Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[ebrk85]

I tend to disagree. I think they should be allowed to remain but would not be able to run for reelection (unless they regained Command again). We keep referencing that as the Wilson event. If we use that as an example, Wilson did not resign even though he was basically incapacitated and didn't have the "Command" to carry out his duties.

My bigger concern though is that this event may have too high of a percentage to fire. We've have a limited amount of slow moving playtests and this is what? The 4th President I think to get hit with this. Small sample size obviously but that is a lot of Presidents having to resign from office when historically we've only had one resign (and due to scandal not illness).  I like the excitement of it but seems high.

[Willthescout7]

41 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

I tend to disagree. I think they should be allowed to remain but would not be able to run for reelection (unless they regained Command again). We keep referencing that as the Wilson event. If we use that as an example, Wilson did not resign even though he was basically incapacitated and didn't have the "Command" to carry out his duties.

My bigger concern though is that this event may have too high of a percentage to fire. We've have a limited amount of slow moving playtests and this is what? The 4th President I think to get hit with this. Small sample size obviously but that is a lot of Presidents having to resign from office when historically we've only had one resign (and due to scandal not illness).  I like the excitement of it but seems high.

We did the math, you have about a 50% chance of the event firing once every 28 years. Which actually tracks historically. Until Reagan, it was about every 20 years or so a President's term was cut short for a variety of reasons. 

In 1840, we've gone 32 years of ingame time, and have only had it once, so it's right on time. 

As to the first part of your response, we feel that abilities are a 'hard rule' so to speak, and that possessing zero of tbr necessary skill should remove you. It's the same policy that should be held to legislators, military folk, judges, and Governors, not just Presidents. 

The real issue with the event is that the command loss seems to be too steep. 3 command is a lot, especially since most Presidents take over with 2 or 3. They're almost be forced into a position where they have to resign due to lack of command. We threw out perhaps reducing it to -2, which is a number that the President should be able to survive, especially if it occurs in their second term.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

This seems to have happened a few times but the Presidential Ailment general event has a chance of taking a President down to 0 command. The event text states that The CPU will resign their president, unless the president still has at least 3 command or if the president has leadership, charisma, or iron fist"

If a President has one of the traits but falls to 0 command what happens?

• Do they stay in office but as an acting President, unable to run for the office next election?
• Do they resign since you have to have at least 1 command to be President?

Personally I am in favor of the second since the command minimum is a hard rule in the game. The fix could just be adding that if they fall to 0 command then they are forced to resign.

They stay in office, but are unable to conduct any Executive Actions or run for re-election unless they regain command.  I agree with @ebrk85 that this is "the Wilson event" and thus there is precedent for someone unable to do the job remaining in office.  As for the CPU instructions, note the word "or".

2 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

If any politician falls below the minimum skill to hold office (Leg, Gov, Command, Admin, Mil, or Judicial), then they should immediately resign.

I'll respectfully disagree.  A governor with 0 governing is guaranteed to fail their governor action, which is punishment enough.  A legislator with zero legis who makes a proposal can be easily overridden by any committee chair if they don't like the proposal.  We already have rules where military leadership can fire a general who's military level falters.  We've already talked about command above.

Cabinet usually needs 2 admin just to get their foot in the door, so the odds of someone falling to zero are low.  They'd certainly become a hinderence and wouldn't be selected to be kept on in the next two-year phase.

The only real question mark in my mind is Judicial.  I'm inclined to think a zero level Justice could stay in the Supreme Court unless the player chooses to retire them at the appropriate time or they get forced out via the rules that are already in place for forcing a justice out.

[ebrk85]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Cabinet usually needs 2 admin just to get their foot in the door, so the odds of someone falling to zero are low.  They'd certainly become a hinderence and wouldn't be selected to be kept on in the next two-year phase.

The only real question mark in my mind is Judicial.  I'm inclined to think a zero level Justice could stay in the Supreme Court unless the player chooses to retire them at the appropriate time or they get forced out via the rules that are already in place for forcing a justice out.

As a compromise between the 2 opinions on resigning or not. I could see an appointed position (like General/Cabinet) having to resign if they reach 0 ability. But not for an elected position. As for Justice yea that one is tricky to me. Could go either way. It is appointed but once appointed it is for life and nobody can force a Supreme Court Justice out. Oliver Wendall Holmes finally being talked into by his fellow Justices as his mind was going but it still had to be him to make that choice to resign.

[Willthescout7]

4 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

They stay in office, but are unable to conduct any Executive Actions or run for re-election unless they regain command.  I agree with @ebrk85 that this is "the Wilson event" and thus there is precedent for someone unable to do the job remaining in office.  As for the CPU instructions, note the word "or".

 

It needs to be specifically added to the rules then that a politician stays in office if they fall beneath the required ability. Right now the rules don't say one way or another which is why we're in this position.

[OrangeP47]

6 hours ago, Willthescout7 said:

We did the math, you have about a 50% chance of the event firing once every 28 years. Which actually tracks historically. Until Reagan, it was about every 20 years or so a President's term was cut short for a variety of reasons. 

As the person that did the math, also FYI, if you double that 28 years to 56, it becomes a 75% chance over that time period.

[MrPotatoTed]

33 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

As the person that did the math, also FYI, if you double that 28 years to 56, it becomes a 75% chance over that time period.

I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  “Probably once every 56 years” is okay.

[OrangeP47]

12 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  “Probably once every 56 years” is okay.

Yeah to be clear I'm saying it's fine too.

[matthewyoung123]

So why have minimums (like 1 Command to be President, 1 Gov for Governor, 1 Leg for Congress) if a person CAN do the job without those minimums?  Just wondering what the rationale is for it. 

So, in the 1840 test, I accidentally RAN someone for Congress that didn't have 1 Leg.  They won their election, but were then removed from office because they didn't have 1 Leg.  Should they have been allowed to keep the office?  If so, I see the consistency, but if they are removed, how is that different from a politician falling to 0 Leg and being able to stay?

Thanks.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

So why have minimums (like 1 Command to be President, 1 Gov for Governor, 1 Leg for Congress) if a person CAN do the job without those minimums?  Just wondering what the rationale is for it. 

So, in the 1840 test, I accidentally RAN someone for Congress that didn't have 1 Leg.  They won their election, but were then removed from office because they didn't have 1 Leg.  Should they have been allowed to keep the office?  If so, I see the consistency, but if they are removed, how is that different from a politician falling to 0 Leg and being able to stay?

Thanks.

The minimum requirement is to run for office.  There is technically no listed requirement for "being" in the office.  But flagging @vcczar for his consideration.

The question is whether a President, legislator, governor, General, cabinet member, Supreme Court Justice, etc should be forced to automatically resign if they ever drop to a zero in their relevant skill.

My thought is they stay in the office (but are generally ineffective and ineligible for re-election/re-appointment).  But others disagree, so looking for your thoughts.

[Willthescout7]

From @MrPotatoTed: are faction leaders/party leaders replaced immediately with they randomly die during the Random Deaths phase, or do factions wait until the next leaders emerge phase to replace them? This needs to be specified in the rules.

From @MrPotatoTed: limit expertise rolls to one chance to gain an expertise, and if the dice lands on one they already have they get nothing.

From @Willthescout7: the confirmation rules are conflicting. Delete the note at the beginning of the section regarding 'blocking' nominees, and rewrite the section about Majority Leaders to the following:       If a Senate Majority Leader (not PPT) has iron fist, they can require a hearing on any nominee of their choosing, unless the Majority Leader  is 'harmonious'  at which point they will not call for a hearing for a nominee who is 'non-controversial,' or if the nominee is within 1 ideology of the majority leader, or if the nominee has integrity. This makes sure confirmations aren't contentious and mirrors real life, but gives the players urgency.

From @MrPotatoTed: During the Carlisle Peace Treaty Event, the CPU is overwhelmingly likely to support peace due to most factions not losing points with peace. This will almost always end the game in single player campaigns. Perhaps changing the points so most factions at least have a reason to support continuing the war will solve this problem.

From @MrPotatoTed: The points for the Dunmore Proclamation seem to be flipped.

From @Ich_bin_Tyler, @matthewyoung123, @Willthescout7: if a politician falls below the required ability to hold the office (e.g. 0 Command while President), does the politician automatically resign or do they finish their term? What about the Supreme Court? Regardless of your decision, this needs to be written into the rules. 

From @ebrk85, @Ich_bin_Tyler, @Willthescout7: the Presidential ailment causes the incumbent President to lose 3 Command. This is steep and has forced everyone to hit 0 Command. We suggest potentially lowering the penalty to -2 command.

From @Ich_bin_Tyler, @Willthescout7: During the conventions, the party leader takes a -1 momentum penalty after the first ballot if they don't win. This has led to only 1 frontrunner winning the nomination in our 30 year playtest. What happens more often is that this penalty hits, the frontrunner stalls out, and the player wins. After doing calculations on each of our prior conventions, we believe that moving that penalty to the second ballot will still hurt the party leader, but won't remove their chances of winning, which historically tracks. 

 

We have other thoughts on conventions between solo human and 4 CPU, but we need more feedback first. 

There has also been much discussion on faction leaders ( @pman @jnewt) but it seemed to me that the thoughts were very mixed and no real suggestion was reached or made. But it should be noted here. Some are concerned about how narrow faction leader selection can be, specifically the obscure rule. Others (myself, @OrangeP47, @Ich_bin_Tyler) are not and see this as a feature, not a bug. I cannot recommend a fix, but don't want others to feel like I'm purposely ignoring this. 

The last concern without a clear suggestion or fix is the historical state biases. @umbrella, @MatthewYoung @10CentJimmy were concerned about how historical biases just happen without an event that causes them (e.g. the great depression shifting the whole country blue) In their playtest they had those shifts happen, but not the great depression event. One suggestion was from @orange where certain events would add a modifier to party preferences, (eg in addition to the historical bias, an event could shift a state +3 red for a set period of years). Again, like with faction leaders, no full suggestion was suggested and has not had a chance to be tested. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Willthescout7
More details and tags

[Murrman104]

Can't believe my suggested fix of having a 1 leg guy have 1 gov instead didn't make the list 🤬. Btw could we perhaps have a thread for any more of these we find i.e pols who got some of their stats mixed up, legislation where the faction gains/losses got swapped that sort of thing?

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, Murrman104 said:

Can't believe my suggested fix of having a 1 leg guy have 1 gov instead didn't make the list 🤬. Btw could we perhaps have a thread for any more of these we find i.e pols who got some of their stats mixed up, legislation where the faction gains/losses got swapped that sort of thing?

You can make a thread for that, but this is all stuff that won't be changed until early release is out, most likely. Low priority. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Impact of legislative proposals in Independence Era may need another look.  I found several things that say they boost revenue/budget when they should presumably weaken it (such as creating a continental army).

[Murrman104]

22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You can make a thread for that, but this is all stuff that won't be changed until early release is out, most likely. Low priority. 

I'll do that if I run across any more in the future 

[Umbrella]

@vcczar This probably isn't high priority since I think it would only affect one era (Gilded Age) but it would be useful to have a trait for secessionist, similar to union loyalist.  Many southern state elections have penalties for secessionists, but there is no way to tell who that is unless you know their history.

[OrangeP47]

Union loyalist actually isn't used anymore.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1 minute ago, Umbrella said:

@vcczar This probably isn't high priority since I think it would only affect one era (Gilded Age) but it would be useful to have a trait for secessionist, similar to union loyalist.  Many southern state elections have penalties for secessionists, but there is no way to tell who that is unless you know their history.

What we did was 1/0 in the trait so a 1 is a loyalist and 0 seceded. That leave blanks which are non-Southern politicians.

[vcczar]

17 minutes ago, Umbrella said:

@vcczar This probably isn't high priority since I think it would only affect one era (Gilded Age) but it would be useful to have a trait for secessionist, similar to union loyalist.  Many southern state elections have penalties for secessionists, but there is no way to tell who that is unless you know their history.

I think the 3.0 rules have rules that give election penalties to people that secede. or at least such rules used to exist if they've disappeared. 

16 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Union loyalist actually isn't used anymore.

Actually, it is. Or it will be again. 

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed You mentioned "limit expertise rolls to one chance to gain an expertise, and if the dice lands on one they already have they get nothing." Can you tell me what part of the rules you are talking about? 

I'm trying to knock out the entire AMPU to do list that I currently have today since Anthony is working on the game. 

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@MrPotatoTed You mentioned "limit expertise rolls to one chance to gain an expertise, and if the dice lands on one they already have they get nothing." Can you tell me what part of the rules you are talking about? 

I'm trying to knock out the entire AMPU to do list that I currently have today since Anthony is working on the game. 

It’s a house rule that I’ve been using, and players seem to like it.  
 

Anytime you roll to gain a new expertise (agriculture, business, energy, etc), the default rules are that you re-roll if you land on an expertise that you already have.  So for example if you’re Thomas Jefferson and you gain a new expertise. If you roll that you gain agriculture but Thomas Jefferson already has agriculture, you keep re-rolling until you land on something you don’t have. So now Jefferson has agriculture and, say, education.”

 

with my house rule though, you don’t re-roll.  So if Jefferson gains agriculture but already has agriculture, then he still only has agriculture.  

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It’s a house rule that I’ve been using, and players seem to like it.  
 

Anytime you roll to gain a new expertise (agriculture, business, energy, etc), the default rules are that you re-roll if you land on an expertise that you already have.  So for example if you’re Thomas Jefferson and you gain a new expertise. If you roll that you gain agriculture but Thomas Jefferson already has agriculture, you keep re-rolling until you land on something you don’t have. So now Jefferson has agriculture and, say, education.”

 

with my house rule though, you don’t re-roll.  So if Jefferson gains agriculture but already has agriculture, then he still only has agriculture.  

Do you know where this house rule is in the rules? I don't remember anymore since I put it in there so long ago. My guess is everyone playtesting knows the rules better than I do at this point. 

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Do you know where this house rule is in the rules? I don't remember anymore since I put it in there so long ago. My guess is everyone playtesting knows the rules better than I do at this point. 

It isn’t, it’s just something that I do with my players.  
 

I don’t know if the rules specifically say one way or the other.  A 3.0 miscellaneous roll saying “don’t re-roll if you gain an experience you already have “ would probably suffice.

[vcczar]

@Ich_bin_Tyler @matthewyoung123 @Willthescout7 @ebrk85

Presidential Ailment will now randomly reduce command -1 to -3, which should ease the issue with presidents always being compelled to resign. 

In regards to establishing whether or not someone resigns if they fall below the requirement for the job, say a Senator falls to 0 Legis Prop, I don't feel a need to write a rule for that. They don't have to resign, they'll just suck. They've already been appointed. They just won't be able to be reappointed (possibly reelected) if they don't fill the requirement for running for or being appointed to the job when they have another go at it. I think establishing this in the rules just adds more words to a wordy document.  

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It isn’t, it’s just something that I do with my players.  
 

I don’t know if the rules specifically say one way or the other.  A 3.0 miscellaneous roll saying “don’t re-roll if you gain an experience you already have “ would probably suffice.

Ok, I'll just do that. If you come upon anything in the rules that states re-rolling in regards to this, let me know.