Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah we had a big discussion about the bond being for life ( 😉 ) specifically so people can't cheese it.

I'm fine with there being a ban on proteges moving, if that's consensus of the herd.  ;c)

[10centjimmy]

8 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm fine with there being a ban on proteges moving, if that's consensus of the herd.  ;c)

What if a Kingmaker or protege shifts ideology? Does the other also shift or can it be broken then?

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Just a note that we'll eventually need to create a specific Era of Independence guide to address a few things that are unique to it. 

For example, how is "incumbent party" determined?  (Is it based on who the CC President is, even though that might not be the party that represents the majority of CC and is a pretty weak position historically?)

Are ideology enthusiasm and party preference impacts processed as normal, even though parties weren't really a thing yet?

Cabinet, ambassador, etc roles are "for life" until 1788, so is enthusiasm bonuses/penalties still processed every two years?  IE, if someone is thrilled or upset at who the Ambassador to France is in 1772, are they still ecstatic/salty about it in 1786 if it's still the same ambassador?

 

[MrPotatoTed]

We might also want to establish that certain cabinet posts, etc, give certain experience.  For example, in my playthrough, our Secretary of State has no foreign affairs experience. (He had a different experience that made him qualified for the job).  This was the case even though he was our 5-star Ambassador to France who got us our alliance in the midst of the Revolutionary War.

Maybe appointments should give "all" eligible expertises (which are already listed in the appointment phase rules) after 2 years in office?

[MrPotatoTed]

Three more thoughts on Era of Independence, while they're fresh in my mind.

1)  Need to go through the General events and reconsider which ones can fire in Era of Independence.  Some have a chance of firing even though they would never apply, such as events that call for a random senator to get something, when the Senate can't exist in that era.

2)  Continental army folds after the Revolutionary War, causing all but the Senior General to disband.  Militia Act can't be passed until the following era, so we're basically without a military from at least end of the revolutionary war until 1788ish.  However, NW Indian War can happen during that interim.  Should this be addressed?

3)  Should the federalist paper authors be required to be members of the Red Team?  Right now, it's scripted that it's Governor of New York, author of the Constitution, and a random NY delegate.  In our playthrough, Governor of New York will be noted anti-federalist George Clinton -- but as a moderate, he's not banned from being an author of the Federalist papers.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Three more thoughts on Era of Independence, while they're fresh in my mind.

1)  Need to go through the General events and reconsider which ones can fire in Era of Independence.  Some have a chance of firing even though they would never apply, such as events that call for a random senator to get something, when the Senate can't exist in that era.

2)  Continental army folds after the Revolutionary War, causing all but the Senior General to disband.  Militia Act can't be passed until the following era, so we're basically without a military from at least end of the revolutionary war until 1788ish.  However, NW Indian War can happen during that interim.  Should this be addressed?

3)  Should the federalist paper authors be required to be members of the Red Team?  Right now, it's scripted that it's Governor of New York, author of the Constitution, and a random NY delegate.  In our playthrough, Governor of New York will be noted anti-federalist George Clinton -- but as a moderate, he's not banned from being an author of the Federalist papers.

As I think about point 3 more, I recall one of the real-life authors was James Madison, a card-carrying member of the blue team.  So I guess we can't make it "red team only."

Edited May 2, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed Hopefully, I can look at this stuff on Thursday. I'm grading 100 papers right now. I can handle quick decisions, but anything requiring any sort of reflection requires me to block out more time. My guess is some of this won't change until early release. If it's game-breaking, then it's something I'll make a decision on when Anthony is working on that part of the game. 

In regards to the military. Historically, the Revolutionary Army (a standing army of regulars and militia) was disbanded. However, there was a small force, including militia, that dealt with the NW Indian War. I thought the rules established that all but 1 general or something like that is removed until a standing army comes into play. I don't think I made it so it eliminates the military completely. I would have had the NW Indian War in mind. 

Anyway, back to grading.

[MrPotatoTed]

23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@MrPotatoTed Hopefully, I can look at this stuff on Thursday. I'm grading 100 papers right now. I can handle quick decisions, but anything requiring any sort of reflection requires me to block out more time. My guess is some of this won't change until early release. If it's game-breaking, then it's something I'll make a decision on when Anthony is working on that part of the game. 

In regards to the military. Historically, the Revolutionary Army (a standing army of regulars and militia) was disbanded. However, there was a small force, including militia, that dealt with the NW Indian War. I thought the rules established that all but 1 general or something like that is removed until a standing army comes into play. I don't think I made it so it eliminates the military completely. I would have had the NW Indian War in mind. 

Anyway, back to grading.

Yep, that's how the military rules are currently. Just confirming that's the way we want to keep it.

[vcczar]

47 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yep, that's how the military rules are currently. Just confirming that's the way we want to keep it.

Yeah, that's the way it should be. It's a reason for the urgency of a federal government and for enacting new military laws so early in Washington's government.

[Bushwa777]

Noticed that Henry A. Coffeen is listed as from Illinois with alternate state of Wyoming but he lived and worked in Ohio until moving to Wyoming 

[MrPotatoTed]

10 hours ago, Bushwa777 said:

Noticed that Henry A. Coffeen is listed as from Illinois with alternate state of Wyoming but he lived and worked in Ohio until moving to Wyoming 

“Ohio”.  Or, as the rest of the country calls it “East Illinois.”

 

;c)

 

(I am aware Indiana exists, but that is just east-central illinois)

[MrPotatoTed]

On 4/26/2023 at 2:59 PM, MrPotatoTed said:

Additional minor tweaks and clarifications:

Ranking members get the same number of points that chairs do.

Finished 2.2.  May take on 2.3 later today, if I get my energy back up.  I'm zapped now, time for a nap. Ha.

 

Back to it!

2.2:  Specified that if Senate or House majority changes due to death(s), etc, in the middle of a phase (rather than from an election), the leadership offices change and they can redistribute the committees, but there are no experience gains, points, etc from this mid-phase shakeup.  If they remain in office at the start of the next legislative phase, they will receive their gains and points at that time.  (Previously, it was unclear whether you received gains/points and/or could reappoint committees if the majority party switched hands due to deaths).

 

[MrPotatoTed]

2.3 

Explained that the Key Advisor is automatically created once the Office of the President is created.  (It previously said that the office "always exists," even though they have no one to advise prior to the existence of a President. Haha.)

Specified that an iron-fisted Senate Majority Leader still has to follow all appointment rules, when they're making nominations on behalf of a pliable or passive President.  (Previously wasn't specified)

Added that a politician with Incompetent cannot be nominated to cabinet, cabinet-level, ambassador, or military positions.

Specified that enthusiasm drops for the President's faction by one for each broken promise regarding appointments.  (Previously it was by two, didn't specify whether the President or the dissed faction lost enthusiasm, and didn't specify whether it applied to each broken promise or only once).

Specified that there are no party or ideology requirements for the military leadership positions (unlike cabinet, cabinet-level, and ambassadors).

 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Specified that there are no party or ideology requirements for the military leadership positions (unlike cabinet, cabinet-level, and ambassadors).

Though if this was moddable that'd be a hell of a way to create commissars.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 5/4/2023 at 5:34 PM, MrPotatoTed said:

2.3 

Explained that the Key Advisor is automatically created once the Office of the President is created.  (It previously said that the office "always exists," even though they have no one to advise prior to the existence of a President. Haha.)

Specified that an iron-fisted Senate Majority Leader still has to follow all appointment rules, when they're making nominations on behalf of a pliable or passive President.  (Previously wasn't specified)

Added that a politician with Incompetent cannot be nominated to cabinet, cabinet-level, ambassador, or military positions.

Specified that enthusiasm drops for the President's faction by one for each broken promise regarding appointments.  (Previously it was by two, didn't specify whether the President or the dissed faction lost enthusiasm, and didn't specify whether it applied to each broken promise or only once).

Specified that there are no party or ideology requirements for the military leadership positions (unlike cabinet, cabinet-level, and ambassadors).

 

Back at it: 

2.3:  Specified that Admirals need naval experience.  We all knew that already, it was just weirdly not mentioned.

Added Supreme Court Justices to the list of individuals who will refuse military appointments unless a Major War is underway.

Specified that a Supreme Court Justice will not accept any nomination except for a few exceptions that already existed.  (The exceptions were already listed, but the fact they'd refuse anything else was previously not specified.)

Cleaned up the language about which positions get a chance of +1 command under what circumstances, and the language about how things like Geostrategist come into play.  The only actual change here is that I specified the bonuses/penalties from things like Geostrategist disappear when you leave the relevant office (for example, number cruncher gives a Sec of Treasury +1 admin.  But when you stop being Sec of Treasury, you lose that +1 admin bonus.)  The rest was just cleaning up the language without actually changing how to implement things.



 

[MrPotatoTed]

2.4:  Added rule for what happens if a President dies/resigns/etc with no eligible successor in place (for example, if the VP seat is empty and no legislation proposing a third-in-line has been passed yet).  In this instance, first calculate who the new party leader is (following established rules for doing so).  This party leader now becomes acting President -- even if the precedent that VPs become actual Presidents has already been set.  This leader will continue to follow "acting President" rules unless they win a Presidential election in their own right.

Added a rule that in that scenario (President dies/resigns with no successor), domestic stability falls by -2.

Edited May 25, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[OrangeP47]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

2.4:  Added rule for what happens if a President dies/resigns/etc with no eligible successor in place (for example, if the VP seat is empty and no legislation proposing a third-in-line has been passed yet).  In this instance, first calculate who the new party leader is (following established rules for doing so).  This party leader now becomes acting President -- even if the precedent that VPs become actual Presidents has already been set.  This leader will continue to follow "acting President" rules unless they win a Presidential election in their own right.

I feel like that's insane.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I feel like that's insane.

Totally open to other suggestions. We just needed something as even the real Constitution is silent on this issue.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

Totally open to other suggestions. We just needed something as even the real Constitution is silent on this issue.

If it weren't so late at night, I could be longwinded and basically play out exactly how I think the constitutional crisis would go if it had actually happen, but short answer:  I think it's one of these where a law is just in place by default, and that default is the pro tem (Because the VP is the president of the senate, so if there's no VP, you elevate the next highest senate guy), which is what the 1792 act said anyway so it's maybe what they were thinking of doing back then anyway with their logic in that bill, I dunno, I don't have a time machine, but that's my vote.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

If it weren't so late at night, I could be longwinded and basically play out exactly how I think the constitutional crisis would go if it had actually happen, but short answer:  I think it's one of these where a law is just in place by default, and that default is the pro tem (Because the VP is the president of the senate, so if there's no VP, you elevate the next highest senate guy), which is what the 1792 act said anyway so it's maybe what they were thinking of doing back then anyway with their logic in that bill, I dunno, I don't have a time machine, but that's my vote.

At least if I was in the Senate when Burr shoots Paine this is what I'd argue.

[MrPotatoTed]

2.4 (continued)

Cleaned up language explaining which suddenly-vacated positions are immediately replaced and which ones aren't.

Added has "can be independent" to the list of exceptions against the rule that most Supreme Court Justices will not retire unless the President is of their own party.

 

[MrPotatoTed]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

If it weren't so late at night, I could be longwinded and basically play out exactly how I think the constitutional crisis would go if it had actually happen, but short answer:  I think it's one of these where a law is just in place by default, and that default is the pro tem (Because the VP is the president of the senate, so if there's no VP, you elevate the next highest senate guy), which is what the 1792 act said anyway so it's maybe what they were thinking of doing back then anyway with their logic in that bill, I dunno, I don't have a time machine, but that's my vote.

Fair enough.  I'll leave what I have for now, but I'm open to people's additional thoughts on this (especially V's).

@vcczar: The question at hand:  What should happen if a President dies/resigns/whatever without a successor in place?  For example, if the VP is vacant and no law has been passed naming who the third-in-line should be?

My proposal: Calculate who the new Party Leader is (using established rules for doing so).  That person becomes "acting" President.  Only way for that individual to become "real" President is by winning a Presidential election.  Domestic stability falls by 2, as that person has seized power in a vacuum.

OrangeP's proposal:  It goes to the Senate President Pro Tempore.

(Open to other ideas too.)

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough.  I'll leave what I have for now, but I'm open to people's additional thoughts on this (especially V's).

@vcczar: The question at hand:  What should happen if a President dies/resigns/whatever without a successor in place?  For example, if the VP is vacant and no law has been passed naming who the third-in-line should be?

My proposal: Calculate who the new Party Leader is (using established rules for doing so).  That person becomes "acting" President.  Only way for that individual to become "real" President is by winning a Presidential election.  Domestic stability falls by 2, as that person has seized power in a vacuum.

OrangeP's proposal:  It goes to the Senate President Pro Tempore.

(Open to other ideas too.)

 

To be fair, I wouldn't be opposed to it causing a dom stab drop if you haven't formally passed the law through congress.

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough.  I'll leave what I have for now, but I'm open to people's additional thoughts on this (especially V's).

@vcczar: The question at hand:  What should happen if a President dies/resigns/whatever without a successor in place?  For example, if the VP is vacant and no law has been passed naming who the third-in-line should be?

My proposal: Calculate who the new Party Leader is (using established rules for doing so).  That person becomes "acting" President.  Only way for that individual to become "real" President is by winning a Presidential election.  Domestic stability falls by 2, as that person has seized power in a vacuum.

OrangeP's proposal:  It goes to the Senate President Pro Tempore.

(Open to other ideas too.)

 

Congress is authorized by law to provide a law for succession. So the decision should prompt a succession bill. I'm okay with the Sen Pres Pro Tempore as "acting" president untils such a bill is passed. 

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Congress is authorized by law to provide a law for succession. So the decision should prompt a succession bill. I'm okay with the Sen Pres Pro Tempore as "acting" president untils such a bill is passed. 

Incorporated this rule.  Specified that new President will immediately take office with the passage of a succession bill.  Specified that PPT's who inherit the presidency in this way will be treated the same as VP's who inherit the presidency when it comes time for retirement rolls.  Changed drop in domestic stability under this scenario to -1.

Added rule establishing the order in which to fill positions if they all become vacant at once (President first, then VP, then governors, etc on down the line).  In most cases this won't matter, but in the rare case that the order does matter, now we have something in writing.