AMPU To Do List - Completions List

[Arkansas Progressive]

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I've made the rev-budget meter a little more lenient on restrictions. I can't just get rid of the restrictions because these sorts of restrictions really hampered the nation until we became so powerful we could ignore them. In fact, this might be too lenient, but we will try it. I'm welcome to other input from other players, such as @Cal @Arkansas Progressive @Willthescout7 and anyone else keep a close eye on the game:

 

Spending Bill Restrictions?

Yes, only 2, excluding for crises

Yes, only 4 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

Yes, only 5 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

Yes, only 6 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

why not tie restrictions to eras?

[Arkansas Progressive]

i.e. prior to say the Gilded Age, the restrictions on non-crisis spending bills is 3,2,1,0. After it's less restrictive.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

why not tie restrictions to eras?

Mainly, I'm just worried it will be too cumbersome for Anthony to program in, but I guess there's no harm in typing it up and he can just ignore it if he has to. 

[vcczar]

@Arkansas Progressive and @MrPotatoTed

Spending Bill Restrictions up through Era of Nationalism	Yes, only 1, excluding for crises	Yes, only 2 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 3 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 4 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises
Spending Bill Restrictions Era of Gilded Age through Era of Normalcy	Yes, only 2, excluding for crises	Yes, only 4 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 5 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 6 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises
Spending Bill Restrictions Era from Era of Ideologies	Yes, only 3, excluding for crisis	Yes, only 6 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 8 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 10 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

[OrangeP47]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

As @Arkansas Progressive suggests, I've change the election die roll from D+3 to D+6. However, I thought the election results were quite accurate. I'd like someone to try out some elections with D+6 so I know I don't have to switch it back. 

Most of those realistic elections we showed you WERE with the D6, just something got lost in the shuffle.

[Arkansas Progressive]

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Arkansas Progressive and @MrPotatoTed

 

Spending Bill Restrictions up through Era of Nationalism	Yes, only 1, excluding for crises	Yes, only 2 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 3 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 4 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises
Spending Bill Restrictions Era of Gilded Age through Era of Normalcy	Yes, only 2, excluding for crises	Yes, only 4 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 5 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 6 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises
Spending Bill Restrictions Era from Era of Ideologies	Yes, only 3, excluding for crisis	Yes, only 6 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 8 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises	Yes, only 10 non-crisis; no restrictions to deal with crises

excellent

[vcczar]

Updated the tab with EVs for each census up to 2090. There were three hypothetical states not on there, and they've now been filled out. 

[vcczar]

Added updated pre-12th rules to the General Election rules page. @MrPotatoTed and @Arkansas Progressive. I hope y'all can test it out soon. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Added updated pre-12th rules to the General Election rules page. @MrPotatoTed and @Arkansas Progressive. I hope y'all can test it out soon. 

Ah, just finished our Presidential election super early this morning (which is what generated my feedback on it).  But look forward to doing it again soon!

[vcczar]

Made it so that the Missouri Compromise events and WWI Reparations have eras in which they are no longer options, to prevent them being activated in, say, 2020. 

@Cal @Arkansas Progressive @MrPotatoTed @Rodja @Willthescout7 @matthewyoung123 and anyone else will have to let me know if you bump into anything else with out an era deactivation date that needs one. If I have time, I'll go through all the legis props, but I probably won't, so we'll just have to fix them as we find them. 

Also, someone mentioned the slap retaliatory embargo on Germany as needing one. It doesn't, it's an option for any era. US can slap an embargo on any nations. It's just a legis prop option for a thing to do. 

I made sure that to enact them that relations need to be worse than friendly. 

[vcczar]

Updated appointing chairs and members rules:

• The minority party will now appoint their minority members. Officially, the minority party recommends minority party members, but it seems like they're almost always accepted. Here's the new rules:

Note: Prior to the creation of Congressional office, the Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore will appoint all committee members, including chairs. Once the House Minority Leader is an office, he or she will appoint the member of their own party. In the Senate, once the Senate Majority Leader is an office, he or she will take over the appointment duties of the Senate President Pro Tempore for appointing members of the majority party. However, the Senate Minority Leader will appoint minority leaders. In the event of a vacancy, the next in line will take over appointments, using same-party Leader>same party Whip>longest serving same party member (randomize if tie).  The exception is if the majority party politician making the appointments has “iron fist,” then they can reject 1 appointment per committee.

[vcczar]

Change to cabinet appointment penalties:

Prior to the Era of the Gilded Age, domestic stability has a 50% chance of falling by one if there is not at least one cabinet or cabinet-level officer from each region in the US. A region must have at least two states to qualify. From Era of the Gilded Age until the Era of Terror, the penalty will be -1 in presidential elections for the incumbent party in the snubbed regions in the upcoming elections.  Additionally, if there aren’t enough posts to go around, the penalty will not take effect unless one region has two-fewer spots than another other region.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Change to cabinet appointment penalties:

Prior to the Era of the Gilded Age, domestic stability has a 50% chance of falling by one if there is not at least one cabinet or cabinet-level officer from each region in the US. A region must have at least two states to qualify. From Era of the Gilded Age until the Era of Terror, the penalty will be -1 in presidential elections for the incumbent party in the snubbed regions in the upcoming elections.  Additionally, if there aren’t enough posts to go around, the penalty will not take effect unless one region has two-fewer spots than another other region.

Updated this:

Prior to the Era of the Gilded Age, domestic stability has a 50% chance of falling by one if there is not at least one cabinet or cabinet-level officer from each region in the US. A region must have at least two states to qualify. From Era of the Gilded Age until the Era of Terror, the penalty will be -1 in presidential elections for the incumbent party in the snubbed regions in the upcoming elections. Additionally, if there aren’t enough posts to go around, the penalty will not take effect unless one region has two-fewer spots than another other region. From the Era of Terror on  through the future, the president will need to balance the same-party factions equally in the party (including their own). Failing to do so, will see party enthusiasm for these factions decrease by 1 and the Party Leader of that faction get +1 in the presidential primaries in the next presidential election.

[vcczar]

Clarified loans in diplomacy:

Extending Credit or Taking a loan:  Relations must be neutral or better with the nation approached. Extending credit gives a 10% chance of improving relations with a nation and a 10% chance of +1 econ stab. Taking out a loan from another country improved the rev/budget meter by +1. See the spreadsheet for Loans and National Debt). The country cannot be at "Hostile" or worse relations

[vcczar]

CPU Rules for vetoing bills is added.

[vcczar]

I've gone through @MrPotatoTed's rules suggestions, approving the grand majority of them or altering them slightly. I've left those that are about moving something somewhere else, unless it's necessary for coding. @MrPotatoTed is free to move them and then I can just approve the move. 

I've got to work on preparing courses now. If I have more time today, I'll fill out the Legis props I created the other day but have yet to fill out. 

[vcczar]

gone through @MrPotatoTed's 3.0 definition change proposals. Made most of the changes, but I also left a lot of follow up comments. 

Tomorrow I'll make terminology changes. 

I also realize I need to start prepping the part Anthony needs to work on next. 

[Willthescout7]

@vcczar

Questions about the census and its impacts on Historical era changes. 

1. A lot of era end on the census year, so that works out nicely. But several don't (Era of Manifest Destiny and Nationalism for example) so we can't just implement the new historical state biases or seat biases. We have to wait until the next census. So what the 1840 gang discussed was that when an era changed and it wasn't a census year, states and seats would move halfway towards the new era until the census, at which point they would move the rest of the way to the new biases. This would represent Demographics changing while making the transition smoother.

2.1 You have rules about existing seats shifting demographics based off die rolls, but none of these mention the historical biases. So I guess my question is whether these seats would shift to the historical bias, or would existing seats ignore the bias? So would a seat that was historically Blue +3 at 1856 but because of die rolls was R+1 shift with the new era towards the historical lean, or would it stay at R+1 and just roll every 10 years? If we are supposed to follow the historical biases, then we should update these spots to reflect that. My vote would be to almost entirely remove them, but shift them towards the upcoming historical bias.

2.2 If we are ignoring historical biases for seats existing at that time (which I don't think we are if I understand your intent correctly) then shouldn't we also be ignoring state biases? This would mean we would need a new composite way to calculate state biases every 10 years. Taking the the total amount of red bias - the total amount of blue bias to determine the state bias (EX: there are 5 focus reps in a state. The seats are  R+3, R+1, B+2, B+1, R+2. So you would do 3+1+2 (the total Red bias) - 2+1 (the total blue bias) so 6-3 = R+3 state bias) might be a fair way to do it. Since one of the game options is to play without historical biases, simply adding a line to the rules dictating that this only happens if historical biases are turned off would be enough. 

3. Ahistorical seats have rules for how biases are set up for them. I think this can be simplified to it matching the state bias, unless a minority district needs to be created at which point that is done. If a seat needs to be deleted (either historical or ahistorical) then the most recent created seat is deleted. So if CA made a jump from 9 to 10 focus reps, but then has to drop back down to 9, then the 10th seat is dropped instead of it being random. 

I hope this all makes sense? 

[vcczar]

22 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

@vcczar

Questions about the census and its impacts on Historical era changes. 

1. A lot of era end on the census year, so that works out nicely. But several don't (Era of Manifest Destiny and Nationalism for example) so we can't just implement the new historical state biases or seat biases. We have to wait until the next census. So what the 1840 gang discussed was that when an era changed and it wasn't a census year, states and seats would move halfway towards the new era until the census, at which point they would move the rest of the way to the new biases. This would represent Demographics changing while making the transition smoother.

2.1 You have rules about existing seats shifting demographics based off die rolls, but none of these mention the historical biases. So I guess my question is whether these seats would shift to the historical bias, or would existing seats ignore the bias? So would a seat that was historically Blue +3 at 1856 but because of die rolls was R+1 shift with the new era towards the historical lean, or would it stay at R+1 and just roll every 10 years? If we are supposed to follow the historical biases, then we should update these spots to reflect that. My vote would be to almost entirely remove them, but shift them towards the upcoming historical bias.

2.2 If we are ignoring historical biases for seats existing at that time (which I don't think we are if I understand your intent correctly) then shouldn't we also be ignoring state biases? This would mean we would need a new composite way to calculate state biases every 10 years. Taking the the total amount of red bias - the total amount of blue bias to determine the state bias (EX: there are 5 focus reps in a state. The seats are  R+3, R+1, B+2, B+1, R+2. So you would do 3+1+2 (the total Red bias) - 2+1 (the total blue bias) so 6-3 = R+3 state bias) might be a fair way to do it. Since one of the game options is to play without historical biases, simply adding a line to the rules dictating that this only happens if historical biases are turned off would be enough. 

3. Ahistorical seats have rules for how biases are set up for them. I think this can be simplified to it matching the state bias, unless a minority district needs to be created at which point that is done. If a seat needs to be deleted (either historical or ahistorical) then the most recent created seat is deleted. So if CA made a jump from 9 to 10 focus reps, but then has to drop back down to 9, then the 10th seat is dropped instead of it being random. 

I hope this all makes sense? 

I haven't read this whole thing, because I'm always in a hurry, so let me know if this doesn't answer your question, and I'll read the entire thing when I can. The game uses historical censuses modified by game events. So if you start in 1840, you will use the 1830 census data. If new states are entered into the Union, they begin with 3 EVs, which is the minimum. When 1842 rolls around, which is the first election under the census, you will use the 1840 census, modified by any events that have occurred to modify this. The easiest way to set up the 1840 numbers is to use the historical 1840 presidential election to determine the EVs. The best way to set up the map for 1842 is to look at the 1844 historical election map to figure out the EVs, and then just modify it based on ahistorical events in your play through. This will all be much more easier when this is on computer. If this answers your question let me know. If it only partially answers your question, then very briefly let me know what the issue is, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. 

[Willthescout7]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I haven't read this whole thing, because I'm always in a hurry, so let me know if this doesn't answer your question, and I'll read the entire thing when I can. The game uses historical censuses modified by game events. So if you start in 1840, you will use the 1830 census data. If new states are entered into the Union, they begin with 3 EVs, which is the minimum. When 1842 rolls around, which is the first election under the census, you will use the 1840 census, modified by any events that have occurred to modify this. The easiest way to set up the 1840 numbers is to use the historical 1840 presidential election to determine the EVs. The best way to set up the map for 1842 is to look at the 1844 historical election map to figure out the EVs, and then just modify it based on ahistorical events in your play through. This will all be much more easier when this is on computer. If this answers your question let me know. If it only partially answers your question, then very briefly let me know what the issue is, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. 

I get all of that, it's the mid era census after the game has started. Mostly, eras that don't end on a census year get caught in a weird position where they can't move to the new historical biases because it's not a census, plus the current rules for census changes mid game don't take the historical biases into account. Just trying to make all of the separate rules and ideas come together cohesively. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Willthescout7

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I get all of that, it's the mid era census after the game has started. Mostly, eras that don't end on a census year get caught in a weird position where they can't move to the new historical biases because it's not a census, plus the current rules for census changes mid game don't take the historical biases into account. Just trying to make all of the separate rules and ideas come together cohesively. 

Wouldn't they just use the old historical biases for 1830 (for an 1840 start date, since it isn't 1842)? I'm a little confused. 

[Willthescout7]

Just now, vcczar said:

Wouldn't they just use the old historical biases for 1830 (for an 1840 start date, since it isn't 1842)? I'm a little confused. 

So for example: the 1840 playtest is about to do our 1852 census. So things will adjust as required following the census rules. BUT, the era doesn't change with the updated seat biases and state biases until 1856, when the new era starts. So we can add seats and remove seats but we can't just jump to 1856 biases since we aren't there. You have existing rules for adding ahistorical seats, but they don't reflect the work you've done on the historical background sheet as they won't line up at all. It could lead to a weird situation where a R+4 seat now suddenly turns B+3 in the middle of a decade for no reason. We came up with a process to smooth that transition out so you keep your historical biases, the census works as planned, and it's not jarring for the player.

 

I can go into the rules doc and make suggestions on it which might better explain the issue and our proposed fix.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

So for example: the 1840 playtest is about to do our 1852 census. So things will adjust as required following the census rules. BUT, the era doesn't change with the updated seat biases and state biases until 1856, when the new era starts. So we can add seats and remove seats but we can't just jump to 1856 biases since we aren't there. You have existing rules for adding ahistorical seats, but they don't reflect the work you've done on the historical background sheet as they won't line up at all. It could lead to a weird situation where a R+4 seat now suddenly turns B+3 in the middle of a decade for no reason. We came up with a process to smooth that transition out so you keep your historical biases, the census works as planned, and it's not jarring for the player.

 

I can go into the rules doc and make suggestions on it which might better explain the issue and our proposed fix.

I am just not following this at all. the 1852 election and 1856 election are under the same census. This is how it should work. Somewhere there's a disconnect with how I'm taking in your information. It's probably that I think i have the system where it already works and don't see how something messing up. Might want to tag @MrPotatoTed and other playtesters to see if they are having the same issue. As I don't playtest, I can only go by the rules as I imagine them to be. 

[Willthescout7]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I am just not following this at all. the 1852 election and 1856 election are under the same census. This is how it should work. Somewhere there's a disconnect with how I'm taking in your information. It's probably that I think i have the system where it already works and don't see how something messing up. Might want to tag @MrPotatoTed and other playtesters to see if they are having the same issue. As I don't playtest, I can only go by the rules as I imagine them to be. 

Yes it's the same census,  that's the root of the problem.

Era of Manifest Desinty (1840-1856) has GA at B+1. Era of Nationalism (1856-1868) has GA at B+3. The census is 1850. When do we switch to the new biases? At the era start (so 6 years after the census in 1856) or at the census (so 6 years before the era starts in 1852)? 

I'm not concerned with how the census works because that's fine. I'm only worried about when the state biases switch when the era does NOT line up with a census, like it does in this example. 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

Yes it's the same census,  that's the root of the problem.

Era of Manifest Desinty (1840-1856) has GA at B+1. Era of Nationalism (1856-1868) has GA at B+3. The census is 1850. When do we switch to the new biases? At the era start (so 6 years after the census in 1856) or at the census (so 6 years before the era starts in 1852)? 

I'm not concerned with how the census works because that's fine. I'm only worried about when the state biases switch when the era does NOT line up with a census, like it does in this example. 

New bias begins at census year. Okay, I see what you're saying now. What I'll need to do is add the start date biases to the census spreadsheet, rather than have them seperate.