AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[Cal]

I honestly feel as though the Constitutional Convention will need to have most of the alternate history options scrapped when they have huge ramifications for game design and balancing. Otherwise, this will end yo being 4 different games in one when the original constitution will be chosen 80%+ of the time and the other options won’t ever rival it in popularity.

of course, I feel like some options should remain, but having no senate or house would require overhauling every other phase, postponing development likely for months upon months for a feature that most won’t ever use that much at all.

[OrangeP47]

Eh, I feel like most of the options are actually fairly simple, we just need to clarify some things.  Like in the absence of rules I mentioned, it'd be pretty obvious what one choice would be:  Presidential appointments simply require no confirmation.  If I was GMing and it came up it'd be easy to just move forward with that while waiting for further direction.  But it's not my call, hence the call for further clarification.

[vcczar]

On 7/30/2022 at 7:52 PM, 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

Added this to the gov action rules: "Note: Some Gov Actions mention needing a same-party member of the US Senate. Prior to the creation of a US Senate, or if the Senate is abolished, this requirement is void.

[vcczar]

On 7/30/2022 at 8:07 PM, 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.

Added to both the Cabinet Appointment and SC Appointment rules: Note: If the US Senate doesn’t exist or is abolished, then the vote will be held by the only remaining house of Congress. If somehow a Congress doesn’t exist, then the appointment is automatic.

[vcczar]

On 7/30/2022 at 10:34 PM, Cal said:

I honestly feel as though the Constitutional Convention will need to have most of the alternate history options scrapped when they have huge ramifications for game design and balancing. Otherwise, this will end yo being 4 different games in one when the original constitution will be chosen 80%+ of the time and the other options won’t ever rival it in popularity.

of course, I feel like some options should remain, but having no senate or house would require overhauling every other phase, postponing development likely for months upon months for a feature that most won’t ever use that much at all.

I'm certainly okay with that if that happens. I'd rather the game be more realistic. I added those only because of demand. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

 

Nathan Hale,  General Kosciusco, and Friedrich W Von Steuben events have mixed up triggers.

 

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

 

Nathan Hale's survival requires that he die first.  Likewise, Nathan Hale's being hung by his captors requires that he escape his captors.  Clearly, these are meant to be the reverse.  Trigger for Hale's survival, for example, should be that he has NOT been hung by his captors yet.

Likewise, is there an event that creates General Koscuiscuo in the game?  I don't see one -- only one where he chooses to stay in America and one where he returns to Poland.  And the one where he decides to stay in America requires only that he has not already decided to stay in America.  It should require that he hasn't returned to Poland (or otherwise died/retired).  If the event "stays in America" is meant to add him to the game, it should say that.

Finally, I think Friedrich W Von Steuben begins already active in the game (he's not marked as being part of a what-if draft) -- yet there's clearly an event that creates him in the game.  Either the event is not necessary or he should start as a what-if.    Also, that event doesn't refer to him by his name.  It calls him "Baron von Steuben", which isn't his indicator (Should be Friedrich W Von Steuben) and thus presumably won't trigger correctly when Anthony programs it as it will be looking for a character that does not exist..

 

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

Listed above.

 

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

N/A

[Willthescout7]

1. The Ban polygamist from holding office bill only gives points. It doesn't actually do anything of the sort. 

2. In the 1840 playtest, the President signed into law a bill to ban polygamists from holding office. At the same time, Joseph Smith is the Gov of IL. Even though this bill is passed, there is nothing stopping him from remaining in office or running for a federal office when his term ends.

3. Have the bill automatically remove any Mormons in office at the time of its passing, with replacements being appointed according to the rules. Mormons are banned from holding federal office until the law is repealed or 1890 (which is the year the Mormon church banned polygamy). 

4. Out and about so don't have time to link anything, but PBS has an article about the history of polygamy in the Mormon church. The historical acts this is based on was intended to purposely target Mormons so this would be the natural result.

 

 

To add, another addition could be that if there is a Mormon Gov at the time it is passed, it is automatically picked up by the Supreme Court (if in the game) and pols are removed from office only if the law is upheld.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Willthescout7

[OrangeP47]

24 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

1. The Ban polygamist from holding office bill only gives points. It doesn't actually do anything of the sort. 

2. In the 1840 playtest, the President signed into law a bill to ban polygamists from holding office. At the same time, Joseph Smith is the Gov of IL. Even though this bill is passed, there is nothing stopping him from remaining in office or running for a federal office when his term ends.

3. Have the bill automatically remove any Mormons in office at the time of its passing, with replacements being appointed according to the rules. Mormons are banned from holding federal office until the law is repealed or 1890 (which is the year the Mormon church banned polygamy). 

4. Out and about so don't have time to link anything, but PBS has an article about the history of polygamy in the Mormon church. The historical acts this is based on was intended to purposely target Mormons so this would be the natural result.

 

 

To add, another addition could be that if there is a Mormon Gov at the time it is passed, it is automatically picked up by the Supreme Court (if in the game) and pols are removed from office only if the law is upheld.

For context, the 1840 playtest just passed that, yet Joseph Smith is the Gov if IL.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. Conflicting rules about when interparty challengers to a sitting President can occur.

2. In 2.9.1, a sitting President can only be challenged by a faction with an ideology in two of the lowest enthusiasm spaces. In 2.9.2, rules state factions always run a minor party candidate. 

3. Have 2.9.1 supersede the 2.9.2 rules in all instances (primary and convention).

4. NA

[10centjimmy]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

- confusion over the amount of times a Kingmaker with leadership can take on protégés per 2-yr term, both for AI and player purposes. 

2. In 1772 single player, you see AI taking on a protege each term (3 times) but human playtesters in the 1772 Summer 21 Playtest have playtesters taking on 3 protégés at once in a single 2-yr term.

3. Clarify that Kingmakers with leadership can only take on one protégé per 2 year term, up to 3 total

4. N/a

@Cal 

@MrPotatoTed

 

 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. There are no CPU rules for determining how compromise candidates are selected when a convention gets to that point.

2. In the 1848 CPU playtest convention, the CPUs have called for compromise candidates but do not have rules to do so.

3. Suggest the following percentages for deciding the candidates (not sure is these are the best so feel free to change):

• 50% chance to pick random other faction candidate matching or adjacent to faction leader ideology
• 25% chance to pick from lowest scoring faction
• 25% chance to pick randomly from other party factions

4. NA

Edited August 3, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Politicians with common/repetitive names are easily confused with each other.

 

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

 

In our current single-player game, PaineCPU has three politicians named John Smith.

 

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

Add something to differentiate the politicians in their names.  For example, a middle initial.  Or, for our single player game, I've added their starting state in parentheses to differentiate them...but of course this could become confusing if they move states.

 

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

N/A

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. There are no penalties (unless I missed them) for not accomplishing platform planks.

2. The rules several times mention that there will be a penalty for reelection if the platform is not accomplished, yet I cannot find a place where these rules exist.

3. Suggested fix is to have each platform plank/promise not fulfilled to have a 25% chance to decrease either party party preference or ideological enthusiasm. Ideological enthusiasm might make the most sense since each platform plank is tied to gains and losses for certain factions and especially so if a faction is given the choice of a particular plank then they have a vested in interest in seeing it accomplished. 

4. NA

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

List of available industries is too limited for each state, especially in early eras where later industries aren't available yet.

 

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

 

In the 1772 single player game.  Delaware Governor created a state bank, which improved the finance industry for his state...but his state isn't allowed to have a finance industry, for unclear reasons.  (In real life, Delaware actually is a mecca for US businesses.  Many national Corporations are incorporated in Delaware because they have exceptionally pro-business laws, to my understanding.  I'm not aware of any particular historical reason that there should be a 0% chance that a finance industry ever takes off in Delaware, in any timeline.  

 

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

Allow almost every industry to grow in each state.  If there's a historical/geographical reason to outlaw a specific industry (such as maybe Alaska isn't great for Agriculture) go ahead and make a rule that this one state can't have this one industry.  But otherwise, open it up so that all states can have all industries.  

 

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

History of Delaware becoming the pro-business capital of the US: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/delaware-corporation.asp

Edited August 3, 2022 by MrPotatoTed

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. There are no rules for a contested election other than penalties for doing so (unless I missed them)

2. In the 1840 playtest, we currently are in a situation where the Whigs won 146-141 but 5 states were tied and all able to flip the election if challenged. On top of this we had faithless electors pull the Whigs under the required electoral college total to win. The Dems have challenged the election results and the Whigs did not. Our logic is that the contested election results would be adjudicated first. If any state flips, then the election is decided for the Dems and there is no contingent election.

3. Suggested fix is to have the Supreme Court in a contested election decide how to vote based on the following criteria:

• Justice with Integrity always votes for reported result.
• Justice with Lackey votes for party.
• Justice with LW/RW Activist votes for party with enthusiasm for LW/RW Pop.
• Justice with of the same faction as the challenger or with Controversial votes 50/50.
• Otherwise Justices vote 75 uphold/25 overturn.
• Then normal swaying rules. 

4. I would say Bush v Gore but I don't know the stats and traits of the Justices off hand 😉

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Some (but not all) of the "losing" war treaties give bonuses to certain state industries, just like the winning treaties do.  I believe this was a mistake (and it should either be no points or a loss of points for those industries.)

 

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

 

Most of the losing versions of the treaties in the Treaties tab.

 

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

Either deleting the industry in AK for the losing treaties (indicating that there are no point changes), or creating an additional column that says the industry loses points if it's a losing treaty, whichever you prefer.

 

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

N/A

[matthewyoung123]

14 hours ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

1. There are no rules for a contested election other than penalties for doing so (unless I missed them)

2. In the 1840 playtest, we currently are in a situation where the Whigs won 146-141 but 5 states were tied and all able to flip the election if challenged. On top of this we had faithless electors pull the Whigs under the required electoral college total to win. The Dems have challenged the election results and the Whigs did not. Our logic is that the contested election results would be adjudicated first. If any state flips, then the election is decided for the Dems and there is no contingent election.

3. Suggested fix is to have the Supreme Court in a contested election decide how to vote based on the following criteria:

• Justice with Integrity always votes for reported result.
• Justice with Lackey votes for party.
• Justice with LW/RW Activist votes for party with enthusiasm for LW/RW Pop.
• Justice with of the same faction as the challenger or with Controversial votes 50/50.
• Otherwise Justices vote 75 uphold/25 overturn.
• Then normal swaying rules. 

4. I would say Bush v Gore but I don't know the stats and traits of the Justices off hand 😉

Maybe add-

A Chief Justice with manipulative has a chance to influence all justices to vote 75/25 no matter their traits...and justices of their own party 50/50 (not just faction)?  

[MrPotatoTed]

. In brief, what is the issue?

There are no rules referencing treaties, that I can see.  There's a brief reference that a Sec of State can propose one, but nothing about how they work, etc.

 

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

 

During the Continental Congress, the treaties for the American Revolution and Canadian Invasion both have implementation rolls.  But...who is rolling?  There's no Secretary of State, no British Ambassador, not even a President.   (Implementation rules talk a little bit about how to cover vacancies, but nothing that actually works for the Continental Congress phase.)

 

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

Writing rules explaining how treaties work, and considering how to implement them during a Continental Congress (and situations where, for example, there is no executive branch and only a Senate or House exists).

 

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

N/A

[MrPotatoTed]

. In brief, what is the issue?

Ideology limitations during the draft lead to either unrealistic or illogical outcomes.

 

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

 

Imagine a draft in which, say, Thomas Jefferson is the clear best pick in the draft.  But he's a LW Populist, and there's only one faction that is allowed to draft LW Populists, and therefore that faction has no reason to actually choose him until they've run out of all other options.  There's zero risk of them losing Jefferson to someone else, they can focus on the draftees that they actually have to compete for.

So either they (especially CPU) draft him first overall anyway, ignoring the fact that the better strategy would be to sit on him until the very end and draft him last...

Or they do draft him last, which makes no sense as he was the clear most powerful draft choice.
 

 

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

My personal preference would be to eliminate the ideology restrictions.  Maybe restrict it to that you can only draft someone if they match or are adjacent to the ideology of someone already in your faction.  This will create more fluid factions with rises and falls.

But if you're not open to that, then at least expanding the ideology restrictions so that every ideology can be drafted by at least two factions of the same party.  So in this case, a LW Populist faction would be motivated to grab Jefferson before the other LW Populist faction can get him.

 

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

N/A

[Willthescout7]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

. In brief, what is the issue?

Ideology limitations during the draft lead to either unrealistic or illogical outcomes.

 

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

 

Imagine a draft in which, say, Thomas Jefferson is the clear best pick in the draft.  But he's a LW Populist, and there's only one faction that is allowed to draft LW Populists, and therefore that faction has no reason to actually choose him until they've run out of all other options.  There's zero risk of them losing Jefferson to someone else, they can focus on the draftees that they actually have to compete for.

So either they (especially CPU) draft him first overall anyway, ignoring the fact that the better strategy would be to sit on him until the very end and draft him last...

Or they do draft him last, which makes no sense as he was the clear most powerful draft choice.
 

 

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

My personal preference would be to eliminate the ideology restrictions.  Maybe restrict it to that you can only draft someone if they match or are adjacent to the ideology of someone already in your faction.  This will create more fluid factions with rises and falls.

But if you're not open to that, then at least expanding the ideology restrictions so that every ideology can be drafted by at least two factions of the same party.  So in this case, a LW Populist faction would be motivated to grab Jefferson before the other LW Populist faction can get him.

 

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

N/A

Isn't there already a chance to "steal" another ideology during the draft? If someone desires they can attempt to snipe him but they only have a certain % to do it. I think that adds enough risk. The only issue I see is that the CPU won't try this so a player playing as the LW Pop faction could wait to draft Thomas Jefferson because the CPU won't snag him. Maybe adding a 10% or 5% chance the CPU tries is the fix here.

[MrPotatoTed]

23 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Isn't there already a chance to "steal" another ideology during the draft? If someone desires they can attempt to snipe him but they only have a certain % to do it. I think that adds enough risk. The only issue I see is that the CPU won't try this so a player playing as the LW Pop faction could wait to draft Thomas Jefferson because the CPU won't snag him. Maybe adding a 10% or 5% chance the CPU tries is the fix here.

Actually there is and I’d forgotten that.  But it has such a low rate of success and the penalty is losing a draft pick that it’s almost never worth it, so CPU is programmed to never try.

[Willthescout7]

23 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Actually there is and I’d forgotten that.  But it has such a low rate of success and the penalty is losing a draft pick that it’s almost never worth it, so CPU is programmed to never try.

Maybe change the success rates? I think the penalty is fine. 

 

This is also only a problem if you are playing on the default setting. One of the possible options at least right now is to turn off draft restrictions. 

[MrPotatoTed]

. In brief, what is the issue?

Running out of proposals in the Era of Independence

 

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

 

It's 1780 in the single player game and we're almost out of available proposals.  Including repeals and we've also passed all the territories available even though I'm not convinced that was supposed to be allowable in the midst of the war.  (There's a prereq that says "territories can be admitted" but no clue what triggers that prereq).
 

 

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

Ideally, adding more proposals.  But, failing that, maybe "efficient" shouldn't give the opportunity to make two proposals.  Maybe it should be a limit of one proposal per person, and efficient just makes it more likely that your proposal is one that is selected for committee consideration (which I think it already is)

 

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

N/A

[Willthescout7]

1. The current rules don't give the CPU the chance to retain their Vice President. 

2. The 1848 playtest saw Harrison switch out John Tyler for another dude since he wasn't able to keep Tyler.

3. Add a chance that the CPU will retain their VP. Historically, VPs were changed out often, but in modern times it is almost unheard of. The chances the cpu has of retaining their VP should increase each era.

4. I guess a list of VPs

[Willthescout7]

I have more thoughts about the cpu doing appointments, vp selections, and court appointments, but I'm at drill and won't be able to get them in until tomorrow night at the earliest.