Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[Hestia]

1 - Primary rolls (especially for House) are too easy to unseat incumbents. In the 2016 playtest, we had 5/21 races result in someone being primaried out. That's almost a quarter of races. I will also note that I was a beneficiary of the primaries in general, but I still see it's a problem. I would increase some support for incumbents in primaries.

2 - General elections are a bit unrealistic. In the 2016 playtest, Warner won with this map below. Meanwhile, Bernie was the 3rd party and there were multiple crises going on at once. Losing PA, NV and NH while winning TX as a Democrat in 2020 seems unrealistic especially given the circumstances of the race. I don't know what to do as to specific changes, but the elections, particularly in modern day, may need to be looked at more.

[vcczar]

15 minutes ago, Hestia said:

1 - Primary rolls (especially for House) are too easy to unseat incumbents. In the 2016 playtest, we had 5/21 races result in someone being primaried out. That's almost a quarter of races. I will also note that I was a beneficiary of the primaries in general, but I still see it's a problem. I would increase some support for incumbents in primaries.

2 - General elections are a bit unrealistic. In the 2016 playtest, Warner won with this map below. Meanwhile, Bernie was the 3rd party and there were multiple crises going on at once. Losing PA, NV and NH while winning TX as a Democrat in 2020 seems unrealistic especially given the circumstances of the race. I don't know what to do as to specific changes, but the elections, particularly in modern day, may need to be looked at more.

In regards to #2, what do you think the factors were that kept Warner in power if it seems like he should have lost?

[Hestia]

15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In regards to #2, what do you think the factors were that kept Warner in power if it seems like he should have lost?

Partisanship, I guess? Both candidates took hits in the campaign as to actual rolls and such, but he was the incumbent as well. Moderate enthusiasm was heavy blue. Quality of Life was good.

On the other hand, mass protests are in effect, we're overspending, and in a recession. 

[Pringles]

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In regards to #2, what do you think the factors were that kept Warner in power if it seems like he should have lost?

The only way I might explain this is his moderate platform. However, mine was pretty moderate too. As Haley I won the debates most of the time and didn’t crash. Had a lot of post convention bonuses. The scenario is honestly the closest thing to a 1980 repeat. Third party taking votes from Democrats and a recession. 

[Pringles]

Texas also wasn’t a state with any bonuses for Mods iirc. It’s a Con-Trad state I believe. Could be wrong though.

[Pringles]

Neither of us even campaigned in Texas as well… so no rolls crashed anything there.

[vcczar]

@Hestia @Pringles Yeah, until I can really detect an issue, I'm just going to assume this was an outlier. If it's a major issue when this is computerized, I can see a reason to change things because we will have more test samples. 

I won't make any changes to incumbents in the primaries until I see more reports from other playtests. 

I'm trying to refrain from making any changes if a problem happens only once or twice or three times. Because maybe it won't happen like 7 to 9 of the other times. 

[OrangeP47]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Hestia @Pringles Yeah, until I can really detect an issue, I'm just going to assume this was an outlier. If it's a major issue when this is computerized, I can see a reason to change things because we will have more test samples. 

I won't make any changes to incumbents in the primaries until I see more reports from other playtests. 

I'm trying to refrain from making any changes if a problem happens only once or twice or three times. Because maybe it won't happen like 7 to 9 of the other times. 

I think I commented on it in the other thread, but I'm okay with this election and saying that TX flipped due to the "intangible, local factors".  I mean, simply put, this looks like red got unlucky with the dice, which is why it's a GAME and thus this is exactly how it's supposed to happen.  Ya'll got RNG'd. That's how it works.

[10centjimmy]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think I commented on it in the other thread, but I'm okay with this election and saying that TX flipped due to the "intangible, local factors".  I mean, simply put, this looks like red got unlucky with the dice, which is why it's a GAME and thus this is exactly how it's supposed to happen.  Ya'll got RNG'd. That's how it works.

On a related real world situation, Bob Dole and Bush 41 won Texas in 96 and 92 with a right leaning 3rd party Ross Perot that should've pulled from their votes, right?

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, 10centjimmy said:

On a related real world situation, Bob Dole and Bush 41 won Texas in 96 and 92 with a right leaning 3rd party Ross Perot that should've pulled from their votes, right?

Since Texas is the crux, let me elaborate a bit more too (quoting you though this really has nothing to do with what you just said, haha).  What happened here is Blue got lucky on ONE state.  It just so happened that state is the second largest in the union, and therefore enough to sway the EC.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if the one state Blue got lucky with was Nevada.  Everyone would say it's an amazing map.

[Hestia]

25 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Since Texas is the crux, let me elaborate a bit more too (quoting you though this really has nothing to do with what you just said, haha).  What happened here is Blue got lucky on ONE state.  It just so happened that state is the second largest in the union, and therefore enough to sway the EC.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if the one state Blue got lucky with was Nevada.  Everyone would say it's an amazing map.

Texas and Nevada aren't the same level of partisanship. That's not the problem. And I was the blue in this election.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Hestia

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Texas and Nevada aren't the same level of partisanship. That's not the problem. 

Irrelevant as long as it's theoretically possible.

[Pringles]

47 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Since Texas is the crux, let me elaborate a bit more too (quoting you though this really has nothing to do with what you just said, haha).  What happened here is Blue got lucky on ONE state.  It just so happened that state is the second largest in the union, and therefore enough to sway the EC.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if the one state Blue got lucky with was Nevada.  Everyone would say it's an amazing map.

Whether it's "luck" or not it still doesn't dispel the fact that this is an election that the conditions were completely against the Democratic Party, yet what happened, happened. And it's not like Texas was a one point deal either. When you have Pennsylvania, Nevada (Flip), Ohio (Flip)... of the Democrat flips I'd say North Carolina is the only one that made sense. Why? Because Warner is a moderate from the area, and North Carolina going blue was completely possible in recent elections, even in the possibility of a GOP victory. 

Texas and Nevada are 2 very different states in terms of ideological preference and game mechanics in general. Texas is a Cons state with Red +2. 

Nevada is a Mod, Lib state with Blue +1. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Pringles

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Irrelevant as long as it's theoretically possible.

The only "solution" that would satisfy this "problem" is "just don't roll for Texas at all" is my point. Are you willing to propose that?

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

The only "solution" that would satisfy this "problem" is "just don't roll for Texas at all" is my point. Are you willing to propose that?

Well if you aren't willing to see that it's a potential problem it's obvious that you won't see any need to fix it. Like Pringles said, there's a difference between a 1 point eeking it out in a tough year for Dems in a tough state, versus a 4 point difference in what should've been an exceptionally hard year in a Red+2 state. The economy may need to factor more in elections is my personal opinion.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

The only "solution" that would satisfy this "problem" is "just don't roll for Texas at all" is my point. Are you willing to propose that?

I think you're missing the point we're making. Frankly, I am not an AMPU expert so I do not know what the clear-cut solution is. However, considering the effects that were ongoing for this election I do think if a pattern emerges then it should be looked into. Especially when the conditions are so bad for an opposing side. Perhaps considering a roll threshold in the event of extreme conditions such as recession, protests, any other relevant meters, etc. If the game is supposed to be realistic then I think it's a fair case to make. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Well if you aren't willing to see that it's a potential problem it's obvious that you won't see any need to fix it. Like Pringles said, there's a difference between a 1 point eeking it out in a tough year for Dems in a tough state, versus a 4 point difference in what should've been an exceptionally hard year in a Red+2 state. The economy may need to factor more in elections is my personal opinion.

 

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

I think you're missing the point we're making. Frankly, I am not an AMPU expert so I do not know what the clear-cut solution is. However, considering the effects that were ongoing for this election I do think if a pattern emerges then it should be looked into. Especially when the conditions are so bad for an opposing side. Perhaps considering a roll threshold in the event of extreme conditions such as recession, protests, any other relevant meters, etc. If the game is supposed to be realistic then I think it's a fair case to make. 

For a brief moment I did get an excited idea about "linking" states ala 538's "tipping point" analysis, but that'd be super complicated and definitely an AMPU 2 thing.  It would be an asset to election modeling though and I wonder how many other games with elections have it. TBH our "region" system is probably as good as it'll get for us for now, and is probably suitable for what we have dev time for and the overall sophistication level of AMPU 1.  Linkages/tipping points are about the only large scale improvement I could see realistically being added, however, that wouldn't hamstring anything else.

[ebrk85]

While we get worked up over the results of this one election, before we consider making any changes I would make sure we actually ran the election correctly.  Looking over the sheet I am not sure that we did.  I don't see where the meters that Hestia mentioned were factored in.  I am not saying it is wrong but I can't say its right. So just something to consider before we say for sure the mechanics are messed up.

[jnewt]

On 10/17/2022 at 5:13 PM, Murrman104 said:

Super low priority but DE has term limits on its Gov for the 2016 start and due to its low eligible pol start, we've needed to generate nominees for both parties by 2020. Adding an extra mayor or Lt Gov or two  could be worth looking into if possible (but I imagine making sure Delaware a more vibrant political environment isn't high on anyone's list of priorities) 

@vcczar I don't think I've really done anything to help with AMPU despite being a pre-order and having been on the forum forever; if you want I could help find 2-5 potential gubernatorial (and legislative?) candidates for Delaware and any other states.

Also, on an unrelated note, I feel like something should be done about involving politicians from Washington D.C. I have Muriel Bowser in my faction, but she doesn't have command, judicial, military, or admin ability. She has governing, but we don't elect a Mayor, so she's literally an NPC.

[jnewt]

On 10/17/2022 at 5:13 PM, Murrman104 said:

Super low priority but DE has term limits on its Gov for the 2016 start and due to its low eligible pol start, we've needed to generate nominees for both parties by 2020. Adding an extra mayor or Lt Gov or two  could be worth looking into if possible (but I imagine making sure Delaware a more vibrant political environment isn't high on anyone's list of priorities) 

Also, on second look, John Carney shouldn't have been term-limited. 2016-2020 was his first term.

[MrPotatoTed]

How was Texas looking before the die rolls?  Was it a D3 or D6 die roll?

We've gone back and forth on how big the spread on die rolls should be for elections.  You want realistic outcomes, the die roll should be smaller.  You want interesting outcomes, the die roll should be larger.  For example, if you go down to a D3, a lot of states (maybe even all states) will be locked in with zero wiggle room for the opponent.  Is that desirable?  Depends on if you want "realistic" or "game."

[MrPotatoTed]

9 hours ago, Hestia said:

1 - Primary rolls (especially for House) are too easy to unseat incumbents. In the 2016 playtest, we had 5/21 races result in someone being primaried out. That's almost a quarter of races. I will also note that I was a beneficiary of the primaries in general, but I still see it's a problem. I would increase some support for incumbents in primaries.

 

Hard to say.  There are indeed some elections where there is a same-party incumbency penalty in real life.  See the Tea Party, MAGA, possibly the post Bernie progressive movement?  Those are all in the modern era alone, I'm sure there are other examples historically.  The key is that it should be coming from ideologies who are frustrated with the incumbent ideologies from their party.

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Hard to say.  There are indeed some elections where there is a same-party incumbency penalty in real life.  See the Tea Party, MAGA, possibly the post Bernie progressive movement?  Those are all in the modern era alone, I'm sure there are other examples historically.  The key is that it should be coming from ideologies who are frustrated with the incumbent ideologies from their party.

To add to this, we had 2 events that gave the Populists a bonus in these elections. I think that definitely had an effect in the primaries. A +2 bonus wipes out the incumbent advantage right there. I'd have to go in and look to see if the primary upsets were from LW factions. But that makes this somewhat of a unique election this time around.

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

How was Texas looking before the die rolls?  Was it a D3 or D6 die roll?

We've gone back and forth on how big the spread on die rolls should be for elections.  You want realistic outcomes, the die roll should be smaller.  You want interesting outcomes, the die roll should be larger.  For example, if you go down to a D3, a lot of states (maybe even all states) will be locked in with zero wiggle room for the opponent.  Is that desirable?  Depends on if you want "realistic" or "game."

It would be cool if this could be an actual setting on the game once it releases tbh. It's a D6 that Rodja did and I believe the state was 4-1. However, looking back I'm unsure as to why there was a bonus for Warner in the state for being a moderate. As in the era we're in Texas is simply a Cons state. Ill show some screenshots: 

This is the bonuses area:

This is where I'm also confused ^. Given the state's ideological preference says Cons only in the historical eras tab.

This is where the D6 comes into play (For some reason I remembered it being a 4 point difference when it was announced in discord, but it appears it's actually 2.): 

 

Sure it's an unlucky roll, but given the conditions of this election I still think it's an example of a mistake somewhere down the line, the game not factoring in something as much as it should, or something else. 

Hestia mentioned that the country was in a recession, mass protests were ongoing, among other things I might be missing. 

 

[Hestia]

11 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

To add to this, we had 2 events that gave the Populists a bonus in these elections. I think that definitely had an effect in the primaries. A +2 bonus wipes out the incumbent advantage right there. I'd have to go in and look to see if the primary upsets were from LW factions. But that makes this somewhat of a unique election this time around.

I know as a moderate faction I scored at least two upsets on my own.