Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[MrPotatoTed]

3 hours ago, Murrman104 said:

Can I make a suggestion on the Governor point. Currently we have the pretty useless raise profile in anticipation of a presidential run and all it does is give you command but only if you already have command. How about reworking it so it instead rolls to  lose you obscure ( think Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis). Maybe it could require or be boosted by Propagandist too but that might be overcomplicating 

 

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I like this idea, and maybe instead make it so it could GIVE you Propagandist as an alternative outcome.

Flagging @vcczar for his consideration, at his convenience.

V: Several of the playtesters flagged that it's much more difficult for Governors to become President than for congressmen to become President.

It sounds like the issue is that it's much more rare for Governors to lose obscure, gain leadership, and/or gain command.  You need to lose obscure and gain leadership to become a faction leader, which in turn makes you eligible to be a major candidate for President if you also have command.

Some potential ideas for fixing this are embedded in my post above.

[pman]

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You have to be a manipulative governor for appointing yourself, I believe.  There's likely also a trait requirement for political machines

I am not arguing with the notion that it's easier to turn a Senator into a President than a Governor however I don't understand the concern about it. There are some avenues that lead to 1600 Pennsylvania better than the others. You could argue that this game is tougher on governors than irl which is potentially a fine point (we won't know that for sure until computer tests) but again I go back to the point that it's a game and some things won't be perfectly true to real life. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by pman

[pman]

For the record, since we really starting feeling the impact of direct election of Senators (I would argue with Harding),nine Presidents served in Congress at some point in their careers before becoming President. Meanwhile, six Presidents were governors at some point in time before becoming President. Several like Hoover and Ike were never in Congress or a Governor.  I think that the notion that becoming a governor is the best way to have a springboard to 1600 is biased by the reality that 1)for most of the country's history we didn't have direct election of Senators and 2) that some of the people here lived through a period where 4 of 5 Presidents were governors before becoming President (Carter through W Bush). But that's really biased to a specific era where we looked to Governors to become President. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by pman

[vcczar]

12 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

 

Flagging @vcczar for his consideration, at his convenience.

V: Several of the playtesters flagged that it's much more difficult for Governors to become President than for congressmen to become President.

It sounds like the issue is that it's much more rare for Governors to lose obscure, gain leadership, and/or gain command.  You need to lose obscure and gain leadership to become a faction leader, which in turn makes you eligible to be a major candidate for President if you also have command.

Some potential ideas for fixing this are embedded in my post above.

With the updates I did yesterday or the day before, it should be easier to earn command as a governor. They can now gain command at like 10% chance if they succeed with a gov action. It might be harder to lose obscure, I'm not sure if that's the case or not. 

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

With the updates I did yesterday or the day before, it should be easier to earn command as a governor. They can now gain command at like 10% chance if they succeed with a gov action. It might be harder to lose obscure, I'm not sure if that's the case or not. 

Good, that will give them command.  They still have to lose obscure and gain leadership to become faction leader and thus a major presidential candidate though.

[Murrman104]

Govs are fine for getting command , I've seen it happen enough, the problem is losing obscure. Unless they roll admin or command and thusly get to lose obscure in the cabinet/ as a VP  then they can't become faction leaders most of the time. 2016 is the longest playtest I've been in in and with a half dozen people without obscure 1 was a drafted celebrity, one was a Congressional leader and the rest were various cabinet members. I could be missing something but I just don't think there's any way for govs to lose obscure by being a governor.

[pman]

One thing I think this game really does get right is the Vice Presidency.  A game like this would be tempted to make VP more prestigious and more of a springboard than it actually has been. On that note, the game really nails the unpredictable and dangerous gamble of being plucked from obscurity into being someone's running mate. The game really mirrors real life with how it handles the running mate/ VP. The best VPs irl are non-obscure, experienced pols. They sometimes can use the VP spot as a springboard (Biden, HW Bush) but picking an inexperienced VP so often does more harm than good and rarely leads to the Presidency. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by pman

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Murrman104 said:

Govs are fine for getting command , I've seen it happen enough, the problem is losing obscure. Unless they roll admin or command and thusly get to lose obscure in the cabinet/ as a VP  then they can't become faction leaders most of the time. 2016 is the longest playtest I've been in in and with a half dozen people without obscure 1 was a drafted celebrity, one was a Congressional leader and the rest were various cabinet members. I could be missing something but I just don't think there's any way for govs to lose obscure by being a governor.

1840 is longer and we've had a few, though still not many, and many of them had been in congress as well.

[Murrman104]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

1840 is longer and we've had a few, though still not many, and many of them had been in congress as well.

It's happened in 2016 too fyi but it was when Governer Inslee was made VP. 

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, pman said:

One thing I think this game really does get right is the Vice Presidency.  A game like this would be tempted to make VP more prestigious and more of a springboard than it actually has been. On that note, the game really nails the unpredictable and dangerous gamble of being plucked from obscurity into being someone's running mate. The game really mirrors real life with how it handles the running mate/ VP.

Thanks!  I made the obscure rule myself, based on Sarah Palin. Haha.

[pman]

3 minutes ago, Murrman104 said:

Govs are fine for getting command , I've seen it happen enough, the problem is losing obscure. Unless they roll admin or command and thusly get to lose obscure in the cabinet/ as a VP  then they can't become faction leaders most of the time. 2016 is the longest playtest I've been in in and with a half dozen people without obscure 1 was a drafted celebrity, one was a Congressional leader and the rest were various cabinet members. I could be missing something but I just don't think there's any way for govs to lose obscure by being a governor.

But isn't this true to real life? A few headline catching Govs are in the news at any given time but so many are completely unknown out of their state. Meanwhile, in part because of the longevity of a Senator, I feel like they become household names at a much higher rate. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, pman said:

But isn't this true to real life? A few headline catching Govs are in the news at any given time but so many are completely unknown out of their state. Meanwhile, in part because of the longevity of a Senator, I feel like they become household names at a much higher rate. 

Problem is 19th century we had a lot of govs run for President so we gotta have it both ways somehow.

[pman]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks!  I made the obscure rule myself, based on Sarah Palin. Haha.

I thought you channeled Dan Quayle for the rule, lol.

Edited March 6, 2023 by pman

[pman]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Problem is 19th century we had a lot of govs run for President so we gotta have it both ways somehow.

I understand your point. I would just again bring up the direct election of Senators as a game changer.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

I understand your point. I would just again bring up the direct election of Senators as a game changer.

Yeah but real life logic doesn't help us in game.

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, pman said:

I understand your point. I would just again bring up the direct election of Senators as a game changer.

Agreed but that isn't in effect until passed so finding some middle ground that's gives Govs a chance to gain leadership and/or lose obscure I think would be best.

[pman]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah but real life logic doesn't help us in game.

That's what I've been saying, haha so based

[OrangeP47]

Just now, pman said:

That's what I've been saying, haha so based

lol.  Well my point being kinda if we want the 19th century to be accurate we have to do SOMETHING we can't just sit here and magically will results into existence.

[pman]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

lol.  Well my point being kinda if we want the 19th century to be accurate we have to do SOMETHING we can't just sit here and magically will results into existence.

If we're fixing things, I'll remind everyone of NATO and Article 5. 🙂 I just can't wait for the game to come out, at this point, I am good with just about anything. This game will be miles better than everything else that's out there, regardless of what we with governors or NATO.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, pman said:

If we're fixing things, I'll remind everyone of NATO and Article 5. 🙂 I just can't wait for the game to come out, at this point, I am good with just about anything. This game will be miles better than everything else that's out there, regardless of what we with governors or NATO.

I don't actually know what you're referring to when you say NATO and Article 5.  What would be the best way to incorporate it into the game, in your mind?

[pman]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I don't actually know what you're referring to when you say NATO and Article 5.  What would be the best way to incorporate it into the game, in your mind?

Once NATO gets created, Article 5 should automatically be in effect which effectively means that once the US gets attacked, NATO members have to back us if we evoke Article 5.  Spain, UK, France and Germany are NATO members with their own relations meters. I would say, no matter where relations stand, those 4 have to join a war with us if Article 5 gets evoked. I'd add "evoke Article 5" as an automatic option (depending on the nature of the war, obviously preemptive action wars don't count) as an executive action during a foreign affairs stage that includes a war.  I'd also make a belligerent nation attacking us less likely once NATO is created. How often has another nation state attacked us since NATO? But all of that might be for AMPU 2.0. I don't want to slow anything on the production side but I don't think we're accurately factoring NATO, unless I am missing something. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by pman

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Good, that will give them command.  They still have to lose obscure and gain leadership to become faction leader and thus a major presidential candidate though.

Let me know if this ends up being too strong:

A politician elected or reelected as governor has a 10% chance of losing obscure and a 10% chance of gaining leadership.

[Willthescout7]

32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Let me know if this ends up being too strong:

A politician elected or reelected as governor has a 10% chance of losing obscure and a 10% chance of gaining leadership.

I would scale it. Bigger state govs have a higher chance so CA or TX have the 10%, but states like Wyoming have a 1-5% chance.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

I would scale it. Bigger state govs have a higher chance so CA or TX have the 10%, but states like Wyoming have a 1-5% chance.

@vcczar
Perhaps

Big state: 20%
Medium state: 10%
Small state: 5%

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Few new things I just noticed:

1)  Proposing the declaration of independence (Legis Proposal) gives a list of requirements for who the author of the declaration will be.  But it does not mention that the author has to be an actual member of the Continental Congress.  Recommend adding that requirement.

2)  Dec of Independence "special rules" (Legis proposal) gives no instructions for what to do if nobody meets those requirements for becoming the author of the declaration.  Recommendation:  If nobody meets those requirements, then let it come from any CC rep who meets the other (non-state) requirements. If still nobody meets, then let it come from any CC Rep regardless of requirements.  Also, specify whether the President of the CC can select himself as Author or not.

3)  Many Independence Era events offer the chance to improve military prep...some by 75%.  But it's a false hope, because Military Prep can't actually improve until you pass the militia act, and the act cannot be proposed until the Era of Federalism.  Recommendation:  Either move the act's starting era to Independence, or come up with a different Independence Era act that can unlock at least 1-2 improvement levels on the meter.