Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[vcczar]

I changed it to this:  Rev War is still active; Independence has been Declared; there Era of Federalism begins next half-term.

[vcczar]

Just now, vcczar said:

I changed it to this:  Rev War is still active; Independence has been Declared; there Era of Federalism begins next half-term.

fixed the typo too @MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar 

The peace treaty for the Revolutionary War calls for the President and the Ambassador to UK to be involved in implementation.  Neither office can actually exist prior to winning the war, though.

[vcczar]

13 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar 

The peace treaty for the Revolutionary War calls for the President and the Ambassador to UK to be involved in implementation.  Neither office can actually exist prior to winning the war, though.

It's now:

"Foreign Affairs Chair of CC, Amb to Fr, Special Envoy of the CC" 

I've created a legislation for the Era of Independence to name that new office. 

[pman]

I'll bring up amendments for consideration. It seems like the amendment process in the game is unrealistic in two ways (but really just one). Amendments do not have time limits in terms of ratification. If a Governor or the controlling interests in a state want to delay ratification- they should be able to do so without having Congress re vote on the amendment. Where it matters is my second point- amendments often have election bonuses. It seems nonsensical to have an election bonus attached to the midterms but not the Presidential election because the bonus is tied "the next election." I think the obvious fix is to move ratification to the gov's phase and let the Gov of a state ratify or not ratify it each term. In other words, it just stays there for a period of something like 20 years until it gets ratified.  I don't know if it's too late to make these kinds of changes but it seems pretty practical to me.

Edited April 10, 2023 by pman

[Cal]

35 minutes ago, pman said:

I'll bring up amendments for consideration. It seems like the amendment process in the game is unrealistic in two ways (but really just one). Amendments do not have time limits in terms of ratification. If a Governor or the controlling interests in a state want to delay ratification- they should be able to do so without having Congress re vote on the amendment. Where it matters is my second point- amendments often have election bonuses. It seems nonsensical to have an election bonus attached to the midterms but not the Presidential election because the bonus is tied "the next election." I think the obvious fix is to move ratification to the gov's phase and let the Gov of a state ratify or not ratify it each term. In other words, it just stays there for a period of something like 20 years until it gets ratified.  I don't know if it's too late to make these kinds of changes but it seems pretty practical to me.

Yeah, the way it works now with governors immediately voting feels very strange. Would you propose that ratifying take a governor action, or just that it be an optional action during that phase not requiring the governor to use up their action or actions? I can see the argument for both, but it seems more plausible for it to be “free” action.

[pman]

7 minutes ago, Cal said:

Yeah, the way it works now with governors immediately voting feels very strange. Would you propose that ratifying take a governor action, or just that it be an optional action during that phase not requiring the governor to use up their action or actions? I can see the argument for both, but it seems more plausible for it to be “free” action.

I would propose making it an optional item during the gov’s phase and not have a time limit as an option (meaning in theory it’s an option 15 years later if the state hasn’t ratified). I think that’s an easy fix.

[Cal]

59 minutes ago, pman said:

I would propose making it an optional item during the gov’s phase and not have a time limit as an option (meaning in theory it’s an option 15 years later if the state hasn’t ratified). I think that’s an easy fix.

This may also be better to program so that way Anthony isn’t having to consider governors and where they fit into the process in the Congress in Session Phase, but instead those types of things stay in their proper lane during the Internal Affairs Gov actions phase.

[OrangeP47]

I think the problem is balancing it with normal gov action usage, especially if several are passed at once, and getting the AI to even realize it's something they need to do, it'd massively complicate things on that front.

[OrangeP47]

Like, for example, if there's not an immediate vote, you could theoretically have Congress passing amendments faster than govs can ratify.  This requires a major overhaul for this idea to be viable and isn't something we should touch right now.

[pman]

19 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Like, for example, if there's not an immediate vote, you could theoretically have Congress passing amendments faster than govs can ratify.  This requires a major overhaul for this idea to be viable and isn't something we should touch right now.

I am not a computer programmer so I have no idea which concept is easier. What I do know is that in real life, there isn't an immediate vote in states. If what we're interested in is realism, we'd find a way to make a pending amendment an optional gov action during the gov's phase. I don't mean any of that in a snarky way- I honestly don't know which is easier and like most of you, I'd just like the game to come out but I do think making the amendment process more realistic is super important.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

I am not a computer programmer so I have no idea which concept is easier. What I do know is that in real life, there isn't an immediate vote in states. If what we're interested in is realism, we'd find a way to make a pending amendment an optional gov action during the gov's phase. I don't mean any of that in a snarky way- I honestly don't know which is easier and like most of you, I'd just like the game to come out but I do think making the amendment process more realistic is super important.

And I can appreciate that and I actually agree I just think it's the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to a support pillar while you're standing under the roof.  It doesn't matter if the resulting rubble is prettier, it's still going to crush you to death.  This phase is likely pretty close to being coded so we don't have time to change anything, and it's a major overhaul.

[pman]

nm

Edited April 10, 2023 by pman

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

Maybe you could make it a pending action for 5 turns. I know there is no time amendments irl but maybe that would be easier to code? 

The problem is more this:  Having it be during the normal gov action phase would, more or less, mean that gov can't do a normal gov action, and thus normal gov actions are getting clogged.  Also in later eras, lots of amendments are on the table.  Theoretically 4-5 could be passed by Congress per turn.  Yet another problem -  The AI won't always prioritize amendments (even after we will 100% have to rewrite the AI to even handle this if we do it).  This is at least FOUR reasons why you WILL have a log jam.

[pman]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

The problem is more this:  Having it be during the normal gov action phase would, more or less, mean that gov can't do a normal gov action, and thus normal gov actions are getting clogged.  Also in later eras, lots of amendments are on the table.  Theoretically 4-5 could be passed by Congress per turn.  Yet another problem -  The AI won't always prioritize amendments (even after we will 100% have to rewrite the AI to even handle this if we do it).  This is at least FOUR reasons why you WILL have a log jam.

Do you think 4 amendments per turn is realistic? It requires 2/3rds, I think amendments much like irl, won't be super frequent. 

[pman]

I suppose in a game when 1 player has 5 factions, it's possible to have 100 amendments but realistically, it won't happen. But I respect that this suggestion might be too late, we just want the game to be coded, haha. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, pman said:

Do you think 4 amendments per turn is realistic? It requires 2/3rds, I think amendments much like irl, won't be super frequent. 

We've done it in 1840 without much difficulty, leads me to believe it'll happen at least occasionally, especially at inflection points such as the civil war and progressive era, perhaps the modern era with these wacky ones we have that are fictional.

[MrPotatoTed]

Doing it in legislative phase was my personal preference as I didn’t like having to flip back like four phases to go remember what amendments had been proposed.  But V originally had it as a Gov phase, so it could certainly be moved back to that.

I think it should be a free action. I agree with those who say it would be hard to get the AI to prioritize it over other actions if it isn’t a free action.

I like the idea of letting amendments get ratified later by future governors.  Maybe a 20 year span?

[Willthescout7]

No more changes. 

 

How many times are we going to close changes and then immediately propose more changes? 

Furthermore, it's fine. It's not broken. It works fine. Yes, it's not exactly accurate, but oh well. Neither is all legislation being done in 1 go. Neither is everyone dieing at once. Neither is all the exec actions being done at once, or gov actions to happen all at once, or campaigns declared at once, or people moving at once, or Yada Yada Yada. This game has to make adjustments for a cohesive and coherent game flow. Amendments are one of them. 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

No more changes. 

 

How many times are we going to close changes and then immediately propose more changes? 

Furthermore, it's fine. It's not broken. It works fine. Yes, it's not exactly accurate, but oh well. Neither is all legislation being done in 1 go. Neither is everyone dieing at once. Neither is all the exec actions being done at once, or gov actions to happen all at once, or campaigns declared at once, or people moving at once, or Yada Yada Yada. This game has to make adjustments for a cohesive and coherent game flow. Amendments are one of them. 

Yeah part of me wonders if Anthony never got to work because he saw us mucking around too much for it to be worth his time.

[jnewt]

Since everyone is obviously still open and encouraging more changes to the game, have we thought about changing how alt-state politicians are generated, by adding some historical and contemporary people from ahistorical states? (If I’m not mistaken, I believe all politicians from ahistorical states, at least outside the contiguous US, are randomly generated, though correct me if I’m wrong.)

In all seriousness, I don’t think that would actually be a big change, we could still primarily use the randomly generated names, but we could get some real politicians sprinkled in as well (Puerto Rico is the state I’m thinking of right now, since it just achieved statehood in the 1948 playtest). I’d be happy to find some politicians for ahistorical states, if there’s actually support for it. 

[OrangeP47]

6 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Since everyone is obviously still open and encouraging more changes to the game, have we thought about changing how alt-state politicians are generated, by adding some historical and contemporary people from ahistorical states? (If I’m not mistaken, I believe all politicians from ahistorical states, at least outside the contiguous US, are randomly generated, though correct me if I’m wrong.)

In all seriousness, I don’t think that would actually be a big change, we could still primarily use the randomly generated names, but we could get some real politicians sprinkled in as well (Puerto Rico is the state I’m thinking of right now, since it just achieved statehood in the 1948 playtest). I’d be happy to find some politicians for ahistorical states, if there’s actually support for it. 

That's up to V and has always been in the cards but basically he's said he just doesn't have time.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

No more changes. 

 

How many times are we going to close changes and then immediately propose more changes? 

Furthermore, it's fine. It's not broken. It works fine. Yes, it's not exactly accurate, but oh well. Neither is all legislation being done in 1 go. Neither is everyone dieing at once. Neither is all the exec actions being done at once, or gov actions to happen all at once, or campaigns declared at once, or people moving at once, or Yada Yada Yada. This game has to make adjustments for a cohesive and coherent game flow. Amendments are one of them. 

If we stopped making changes months ago (as was initially suggested months ago) we’d have lost out on a lot of good feedback/changes and we would be zero days closer to having a finished game because these changes don’t actually delay things, as long as we don’t touch what Anthony has already programmed (which to my knowledge is just 2.1)

[MrPotatoTed]

8 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Since everyone is obviously still open and encouraging more changes to the game, have we thought about changing how alt-state politicians are generated, by adding some historical and contemporary people from ahistorical states? (If I’m not mistaken, I believe all politicians from ahistorical states, at least outside the contiguous US, are randomly generated, though correct me if I’m wrong.)

In all seriousness, I don’t think that would actually be a big change, we could still primarily use the randomly generated names, but we could get some real politicians sprinkled in as well (Puerto Rico is the state I’m thinking of right now, since it just achieved statehood in the 1948 playtest). I’d be happy to find some politicians for ahistorical states, if there’s actually support for it. 

There already are some, but it’s very limited.  Like probably 2-3 real life politicians max from other countries that can be theoretically conquered.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

If we stopped making changes months ago (as was initially suggested months ago) we’d have lost out on a lot of good feedback/changes and we would be zero days closer to having a finished game because these changes don’t actually delay things, as long as we don’t touch what Anthony has already programmed (which to my knowledge is just 2.1)

He's going much faster now.