Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[10centjimmy]

2 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Yep, I was reading along when the rule got changed. At the time, I agreed with the change but now I'm seeing a lot of frail guys hanging around.

Is that due to the older pols rolling to die first or the frails just missing their rolls?

Because if old people are taking the death rolls, maybe it needs to be opened by range in age? Instead of blanket "no more than 1 can die" it should be "no more than x under 50 in addition to however many roll above a certain age"

 

If it's just the dice roll passing, then it will probably get taken care of on average with the computer running games. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Just now, 10centjimmy said:

Is that due to the older pols rolling to die first or the frails just missing their rolls?

Because if old people are taking the death rolls, maybe it needs to be opened by range in age? Instead of blanket "no more than 1 can die" it should be "no more than x under 50 in addition to however many roll above a certain age"

 

If it's just the dice roll passing, then it will probably get taken care of on average with the computer running games. 

It's tended to be a lot of oldies just hanging around.

Polk is the main example of it recently. Matt had soooo many guys older than Polk that death was rolled before it got to him so he dodged it multiple times.

[ebrk85]

I had a ton of old guys around in the Modern test. But there also are a ton of super old people in Congress nowadays so that was more a symptom of the pols we started with.  

[10centjimmy]

1 minute ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

It's tended to be a lot of oldies just hanging around.

Polk is the main example of it recently. Matt had soooo many guys older than Polk that death was rolled before it got to him so he dodged it multiple times.

Dang oldies. 

That will only get more pronounced in more modern eras, too.

[ebrk85]

This is where the computer betas will help a lot. Seeing lots of data. There are going to be a lot of things we will need to tweak percentages and numbers on as we discover trends throughout a number of games and games running over multiple eras.

[10centjimmy]

Just now, ebrk85 said:

This is where the computer betas will help a lot. Seeing lots of data. There are going to be a lot of things we will need to tweak percentages and numbers on as we discover trends throughout a number of games and games running over multiple eras.

Sorry to my family, I will need to take some time to myself to really look at data...

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, 10centjimmy said:

Sorry to my family, I will need to take some time to myself to really look at data...

Reaction- laugh emoji and agree emoji

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

2 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Sorry to my family, I will need to take some time to myself to really look at data...

It's for science

[Cal]

On 4/12/2023 at 10:54 PM, ebrk85 said:

This is where the computer betas will help a lot. Seeing lots of data. There are going to be a lot of things we will need to tweak percentages and numbers on as we discover trends throughout a number of games and games running over multiple eras.

Yeah. A limit of 2 deaths make sense when your faction is 40-50 people, but might make less sense when your faction is 100-150 people (I’m assuming that’s how big the factions are in the more modern playtests?)

[Murrman104]

Just now, Cal said:

Yeah. A limit of 2 deaths make sense when your faction is 40-50 people, but might make less sense when your faction is 100-150 people (I’m assuming that’s how big the factions are in the more modern playtests?)

pretty much yeah

[ebrk85]

Just now, Cal said:

Yeah. A limit of 2 deaths make sense when your faction is 40-50 people, but might make less sense when your faction is 100-150 people (I’m assuming that’s how big the factions are in the more modern playtests?)

Yea we were around 100-120 in the modern test

[matthewyoung123]

57 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Yea we were around 100-120 in the modern test

Maybe we say a percentage? 3% COULD die?

[Cal]

11 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

Maybe we say a percentage? 3% COULD die?

Whatever we do, it’ll be to find out when the alpha is out and we can run plenty of tests to see what works and what doesn’t. I look forward to the change then though don’t see us realistically being able to fine tune that until we have the data to do so.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, Cal said:

Yeah. A limit of 2 deaths make sense when your faction is 40-50 people, but might make less sense when your faction is 100-150 people (I’m assuming that’s how big the factions are in the more modern playtests?)

Logical theory, but I’d counter that people should (and do) live longer in modern era playtests.  So I think the current numbers work regardless of era.

But of course I agree we may eventually adjust this once we can do a million simulations with an actual computer.

[Willthescout7]

@vcczar @MrPotatoTed @Ich_bin_Tyler @ebrk85

For CPU actions for choosing candidates: Governor and Senator each have 2 sets of rules.

For Gov it says "CPU will always try to fill the vacancy with any politician not currently holding a US Senate or US House leadership office with a priority for one that meets the state ideological bias (randomized if tied). If none exist, then any random eligible politician." meaning that the CPU will meet the bias of the state, then randomize. It also says that "25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest governing ability (random if tied), 25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest politician value (random if tied), 25% of the time they will select the eligible politician that has “charisma,” “leadership,” “likable,” “manipulative,” or “integrity.” 25% of the time they will select a protege that has a kingmaker." Which conflicts with the randomization of above.

For Senator it says " If there is a vacancy, the CPU will always try to fill the vacancy with any politician not currently holding another office other than US Rep with a priority for one that meets the state ideological bias (randomized if tied).If none exist, then any random politician" Same as Gov, but then adds: "25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest legislative ability (random if tied), 25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest politician value (random if tied), 25% of the time they will select the eligible politician that has “charisma,” “leadership,” “likable,” “manipulative,” or “integrity.” 25% of the time they will select a protege that has a kingmaker." Again, this conflicts.

We just need a ruling on which one is correct and which needs to disappear into the ether.

[Willthescout7]

To Add, 

Tyler and I l prefer the second set, and I also preferred when the Reps were just randomly selected. It allowed for some weird choices. With the first set of rules, too often we're seeing the same people run again and again simply because they have the right ideo, when there are other choices.

So I vote for deleting the first set and keeping the 25% chance of each action set.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

I like the second set of options because it adds diversity in how the CPU picks but you could add a fifth option to include state ideology so the CPU has a 20% chance to pick each option.

But if I am missing something intended in the first half, let me know.

[ebrk85]

@MrPotatoTed @vcczar @Ich_bin_Tyler @Willthescout7

While we are on 2 set of rules for the same thing- for Gov/Sen/Rep pre-primary elections it says:

• If primaries do not exist, then the two nominees in the general election will be the candidates with most number of politicians with “kingmaker” in that state. If tied, it will be the factions within the parties with the most politicians from that state (randomized if tied). 

But right underneath that it says for pre-primary primaries we should:

Pre-Primary Inter Party elections:

• Add the # of Kingmakers and proteges in the state

• Add +2 to the incumbent

• Apply any biases +/-

• Apply any election bonuses/penalty accrued

• Roll a 6-sided die

• Total the above

These are clearly 2 different set of rules for deciding a winner in the same election.

[MrPotatoTed]

49 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

@MrPotatoTed @vcczar @Ich_bin_Tyler @Willthescout7

While we are on 2 set of rules for the same thing- for Gov/Sen/Rep pre-primary elections it says:

• If primaries do not exist, then the two nominees in the general election will be the candidates with most number of politicians with “kingmaker” in that state. If tied, it will be the factions within the parties with the most politicians from that state (randomized if tied). 

But right underneath that it says for pre-primary primaries we should:

Pre-Primary Inter Party elections:

• Add the # of Kingmakers and proteges in the state

• Add +2 to the incumbent

• Apply any biases +/-

• Apply any election bonuses/penalty accrued

• Roll a 6-sided die

• Total the above

These are clearly 2 different set of rules for deciding a winner in the same election.

I believe the first option you listed is the current one.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Willthescout7 said:

@vcczar @MrPotatoTed @Ich_bin_Tyler @ebrk85

For CPU actions for choosing candidates: Governor and Senator each have 2 sets of rules.

For Gov it says "CPU will always try to fill the vacancy with any politician not currently holding a US Senate or US House leadership office with a priority for one that meets the state ideological bias (randomized if tied). If none exist, then any random eligible politician." meaning that the CPU will meet the bias of the state, then randomize. It also says that "25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest governing ability (random if tied), 25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest politician value (random if tied), 25% of the time they will select the eligible politician that has “charisma,” “leadership,” “likable,” “manipulative,” or “integrity.” 25% of the time they will select a protege that has a kingmaker." Which conflicts with the randomization of above.

For Senator it says " If there is a vacancy, the CPU will always try to fill the vacancy with any politician not currently holding another office other than US Rep with a priority for one that meets the state ideological bias (randomized if tied).If none exist, then any random politician" Same as Gov, but then adds: "25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest legislative ability (random if tied), 25% of the time, they will select the eligible politician with the highest politician value (random if tied), 25% of the time they will select the eligible politician that has “charisma,” “leadership,” “likable,” “manipulative,” or “integrity.” 25% of the time they will select a protege that has a kingmaker." Again, this conflicts.

We just need a ruling on which one is correct and which needs to disappear into the ether.

 

52 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

To Add, 

Tyler and I l prefer the second set, and I also preferred when the Reps were just randomly selected. It allowed for some weird choices. With the first set of rules, too often we're seeing the same people run again and again simply because they have the right ideo, when there are other choices.

So I vote for deleting the first set and keeping the 25% chance of each action set.

Sure, I agree the 25% chance is the better option in my opinion.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I believe the first option you listed is the current one.

It's kinda lame though cause everything is pre-ordained it's not longer a game.

[OrangeP47]

I was kinda weirded out we were doing it that way in Insanity but thought it was some kind of pre-Constitution thing.  It's not the rule we've been doing in 1840.

[Willthescout7]

Just want to point out that the second set of Kingmaker rule sets was added after the the first set. 

Personally I don't care either way, but I do see the appeal of the second one since it allows for randomness

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Willthescout7 said:

Just want to point out that the second set of Kingmaker rule sets was added after the the first set. 

Personally I don't care either way, but I do see the appeal of the second one since it allows for randomness

The first one is seriously flawed because it makes the game deterministic on the draft, which by and large is uncontrolable for this purpose by the player.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

The first one is seriously flawed because it makes the game deterministic on the draft, which by and large is uncontrolable for this purpose by the player.

Basically, it's like asking the question "Do you believe in free will" and the answer being a solid "No".  I mean, IRL that's my stance but that's not my stance for game design lmao.