Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[vcczar]

@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."

I've change the rule that the frontunner heading into the convention (or the party leader) has a 33% chance of -1 on each ballot that they aren't leading. This means they could theoretically survive one or more die rolls, but they gotta secure that nomination quickly.  

[vcczar]

Ok, I've made a ton of progress on my "to do" list. All I need to do now to "finish" it for Anthony to work on this week is:

• Finish updating political value
• Make historical era trends more organic. This one might take some time, and it's a pretty massive change, so I don't know if it's something I should even attempt to do at the moment or wait until a DLC. Once I get started, I have to finish it. What I think I'll do is make a list of the things that created the biases shifts--nationally and regionally--and then decide how long it will take me to do these. If it will take me more than a few days, then I won't do it for early release. 
• Check budget/revenue issues with Era of Independence legis props. 
• Finish filling out the new scripted events, legis props, etc. 

These are all going to take me a few days, and the 2nd item might get pushed back because of the time it will take me to do the other items. While I have a plan for updating PV, it does take me a long time to get the coding right. 

Anyway, I'm going to take a 20 minute break, then walk to a coffee shop where I can focus better than I can at home, and then try to see how much I can get done before they close at 2pm. 

[vcczar]

Just now, vcczar said:

Ok, I've made a ton of progress on my "to do" list. All I need to do now to "finish" it for Anthony to work on this week is:

• Finish updating political value
• Make historical era trends more organic. This one might take some time, and it's a pretty massive change, so I don't know if it's something I should even attempt to do at the moment or wait until a DLC. Once I get started, I have to finish it. What I think I'll do is make a list of the things that created the biases shifts--nationally and regionally--and then decide how long it will take me to do these. If it will take me more than a few days, then I won't do it for early release. 
• Check budget/revenue issues with Era of Independence legis props. 
• Finish filling out the new scripted events, legis props, etc. 

These are all going to take me a few days, and the 2nd item might get pushed back because of the time it will take me to do the other items. While I have a plan for updating PV, it does take me a long time to get the coding right. 

Anyway, I'm going to take a 20 minute break, then walk to a coffee shop where I can focus better than I can at home, and then try to see how much I can get done before they close at 2pm. 

Dagnabbit, forgot to add "Go through Rules Doc." 

***Please don't give me any other suggested fixes until early release is out, unless an issue is game breaking. I'll have an early release feedback thing when we get to that.***

[vcczar]

• I'm going to wait on updating the political value. I think it still needs more work than I can focus on at the moment. 
• Fixed rev/budget issues with Era of Ind Legis Props
• Filled out all of the new Gen Events. There was a lot of new ones. The only two I didn't completely fill out are the Standard Coup and Populist Coup Gen Event descriptions. 
• Filled out all the new Scripted Events and Pres Exec Actions. 

My computer is about to die because I can't charged my computer at this coffee shop. All the outlets have been taken the whole time I'm here. 

I'm going to head back home soon and then I'll get to the rules doc next. The only suggestions I know I'm going to ignore for now are anything that recommends moving rule from one part of the document to anothers (@MrPotatoTed  can do this for me, as I want to make sure it is moved to the exact place he recommends it.)

[OrangeP47]

5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Make historical era trends more organic. This one might take some time, and it's a pretty massive change, so I don't know if it's something I should even attempt to do at the moment or wait until a DLC. Once I get started, I have to finish it. What I think I'll do is make a list of the things that created the biases shifts--nationally and regionally--and then decide how long it will take me to do these. If it will take me more than a few days, then I won't do it for early release. 

I say we wait on this, we're testing something in 1840 for it but haven't even really gotten started yet.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

I say we wait on this, we're testing something in 1840 for it but haven't even really gotten started yet.

I'll keep a list of potential biases changes anyway. 

On another note, I'm wondering if I should add Judge Judy as a possible politician. Imagine her on the SC. 

[Willthescout7]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'll keep a list of potential biases changes anyway. 

On another note, I'm wondering if I should add Judge Judy as a possible politician. Imagine her on the SC. 

Do it, for the memes

[Pringles]

12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll keep a list of potential biases changes anyway. 

On another note, I'm wondering if I should add Judge Judy as a possible politician. Imagine her on the SC. 

Please do it. I love Judge Judy. While you're at it, add Frank Caprio of Rhode Island from the show: "Caught in Providence." Imagine those two on the Supreme Court. 😛 

[Cal]

I know that we are getting close to finalizing the rules, but I believe that there is a huge issue with ideology enthusiasm that I've brought up a few times that I would like to strongly advocate that we address now rather than later when Anthony is programming these respective phases. Right now, the balance is incredibly wrong for when enthusiasm is boosted/lost, and there are two SIMPLE changes I would like to suggest that I believe would result in a much more balanced game and make the currently incredibly anxiety inducing Appointments Phase much more manageable and realistic.

First, let's talk about where enthusiasm can change and what the intent seems to be for enthusiasm. Enthusiasm measures the various ideology groups that typically vote together and share the same policy views, and the intent seems to be that enthusiasm should reflect when a party is actively courting these voters/politicians and doing meaningful things that they like or putting into power their own. Enthusiasm is meant to be fluid and represent the changing dynamics of the two major parties throughout history, and it does a decent job of that. When a Party Leader from a faction gets elected, those voters are ecstatic are more likely to vote for that party. When cabinet members are appointed from their ideology, these groups are stoked. When legislation is passed favoring that ideology, they are happy.

These things make sense, but they also must be viewed in comparison to one another. Progressive are MUCH more excited about Bernie Sanders winning the presidential nomination than they are for a completely obscure politician to be appointed as Ambassador to China. Traditionalists are much more happy if Robert Byrd is elected Party Leader than if in a relatively inactive executive phase they get a bone thrown to them. With that in mind, our current system is wildly out of proportion for enthusiasm changes. This results in not only frequent shifts maxed from one party to the other in less than a 2 year phase unrealistically, but also in making certain phases incredibly tedious and not very fun due to worrying about these unrealistic shifts completely tanking your party. I'll discuss these below.

Change One: Cabinet Appointment Enthusiasm Limit

I'd like to officially petition for ideology gains/penalties from cabinet appointments to be limited to no more than two steps in either direction. Right now, there is very often swings around 4 steps on the scale, and I've seen as much as a swing of 8 from JUST cabinet appointments, which is the equivalent of moving, for example, Traditionalists +3 Blue in the 1920s to Traditionalists +3 Red simply from a few cabinet appointments, even if the cabinet also includes LW Populists or the President himself is a Progressive or what have you. 

It's just wildly unrealistic some of the shifts you see during this phase and it makes this phase into way more of a headache than it has to be because the meters shift here more than in any other phase of the game. It makes sense to want to satisfy lobbies, but should you really be losing -6 enthusiasm over inconsequential cabinet members? The cabinet is meant to be a place of compromise and these lobbies/ideologies are aware they can't get everything, and it's far less important to them than legislation or party leadership in determining who they support IRL. Looking at Biden's IRL cabinet, I'd loathe to see how far Progressives would shift towards the Republican Party in just the first Appointments Phase.

A simple and easy fix to this that requires no reworking of systems is to just cap these changes to ideology in the Appointments Phase OVERALL to +-2 (or even +-3 if that's more agreeable) in either direction, per ideology. That way you can still see an ideology grumble about their lack of representation and go from supporting the party in power to neutral over cabinet appointments, but not see them do a complete unrealistic 180 over it when the party they prefer has done ACTUAL efforts to court them with leadership, legislation, etc.

I see this as a necessary fix and one that would make this phase much more manageable and realistic.

Change Two: Legislation Enthusiasm Limit

This change is mostly to shore up the issue that occurs when factions tie for most/least points in either party in a legislative session. Right now, when factions tie they all get counted. In many of the legislative scorings I've done at least, there can be an issue when factions have a net 0 in points (though this issue is one I've really mostly seen in the earlier Eras) and thus all tied factions at the bottom rung get a -1 or -2 to every one of their ideologies, which causes drastic swings at times of 4-8 in my experience when no legislation actually affected, or no legislation could be proposed that even COULD have affected, their ideology. 

This was a huge issue in some of the 1772 onward playtests when we started running out of legislation and I had to get very creative with looking at repealing legislation that was actually necessary or favorable just to prevent these drastic results. 

I see another easy enough solution here being a similar limit to the maximum amount that an ideology can move in this phase as a result of legislative scoring. I don't think the intent here is for multiple factions to get a -2 to each of their ideologies here, nor for their to be drastic moves across the board in one legislative phase (which only occurs in this specific scenario when there are ties). For that reason, I would suggest a limit of +-3 in each direction here per ideology, to account for the potential +1 from the highest scoring faction from the dominant party and +1 from the same of the minority party, as well as account for the -1 from the lowest scoring faction from the dominant party and the -2 from the lowest scoring faction of the minority party. 

This solution preserves what I see as the intent behind the rules, and still allows for the rare occasion for when ties occur to have an effect rather than just randomly selecting one of the tied factions to have an effect. For example, if two Blue factions holding the Progressive Card are tied for the lowest scoring non-majority factions in a session, you still combine their -2s into the -3 limit, giving both of them an impact.

For feedback on these two proposed limitations, I'd also like to tag @MrPotatoTed @Willthescout7 @10centjimmy @Ich_bin_Tyler and anyone else with a lot of experience with these two phases as I'm certainly open to criticism. I just consistently see huge shifts in enthusiasm that seem opposed to the goals that the mechanic seems to be intended to represent.

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, Cal said:

I know that we are getting close to finalizing the rules, but I believe that there is a huge issue with ideology enthusiasm that I've brought up a few times that I would like to strongly advocate that we address now rather than later when Anthony is programming these respective phases. Right now, the balance is incredibly wrong for when enthusiasm is boosted/lost, and there are two SIMPLE changes I would like to suggest that I believe would result in a much more balanced game and make the currently incredibly anxiety inducing Appointments Phase much more manageable and realistic.

First, let's talk about where enthusiasm can change and what the intent seems to be for enthusiasm. Enthusiasm measures the various ideology groups that typically vote together and share the same policy views, and the intent seems to be that enthusiasm should reflect when a party is actively courting these voters/politicians and doing meaningful things that they like or putting into power their own. Enthusiasm is meant to be fluid and represent the changing dynamics of the two major parties throughout history, and it does a decent job of that. When a Party Leader from a faction gets elected, those voters are ecstatic are more likely to vote for that party. When cabinet members are appointed from their ideology, these groups are stoked. When legislation is passed favoring that ideology, they are happy.

These things make sense, but they also must be viewed in comparison to one another. Progressive are MUCH more excited about Bernie Sanders winning the presidential nomination than they are for a completely obscure politician to be appointed as Ambassador to China. Traditionalists are much more happy if Robert Byrd is elected Party Leader than if in a relatively inactive executive phase they get a bone thrown to them. With that in mind, our current system is wildly out of proportion for enthusiasm changes. This results in not only frequent shifts maxed from one party to the other in less than a 2 year phase unrealistically, but also in making certain phases incredibly tedious and not very fun due to worrying about these unrealistic shifts completely tanking your party. I'll discuss these below.

Change One: Cabinet Appointment Enthusiasm Limit

I'd like to officially petition for ideology gains/penalties from cabinet appointments to be limited to no more than two steps in either direction. Right now, there is very often swings around 4 steps on the scale, and I've seen as much as a swing of 8 from JUST cabinet appointments, which is the equivalent of moving, for example, Traditionalists +3 Blue in the 1920s to Traditionalists +3 Red simply from a few cabinet appointments, even if the cabinet also includes LW Populists or the President himself is a Progressive or what have you. 

It's just wildly unrealistic some of the shifts you see during this phase and it makes this phase into way more of a headache than it has to be because the meters shift here more than in any other phase of the game. It makes sense to want to satisfy lobbies, but should you really be losing -6 enthusiasm over inconsequential cabinet members? The cabinet is meant to be a place of compromise and these lobbies/ideologies are aware they can't get everything, and it's far less important to them than legislation or party leadership in determining who they support IRL. Looking at Biden's IRL cabinet, I'd loathe to see how far Progressives would shift towards the Republican Party in just the first Appointments Phase.

A simple and easy fix to this that requires no reworking of systems is to just cap these changes to ideology in the Appointments Phase OVERALL to +-2 (or even +-3 if that's more agreeable) in either direction, per ideology. That way you can still see an ideology grumble about their lack of representation and go from supporting the party in power to neutral over cabinet appointments, but not see them do a complete unrealistic 180 over it when the party they prefer has done ACTUAL efforts to court them with leadership, legislation, etc.

I see this as a necessary fix and one that would make this phase much more manageable and realistic.

Change Two: Legislation Enthusiasm Limit

This change is mostly to shore up the issue that occurs when factions tie for most/least points in either party in a legislative session. Right now, when factions tie they all get counted. In many of the legislative scorings I've done at least, there can be an issue when factions have a net 0 in points (though this issue is one I've really mostly seen in the earlier Eras) and thus all tied factions at the bottom rung get a -1 or -2 to every one of their ideologies, which causes drastic swings at times of 4-8 in my experience when no legislation actually affected, or no legislation could be proposed that even COULD have affected, their ideology. 

This was a huge issue in some of the 1772 onward playtests when we started running out of legislation and I had to get very creative with looking at repealing legislation that was actually necessary or favorable just to prevent these drastic results. 

I see another easy enough solution here being a similar limit to the maximum amount that an ideology can move in this phase as a result of legislative scoring. I don't think the intent here is for multiple factions to get a -2 to each of their ideologies here, nor for their to be drastic moves across the board in one legislative phase (which only occurs in this specific scenario when there are ties). For that reason, I would suggest a limit of +-3 in each direction here per ideology, to account for the potential +1 from the highest scoring faction from the dominant party and +1 from the same of the minority party, as well as account for the -1 from the lowest scoring faction from the dominant party and the -2 from the lowest scoring faction of the minority party. 

This solution preserves what I see as the intent behind the rules, and still allows for the rare occasion for when ties occur to have an effect rather than just randomly selecting one of the tied factions to have an effect. For example, if two Blue factions holding the Progressive Card are tied for the lowest scoring non-majority factions in a session, you still combine their -2s into the -3 limit, giving both of them an impact.

For feedback on these two proposed limitations, I'd also like to tag @MrPotatoTed @Willthescout7 @10centjimmy @Ich_bin_Tyler and anyone else with a lot of experience with these two phases as I'm certainly open to criticism. I just consistently see huge shifts in enthusiasm that seem opposed to the goals that the mechanic seems to be intended to represent.

Thanks for the feedback!

Cabinet posts:  I'm honestly very surprised that you're seeing swings that large, when there's only a 25% chance of a given appointment making the relevant lobby/ideology happy and a 25% chance of decreasing a lobby/ideology's happiness if they don't get ANY of their desired posts (not per post, but in total).  That said, I certainly have no objection to limiting how far it can swing given that I'm surprised it's swinging that much in the first place.

Legislative enthusiasm: I think when we drafted these rules we weren't thinking specifically of multiple factions having the same ideologies (or if they did, there would still be a difference in scoring, thanks to lobbies, etc, and therefore the "tie" issue would be rare.)  I'm open to your proposed limit here.

Edited March 30, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[Cal]

20 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks for the feedback!

Cabinet posts:  I'm honestly very surprised that you're seeing swings that large, when there's only a 25% chance of a given appointment making the relevant lobby/ideology happy and a 25% chance of decreasing a lobby/ideology's happiness if they don't get ANY of their desired posts (not per post, but in total).  That said, I certainly have no objection to limiting how far it can swing given that I'm surprised it's swinging that much in the first place.

Legislative enthusiasm: I think when we drafted these rules we weren't thinking specifically of multiple factions having the same ideologies (or if they did, there would still be a difference in scoring, thanks to lobbies, etc, and therefore the "tie" issue would be rare.)  I'm open to your proposed limit here.

I'm just gonna drop this here as a little evidence... 😉 (I'll also note that you're only considering the impact of a DECREASE which is still a significant risk, but the gamebreaking issue here for me is the INCREASE potential as there is a 25% chance for each faction holding that card to increase per satisfied lobby. The proposed limit solves both issues adequately.)

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, Cal said:

I'm just gonna drop this here as a little evidence... 😉 (I'll also note that you're only considering the impact of a DECREASE which is still a significant risk, but the gamebreaking issue here for me is the INCREASE potential as there is a 25% chance for each faction holding that card to increase per satisfied lobby. The proposed limit solves both issues adequately.)

Ha!  That's very interesting, but also I think lowers the argument that this is a serious problem.  Sure, +14 Red for Conservatives is insane...but it actually had no impact at all, because Conservatives already love the Red Party as much as anybody possibly can.  The only thing that actually happened in all of that was that the Moderates moved +1 red, to neutral, which of course is a perfectly reasonable outcome.

Of course, if we imagine a hypothetical game in which the President was blue and managed a +14 bonus to swing Conservatives from Max Red to Max Blue, I agree that's more problematic.  But is it actually possible?  You need the right politicians, with the right skill AND expertise, from the right factions, from the right party, and you need a whole ton of them.  The stars might align in that way, in theory, but probably not given that the lobbies with conservative ties probably come from the Red Party in a world where Conservative is maxed red, and you're limited in how many red politicians you can choose.  

[MrPotatoTed]

Heads up to @vcczar and others:

I've added a line in 3.0 rules about how CPU makes its decisions, after we nearly had a game-ending vote despite all the human players being united in wanting the game to continue.

"1) If a decision will result in the game automatically ending (for example, accepting non-independence peace deals with England in the Era of Independence), the CPU will vote nay 75% of the time regardless of any other considerations."

[Murrman104]

Honestly I think this example is fine because if I'm correct it's the modern day playtest. The party's are ideologically sorted and in the modern day  both sides of the spectrum are generally pretty firmly sorted and fired up most of the time.

I might still be in favor of the cap as If the 1948 playtest continues and I'm correct the cabinet will mean that both sides will keep wildly swinging moderate enthusiasm between the 2 polls as both sides are majority moderate with overlapping cards. So if/when the reds lose the 60 election and a Dem enters the white house it will be very easy to make moderates happy in the cabinet (all of us share the reformist card rn !) and it could very well swing from +3 R go +3B with some lucky rolls

[Cal]

10 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ha!  That's very interesting, but also I think lowers the argument that this is a serious problem.  Sure, +14 Red for Conservatives is insane...but it actually had no impact at all, because Conservatives already love the Red Party as much as anybody possibly can.  The only thing that actually happened in all of that was that the Moderates moved +1 red, to neutral, which of course is a perfectly reasonable outcome.

Of course, if we imagine a hypothetical game in which the President was blue and managed a +14 bonus to swing Conservatives from Max Red to Max Blue, I agree that's more problematic.  But is it actually possible?  You need the right politicians, with the right skill AND expertise, from the right factions, from the right party, and you need a whole ton of them.  The stars might align in that way, in theory, but probably not given that the lobbies with conservative ties probably come from the Red Party in a world where Conservative is maxed red, and you're limited in how many red politicians you can choose.  

It's easier than you would think, I believe, and the lack of availability for those statesmen is more of a point in favor of the restriction than against it. Very often you're put in the position where your cabinet is, at best, just sub-par even with the best choices. So between a cabinet with a bunch of 2s, 3s, and maybe a few 4s and a cabinet of a bunch of 2s and 3s that would shift enthusiasm +6 or higher in a particular direction, the choice becomes obvious that the latter can be abused to win elections far more consistently than the former. 

Even ignoring that distinction, you wouldn't actually need that high of a criteria anyway to achieve this bonuses. All you need is ONE appointment to satisfy a lobby, not a whole ton of them. The 25% chance per faction per filled post is just too incredibly gamey in its application, and if it's something that can be achieved without a ton of difficulty to get incredibly unrealistic results, that's an issue. Because it makes the enthusiasm changes from legislation, party leadership, congressional leadership, etc for years building up to a certain point essentially worthless when it can all be wiped away with a single cabinet. It just destroys the notion that there is any level of permanency to these coalitions and transforms them into a min-max dump stat if you can drastically move them as such. 

Of course, if it's more helpful, I could at least try to run some numbers for it. But I do think that the issue here is going to be that the sample size for games we've played so far is not entirely reflective. This has occurred more frequently in modern playtests because this is an issue that gets worse with each additional cabinet post. That's why we're seeing in as a greater potential in 1948 and the modern day, so I'd caution against the notion that it wouldn't be a huge issue when those eras have limited cabinet spots, and it would only become more significant if players create additional posts.

This is totally ignoring, by the way, the prospect of sharing a card like "Big Agriculture" with your entire party that has no ideological restrictions. Let's take a look at that scenario just limited to IRL cabinet posts that are satisfied by it, and assume that only one opposing party faction has the card. That gives you 6 factions that hold the card, and there are 4 cabinet posts that are satisfied by it and 1 cabinet-level post. Given that the card is shared with your entire party, you will automatically satisfy Big Agriculture for every single post by default as long as you don't spend one of your 4 non-party spots on one of the 4 opposing party factions without Big Agriculture. So it's a given. 

That gives us ((.25 * 6) * 4) + (.10 * 6) for an average shift of 6.6 enthusiasm across the ideologies holding the card. But wait! This assumes each faction holds only one ideology card, which we all know isn't always the case. Looking to the February 8th Modern Day playtest even, there are 5 factions that hold 2 ideologies or 50%. So if we assume half the factions here also have two ideologies, that number increases to an average ideology shift of 9.9 steps towards the dominant party across the various ideologies just from one lobby being satisfied. 

Of course, it won't always be as easy as a card like Big Agriculture, or even a card being shared at all. But I can think of (and have seen) tons of other examples where this can be incredibly easy to exploit, and possibly even preferential because it can cause a shift of up to +6 towards your party for a particular ideology right before an election if you do it right. (Moving an ideology from +3 Red to +3 Blue, for example). 

[MrPotatoTed]

I don’t dispute your math, but I do circle back to the realism level of the scenario.  For there to be a 6.6+ shift of one ideology, we have to assume not just that everybody has Big Agriculture (which itself never happens unless you have an iron fisted President who makes it happen), but also that all five factions from one party have the same ideology card (which never happens) AND that the opposite party faction with big agriculture also has that same ideology.

Realistically, in the extremely rare situation in which that actually happened, then surely the ideology that has 100% of the blue party in its pocket is probably already a pretty blue ideology anyway, and therefore it’s support is already maxed or close to it before the appointments even occur.

[Cal]

10 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I don’t dispute your math, but I do circle back to the realism level of the scenario.  For there to be a 6.6+ shift of one ideology, we have to assume not just that everybody has Big Agriculture (which itself never happens unless you have an iron fisted President who makes it happen), but also that all five factions from one party have the same ideology card (which never happens) AND that the opposite party faction with big agriculture also has that same ideology.

Realistically, in the extremely rare situation in which that actually happened, then surely the ideology that has 100% of the blue party in its pocket is probably already a pretty blue ideology anyway, and therefore it’s support is already maxed or close to it before the appointments even occur.

I think it's a lot easier than you would think, but either way, if realism is the concern there is no downside by limiting the shift either way. We have seen that it is possible and there's no argument for any purpose I can think of against limiting it, knowing it's possibility. (Even if we disagree as to the probability, we both agree that the rules as they are now allow for it to happen)

[OrangeP47]

Considering how much we've fiddled with these things already, I'm against any changes until the computer version almost on principle at this point.

[pman]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Considering how much we've fiddled with these things already, I'm against any changes until the computer version almost on principle at this point.

I agree but don't you think there's something to the million playtests we're finally conducting? I remember when a playtest was a golden ticket. Now people are in 3 of them. That's definitely given us new insight, don't you think? Though I agree, I am fine with whatever version we have.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

I agree but don't you think there's something to the million playtests we're finally conducting? I remember when a playtest was a golden ticket. Now people are in 3 of them. That's definitely given us new insight, don't you think? Though I agree, I am fine with whatever version we have.

Honestly, a lot of these playtests seem to be playing the game rather than playtesting.  Though to be fair, I don't direct that at Cal's concern here.  In the case of this, it's that the other playtests, namely 1840 and Teds, have counter information.

[10centjimmy]

Didn't want to crowd out this thread but I posted my thoughts on my issues related to the impeachment process under a separate post called "Fourteen Points on Impeachment"

[MrPotatoTed]

Just for awareness for everybody who plays in this era but also for @vcczar:

I've added a rule that those currently acting as Generals or Admirals (including Senior General/Senior Admiral) won't accept an appointment to the Continental Congress.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar

 

• The following offices give a 20% chance of +1 command during their time they hold this office during a war marked “Major”. Senior General/Commander-In-Chief/Chief of Staff  (Army), Senior Admiral/Chief Naval Ops

• The following offices give a 10% chance of +1 command during a major World War or during a War involving that country: Any ministers or ambassadors, including UN Amb.
  
  Copied and pasted those from the 2.3 rules.  Does this mean there's a 20%/10% chance every two years?  Or only when appointed?

Edited April 6, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

50 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar

 

• The following offices give a 20% chance of +1 command during their time they hold this office during a war marked “Major”. Senior General/Commander-In-Chief/Chief of Staff  (Army), Senior Admiral/Chief Naval Ops

• The following offices give a 10% chance of +1 command during a major World War or during a War involving that country: Any ministers or ambassadors, including UN Amb.
  
  Copied and pasted those from the 2.3 rules.  Does this mean there's a 20%/10% chance every two years?  Or only when appointed?

Over the course of a the war. I should probably mention if it is on appointment/reappointment or when a war begins. My guess it would be at the beginning of each half-term, so reappointment if a major war begins during a half-term, appointment or reappointment if a major war already exists. 

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Over the course of a the war. I should probably mention if it is on appointment/reappointment or when a war begins. My guess it would be at the beginning of each half-term, so reappointment if a major war begins during a half-term, appointment or reappointment if a major war already exists. 

Ok.  And the military positions just sit there, they don't get "re-appointed", but I assume that still counts.

One more question: the scripted event " Rev War Ends Due to War Weariness in Great Britain" has a 100% chance of firing if you've declared independence, you're fighting the revolutionary war, and there's four half-terms left until the era changes.  That means 1780, right?  The era changes at 1788, so four half-terms of two years each would be 1780.  It seems weird that there's a 100% chance you win the war in 1780, when the real was wasn't won until 1783.