AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Several events ignore the possibility that the Revolutionary War may continue into the era of Federalism.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

By virtue of a lucky die roll (after lots of unlucky die rolls prior, our single player playthrough only narrowly avoided continuing the Revolutionary War past 1788.  (We finally won in 1786-1788).  

Had we not won, we would have run into an issue with the wording of multiple events which specifically say they automatically fire in the 1786-1788 phase, but also say they cannot fire until after the Revolutionary War is won.  Events such as Annapolis Convention, Constitutional Convention.
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Clarify what happens if the Revolutionary War continues into the Era of Federalism.  Do these conventions still automatically fire by 1786-1788 even if we’re still at war, or is it possible to head into the Era of Federalism without them?
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Constitutional convention gives points to the PA governor even if the capital has moved.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

In our single player game, the Capital of the US is in Boston, yet the constitutional convention is apparently still happening in PA.

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

Give the points to the governor of the capital’s state.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example).

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Inconsistent rules on when the Constitutional Convention takes place.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

The scripted event for Constitutional Convention says the convention takes place during the scripted phase, and even explains where to fit it in between other events.  But the 3.0 constitutional convention rules specify that it takes place during the legislative phase.

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

Pick one and stick with it! ;c)
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example)

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Confusion on when a territory can be admitted.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee territory legislative proposals have a prerequisite of just "territory can be proposed", with no explanation of what that means.  Lacking anything else to do as the war dragged on forever well beyond when we ran out of other legislative proposals, we went ahead and passed all four territories.

Once we finally won the war, we found a note saying that NOW the four territories could be proposed.  

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

Change the prerequisite for those four territories to "Revolutionary War is over".
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example)

[Willthescout7]

1. Alternate Constitution setups.

2. In regards to the debate on the alternate Constitutions, I think we have to be careful when it comes to making alternate constitutions difficult to achieve since that will be a main draw for players. However, some of the options are simply impractical (offices for life) for this style of game. 

3. I think the fix is to make it so you are encouraged to have a normal Presidency, but allow the term lengths to be changed on a slider. Start at 2 and go until when yoh feel it should stop (I personally believe 10 or 20 is the appropriate stopping location). This allows the basic framework of the game to exist, but flexibility on the general shape. You could potentially do this with the Senate as well, though I would say no. For the unicameral or bicameral house, make it so only the Senate is optional, that way you can still have "midterms". This will allow Anthony to classify elections in the code as midterm (no presidential election) or general (presidential election). If Anthony can't program a slider for the years or classify two data sets then we have other problems.

4. N/A. 

 

Addendum: CPU should vote for the historical option 50-60% of time. The other 40-50% they'll support the ahistorical option. In the case of the Presidency, they'll do 4 years 75% of the time, 25% of the time a random length.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Willthescout7

[MrPotatoTed]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Every idiot who has ever run for President in real life begins with Command in the game, even if they had failed to get any support in real life.  This makes them MUCH stronger politicians in the game than they ever were in real life.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

 Michael Bennett, Deval Patrick, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, Martin O'Malley, Michele Bachman, Jon Huntsman, Ben Carson, JEB! Bush, Rand Paul each received less than 1% of voters support before withdrawing from their respective Presidential runs.  

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

Set a standard of needing to get at least 1% of Primary support or 1% of general support for the pre-primary eras in real life, and remove command for all other candidates.  (This is something that might be able to be delegated to a trusted volunteer).
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[OrangeP47]

If I comment that I like it the way it is, will Will murder me in my sleep? 😅

[Willthescout7]

15 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

If I comment that I like it the way it is, will Will murder me in my sleep? 😅

I wouldn't go to Peterson Park if I were you🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Vols21]

11 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Every idiot who has ever run for President in real life begins with Command in the game, even if they had failed to get any support in real life.  This makes them MUCH stronger politicians in the game than they ever were in real life.
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

 Michael Bennett, Deval Patrick, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, Martin O'Malley, Michele Bachman, Jon Huntsman, Ben Carson, JEB! Bush, Rand Paul each received less than 1% of voters support before withdrawing from their respective Presidential runs.  

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

Set a standard of needing to get at least 1% of Primary support or 1% of general support for the pre-primary eras in real life, and remove command for all other candidates.  (This is something that might be able to be delegated to a trusted volunteer).
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Even worse some of them have 2 or. 3 command (at least at peak) because they ran multiple times.    
 

one thing to keep in mind is some could also be strong VP candidates.    I think one possible fix is to have a year when the command is earned (or some event to trigger them).  Jeb at least was a strong contender for a while but got ran over by the Trump Train,    Some of the others were also rans who to date have not been serious contenders.   Is there a way to make them a weaker national candidate without removing the chance for them to run at all?   (The fringe candidates remind me of “favorite sons” of days gone by without the support of even their home state)

[Arkansas Progressive]

On 8/16/2022 at 6:00 PM, Vols21 said:

Even worse some of them have 2 or. 3 command (at least at peak) because they ran multiple times.    
 

one thing to keep in mind is some could also be strong VP candidates.    I think one possible fix is to have a year when the command is earned (or some event to trigger them).  Jeb at least was a strong contender for a while but got ran over by the Trump Train,    Some of the others were also rans who to date have not been serious contenders.   Is there a way to make them a weaker national candidate without removing the chance for them to run at all?   (The fringe candidates remind me of “favorite sons” of days gone by without the support of even their home state)

An idea could be to set fringe candidates with election debuffs in primary states so that they'll be a more than likely option for VP

[Willthescout7]

1. The CPU does not taking seat biases into account when selecting candidates during elections.

2. In the 1840 playtest, most Whig factions don't have a strong presence in the South. As the rules are currently written for CPUs, they just fill in elections down the line. This means some factions are running their only candidate in a seat unfavorable to them when they could run them in another seat and potentially win. This could be more of an issue in later starting eras.

3. Specify in CPU rules that the CPU will run candidates in districts that favor them the most first, then if they still have potential candidates run them in less favorable seats. For example: if a state is +3 Blue, +2 Blue, +1 blue, the Red CPU will run in the +1 blue seat first, then the +2 blue, and then the +1 blue. The Blue CPU will run in the +3 blue first. 

4. N/A

[ConservativeElector2]

1. Handling of 'obscure' in the era of the Internet and social media news.

I believe it's easier to lose obscure since the Internet is used a #1 news channel.

2. For example I would say Merrick Garland lost being 'obscure' already due to fact he wasn't considered for a confirmation hearing, while even many successful appointees from the past are still seen as obscure.

3. Find a way to handle losing 'obscure' more realistical related to the overall circumstances.

4. n/a

[MrPotatoTed]

3 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

1. Handling of 'obscure' in the era of the Internet and social media news.

I believe it's easier to lose obscure since the Internet is used a #1 news channel.

2. For example I would say Merrick Garland lost being 'obscure' already due to fact he wasn't considered for a confirmation hearing, while even many successful appointees from the past are still seen as obscure.

3. Find a way to handle losing 'obscure' more realistical related to the overall circumstances.

4. n/a

Maybe.  The main benefit of losing obscure is that it opens up the possibility that you could be faction leader.  I recognize the name Merrick Garland from the hearings, but I don't know anything about him other than the fact that Biden named him Attorney General -- and I'd be willing to bet the average American who doesn't spend their time on politics forums might not even know that much. ;c)

 

[ConservativeElector2]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Maybe.  The main benefit of losing obscure is that it opens up the possibility that you could be faction leader.  I recognize the name Merrick Garland from the hearings, but I don't know anything about him other than the fact that Biden named him Attorney General -- and I'd be willing to bet the average American who doesn't spend their time on politics forums might not even know that much. ;c)

Fair enough, if you view it from this perspective. I have interpreted 'obscure' more like if someone is known or remembered in any way. For example President Pierce seems rather obscure to me, although he even served as president. I guess not even many Americans remember him or President Tyler or so. Nowadays even less notable people aren't that obscure anymore. Like Garland being even mentioned in European news outlets like the Guardian.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Fair enough, if you view it from this perspective. I have interpreted 'obscure' more like if someone is known or remembered in any way. For example President Pierce seems rather obscure to me, although he even served as president. I guess not even many Americans remember him or President Tyler or so. Nowadays even less notable people aren't that obscure anymore. Like Garland being even mentioned in European news outlets like the Guardian.

Honestly it's a hard question, because none of us were alive in the 1800s to know first hand.  We're *probably* just biased towards the modern era, but maybe not. Anyone got a time machine?

(I don't think a historiographic analysis is a good substitute either because that's still biased with a modern lens, the only way to get a true feel would be to ask a living, breathing resident of the time period)

[Willthescout7]

I'll throw a wrinkle into the debate: should a politician be able to regain Obscure? Their moment in the sun passing so to speak. 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I'll throw a wrinkle into the debate: should a politician be able to regain Obscure? Their moment in the sun passing so to speak. 

I don't know, but probably a good place to start is Aaron Burr.

[Willthescout7]

If we approach obscure as the common man from that time period knowing who they are, then it stands to reason that someone could become well knwelland at the forefront of American discourse, but fade away a few years later into the recesses of American thought. 

An example might be Merick Garland. People knew who he was for 5 minutes, but then moved on. I would argue that despite being AG he is onfe again obscure. 

Of course, this is entirely subjective over what the word 'obscure' means in this context, so this should probably be avoided all together.

[MrPotatoTed]

I’ve always said that people should lose command (all the way down to zero, eventually) to show that their moment has passed.

[Willthescout7]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

I’ve always said that people should lose command (all the way down to zero, eventually) to show that their moment has passed.

I know Vczzar hates it, but I'm still partial to no one starting with command outside of the initial drafts and having to earn it. And then adding a 10 year limit until it dissapears again. 

I plan on editing pols to do that in the game once it releases. 

[Willthescout7]

11 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

If we approach obscure as the common man from that time period knowing who they are, then it stands to reason that someone could become well knwelland at the forefront of American discourse, but fade away a few years later into the recesses of American thought. 

An example might be Merick Garland. People knew who he was for 5 minutes, but then moved on. I would argue that despite being AG he is onfe again obscure. 

Of course, this is entirely subjective over what the word 'obscure' means in this context, so this should probably be avoided all together.

Orange wanted me to state that his concern about the ability to regain obscure is that faction leaders would keep losing it and get into a cycle where everyone in a faction is obscure and can then be faction leader. I agree with him.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

I know Vczzar hates it, but I'm still partial to no one starting with command outside of the initial drafts and having to earn it. And then adding a 10 year limit until it dissapears again. 

I plan on editing pols to do that in the game once it releases. 

I kind of like this idea.  @10centjimmy would you be interested in testing this out in our game?  We’d leave the current guys alone, but all future draftees would enter with zero command.  If you don’t like it, I’m fine with not doing it. Just let me know.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

Orange wanted me to state that his concern about the ability to regain obscure is that faction leaders would keep losing it and get into a cycle where everyone in a faction is obscure and can then be faction leader. I agree with him.

I agree.  No need to regain obscure.  We already have a % chance that people retire after losing their spot as faction leader, senator, cabinet member, etc, regardless of age. This represents people fading away from the public consciousness, never to really be heard from again.

[10centjimmy]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I kind of like this idea.  @10centjimmy would you be interested in testing this out in our game?  We’d leave the current guys alone, but all future draftees would enter with zero command.  If you don’t like it, I’m fine with not doing it. Just let me know.

Doesn't hurt to give it a shot, what about stacking command? Might never get more than 1 command which really hamstrings presidents

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, 10centjimmy said:

Doesn't hurt to give it a shot, what about stacking command? Might never get more than 1 command which really hamstrings presidents

That’s a good point, though there’s a 20% chance for faction leaders every two years and I think and extra chance for party leaders.  What do you mean by stacking?