Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[pman]

4 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think the thing is the cards shift quite often, so it's not like you're going to hold onto it.  One player isn't going to get those bonuses all the time.  A lot of different players will get those bonuses for maybe a cycle or two at a time.

In multi player they can change often but when it's cpu vs player and there's a clear advantage built in for only one lobby, then it'll become super easy to game the system. "Like interest cards, lobby cards go to the faction that has the most politicians with expertise that matches the lobby. "

So when you're playing the game, just draft rw/lw media cards and you'll always get a +1 in all primaries. Because of the primary setup, plenty of Congressional primaries are decided by 1-2 dice rolls.  Over the course of 20-30 years, keeping that card in your faction by drafting accordingly can allow the player to slowly control their Party. Not sure if that was the intent but I see it going that way.

[OrangeP47]

5 hours ago, pman said:

In multi player they can change often but when it's cpu vs player and there's a clear advantage built in for only one lobby, then it'll become super easy to game the system. "Like interest cards, lobby cards go to the faction that has the most politicians with expertise that matches the lobby. "

So when you're playing the game, just draft rw/lw media cards and you'll always get a +1 in all primaries. Because of the primary setup, plenty of Congressional primaries are decided by 1-2 dice rolls.  Over the course of 20-30 years, keeping that card in your faction by drafting accordingly can allow the player to slowly control their Party. Not sure if that was the intent but I see it going that way.

I mean, we've done 24 years in 1840, and it's changed often in that exact environment you're fearing, so I'm just pulling the "experience card" here which gives me +1 to playtesting 😉 

[pman]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, we've done 24 years in 1840, and it's changed often in that exact environment you're fearing, so I'm just pulling the "experience card" here which gives me +1 to playtesting 😉 

Interesting- but is that still a multiplayer play test? My point is that it’ll be easy to game the system when it’s just you against 9 cpu factions not specifically going for that card. We as players all know about the media cards so it neutralizes how we try to draft. But when it’s person against computer, I just think it’ll be easy to work the system.

Edited December 28, 2022 by pman

[OrangeP47]

8 minutes ago, pman said:

Interesting- but is that still a multiplayer play test? My point is that it’ll be easy to game the system when it’s just you against 9 cpu factions not specifically going for that card. We as players all know about the media cards so it neutralizes how we try to draft. But when it’s person against computer, I just think it’ll be easy to work the system.

My point is it's 1 against 9 and the media cards are changing hands fairly regularly so it's *not* being horded by the human.

[pman]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

My point is it's 1 against 9 and the media cards are changing hands fairly regularly so it's *not* being horded by the human.

That’s good to know. Those long term play test are vital. 

[Murrman104]

During the 1950 midterms a governor used the action to "Advocate Isolationism", this has the effect of boosting pacifist politicians, however, the faction with the isolationist card gets no bonus's from this event at all (Personally I have the card and had no pacifists). I would suggest either changing this to giving a +1 to the politicians belonging to the faction(s) with the isolationist card or boosting both. Alternatively, as the event is geared towards pacifists,  I would suggest amending the event's name to "Advocate Non-Interventionism" rather than Isolationism to differentiate between the two.  Its not a major issue but It was a bit confusing that an Isolationist doesn't get anything from an action promoting isolationism. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Murrman104

[pman]

11 minutes ago, pman said:

Earl Warren, (Madam President Smith's decoy) would like to know if the +1 in all elections for pacificists extends to the Convention as well?

I feel your pain but for context, California Earl Warren, whose a major presidential candidate and faction leader in the 48 Playtest has 5 Gov.  Warren is the one who tried to get the pacifism thing passed. He got lucky with the dice and managed to trigger something with 5 % odds. He will be the chief beneficiary of his actions. It could be the difference between him becoming President and him losing to President Barkley. For me, it makes sense as much as anything does. I think it's on par with a high profile Governor getting on the news day in and day out and moving the national conversation over a specific issue, which does happen.

What's unfortunate is that there are aren't more pacificist in the game. I'd share some of mine with you if I could.  

Edited December 29, 2022 by pman

[Murrman104]

Minor thing ive noticed in 1948 is that each democratic faction has about 20 more pols than the average Republican faction (118-125 for Democrats to 96-101 for Republicans) giving Democrats an advantage when it comes to getting cards in this era. It could be worthwhile to add more Republicans for this era.

[Arkansas Progressive]

2 hours ago, Murrman104 said:

Minor thing ive noticed in 1948 is that each democratic faction has about 20 more pols than the average Republican faction (118-125 for Democrats to 96-101 for Republicans) giving Democrats an advantage when it comes to getting cards in this era. It could be worthwhile to add more Republicans for this era.

I guess it's time to add more failed statewide office candidates. 

[ebrk85]

To be fair I feel like that might be the case across most eras depending on what was the dominant party of the time. In the Independence Era there is more Red pols then Blue because well there just were. Current day game seems to be balanced. Which makes sense with our 50/50 divided Congress irl.  

[Arkansas Progressive]

51 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

To be fair I feel like that might be the case across most eras depending on what was the dominant party of the time. In the Independence Era there is more Red pols then Blue because well there just were. Current day game seems to be balanced. Which makes sense with our 50/50 divided Congress irl.  

1 legis/gov generated politicians also are a fine thing. 

[pman]

This isn't a problem more so a suggestion that could make the elections more fun/ player focused.

As the rules stand now, for a minor candidate to become a major candidate, they have to finish 1 or 2 in delegate counts after the first or second round of primaries. There's also dice rolls for broke candidates. How does everyone feel about allowing the player 1 shift per Presidential primary between their major and minor candidates. In other words, let the player decide which of their candidates "go broke" and then when necessary have the major candidate drop out, endorse the minor candidate, thus making the minor candidate the player's new major candidate.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

In the 2024 Presidential Election, I am forced to stick with Nikki Haley as my faction leader. So I run her, she becomes my major candidate. I decide to run Charlie Baker as my minor candidate. After round 1 of the primaries, Nikki Haley finishes in 3rd while Baker finishes last. Under the current rules, Baker probably runs out of cash and drops out, leaving me with Haley. I am proposing, giving me the choice of which 1 of my 2 drops out. Let's say despite finishing higher, I don't like Haley's chances. So I have her drop out and endorse Baker. Now Baker is elevated to major candidate.

Does that make sense? I think it's a subtle way of giving players more control over the elections and their factions. Could we playtest this 2016? @ebrk85

[Willthescout7]

6 minutes ago, pman said:

This isn't a problem more so a suggestion that could make the elections more fun/ player focused.

As the rules stand now, for a minor candidate to become a major candidate, they have to finish 1 or 2 in delegate counts after the first or second round of primaries. There's also dice rolls for broke candidates. How does everyone feel about allowing the player 1 shift per Presidential primary between their major and minor candidates. In other words, let the player decide which of their candidates "go broke" and then when necessary have the major candidate drop out, endorse the minor candidate, thus making the minor candidate the player's new major candidate.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

In the 2024 Presidential Election, I am forced to stick with Nikki Haley as my faction leader. So I run her, she becomes my major candidate. I decide to run Charlie Baker as my minor candidate. After round 1 of the primaries, Nikki Haley finishes in 3rd while Baker finishes last. Under the current rules, Baker probably runs out of cash and drops out, leaving me with Haley. I am proposing, giving me the choice of which 1 of my 2 drops out. Let's say despite finishing higher, I don't like Haley's chances. So I have her drop out and endorse Baker. Now Baker is elevated to major candidate.

Does that make sense? I think it's a subtle way of giving players more control over the elections and their factions. Could we playtest this 2016? @ebrk85

Personally, I'm not a big fan of that. To me, it doesn't seem to line up with real world campaigns. 

I guess in the end it boils down to the fact that sometimes it just won't work out despite your best efforts, you can try to do stuff in the lead up to thr campaign to get your leadership changed, and it just feels gimmicky to me. I think how it is right now works.

[pman]

In the rules for Party Leader it says that there is a "100 chance" a first time party leader gains leadership. However later in the rules it says that if a Party Leader's personal ideology is more than 2 spots away from an ideology, that ideology gets a -1 unless the Party Leader has leadership, then the penalties don't count. So effectively, because ever new PL gets leadership, there can't be penalties. Correct?

[pman]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of that. To me, it doesn't seem to line up with real world campaigns. 

I guess in the end it boils down to the fact that sometimes it just won't work out despite your best efforts, you can try to do stuff in the lead up to thr campaign to get your leadership changed, and it just feels gimmicky to me. I think how it is right now works.

That's fair. I am just thinking about someone like John Kasich who manages to stick around despite being towards the bottom, simply because a faction views him as their best shot. 

[OrangeP47]

3 hours ago, ebrk85 said:

To be fair I feel like that might be the case across most eras depending on what was the dominant party of the time. In the Independence Era there is more Red pols then Blue because well there just were. Current day game seems to be balanced. Which makes sense with our 50/50 divided Congress irl.  

Yeah this has been noticed before, IIRC the 1772 game even kept close track of it early on.  The conclusion is there was variance, but overall it wasn't really a "problem", per se.

[10centjimmy]

25 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah this has been noticed before, IIRC the 1772 game even kept close track of it early on.  The conclusion is there was variance, but overall it wasn't really a "problem", per se.

Definitely something that can be fixed with a pol creator by individual players

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Definitely something that can be fixed with a pol creator by individual players

Long ago (like a month ago) I started planning out some custom fictional pols before we all decided we wanted to actually TEST in December instead of REST.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:05 PM, pman said:

Interesting- but is that still a multiplayer play test? My point is that it’ll be easy to game the system when it’s just you against 9 cpu factions not specifically going for that card. We as players all know about the media cards so it neutralizes how we try to draft. But when it’s person against computer, I just think it’ll be easy to work the system.

A player can certainly prioritize getting the media card, and that may be a valid strategy.

But in doing so, they’ll be missing the opportunity to draft the best administrators, the war heroes, the people who would give them control over the most powerful states, the Supreme Court justices, etc.

Its perfectly fine to draft that way, and it could even lead to some victories.  But putting all your eggs in one basket Carries risks.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 12/30/2022 at 9:48 AM, Murrman104 said:

Minor thing ive noticed in 1948 is that each democratic faction has about 20 more pols than the average Republican faction (118-125 for Democrats to 96-101 for Republicans) giving Democrats an advantage when it comes to getting cards in this era. It could be worthwhile to add more Republicans for this era.

Yeah, republicans have way more in the earliest eras.  The real question is whether it’s roughly balanced in the long run, and that’s hard to say for sure until we can actually simulate a bunch of long runs.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 12/30/2022 at 2:47 PM, pman said:

This isn't a problem more so a suggestion that could make the elections more fun/ player focused.

As the rules stand now, for a minor candidate to become a major candidate, they have to finish 1 or 2 in delegate counts after the first or second round of primaries. There's also dice rolls for broke candidates. How does everyone feel about allowing the player 1 shift per Presidential primary between their major and minor candidates. In other words, let the player decide which of their candidates "go broke" and then when necessary have the major candidate drop out, endorse the minor candidate, thus making the minor candidate the player's new major candidate.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

In the 2024 Presidential Election, I am forced to stick with Nikki Haley as my faction leader. So I run her, she becomes my major candidate. I decide to run Charlie Baker as my minor candidate. After round 1 of the primaries, Nikki Haley finishes in 3rd while Baker finishes last. Under the current rules, Baker probably runs out of cash and drops out, leaving me with Haley. I am proposing, giving me the choice of which 1 of my 2 drops out. Let's say despite finishing higher, I don't like Haley's chances. So I have her drop out and endorse Baker. Now Baker is elevated to major candidate.

Does that make sense? I think it's a subtle way of giving players more control over the elections and their factions. Could we playtest this 2016? @ebrk85

Personally, I’d need some real life examples of the 3rd place winner of Iowa endorsing the last place winner.  You usually endorse those doing better than you, not worse.

[pman]

38 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Personally, I’d need some real life examples of the 3rd place winner of Iowa endorsing the last place winner.  You usually endorse those doing better than you, not worse.

You’re right on all fronts.I was just thinking about player choice  but in terms of keeping it realistic- you’re 100 percent right.

Edited December 31, 2022 by pman

[OrangeP47]

@vcczar

Okay, so here are our findings from having run the Civil War.  This is a post, and you are tagged directly, because it affects multiple areas with multiple findings and really needs to be taken as a coherent whole rather than be scattered throughout comments where the big picture will be lost.

Our recommendations:

1) When Northern States are actively in reconstruction, move their state and seat bias Blue +2, when Southern States are actively in reconstruction, move their state and seat bias Red +2.  Keep the ability to repel individual state reconstruction as well as the package repels, that part is fine.  Once reconstruction is repelled for a state or as a whole, normal state/seat biases return.  INTENT:  This will allow the loyalist party in the relevant civil war to elect more pols from the reconstructed regions while reconstruction is active, but the bias shift doesn't need to be overwhelming, especially with other reforms.

2)  Congressmen from states actively in reconstruction MUST VOTE YES for all legislation marked as the "reconstruction" category, overriding ALL other factors.  Furthermore, Southern States in reconstruction must vote in favor of any proposition/amendment that would grant points to the CIVIL RIGHTS card.  INTENT:  This simulates these states not having full control of policy issues during reconstruction/the fact that the loyalist states are the ones deciding the fate of the traitor states.  It also allows historical issues to be resolved without resulting to excessive gimmicks that'd be complicated to program regarding state readmission or one party politics.

3)  Any pol that was on the opposing side of a civil war CANNOT propose legis marked reconstruction.  INTENT:  This isn't too big a deal, but basically prevents "stupid" situations where someone who rebelled gets elected and then immediately proposes they themselves are banned from holding office again due to faction cards.  There'd be a lot of such edge cases regarding AI decision making especially, but also a human player could probably skirt the lines of realism as well.  It wouldn't completely remove agency from a faction, though, as the *faction* could still propose such legis, they'd just need to use a pol that stayed loyal.

We have a few other recommendations that might trickle in shortly that I can't remember right now, but they don't directly relate to the Civil War but were more other issues we've noticed in the past 2-3 weeks because we've hit quite a few.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

@vcczar

Okay, so here are our findings from having run the Civil War.  This is a post, and you are tagged directly, because it affects multiple areas with multiple findings and really needs to be taken as a coherent whole rather than be scattered throughout comments where the big picture will be lost.

Our recommendations:

1) When Northern States are actively in reconstruction, move their state and seat bias Blue +2, when Southern States are actively in reconstruction, move their state and seat bias Red +2.  Keep the ability to repel individual state reconstruction as well as the package repels, that part is fine.  Once reconstruction is repelled for a state or as a whole, normal state/seat biases return.  INTENT:  This will allow the loyalist party in the relevant civil war to elect more pols from the reconstructed regions while reconstruction is active, but the bias shift doesn't need to be overwhelming, especially with other reforms.

2)  Congressmen from states actively in reconstruction MUST VOTE YES for all legislation marked as the "reconstruction" category, overriding ALL other factors.  Furthermore, Southern States in reconstruction must vote in favor of any proposition/amendment that would grant points to the CIVIL RIGHTS card.  INTENT:  This simulates these states not having full control of policy issues during reconstruction/the fact that the loyalist states are the ones deciding the fate of the traitor states.  It also allows historical issues to be resolved without resulting to excessive gimmicks that'd be complicated to program regarding state readmission or one party politics.

3)  Any pol that was on the opposing side of a civil war CANNOT propose legis marked reconstruction.  INTENT:  This isn't too big a deal, but basically prevents "stupid" situations where someone who rebelled gets elected and then immediately proposes they themselves are banned from holding office again due to faction cards.  There'd be a lot of such edge cases regarding AI decision making especially, but also a human player could probably skirt the lines of realism as well.  It wouldn't completely remove agency from a faction, though, as the *faction* could still propose such legis, they'd just need to use a pol that stayed loyal.

We have a few other recommendations that might trickle in shortly that I can't remember right now, but they don't directly relate to the Civil War but were more other issues we've noticed in the past 2-3 weeks because we've hit quite a few.

Much appreciated. I've added this to my To Do list for consideration. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Much appreciated. I've added this to my To Do list for consideration. 

I think the easiest way to do it, as much as I loath the organizational chaos that is the 3.0 doc, is to create a new section of it titled "Post Civil War Rules" or something to hold these things as they don't quite go with the normal legis flow or anything else.