, being a lackey, etc.)  But I realized that I'm completely unfamiliar with some of the newer traits and don't know what they're really supposed to represent.

For example, what is "Cop" and "illicit", and are they different from "Integrity" and "Controversial"?

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

 

Governor Actions reference needing a same-party Senator even for actions eligible in the Era of Independence (when there is no Senate) -- and it's possible to never make a Senate at all.

 

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

 

See independence era governor actions, such as establishing term limits.  Valid independence era move...yet requires Senators who don't exist.

 

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

 

Specify Senators are not required if the Senate does not exist (or some other option for if Senate does not exist.)

 

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

N/A

[OrangeP47]

13 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

 

Governor Actions reference needing a same-party Senator even for actions eligible in the Era of Independence (when there is no Senate) -- and it's possible to never make a Senate at all.

 

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

 

See independence era governor actions, such as establishing term limits.  Valid independence era move...yet requires Senators who don't exist.

 

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

 

Specify Senators are not required if the Senate does not exist (or some other option for if Senate does not exist.)

 

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

N/A

Going to latch onto this, something we were discussing in I think the 1840 chat earlier today after noticing some things with the rules:  In scenarios where the Senate doesn't exist, we need clarification for how cabinet and SCOTUS confirmations work as well.

[Willthescout7]

2 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Going to latch onto this, something we were discussing in I think the 1840 chat earlier today after noticing some things with the rules:  In scenarios where the Senate doesn't exist, we need clarification for how cabinet and SCOTUS confirmations work as well.

To build again, we were also talking about how the game could handle alternate Constitution variations. I'll make a large omnibus post when I have time, but there are some fundamental game questions that probably need to be addressed but haven't come up in any playtest since we haven't tested alternate government forms.