AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[10centjimmy]

27 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

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?

So in 1800, John Tyler Sr has 1 command.  An event or action or whatever gives him a second in 1804 and a third in 1808. In 1810, still not president,  does he lose a command point and drop down to 2? Then again in 1814 and 1818 so he is down to 0?

 

I think, you earn it and you keep it until you retire or lose it by actions/ dice rolls,  not by an arbitrary passing of time.  FDR didn't lose his relevance even after disappearing in the 20s.

Edited August 20, 2022 by 10centjimmy

[Willthescout7]

2 hours 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

President's are faction and party leader which gives them a chance to earn command every 2 years. So they should be able to keep it going.

Theoretically, someone could gain command for passing legislation, then 4 years later gain another one for being faction leader. Then another after winning the Presidency 2 years later. The first one would disappear 2 years later, and they would still have 2 command remaining.

This makes it so every President has a natural pathway to the President outside of being born with command (the Buttigieg dilemma). The one issue and why it needs to be tested is the concern that it will constrict the President and Vice-President pools too much, and keep people like Zachary Taylor out of office since they don't have legislative skill (I don't remember if Generals can earn command through winning battles) so some adjustments might need to be made to make sure most factions can still run 2 candidates. Plus the headache of manually calculating 10 years for each command point.

[Vols21]

I like the idea of having the historical leaders coming into the game with built in command points because it helps them at least be in the running to repeat even if as a VP candidate (our playtests have so far shown most of them to fail in that endeavor, so I fear that without starting command, they may fail even worse).   How many historical Presidents have won in the playtests?     My counter suggestion is to have a date the command becomes active so we are not trying to force them into roles 20 years before history and/or or having a game event/election that activates their command (which at that time the good ones would start with their historic 2-3 command instead of just 1).   Also, maybe some of the fringe candidate who ran but never got any traction would have a die roll at "activation date" to see if they earn command or not.  Gives them a chance but not a foregone conclusion.

as for "use it or lose it", it's an interesting concept that I like, but 10 years might be too tight of a window.   The best real life example might be Richard Nixon who would have to pick up a Command point in the Senate around 1950,  He used it to get VP slot for Ike 8 years, but then lost his bid to become President.  His 10 years are up and his command drops.  in 1962 he retires after losing a bid to become Gov of California (and would probably lose any other command he had earned during the next few years).  But in 1968 comes back to win President.    Looking at this, would 16 years be a better deadline (give or take)?   That would give a couple Presidential election cycles to work through (President wins re-election, then VP often moves up as standard bearer, then the guy being groomed would get the next shot -- think former VP candidate Bob Dole is this regard following Reagan-Bush.    but can see the point that if he keeps waiting, someone else would step over and push him aside.

We didn't get far enough along in our 1960 test to really know firsthand how often command points are given out

[MrPotatoTed]

8 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

President's are faction and party leader which gives them a chance to earn command every 2 years. So they should be able to keep it going.

Theoretically, someone could gain command for passing legislation, then 4 years later gain another one for being faction leader. Then another after winning the Presidency 2 years later. The first one would disappear 2 years later, and they would still have 2 command remaining.

This makes it so every President has a natural pathway to the President outside of being born with command (the Buttigieg dilemma). The one issue and why it needs to be tested is the concern that it will constrict the President and Vice-President pools too much, and keep people like Zachary Taylor out of office since they don't have legislative skill (I don't remember if Generals can earn command through winning battles) so some adjustments might need to be made to make sure most factions can still run 2 candidates. Plus the headache of manually calculating 10 years for each command point.

Governors, Senators, Representatives, and Military all have pathways to gaining command outside of being a faction leader.  Cabinet might too, actually.  In all cases, they need to do something notable, such as successfully moving a meter that was in crisis or winning a difficult battle.

There's also things like the Hiester event that can randomly see someone gain command.

Plus the career tracks have a (very small) chance of giving command too, specifically to replicate Buttigieg or Trump's rise. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by MrPotatoTed

[OrangeP47]

Might need to bump the percentages though as balance is now totally out of whack.

[Willthescout7]

7 hours ago, Vols21 said:

as for "use it or lose it", it's an interesting concept that I like, but 10 years might be too tight of a window.   The best real life example might be Richard Nixon who would have to pick up a Command point in the Senate around 1950,  He used it to get VP slot for Ike 8 years, but then lost his bid to become President.  His 10 years are up and his command drops.  in 1962 he retires after losing a bid to become Gov of California (and would probably lose any other command he had earned during the next few years).  But in 1968 comes back to win President.    Looking at this, would 16 years be a better deadline (give or take)?   That would give a couple Presidential election cycles to work through (President wins re-election, then VP often moves up as standard bearer, then the guy being groomed would get the next shot -- think former VP candidate Bob Dole is this regard following Reagan-Bush.    but can see the point that if he keeps waiting, someone else would step over and push him aside.

Nikki Haley is my example for 10 years. She had her moment, but it has now passed and if she runs in 2024 then it is doubtful she gains any traction. 10 years gives pols a chance to wait a little bit if the environment is unfavorable or if an incumbent of their party is in office, but does put a lot of pressure to go soon. Plus it'll lead to more contested Presidential conventions and primaries, as you have to really fight for it, since faction's can't really afford to wait with their best candidates. You realistically only get 1 real chance, 2 if you are lucky, and I personally feel like this is a great level of strategy for the player. Their decisions have consequences, and deciding to wait or deciding to run both extremally matter to their long-term plans.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

Nikki Haley is my example for 10 years. She had her moment, but it has now passed and if she runs in 2024 then it is doubtful she gains any traction. 10 years gives pols a chance to wait a little bit if the environment is unfavorable or if an incumbent of their party is in office, but does put a lot of pressure to go soon. Plus it'll lead to more contested Presidential conventions and primaries, as you have to really fight for it, since faction's can't really afford to wait with their best candidates. You realistically only get 1 real chance, 2 if you are lucky, and I personally feel like this is a great level of strategy for the player. Their decisions have consequences, and deciding to wait or deciding to run both extremally matter to their long-term plans.

I like it.  I might propose that it be a % chance that they lose the command rather than a hard stop at ten years, but I like it.

[Willthescout7]

11 hours ago, 10centjimmy said:

So in 1800, John Tyler Sr has 1 command.  An event or action or whatever gives him a second in 1804 and a third in 1808. In 1810, still not president,  does he lose a command point and drop down to 2? Then again in 1814 and 1818 so he is down to 0?

 

I think, you earn it and you keep it until you retire or lose it by actions/ dice rolls,  not by an arbitrary passing of time.  FDR didn't lose his relevance even after disappearing in the 20s.

If it just stacks like it currently does, we end up with issues where Douglas McArthur or Thomas Dewey run 20 or 30 years after they are relevant (ergo 1960 playtest). Having a time limit I think replicates how it works in real life, where people all of a sudden are contenders, some rise, some fall, but they all eventually are left behind. 

Ted's proposal of a % instead of a hard cap is probably the best solution to this. It gives a bit more leeway in timing, though it is still a risk to wait depending on how high that % chance is.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

If it just stacks like it currently does, we end up with issues where Douglas McArthur or Thomas Dewey run 20 or 30 years after they are relevant (ergo 1960 playtest). Having a time limit I think replicates how it works in real life, where people all of a sudden are contenders, some rise, some fall, but they all eventually are left behind. 

Ted's proposal of a % instead of a hard cap is probably the best solution to this. It gives a bit more leeway in timing, though it is still a risk to wait depending on how high that % chance is.

I definitely think that for post 1772 start dates, people probably shouldn't enter the initial draft with command more than 10 years after their political peak.  Of course, that would require defining when each politician with command's historical political peak was.  

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar So after all the discussion above, maybe command rules should be something like...

1)  For post-1772 start dates, the initial draftees should not start with  command more than 10 years after their last real life Presidential election.  (This will require someone to go in and enter what the last Presidential election year was for each politician who is "born with" command, but this is something that could be handed off to a volunteer).

2)  Every ten years (say, same time you do the census?), roll a die for each politician with command to have a 60% chance to lose 1 Command.  So someone with 5 command may be able to stick around for a long time, but flash-in-the-pan 1 Command guys need to run for President ASAP lest they lose their window.

3)  A toggleable option that no politician enters a rookie draft already having command -- it must always be earned.  This should be paired with doubling the chances of earning command across the board (so things that have a 1% chance of giving command now have 2%, things that have a 20% chance of giving command now have 40%).  Only double those chances if "born with command" is toggled off.

[MrPotatoTed]

I'd also set it that the sitting President and Vice President can't lose their last command while they're in office, so that they remain eligible for their current jobs.  So a President might find himself becoming less effective as he becomes a lame duck, but he will always retain at least 1 command while in office.

[OrangeP47]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar So after all the discussion above, maybe command rules should be something like...

1)  For post-1772 start dates, the initial draftees should not start with  command more than 10 years after their last real life Presidential election.  (This will require someone to go in and enter what the last Presidential election year was for each politician who is "born with" command, but this is something that could be handed off to a volunteer).

2)  Every ten years (say, same time you do the census?), roll a die for each politician with command to have a 60% chance to lose 1 Command.  So someone with 5 command may be able to stick around for a long time, but flash-in-the-pan 1 Command guys need to run for President ASAP lest they lose their window.

3)  A toggleable option that no politician enters a rookie draft already having command -- it must always be earned.  This should be paired with doubling the chances of earning command across the board (so things that have a 1% chance of giving command now have 2%, things that have a 20% chance of giving command now have 40%).  Only double those chances if "born with command" is toggled off.

I'd be fine with this, but probably nothing more extreme.

[10centjimmy]

Another issue with this is that command is useful to do things but hard to stack up, so we could run into the same issue with a bunch of 1 command losers struggling to fix crises since everybody's losing their command points as the become irrelevant. Even in the 1772 playtest we had 2 5 command guys lose the election then peace out. Or Samuel Osgood do nothing but still remain relevant and win. Percentages to lose command make sense, but might be hard to program.

[OrangeP47]

30 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Another issue with this is that command is useful to do things but hard to stack up, so we could run into the same issue with a bunch of 1 command losers struggling to fix crises since everybody's losing their command points as the become irrelevant. Even in the 1772 playtest we had 2 5 command guys lose the election then peace out. Or Samuel Osgood do nothing but still remain relevant and win. Percentages to lose command make sense, but might be hard to program.

Nah, even with my limited programming experience that's like something someone with one week of programming experience could do.

[Willthescout7]

I don't think it will be too hard to program. If Anthony can program people losing legi or admin then he should be able to program losing command since it is only a % chance. The hardest part will be calculating the time, but that should be a simple algorithm. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, 10centjimmy said:

Another issue with this is that command is useful to do things but hard to stack up, so we could run into the same issue with a bunch of 1 command losers struggling to fix crises since everybody's losing their command points as the become irrelevant. Even in the 1772 playtest we had 2 5 command guys lose the election then peace out. Or Samuel Osgood do nothing but still remain relevant and win. Percentages to lose command make sense, but might be hard to program.

Command isn't really used to solve crises that I can recall, though it's possible I've forgotten something.  

[Willthescout7]

I think it is really for executive actions, which would work with the concept of a President losing effectiveness after a few years in office.

Of course, the faction and party leader rolls could give that command right back. 

[Vols21]

6 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar So after all the discussion above, maybe command rules should be something like...

1)  For post-1772 start dates, the initial draftees should not start with  command more than 10 years after their last real life Presidential election.  (This will require someone to go in and enter what the last Presidential election year was for each politician who is "born with" command, but this is something that could be handed off to a volunteer).

2)  Every ten years (say, same time you do the census?), roll a die for each politician with command to have a 60% chance to lose 1 Command.  So someone with 5 command may be able to stick around for a long time, but flash-in-the-pan 1 Command guys need to run for President ASAP lest they lose their window.

3)  A toggleable option that no politician enters a rookie draft already having command -- it must always be earned.  This should be paired with doubling the chances of earning command across the board (so things that have a 1% chance of giving command now have 2%, things that have a 20% chance of giving command now have 40%).  Only double those chances if "born with command" is toggled off.

I like the percent chance idea.    Was going to suggest 1-2 at 10 years, then add 1 every 4 years.

might want to consider this roll taking place after the candidate reaches a certain age.   the median age of a US President is 55    The only ones younger than 45 we’re Teddy Roosevelt and JFK.     So something in that range could help 

[Willthescout7]

6 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

2)  Every ten years (say, same time you do the census?), roll a die for each politician with command to have a 60% chance to lose 1 Command.  So someone with 5 command may be able to stick around for a long time, but flash-in-the-pan 1 Command guys need to run for President ASAP lest they lose their window.
 

The one change here I would make is to tie the chance to lose Command to each Pol separately. Every politician is on their own journey, so will achieve command points at different times. If they all have the roll at the sake time, then someone who gets command during that legislative phase could immediately lose it, which would be frustrating to the player. 

Say we have 3 pols. The first gains a point in 1842, another 1844, and another 1846. If they all rolled to lose Command in 1850, then the person in 1846 doesn't get as much of a chance as everyone else. Bur if they have rolls in 1852, 1854, and 1856 respectively, the only thing keeping each from having a fair chance is the election timelines or having the current President be the same party. 

The only challenging thing is that each command point would be on its own 10 year cycle, which would need an algorithm to track, or another sheet in the sspreadsheet. But Anthony should be able to make that work.

[Vols21]

Will the age requirement may help solve your issue.     At age 45(6) the clock starts ticking if they have command, then at age 55(6) they have to use it or roll to see if they lose it.     Or an alternative would be use 3 Presidential elections at which time you roll to lose your command

[Arkansas Progressive]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

Era of Normalcy card minimums for Trads and Progs should be switched around
 
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

In the Era of Normalcy Trads have a two faction card minimum despite the active draft only giving 1 faction more than 10 pols to earn the card, and Progs, which have two factions that have more than 10 pols only have a one faction minimum
 
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Switch the faction minimums around, giving progs two and trads 1.
 
4. If applicable, please provide historical evidence to support the fix (a URL, for example). 

[Willthescout7]

15 minutes ago, Vols21 said:

Will the age requirement may help solve your issue.     At age 45(6) the clock starts ticking if they have command, then at age 55(6) they have to use it or roll to see if they lose it.     Or an alternative would be use 3 Presidential elections at which time you roll to lose your command

I'm not a fan of tying command to anything other than itself, but that might be just me. Especially since the career track won't deposit them until they are 45. Which means you have to rush them into the Presidency instead of it being natural. I feel like it defeats the point of grooming people. 

If we can't make it where individual command is lost on its own timeliness, then I would rather go with Ted's idea of basing it on the census.

[vcczar]

Because I'm swamped, I moved most of this to the to do list.

I'm not going to touch command or obscure until early release. I don't think there's enough of a problem yet to really warrant a certain change. I am most convinced by regaining "obscure," but I'd say it should be someone out of office for like 4 or 8 years that isn't a celebrity and has never been President, something like that. 

I'm going to stop working on manuscripts (my side job) to work more on AMPU after next week, even if it means I'm making less money. It's been the biggest barrier to working on AMPU since I restarted it. Will welcome volunteers to help me go through the To Do list. Much of it I can't delegate, but there might be some things I can. 

[Rezi]

1. In brief, what is the issue?

There aren't enough options for primary actions that don't have to do with dropping out. IIRC we only have speeches and rallies.
2. Can you give an example of the issue or provide an image of the issue?

See 2.9.1 rules section 3.3.
3. In brief, what is your suggested fix for this issue?

Add 2 new primary actions:

• Seek Local Endorsements: Pick a state to seek endorsements from local leaders. Roll a 6-sided die:

1. Local Leaders denounce your campaign. -1 in that state, 50% chance of avoiding if you have teflon
2. No change.
3. +1 if you have kingmaker.
4. +1 if you have kingmaker or efficient.
5. +1 unless you have provincial and are from a different region.
6. +1 but +2 if you have kingmaker or efficient

 

• Campaign on local issues: Campaign on issues specific to that state. Roll a 6-sided die.
• Can only do if you have a corresponding expertise (Trade or Naval in Maritime industry state. Business or Labor in manufacturing industry state. Agriculture in plantation industry state. I'm sure there could be others).

1. Your ideas are not well received. -1 in that state.
2. No change.
3. +1 if you have charismatic or likable.
4. +1 if you have charismatic or likable.
5. +1, 50% chance of +2 if you have charismatic or likable.
6. +1, +2 if you have charismatic or likable.

 

Seek local endorsements is meant to work with different traits than current actions, while campaign in local issues is meant to be stronger, but harder to fit the requirements for.

 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar You asked me to put in here the issue we've had recently with either the Revolutionary War not being won until the last second (or potentially even after 1788), and the possibility that independence is never declared in the first place.

It sounded like you wanted to create a firm "the war will definitely begin by 17xx" and "will definitely end by 17xx".  That said, I actually like that there's more flexibility, it adds some tension and alternate history curiosity to the early game when there isn't much else to do but win the war.  We just need to take a look at legislative proposals, etc, and figure out what can and can't be done if the war is still ongoing post 1788.  For example, maybe the constitutional convention still takes place at 1786 and the Presidency (if there is one) still begins 1788 but the war continues?