The Grassroots Divide: A 1772 Two-Player Populist Showdown

[ShortKing]

My picks in order are:

RedLibs
RedCons
BlueCons

[Bushwa777]

53 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Being an Era of Independence game, until the firing precedent is set you won't be able to replace any appointed people. Cabinet or otherwise 🙂

But we are jumping ahead to 1788

[DJBillyShakes]

4 hours ago, Cal said:

@Vols21 @DJBillyShakes @jvikings1 @Alexander-Nicholas

With 4 new players currently, I'm thinking the best way to divvy out the factions would be to stay true to the original goal of this playtest: playing on the fringes. The most moderate establishment factions would be AI, although at this point in time those divisions aren't super apparent yet. Liberals and Conservative intended factions still have plenty of moderates. 

In that case, the open factions for y'all would be... 

BLUE: 

BlueTradCPU -- Traditionalists, RW Populists, RW Activists, Expansionists, Big Agriculture. 
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. 

BlueLibCPU -- Moderates.
Former Governor Cornelius Harnett.

BlueConCPU -- Moderates.
Mr. John Hancock.

RED: 

RedLibCPU --Moderates, Globalists. 
Representative George Washington.

RedProgCPU -- Liberals, Civil Rights.
Governor George Wythe.

RedConCPU -- Conservatives, Nationalists. 
Governor John Sullivan.

You should all have access to the sheet, though I've not touched it yet (intend to do that Friday) if you want to look at the specifics of each statesman first. 

The playtest technically left off at the election of 1786 without the election ever actually going forward. I'll leave y'all with a few options: 

Option 1: I'll run the 1786 election as all AI and then move straight to the election of 1788 (while allowing you to choose Faction & Party Leaders going into 1788) so we can begin in the new era (everything was exhausted already in this one, and I'll have to change biases for the new era)

Option 2: Start directly with the election of 1788 and never do 1786 at all, but still choose faction/party leaders. This option means you wouldn't have to run House candidates and then immediately run ANOTHER election. 

Option 3: Run through the full 1786 election and all of the phases leading up to the 1788 election. 

My top three preferences would be 1. RedProg, 2. RedLib, and 3. BlueLib. Option 2 sounds best to me. We can move along but also have some control over who ends up where.

[Bushwa777]

@Cal  Was looking at sheet and noticed that Presidential Primary has a tab.  But primaries did not occur until 1912 at earliest.  Then again Convention did not occur until 1820's.  So how would elections happen until then? 

[Cal]

On 1/25/2023 at 10:01 PM, ShortKing said:

My picks in order are:

RedLibs
RedCons
BlueCons

Great! What would you prefer for the options starting the game? 

[ShortKing]

2 minutes ago, Cal said:

Great! What would you prefer for the options starting the game? 

Option 2 makes sense to me but I have no strong preference

[Cal]

BLUE TEAM

@jvikings1 -- Traditionalists, RW Populists, RW Activists, Expansionists, Big Agriculture. 
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. 

@Bushwa777 -- Moderates.
Former Governor Cornelius Harnett.

BlueModCPU -- Moderates.
Secretary of State George Clinton.

@ShortKing -- Moderates.
Twice-failed Presidential contender John Hancock.

@Rezi -- Progressives, LW Populists, LW Activists.
Party Leader Samuel Adams.

RED TEAM

@Cal -- Conservative, Traditionalists, Nationalists, Big Agriculture, Military Industrial.
Governor and Former General Benedict Arnold.

@Alexander-Nicholas --Moderates, Globalists. 
Representative George Washington.

RedModCPU -- Moderates.
Party Leader Celebrity Botanist turned President John Bartram.

@DJBillyShakes -- Liberals, Civil Rights.
Governor George Wythe.

@Vols21 -- Conservatives, Nationalists. 
Governor John Sullivan.

[Cal]

Option 1: 2

Option 2: 4

Option 3: 1

I abstained but I also preferred option 2. We will start directly with the election of 1788 and never do 1786 at all, but still choose faction/party leaders.

Therefore, I'll begin working on updating the sheet now. There's likely been several rule changes since the last time that I ran a game so forgive me if anything is set up incorrectly. Right now the priority is going to be getting y'alls names on the sheet and ensuring that everything is current. I remember that when running it before since it was going so fast I could remember many things and didn't directly update them on the sheet because I knew if I went fast enough I'd have to change it the next day anyway 😛 Small things like the Main tab faction leaders I see right away but I always want to go and double check that career tracks & Representatives & Meters are all good as well. I'm also going to see if the meters need to be fixed in any way. 

Since I've last ran this I believe rules have changed so that all factions now get an industry. I'll calculate that first and then we can move straight into selecting Faction Leaders.

[Cal]

BLUE TEAM FACTION LEADER SELECTION, 1786-1788

@jvikings1 -- Traditionalists, RW Populists, RW Activists, Expansionists, Big Agriculture. 
Your current faction leader is Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. 
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@Bushwa777 -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is former Governor Cornelius Harnett.
Your only other option is former faction leader and current Secretary of War John Milton. What will you do?

BlueModCPU -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Secretary of State George Clinton.
He is the only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@ShortKing -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is twice-failed presidential contender John Hancock.
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@Rezi -- Progressives, LW Populists, LW Activists, Isolationists.
Your current faction leader is Party Leader Samuel Adams.
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements. (apparently Paine never had Leadership so all those times I offered for you to switch last year were a mistake on my end lol)

RED TEAM FACTION LEADER SELECTION, 1786-1788

@Cal -- Conservative, Traditionalists, Nationalists, Big Agriculture, Military Industrial.
Governor and Former General Benedict Arnold.
I will not be changing him as he still meets all of the requirements. 

@Alexander-Nicholas --Moderates, Globalists. 
Your current faction leader is Representative George Washington.
Your only option to replace him is former faction leader James Wilson. What will you do?

RedModCPU -- Moderates.
Party Leader Celebrity Botanist turned President John Bartram.
He cannot be changed because he is the sitting President.

@DJBillyShakes -- Liberals, Civil Rights, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is Governor George Wythe. 
Your only option to replace him is former faction leader Thomas McKean. What will you do?

@Vols21 -- Conservatives, Nationalists, Military-Industrial. 
Your current faction leader is Governor John Sullivan. (and lacks Leadership)
He cannot be changed as the only other non-obscure politician meeting the requirements is on a career track. 

[Cal]

After you decide on your faction leader (if you are one of the few that actually have a choice) then the next step is Party Leaders. In the interest of efficiency please also indicate if you are running for Party Leader when you select your faction leader if there is an election for your party. 

So this time, all Blue players please indicate if you are going to run for Party Leader. The incumbent Party Leader is @Rezi Samuel Adams. 

[Rezi]

14 minutes ago, Cal said:

After you decide on your faction leader (if you are one of the few that actually have a choice) then the next step is Party Leaders. In the interest of efficiency please also indicate if you are running for Party Leader when you select your faction leader if there is an election for your party. 

So this time, all Blue players please indicate if you are going to run for Party Leader. The incumbent Party Leader is @Rezi Samuel Adams. 

Adams will run again 

[Bushwa777]

22 minutes ago, Cal said:

@Bushwa777 -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is former Governor Cornelius Harnett.
Your only other option is former faction leader and current Secretary of War John Milton. What will you do?

We will go back to former faction leader and current Secretary of War John Milton.  We will also run against Sam Adams as we need a Southerner and a moderate not a radical in charge of our party! 

[ShortKing]

John Hancock will not be running for Party Leader but will be urging his fellow patriots to look for a leader with the charisma and strong will needed to provide a clear and compelling vision for our young nation.

(I will be endorsing a faction leader with both charisma and iron fist for party leader, meaning either George Clinton or Thomas Jefferson, depending on who ends up running and with better cards to share)

[DJBillyShakes]

58 minutes ago, Cal said:

BLUE TEAM FACTION LEADER SELECTION, 1786-1788

@jvikings1 -- Traditionalists, RW Populists, RW Activists, Expansionists, Big Agriculture. 
Your current faction leader is Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. 
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@Bushwa777 -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is former Governor Cornelius Harnett.
Your only other option is former faction leader and current Secretary of War John Milton. What will you do?

BlueModCPU -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Secretary of State George Clinton.
He is the only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@ShortKing -- Moderates, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is twice-failed presidential contender John Hancock.
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements.

@Rezi -- Progressives, LW Populists, LW Activists, Isolationists.
Your current faction leader is Party Leader Samuel Adams.
He is your only option as he is the only non-Obscure statesman meeting all of the requirements. (apparently Paine never had Leadership so all those times I offered for you to switch last year were a mistake on my end lol)

RED TEAM FACTION LEADER SELECTION, 1786-1788

@Cal -- Conservative, Traditionalists, Nationalists, Big Agriculture, Military Industrial.
Governor and Former General Benedict Arnold.
I will not be changing him as he still meets all of the requirements. 

@Alexander-Nicholas --Moderates, Globalists. 
Your current faction leader is Representative George Washington.
Your only option to replace him is former faction leader James Wilson. What will you do?

RedModCPU -- Moderates.
Party Leader Celebrity Botanist turned President John Bartram.
He cannot be changed because he is the sitting President.

@DJBillyShakes -- Liberals, Civil Rights, Military-Industrial.
Your current faction leader is Governor George Wythe. 
Your only option to replace him is former faction leader Thomas McKean. What will you do?

@Vols21 -- Conservatives, Nationalists, Military-Industrial. 
Your current faction leader is Governor John Sullivan. (and lacks Leadership)
He cannot be changed as the only other non-obscure politician meeting the requirements is on a career track. 

We will retain Postmaster General George Wythe.

[Alexander-Nicholas]

George Washington will remain my faction leader. Feels like the smart thing to do

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Alexander-Nicholas

[Bushwa777]

Here is a rule I would like to see implimented if possible.  I hate how I put up people for the election posts only to have them bumped without telling me if like a ideology comes in that is the same.  That should not matter.  Same ideologies often face off as well. 

[DJBillyShakes]

2 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Here is a rule I would like to see implimented if possible.  I hate how I put up people for the election posts only to have them bumped without telling me if like a ideology comes in that is the same.  That should not matter.  Same ideologies often face off as well. 

That's only a rule for challenging incumbents in primaries though. You can only challenge an incumbent with a different ideology.

[Bushwa777]

3 minutes ago, DJBillyShakes said:

That's only a rule for challenging incumbents in primaries though. You can only challenge an incumbent with a different ideology.

But the issue is that I put people in and do not see an incumbent at that point as I am usually first.  I will have to watch carefully I guess 

[DJBillyShakes]

Just now, Bushwa777 said:

But the issue is that I put people in and do not see an incumbent at that point as I am usually first.  I will have to watch carefully I guess 

I do think that it could be useful to have everyone first lock in moves for their incumbents and then handle the remaining candidates. Whether an incumbent is running for reelection or not can shape multiple decisions.

[Bushwa777]

5 minutes ago, DJBillyShakes said:

I do think that it could be useful to have everyone first lock in moves for their incumbents and then handle the remaining candidates. Whether an incumbent is running for reelection or not can shape multiple decisions.

Per V that is how game will go

[Willthescout7]

3 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Per V that is how game will go

My understanding is that in the actual computer version, the plan is to have incumbents locked in first (starting with Gov, then Sen, then House). Then players in score order will fill in their candidates. So the player in 10th goes first, then 9th, and etc. Based off communications and interpretation of the rules.

Unless a GM wants to enforce that turn order, it's not really feasible to implement on the forum. Best solution is to create a team groupchat either here or discord or somewhere, and talk to each other about which incumbents are running. That way you can make on the fly adjustments as incumbents run or stuff. That's what we did in other playtests and it works out pretty well.

[Bushwa777]

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

My understanding is that in the actual computer version, the plan is to have incumbents locked in first (starting with Gov, then Sen, then House). Then players in score order will fill in their candidates. So the player in 10th goes first, then 9th, and etc. Based off communications and interpretation of the rules.

Unless a GM wants to enforce that turn order, it's not really feasible to implement on the forum. Best solution is to create a team groupchat either here or discord or somewhere, and talk to each other about which incumbents are running. That way you can make on the fly adjustments as incumbents run or stuff. That's what we did in other playtests and it works out pretty well.

Like it on here. Discord will not let me on

[Willthescout7]

28 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Like it on here. Discord will not let me on

Whatever you and your team want to do 

[Cal]

29 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

My understanding is that in the actual computer version, the plan is to have incumbents locked in first (starting with Gov, then Sen, then House). Then players in score order will fill in their candidates. So the player in 10th goes first, then 9th, and etc. Based off communications and interpretation of the rules.

Unless a GM wants to enforce that turn order, it's not really feasible to implement on the forum. Best solution is to create a team groupchat either here or discord or somewhere, and talk to each other about which incumbents are running. That way you can make on the fly adjustments as incumbents run or stuff. That's what we did in other playtests and it works out pretty well.

 

45 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

But the issue is that I put people in and do not see an incumbent at that point as I am usually first.  I will have to watch carefully I guess 

If it’s preferable, since the game is still relatively in its infancy I wouldn’t mind, going forward, putting incumbents in First myself with the assumption that they’re running for re-election unless otherwise stated. If that’s desired I’m happy to do it, but if it messes with anyone’s strategy I also understand that. 

Or the easier solution is probably to just leave the winner on the elections tab and that way players challenging can just decide themselves and have their challenger removed if needed, having already understood the possibility it its already there 😛

[Bushwa777]

17 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

If it’s preferable, since the game is still relatively in its infancy I wouldn’t mind, going forward, putting incumbents in First myself with the assumption that they’re running for re-election unless otherwise stated. If that’s desired I’m happy to do it, but if it messes with anyone’s strategy I also understand that. 

Or the easier solution is probably to just leave the winner on the elections tab and that way players challenging can just decide themselves and have their challenger removed if needed, having already understood the possibility it its already there 😛

Option 1 I like