AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

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.

Awesome.  Have you seen the current CPU appointment rules in 3.0?  Just making sure you'd seen that since it's a separate document.  But eager to hear your feedback/thoughts on how to improve it.

[10centjimmy]

1. Running out of legislation + lack of French Alliance leading to impossibly difficult battles

2. In @MrPotatoTed single player playtest, we have struggled to secure the French Alliance while quickly losing battles, and the Canadian invasion.  At the same time, efficient legislators have implemented all legislation, and even begun repealing previous legislation.

3. Recommend adding new legislative actions that will provide military boosts for as long as the Revolutionary War is running (and contribute to any conflicts as long as the primary war is active) such as the congress/states commissioning attacks on British forts and stealing artillery and supplies. 

4. Assault on Fort Ticonderoga and Henry Knox bringing artillery to Bunker Hill

[ConservativeElector2]

1. Still not sure on how extreme wealth should be represented or impacting the game.

2. If someone added Andrew Carnagie he would surely have a better shot winning the gubernatorial election of MA than someone obscure with gov ability

3. I liked the attribute wealth class we had at the very early beginning, but it might be to tedious going through all the people and add this for all the extreme rich politicians again. I am not sure how to balance it more, but thought putting it up discussion might be a good idea.

4. Pritzker, Bloomberg or Trumps campaign

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

1. Still not sure on how extreme wealth should be represented or impacting the game.

2. If someone added Andrew Carnagie he would surely have a better shot winning the gubernatorial election of MA than someone obscure with gov ability

3. I liked the attribute wealth class we had at the very early beginning, but it might be to tedious going through all the people and add this for all the extreme rich politicians again. I am not sure how to balance it more, but thought putting it up discussion might be a good idea.

4. Pritzker, Bloomberg or Trumps campaign

Agreed with both the idea that it would be nice to have and tedious to add at this stage.

This is at least abstractly included in the sense that enough time in the private sector can give command, legislative, governing, or admin.

[MrPotatoTed]

. In brief, what is the issue?

This game is too much fun, leading me to play it so often that I'd surely be fired if anyone cared enough to see if I was actually working on my real-job projects.

 

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

 

I've had two major projects that I assured everyone would be finished last Monday.  It is Friday and I have not started them.

 

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

Either making the game less fun, or maybe a prescription for Ritalin?

 

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

I was fired from a job in 2002 and in 2011.

[matthewyoung123]

18 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

. In brief, what is the issue?

This game is too much fun, leading me to play it so often that I'd surely be fired if anyone cared enough to see if I was actually working on my real-job projects.

 

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

 

I've had two major projects that I assured everyone would be finished last Monday.  It is Friday and I have not started them.

 

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

Either making the game less fun, or maybe a prescription for Ritalin?

 

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

I was fired from a job in 2002 and in 2011.

This should be a tweet...

[10centjimmy]

20 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

This should be a tweet...

Make it anonymous!

[vcczar]

On 8/3/2022 at 6:46 AM, MrPotatoTed said:

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

The issue is that a lot of these people were born before middle names were common. Their ID name usually has their state's abbreviation. You'll just have to come up with your own tracking system. This happens in sports games too. I remember there were two NFL RBs named Ricky Williams. And if they got traded a lot, you just had to click on them to see which was the better one. 

 

[vcczar]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, MrPotatoTed said:

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

This one is going on the to-do list since it will take more time. All to-do list stuff will be handled once Anthony returns ot AMPU, which is when I'll be on AMPU "full time" again. Also, if I have downtime, I'll work on these. But good idea. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1. Contingent election in the House rules include votes from Govs and Senators. I think this was before the move back to Reps controlling variable voting power. 
 

2. From the Misc Rules section, “The state’s vote will go to the House leader for that party (Speaker or House Min Ldr), unless an allied faction controls all three officers of that state, in which case they get control of that vote independent of the party house leader’s influence.”

3. Now that Reps control variable voting power they should just vote within their state delegations. It would be along party lines but maybe allow for ideology to impact the vote in some way but not sure off of the top of my head.

4. The 12th Amendment

Edited August 5, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[vcczar]

On 8/4/2022 at 9:17 AM, MrPotatoTed said:

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

This one is on the to-do list too. 

[vcczar]

On 8/4/2022 at 9:17 AM, MrPotatoTed said:

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

Thanks. This is another longer fix, so it's going to the "to do" list. 

[vcczar]

Alright, I applied almost all of your feedback. 

• @ConservativeElector2 not going to do anything regarding extreme wealth at the moment. That's probably something that I'll see if Anthony can cram into the game once the game is in early release and more people ask for it. 
• @MrPotatoTed not changing the ideology restrictions on drafting since 1) draft picks can be stolen, and 2) these restrictions were adjusted like a month or two ago because Bernie Sanders could theoretically be in a faction that makes no sense for him. Ideological outsiders will just have fewer natural places. 
• @10centjimmy The French Alliance is basically essential to US success, which is why it was so important. It was the ONLY power that could throw a wrench in Great Britains abilities to hold onto the country and the French alliance was a main driver in getting US support for the Rev War domestically and internationally. So without it, it should be almost impossible to win--minus guerilla war. 

Lot's of To Do list stuff. PM me if any of you want to help me with any of the more time-consuming things to-do list things, and I can make it a goal to handle these on next Friday since I'll have more time next Friday. This also means I won't look at this thread next Friday, so I can handle just the "to do" list things, which are complex. 

@MrPotatoTed I didn't get through your rule suggestions today in the doc, but I'll get to those either later today or sometime before next Friday. 

[10centjimmy]

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@10centjimmy The French Alliance is basically essential to US success, which is why it was so important. It was the ONLY power that could throw a wrench in Great Britains abilities to hold onto the country and the French alliance was a main driver in getting US support for the Rev War domestically and internationally. So without it, it should be almost impossible to win--minus guerilla war

100% agree, but by this nature it's a game over immediately if there's no alliance.  Would it be reasonable to suggest that the alliance firing is more assured with a 3 admin minister and a single victory in the war? France was subtly supporting the colonies via Beaumarchais prior to any actual success and took Saratoga and the quasi win at Monmouth to officially sign onto the alliance.

Edited August 5, 2022 by 10centjimmy

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

100% agree, but by this nature it's a game over immediately if there's no alliance.  Would it be reasonable to suggest that the alliance firing is more assured with a 3 admin minister and a single victory in the war? France was subtly supporting the colonies via Beaumarchaus prior to any actual success and took Saratoga and the quasi win at Monmouth to officially sign onto the alliance.

That would be something I'd suggest to Anthony once he's got the gaming running. The reason for this is that I think the events are so complex as they are that he's going to take months coding them. They're all different. I think that adds an extra complexity that will just bog him down into the event. 

What I fear is that Anthony gets exasperated because its taking him a day per event or something. If that's the case, the events will have to be extremely scaled down, which will suck. I'm about 95% sure this won't happen, but that 5% fear lingers in my head. A lot of this is because I'm not a coder/developer, so I am clueless as to how long it will take to code things. I know it's a lot longer than it takes me to write how something is done. Perhaps if he were swift at his job, I'd throw in there now, but at this point, I'm just wanting him to get early release out. 

[MrPotatoTed]

In brief, what is the issue?

Moving the capital awards points based on presumed state industry, resulting in unlikely/unexplainable voting patterns.

 

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

 

In the single player 1772 game, we've moved the capital twice (mostly because we have nothing else to do right now in legislative phase).  First we moved from Philly to New York, which had unanimous approval because enough factions were tied to Finance states that they could carry the majority vote in every state.  Then we moved from New York to Boston, and again had unanimous approval because the majority of states are maritime states and so everybody saw big point gains again.  The South doesn't seem to care at all that the capital is dashing as quickly as it can to Canada.

Also, while not an issue yet in this game, the awarding of points for the capital based on specific industries assumes that that industry is still the leading industry of the state, and might not be.  For example, moving the capital to Boston awards points to every Maritime state...even though Massachusetts might not be primarily a maritime state anymore by the time the capital moves.

 

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

Change the point structure for moving the capital from industry-based to region-based. The home state of the new capital gets +1000 points, the home region of the new capital gets +500.  All other regions get -500.

Also, it would be great to have options in every region.  I took the liberty of coming up with a list.  I went with the largest US cities (present day populations), three largest for each region but only one per state as there would be no point difference between say San Antonio or Houston.

Note that I have Washington DC listed as both Mid-Atlantic and Upper South, making this the likely best compromise spot as it's perfectly positioned on the two region's borders, and also off-setting the fact that it wouldn't give a state a home bonus.

DEEP SOUTH: Jacksonville, Atlanta, New Orleans

GREAT PLANS: Chicago, Kansas City, Omaha

MID-ATLANTIC: New York City, Philadelphia, DC

MIDWEST: Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit

MOUNTAIN: Denver, Anchorage, Boise

NEW ENGLAND: Boston, Providence, Bridgeport

SOUTHWEST: Houston, Phoenix, Oklahoma City

UPPER SOUTH: Charlotte, DC, Nashville

WEST COAST: Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland

 

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

 

[matthewyoung123]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

The Domestic stability meter seems to always go down and RARELY has the opportunity to come up.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

Both the 1772 play test and the 1840 play test face very low domestic stability meters.  It doesn't take much to bring them down but the things that bring them up are difficult or don't roll often enough.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Two things- First, there are a lot more hits to that meter than bonuses to bring it up.  My suggestion would be that, after a "decisive" win in the electoral college (say 75% or more), that a roll be taken to IMPROVE Domestic stability in the guise of "the overwhelming election or defeat of a party has brought the nation together."  Roll should be something like 75% chance to increase, 25% it does nothing.   Secondly, when winning a war, Domestic stability should automatically go up by +1 and a 25% chance to go up +2.  Nothing like winning a war and bringing the troops home to help with uneasy feelings at home!
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

Era of Good Feelings, Nixon after '72, Reagan after '84 (for Presidential election win bonus) & Roaring 20's after WW1, production boom in the late 40's and 50's after WW2 (for winning wars).

[MrPotatoTed]

12 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

The Domestic stability meter seems to always go down and RARELY has the opportunity to come up.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

Both the 1772 play test and the 1840 play test face very low domestic stability meters.  It doesn't take much to bring them down but the things that bring them up are difficult or don't roll often enough.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Two things- First, there are a lot more hits to that meter than bonuses to bring it up.  My suggestion would be that, after a "decisive" win in the electoral college (say 75% or more), that a roll be taken to IMPROVE Domestic stability in the guise of "the overwhelming election or defeat of a party has brought the nation together."  Roll should be something like 75% chance to increase, 25% it does nothing.   Secondly, when winning a war, Domestic stability should automatically go up by +1 and a 25% chance to go up +2.  Nothing like winning a war and bringing the troops home to help with uneasy feelings at home!
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

Era of Good Feelings, Nixon after '72, Reagan after '84 (for Presidential election win bonus) & Roaring 20's after WW1, production boom in the late 40's and 50's after WW2 (for winning wars).

I like these ideas.  I would add just in case you haven't seen it that there are rules in the lingering phase that lead to meters tending to move towards the middle (rarely staying too low or too high for too long).

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed and @matthewyoung123 I've gone through your proposals:

1. The moving the capital legis props do award points and take away points from politicians holding offices in the states in question if you look at the Special Rules. So it's both that and industries. The change I decided to make, based on your response, is to add same-region officeholders in the mix for points, although not as many points as you suggested. The whole point system will probably be change after early release testing. I'd say for the most part the point values are just kind of filler because I don't know what a standard end score will be. In regards to more potential capitals, I'm going to hold off for two reasons: 1) I think it will just encourage moving the capital more than would be historically reasonable. Historically, as is the case with your game, the capital was moved several times until it DC--twice in NJ. 2) I'm hoping that Anthony will create a new capital map for the main screen based on the capital. Having too many capitals will probably discourage him. I think if the capital changes the map, a lot of the move might be based on the layout preference. I'll add these new capitals you've suggested (or alternate cities from those states) if there is more demand for it.

2. The issue with the dom stab meter probably isn't too much of an issue. 1) Both periods mentioned in the feedback suggestion were extremely disharmonious periods. It should be stressful to keep it up. We also have lingering effects that act somewhat as a safeguard. However, just in case, I've now made it so that if a president gets 60% or higher of the popular vote, then Dom Stab goes up by 1. I'll increase this to 2 if I must, but let's start with 1. 

Thanks! As feedback for fixes was light this week, I can now work on the more time-consuming fixes on the "to do" list. 

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@MrPotatoTed and @matthewyoung123 I've gone through your proposals:

1. The moving the capital legis props do award points and take away points from politicians holding offices in the states in question if you look at the Special Rules. So it's both that and industries. The change I decided to make, based on your response, is to add same-region officeholders in the mix for points, although not as many points as you suggested. The whole point system will probably be change after early release testing. I'd say for the most part the point values are just kind of filler because I don't know what a standard end score will be. In regards to more potential capitals, I'm going to hold off for two reasons: 1) I think it will just encourage moving the capital more than would be historically reasonable. Historically, as is the case with your game, the capital was moved several times until it DC--twice in NJ. 2) I'm hoping that Anthony will create a new capital map for the main screen based on the capital. Having too many capitals will probably discourage him. I think if the capital changes the map, a lot of the move might be based on the layout preference. I'll add these new capitals you've suggested (or alternate cities from those states) if there is more demand for it.

2. The issue with the dom stab meter probably isn't too much of an issue. 1) Both periods mentioned in the feedback suggestion were extremely disharmonious periods. It should be stressful to keep it up. We also have lingering effects that act somewhat as a safeguard. However, just in case, I've now made it so that if a president gets 60% or higher of the popular vote, then Dom Stab goes up by 1. I'll increase this to 2 if I must, but let's start with 1. 

Thanks! As feedback for fixes was light this week, I can now work on the more time-consuming fixes on the "to do" list. 

I just took a look at 3.0 miscellaneous rules and didn't spot any obvious sections that would refer to moving capitals.  Do you happen to know what section it's under?  Thanks!

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Oh I see what you mean now.  Yes, I was already incorporating that.  The issue with moving capitals is that basing it on industry instead of region leads to weird/ahistorical voting patterns (the South strongly supporting moving to Boston for example, and possibly even being against moving from Boston to the South).  Making the score be based on region would lead to more realistic votes.  

[vcczar]

59 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Oh I see what you mean now.  Yes, I was already incorporating that.  The issue with moving capitals is that basing it on industry instead of region leads to weird/ahistorical voting patterns (the South strongly supporting moving to Boston for example, and possibly even being against moving from Boston to the South).  Making the score be based on region would lead to more realistic votes.  

Well, now the score is based on three things: State, Region, and Industry.

The primary reason I have those industries is because the capital was moved to Philadelphia and NYC because of financial reasons--Finance Industry. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Well, now the score is based on three things: State, Region, and Industry.

The primary reason I have those industries is because the capital was moved to Philadelphia and NYC because of financial reasons--Finance Industry. 

Ok.  I just worry that we'll still have the same weird voting issue without penalties to the other region officeholders.  If it's just gains, then every faction will probably end up with at least one statesmen in the relevant region, and thus all factions will vote in favor of every proposed move when it was actually more contentious (the DC move requiring the South to agree to take on northern debts, for example)

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar I also think we should establish that capital moves can only be proposed by a statesman from the new capital's state.  So we don't have Georgia Senators proposing we move the capital to Boston, for example.

[MrPotatoTed]

It's 1786 - 1788 -- the final piece of the Era of Independence!  I'm super excited to see what the heck happens when we transition to the Era of Federalism if we haven't achieved independence by then.  Only one more military phase to go!

But first, the other phases.  

No flip-flopper changes.

@10centjimmy time for relocations, ideology shifts, conversions, kingmaker-protege pairs.