Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[vcczar]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@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.

added this to my to do list

[Umbrella]

@vcczar While getting ready for elections in the 1928 playtest, I noticed a couple of historical inaccuracies.  First, the spreadsheet lists Vail Pittman as the sitting senator from NV.  In reality, it was his brother Key Pittman who was the senator in 1928.  Key is already in the game (showing unemployed at the 1928 start), so it should be an easy fix.

Also, Arizona had 2 year governor elections up until 1968.  They are listed as 4 year in the 1928 start.

[vcczar]

18 hours ago, Umbrella said:

@vcczar While getting ready for elections in the 1928 playtest, I noticed a couple of historical inaccuracies.  First, the spreadsheet lists Vail Pittman as the sitting senator from NV.  In reality, it was his brother Key Pittman who was the senator in 1928.  Key is already in the game (showing unemployed at the 1928 start), so it should be an easy fix.

Also, Arizona had 2 year governor elections up until 1968.  They are listed as 4 year in the 1928 start.

My master spreadsheet shows the correct Senator [Gov, Sen, Sen below). I think the error was in whomever set up the game. An understandable mistake. 

Fred Balzar

Key Pittman

Tasker Oddie

 

Here's my 4-year term info in the master. it also has AZ correctly at not having 4-year terms until 1968, so this was an error by whomever set up the game. It's a lot of set up work, so there will be errors. :

KY in 1792; LA in 1812; IN in 1816; IL in 1818; MO in 1820; DE in 1831; NC in 1835; AR in 1836; FL in 1838; IA, TX in 1846; MD, VA in 1851; OR in 1856; CA in 1862; NV in 1864; KS in 1868; IL in 1870; WV in 1872; PA in 1874; MS in 1876; GA in 1884; MT, SD, WA, WY in 1888; UT in 1896; AL in 1901; OK in 1907; NM in 1912; GA in 1920; SC in 1927; NY in 1938; ID in 1946; NJ in 1947; CT in 1948; TN in 1953; ME, OH in 1957; AK, CO, HI, ND in 1959; NE in 1962; MI, MN in 1963; MA in 1966; WI in 1967; AZ, RI in 1968; IA in 1972; AR in 1984

[10centjimmy]

22 hours ago, Umbrella said:

Also, Arizona had 2 year governor elections up until 1968.  They are listed as 4 year in the 1928 start

This was a successful GOV action in the 1st term. 

[10centjimmy]

@vcczar In military checkpoints for Era ideologies there is a benchmark for Military Resource Draft, however I'm not seeing this in the eras legprops, is it somewhere else?

[vcczar]

Just now, 10centjimmy said:

@vcczar In military checkpoints for Era ideologies there is a benchmark for Military Resource Draft, however I'm not seeing this in the eras legprops, is it somewhere else?

See if it's in the Pres Actions. If not, I'll try to find it later and make it. I know it WAS in the game if it isn't anywhere. 

[OrangeP47]

Could just be named something else, might be worth checking closer.

While you're here @vcczar just a very very slight problem that we already have a solution for and just want to run it past you and get officially added to the rules.  In 1840 we had a case where a state lost a focus rep and the two existing reps were from the same faction.  Normally this isn't a problem, because we've been allowing incumbent reps to primary each other regardless of existing rules in this situation, it just makes sense.  However, a faction can only run one candidate, obviously.  This still isn't a problem, though, if the faction is human controlled, because the human can just make an intelligent decision on what they want to do.  What we *specifically* need is just an AI rule for when this happens to the AI, and we already have an idea:  Have the AI pick whoever was longest serving rep, and if it's a tie, random between them.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Could just be named something else, might be worth checking closer.

While you're here @vcczar just a very very slight problem that we already have a solution for and just want to run it past you and get officially added to the rules.  In 1840 we had a case where a state lost a focus rep and the two existing reps were from the same faction.  Normally this isn't a problem, because we've been allowing incumbent reps to primary each other regardless of existing rules in this situation, it just makes sense.  However, a faction can only run one candidate, obviously.  This still isn't a problem, though, if the faction is human controlled, because the human can just make an intelligent decision on what they want to do.  What we *specifically* need is just an AI rule for when this happens to the AI, and we already have an idea:  Have the AI pick whoever was longest serving rep, and if it's a tie, random between them.

I can't get into the doc at the moment, but if you are able to comments on the rules, then post a comment where this should go and I'll type something like this into the document when I get to it. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, vcczar said:

I can't get into the doc at the moment, but if you are able to comments on the rules, then post a comment where this should go and I'll type something like this into the document when I get to it. 

Aight, I can't get in at the moment either (I'm dedicating most of my computer to running a Sim in FM23 which I got for my birthday right now so too many tabs is gonna crash it) but I'll do that sometime later tonight.

[10centjimmy]

37 minutes ago, vcczar said:

See if it's in the Pres Actions. If not, I'll try to find it later and make it. I know it WAS in the game if it isn't anywhere. 

Yup it's there in president actions, my filter hid it for some reason

Thanks!

[Murrman104]

Would it be possible to add some Gov actions around supporting Public/private housing developments in their states? At the moment the housing lobbies don't really get to do much and I think this would be a gov action that would make sense. 

[Murrman104]

Another potential future draft character 

[pman]

Maybe this is more for AMPU 2.0 but how does everyone feel about voluntary player retirements or at the very least a voluntary player inactive list. I think it would solve the issues about who becomes faction leaders, etc. If I care enough about Person X becoming my FL that I am willing to retire 5 pols to do so, why not? Or an inactive list- like you can't do anything with them while they quit politics for a while.

[OrangeP47]

35 minutes ago, pman said:

Maybe this is more for AMPU 2.0 but how does everyone feel about voluntary player retirements or at the very least a voluntary player inactive list. I think it would solve the issues about who becomes faction leaders, etc. If I care enough about Person X becoming my FL that I am willing to retire 5 pols to do so, why not? Or an inactive list- like you can't do anything with them while they quit politics for a while.

I think that might be cheesing it a bit much, but I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about some things.  I think others, however, probably agree with me and feel very strongly about it though, but I don't want to speak for them, but they might not see this.

[pman]

22 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think that might be cheesing it a bit much, but I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about some things.  I think others, however, probably agree with me and feel very strongly about it though, but I don't want to speak for them, but they might not see this.

Haha, it's definitely cheesing it a bit. I am not saying I love the idea or that it's a good one. I am just curious if anyone has thought about it. 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, pman said:

Haha, it's definitely cheesing it a bit. I am not saying I love the idea or that it's a good one. I am just curious if anyone has thought about it. 

I think retiring people voluntarily did get brought up once a long time ago but nobody could really think of why you'd want to, with this though, I think a lot of people would be against it though.  I think faction leader selection is *supposed* to be difficult, and this would basically be giving people free reign, and I know there's several people very opposed to that.  That said, as you point out, you would indeed be losing the service of these pols and that's a big blow, so I think it's worth discussing, maybe as a feature if we very strictly limit it (only allow one voluntary retirement per term, or something like that, the same way shifts got nerfed).  Personally I wouldn't be opposed if it was put on very narrow rails like that.

[pman]

I don't know whose idea it was to let a player play multiple factions at once but I think that solves most of the problems. If what you love about this game is that it is the most complete historical, political simulation ever made but aren't hot on the idea of factions as an integral part of the game, controlling multiple factions solves that problem. It also solves many issues with picking faction leaders, etc.  So kudos to the person who came up with that fix because it lets the player pick how they want to play the game. 

If you don't think any of those things are problems and love the concept of factions as mostly set (at least by era) and central to American history and politics, then play it as 1 faction and enjoy the complexities of faction leader, major/minor candidates, etc. 

Great solution. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by pman

[Rezi]

State Presidential Primaries are currently activate only and I feel it should be changed so they can be deactivated. There's historical precedent as multiple states in the 1900s went from having primaries one election to not having them the next. It would also allow the player more options in their approach to presidential elections, not forcing primaries to remain just because someone activated them 50 years ago.

[pman]

While owning my bias because this suggestion would greatly benefit me @ebrk85 I do think any top draft pick should lose obscure. If we're borrowing the idea from sports drafts, every casual fan knows the top draft pick. For better or worse, they have special attention on them. The 2nd pick might be obscure, the 1st isn't.  Seems like an obvious, easy fix everyone should be on board with. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by pman

[ebrk85]

12 minutes ago, pman said:

While owning my bias because this suggestion would greatly benefit me @ebrk85 I do think any top draft pick should lose obscure. If we're borrowing the idea from sports drafts, every casual fan knows the top draft pick. For better or worse, they have special attention on them. The 2nd pick might be obscure, the 1st isn't.  Seems like an obvious, easy fix everyone should be on board with. 

Sports draft sure fans no who the 1st pick is. But there is no draft of politicians, we just do it for game purposes. So I don't really follow the concept. 

[OrangeP47]

I think the general consensus would be losing obscure has to be "earned", and there's definitely ways to do that... career track, events, tons of other things etc, but basically this idea already exists by just taking your top pick and putting them on the career track that would lose them obscure.

[pman]

6 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Sports draft sure fans no who the 1st pick is. But there is no draft of politicians, we just do it for game purposes. So I don't really follow the concept. 

I understand but I believe the concept of the pol draft in the game comes from sports drafts which brings me back to me original point about the first pick rarely, if ever being obscure. 

 

5 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think the general consensus would be losing obscure has to be "earned", and there's definitely ways to do that... career track, events, tons of other things etc, but basically this idea already exists by just taking your top pick and putting them on the career track that would lose them obscure.

I understand there's ways to "earn" obscure. I just think if we're being true to the concept, the first pick would not be obscure. If anything you could argue the 1st pick should lose obscure rather than gaining an extra skill point, which should be earned. We could definitely argue about whether or not obscurity should be earned or not but I didn't bring this up to argue with anyone- I really thought everyone would agree because I believe it's an obvious point but I was wrong so I'll drop it!

[OrangeP47]

I mean, I'm not actually trying to argue, I just think you actually hit at some deep philosophical underlying question none of us really have the answer to.  Yes, it's a draft.  But no, it's not really a draft, it's just what we do because we have to assign the pols somehow.  I think that's what ebrk was getting at and I was trying to channel.  You could theoretically make an argument that all these pols are assigned *simultaneously* and we only have a 1st pick, 2nd pick, 3rd pick because we are creatures that experience linear time.  You can also make the argument I'm talking nonsense.  But that's why there's an issue.

[pman]

Haha fair. I view the drafts as a key, innovative part of the game that gives forgotten factions a chance to get better. Plus it’s a fun concept. From that standpoint- the first pick is important and should lose obscure but if you think drafts are just a vehicle to introduce pols- I guess I see how you would disagree but then why have order be tied to points and why give the top picks a skill. It sounds like a sports draft to me. My point is just losing obscure makes more sense than a random skill for being a top pick 

Edited March 17, 2023 by pman

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

Haha fair. I view the drafts as a key, innovative part of the game that gives forgotten factions a chance to get better. Plus it’s a fun concept. From that standpoint- the first pick is important and should lose obscure but if you think drafts are just a vehicle to introduce pols- I guess I see how you would disagree 

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree, but I do tend to see it more as "these people were always in the faction, it's just time to sort out the paperwork".  I mean the draft is hype, mechanically, and as a player.  But basically I'm saying that's gameplay.  It's not story.