Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

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.

And I mean, maybe it's bias speaking lol, but if you take me as a real life human being I was definitely already in my political faction before age 25 lol.

[pman]

 I get that but it is in the game whether it should be or not - and I do love it. I just think losing obscure makes way more since than a random skill for the top pick

Edited March 17, 2023 by pman

[ebrk85]

17 minutes ago, pman said:

 I get that but it is in the game whether it should be or not - and I do love it. I just think losing obscure makes way more since than a random skill for the top pick

I'd have no problem adding lose obscure to the "traits" the 1st 2 picks can gain.

[Murrman104]

The most minor of minor changes but Bob Scott is set with a draft skill of 1 leg only but he has only ever served as Governer of North Carolina. Switch his 1 Leg to 1 Gov

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar There's a legislative proposal to have the Supreme Court be an elected position.  However, I don't believe we've created any rules for how such an election would work.

[vcczar]

44 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar There's a legislative proposal to have the Supreme Court be an elected position.  However, I don't believe we've created any rules for how such an election would work.

I'll add that to my to do list. The election will take place during the election phase rather than the SC appointment phase just because I'm sure they'd have the vote during election seasons. I'll have to flesh out rules, but if you end up passing it before I get to it. Just treat it like a US Sen or Gov election for now. 

[MrPotatoTed]

13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Just treat it like a US Sen or Gov election for now. 

At the state level, not national like a Presidential election?

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

At the state level, not national like a Presidential election?

It would be national, but the rules aren't going to be as complex as a presidential election. The only national election we have is the presidential election. It's going to be simple, like the Gov or Sen elections. 

[Murrman104]

I was going through the suggested name list and noticed the Scallawags require both the moderate and nationalist cards. However at present these 2 conflicts and can never occur. Either change the requirments to be called the Scallawags or set these to not confict 

[matthewyoung123]

So this is not a fix, per say, but a suggested change to the way that Kingmakers/protégés are done.

Right now, a kingmaker/protégé coupling get a bonus one time, and that's when they become a pair.  Usually an increase in ability (Command, Leg, Gov, etc) and an interest, and maybe a trait or two.  The protégé also gets a +1 in state elections which is good.

However, this is as far as the bonuses for coupling goes.  Sure there are some bonuses to getting your protégé or your kingmaker into office, but as a general rule, there are no more bonuses or trait gains beyond this.

My suggestion would be to roll for trait increases every four years when you set career tracks.  So, a kingmaker/protégé pairing has a chance to really develop.  In theory, a kingmaker is supposed to tutor a protégé and help bring them along, so they should get bonuses or increases more than at the initial meeting. 

A kingmaker/protégé pairing over a 20 year period (5 general elections) should have comparable stats to a politician on the career track.  I mean, if you have kingmaker with below average stats, then the additional rolls to gain traits may not even matter.  But a highly talented kingmaker should have the ability to pass down trait gains to their protégés more than once.  Of course, this all stops if the kingmaker dies, changes ideologies, gets converted, moves states, etc. 

Just something to think about.  Thanks.

[Willthescout7]

I'm personally against this unless an additional change gets made: a protoge can only be added to one kingmaker ever. So you can't have a politician hopping between 3 different kingmakers after gains are exhausted.

 

Generally, though, I like how kingmakers currently are and don't support a change.

[matthewyoung123]

57 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I'm personally against this unless an additional change gets made: a protoge can only be added to one kingmaker ever. So you can't have a politician hopping between 3 different kingmakers after gains are exhausted.

 

Generally, though, I like how kingmakers currently are and don't support a change.

Well you can only have 1 active kingmaker per state, so that limits the ability to jump around a bit, but I understand your point.

[Willthescout7]

11 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Well you can only have 1 active kingmaker per state, so that limits the ability to jump around a bit, but I understand your point.

You can always deactivate one, then activate another to accomplish it. 

[jnewt]

3 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

You can always deactivate one, then activate another to accomplish it. 

So I brought this up previously, thinking I found a loophole, but I was told that kingmaker-protege chains can never be voluntarily deactivated. 

I’d agree, though, that deactivating kingmaker-protege chains would need to be prohibited, but I really support the idea of more rolls for the relationship. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Yes, I don't think kingmaker-protege chains can be broken voluntarily.  (You can try to game the system a bit and break it intentionally by changing an ideology, etc, but those attempts aren't guaranteed to work).

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Should iron-fisted/Harmonious be added to the "conflicted traits" list in 3.0 Misc?  Benjamin Franklin rolled to gain iron-fisted. It certainly seemed out of character for him to become iron-fisted, but he doesn't actually have any traits that conflict with it.  

He does have harmonious though, and I can't immediately imagine someone who is harmoniously iron-fisted.

[Murrman104]

8 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Should iron-fisted/Harmonious be added to the "conflicted traits" list in 3.0 Misc?  Benjamin Franklin rolled to gain iron-fisted. It certainly seemed out of character for him to become iron-fisted, but he doesn't actually have any traits that conflict with it.  

He does have harmonious though, and I can't immediately imagine someone who is harmoniously iron-fisted.

I don't know who this is but as far as I can tell Ampus only example of someone who is Harmonious and Iron Fisted is one Thomas Bracket Reed

[vcczar]

10 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Should iron-fisted/Harmonious be added to the "conflicted traits" list in 3.0 Misc?  Benjamin Franklin rolled to gain iron-fisted. It certainly seemed out of character for him to become iron-fisted, but he doesn't actually have any traits that conflict with it.  

He does have harmonious though, and I can't immediately imagine someone who is harmoniously iron-fisted.

You can be iron-fisted and harmonious. Harmonious often means bi-partisan and iron-fisted is generally more party centric. The conflict with harmonious is disharmonious. 

@Murrman104 mentions Thomas Brackett Reed and he's a good example of a guy that had total control in the US House for his part, giving him the name "The Czar," but who was also someone that liked to work with people on both aisles to pass laws. So you could say that someone that is iron-fisted and harmonious is a quiet control freak. He's going to listen to you, might even incorporate it into poiicy, but he has to do it his way. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Whenever a faction leader or party leader dies , should they be automatically replaced?  Or leave the position vacant until it's time for everyone to choose a faction leader again?

I've always played it as the position remains vacant until the next faction leader phase.  It takes time for the dust to settle and a new leader to emerge.

However, another player just pointed out that this isn't actually specified in the rules and that his playtest has faction leaders automatically replaced as soon as there's a vacancy.

Whichever option you prefer, we should add that into the rules.

Edited March 22, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[matthewyoung123]

We've been playing "Vacant until it's time to select a leader again" in 1840 and will do so in my 1772 game.  Hope we were doing it right! 😉

 

[Willthescout7]

Just now, matthewyoung123 said:

We've been playing "Vacant until it's time to select a leader again" in 1840 and will do so in my 1772 game.  Hope we were doing it right! 😉

 

We haven't though, only when they retire after losing an election. 

If they die or randomly retire they are replaced immediately. 

[MrPotatoTed]

12 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

randomly retire 

Just a heads up, 2.4 rules specify that faction leaders can't randomly retire.

[MrPotatoTed]

Random passing thought:

Right now, there's a list of requirements for faction leaders.  Things like "must have leadership," and "Cannot have obscure".  (Some of these requirements are waived if there are no candidates who meet 100% of the reqs.)

Should we ditch the obscure rule?  And then have faction leaders 100% lose obscure?  In other words, if you have leadership (and the other requirements) then you rise to the top of your faction and that's how you lose obscure.

So "lose obscure" becomes a benefit of being a faction leader instead of a requirement.  Let me know what you guys think.

[ShortKing]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Random passing thought:

Right now, there's a list of requirements for faction leaders.  Things like "must have leadership," and "Cannot have obscure".  (Some of these requirements are waived if there are no candidates who meet 100% of the reqs.)

Should we ditch the obscure rule?  And then have faction leaders 100% lose obscure?  In other words, if you have leadership (and the other requirements) then you rise to the top of your faction and that's how you lose obscure.

So "lose obscure" becomes a benefit of being a faction leader instead of a requirement.  Let me know what you guys think.

I agree the application of this rule leads to some wonkiness, like Reagan and Billy Graham being the only qualified faction leaders because of fame outside of politics. At the same time, idk if this is the right solution. I do think folks who are not obscure should have some advantage, if not as a requirement for faction leader then maybe a bonus like +10% for ability gain or trait gain?

[Willthescout7]

16 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Just a heads up, 2.4 rules specify that faction leaders can't randomly retire.

I used randomly retire, but fill in randomly die, since no one is safe from that. My point still stands lol.