Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[Murrman104]

Just now, ShortKing said:

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?

I can't remember who said this but it was pointed out this wonkyness only really effects early playtests and it clears up after a while. For instance by the time Bernie died in 2016 yes I had a celebrity who might have been leader but I also had the Senate Minority whip (who had leadership as well so was the default leader over the only non obscure celeb). Personally I like the non obscure rule but I feel like it should be voided a bit earlier 

[Willthescout7]

19 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 disagree. I think nonobscure is essential to the position. 

[OrangeP47]

Yeah I think non obscure needs to say for faction leader, the rules are fine as is.

[Arkansas Progressive]

2 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

I disagree. I think nonobscure is essential to the position. 

tbh nobody outside select circles knows who "faction leader" Tom Perez was until he won the DNC Chairmanship and then bombed his chairmanship

[Arkansas Progressive]

Just now, Arkansas Progressive said:

tbh nobody outside select circles knows who "faction leader" Tom Perez was until he won the DNC Chairmanship and then bombed his chairmanship

though in retrospect non-obscure personally makes sense - unless like we have with the rules where they are waived when no one qualifies

[Willthescout7]

Just want to put this here: @MrPotatoTed house rule of only rolling once for expertise gains and they just get nothing if they already have it should absolutely be the actual rule.

[Bushwa777]

Am making the gilded age playtest and noticed in pres ex actions sheet fugitive slave law enforcement is there 2x

[MrPotatoTed]

4 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

Just want to put this here: @MrPotatoTed house rule of only rolling once for expertise gains and they just get nothing if they already have it should absolutely be the actual rule.

Thanks!  I've always hated that the Judicial committee is kind of crap compared to the other committees because it can only give you one thing and if you already have it, you get nothing.  So I tried to even the score a bit with the other committees not necessarily guaranteed to give you a new expertise if you've already racked up a few.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks!  I've always hated that the Judicial committee is kind of crap compared to the other committees because it can only give you one thing and if you already have it, you get nothing.  So I tried to even the score a bit with the other committees not necessarily guaranteed to give you a new expertise if you've already racked up a few.

On one hand, I get it.  On the other hand, I low key kinda thought we all agreed the judicial committee was just there for exiling rivals we didn't like to, so that was by design 😉

[MrPotatoTed]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

On one hand, I get it.  On the other hand, I low key kinda thought we all agreed the judicial committee was just there for exiling rivals we didn't like to, so that was by design 😉

I'm definitely aware that that's what it turned into.  ;c)  Of course, joke ends up being on you if you need to get a Supreme Court Justice approved and you filled the Judicial committee with your enemies. ;c)

[ShortKing]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm definitely aware that that's what it turned into.  ;c)  Of course, joke ends up being on you if you need to get a Supreme Court Justice approved and you filled the Judicial committee with your enemies. ;c)

Thank God the court is useless in game

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

Thank God the court is useless in game

In 1840 we've got the Warren Court in the 1870s.

[ShortKing]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

In 1840 we've got the Warren Court in the 1870s.

you guys must have had quite a few scotus cases go ahistorically by now so let me ask, what’s the most notable ahistorical result and how did it impact the game?

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

4 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

you guys must have had quite a few scotus cases go ahistorically by now so let me ask, what’s the most notable ahistorical result and how did it impact the game?

Honestly, I wouldn't say any of them are notable or had an impact. The only case that could have had a lasting impact was about secession being legal but it was the historic result.

[ShortKing]

8 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Honestly, I wouldn't say any of them are notable or had an impact. The only case that could have had a lasting impact was about secession being legal but it was the historic result.

Yeah I’m glad they’re included and all, but it is definitely the least fleshed out part of the game and easily the most forgettable part of the average half term

[Willthescout7]

17 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

you guys must have had quite a few scotus cases go ahistorically by now so let me ask, what’s the most notable ahistorical result and how did it impact the game?

In 1840 it's hard to go ahistorical with the court since almost everyone is in thr middle of the sspectrum. Mods make up the majority of both parties. Get to the modern day though, you can probably make a big change. 

[ShortKing]

The recent changes to how senate confirmation works for Cabinet appointments are proving too restrictive. Currently, the only allowable reasons to vote to block a nominee are if they are not of a bordering ideology or are controversial. This means, in the 1948 playtest, that the President can nominate someone for Attorney General that has an admin ability of 2 and Easily Overwhelmed and because this nominee is liberal and does not have Controversial, only one faction in the entire playtest can choose to vote against them, meaning they have an absolute minimum of 91 votes in the Senate to confirm a 2 admin easily overwhelmed AG. 

[Willthescout7]

3 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

The recent changes to how senate confirmation works for Cabinet appointments are proving too restrictive. Currently, the only allowable reasons to vote to block a nominee are if they are not of a bordering ideology or are controversial. This means, in the 1948 playtest, that the President can nominate someone for Attorney General that has an admin ability of 2 and Easily Overwhelmed and because this nominee is liberal and does not have Controversial, only one faction in the entire playtest can choose to vote against them, meaning they have an absolute minimum of 91 votes in the Senate to confirm a 2 admin easily overwhelmed AG. 

Counterpoint: the old way was too restrictive. In addition, historically the cabinet wasn't contentious from a approval standpoint, but region standpoint. It's only recently that it's become a problem.

Regardless, I think we need to wait until the computer version to make anymore changes. 

[jnewt]

18 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

The recent changes to how senate confirmation works for Cabinet appointments are proving too restrictive. Currently, the only allowable reasons to vote to block a nominee are if they are not of a bordering ideology or are controversial. This means, in the 1948 playtest, that the President can nominate someone for Attorney General that has an admin ability of 2 and Easily Overwhelmed and because this nominee is liberal and does not have Controversial, only one faction in the entire playtest can choose to vote against them, meaning they have an absolute minimum of 91 votes in the Senate to confirm a 2 admin easily overwhelmed AG. 

Yea, I think this rule is good for being applied to CPU-controlled factions, but a human controlled faction should have some control over who they vote for. 

[Willthescout7]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Yea, I think this rule is good for being applied to CPU-controlled factions, but a human controlled faction should have some control over who they vote for. 

Counterpoint: don't have a faction leader who is harmonious.

The automatic votes only apply for thr lower prestige cabinet spots. You always have a choice for State, Defense, Treasury, and Attorny General, which are the big ones that people and players care about. 

The only reason his votes are forced in this case is his harmonious faction leader. That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

[ebrk85]

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Counterpoint: don't have a faction leader who is harmonious.

The automatic votes only apply for thr lower prestige cabinet spots. You always have a choice for State, Defense, Treasury, and Attorny General, which are the big ones that people and players care about. 

The only reason his votes are forced in this case is his harmonious faction leader. That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

Nope harmonious has nothing to do with this case. 

Note: A player cannot block a non-controversial nominee from confirmation unless they are two ideologies away from their faction leader’s ideology. Thus, a moderate faction leader would have to support a conservative or a liberal.

A harmonious player is even more restricted then above as he can't vote against a nominee no matter their ideology unless they are controversial.

[jnewt]

4 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Counterpoint: don't have a faction leader who is harmonious.

The automatic votes only apply for thr lower prestige cabinet spots. You always have a choice for State, Defense, Treasury, and Attorny General, which are the big ones that people and players care about. 

The only reason his votes are forced in this case is his harmonious faction leader. That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

“Don’t have a faction leader who is harmonious” is a lot easier said than done. I don’t think SK had a choice in his faction leader, and I know I’ve had only one option every time this playtest (though none of them have been harmonious, but that’s completely out of anyone’s control). 

[pman]

I think the broader issue here is how restrictive picking a faction leader should be. I also don't have a choice with who my faction leader is. Most of us don't. It's how the game is written. I am not saying it's good or bad. I do know it's often super frustrating but it's how it's written.

Edited March 23, 2023 by pman

[ShortKing]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

“Don’t have a faction leader who is harmonious” is a lot easier said than done. I don’t think SK had a choice in his faction leader, and I know I’ve had only one option every time this playtest (though none of them have been harmonious, but that’s completely out of anyone’s control). 

I don’t even necessarily mind that sometimes faction leader rolls means getting traits you might not want (harmonious and integrity I will never choose for myself) but like I said, there is only one faction out of 10 that can choose to vote against an easily overwhelmed 2 admin Attorney General in the middle of a domestic stability crisis

[pman]

1 minute ago, ShortKing said:

I don’t even necessarily mind that sometimes faction leader rolls means getting traits you might not want (harmonious and integrity I will never choose for myself) but like I said, there is only one faction out of 10 that can choose to vote against an easily overwhelmed 2 admin Attorney General in the middle of a domestic stability crisis

Doesn't easily overwhelmed neither hurt or help the meters? Doesn't it essentially cancel the position out. Therefore he won't help or hurt the meters.