Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[MrPotatoTed]

10 minutes ago, Pringles said:

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. 

 

Ah, yes.  So I'll defer to your game manager and the players on whether an actual error was made, but the fact this was a "1 vs 6" die roll situation, I'd call more of a one-off fluke than something that requires a rule rewrite.

Assuming the rest of the numbers are correct, the possibilities for Texas after a D6 die roll ranged from Red 5-10 vs. Blue 2-7.  

Red 5 Blue 2 = Red
Red 5 Blue 3 = Red
Red 5 Blue 4 = Red
Red 5 Blue 5 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 5 Blue 6 = Blue
Red 5 Blue 7 = Blue
Red 6 Blue 2 = Red
Red 6 Blue 3 = Red
Red 6 Blue 4 = Red
Red 6 Blue 5 = Red
Red 6 Blue 6 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 6 Blue 7 = Blue
Red 7 Blue 2 = Red
Red 7 Blue 3 = Red
Red 7 Blue 4 = Red
Red 7 Blue 5 = Red
Red 7 Blue 6 = Red
Red 7 Blue 7 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 8 Blue 2 = Red
Red 8 Blue 3 = Red
Red 8 Blue 4 = Red
Red 8 Blue 5 = Red
Red 8 Blue 6 = Red
Red 8 Blue 7 = Red
Red 9 Blue 2 = Red
Red 9 Blue 3 = Red
Red 9 Blue 4 = Red
Red 9 Blue 5 = Red
Red 9 Blue 6 = Red
Red 9 Blue 7 = Red
Red 10 Blue 2 = Red
Red 10 Blue 3 = Red
Red 10 Blue 4 = Red
Red 10 Blue 5 = Red
Red 10 Blue 6 = Red
Red 10 Blue 7 = Red

So something like 33/36 times (or 92% of the time), Red wins Texas.  This was just one of those 8% times, assuming the rest of the math is right.

Edited October 19, 2022 by MrPotatoTed

[OrangeP47]

Heading to bed in a minute, and I generally don't reply to the forum before or at work, so I won't be able to follow up on this for awhile probably, but a few things.

I can't really tell what I'm looking at from just that, but it seems that first screen is the bonus being applied as you describe.  If that other screen is the bonus being applied again... best I can tell would be Warner would have gotten an erroneous +1, but so did red team, so it cancels out and it doesn't matter.  But again, I can't tell anything from this that's just really wild guessing.  That said, the census doc did overwrite the original era bonuses and if any edits to accommodate that occurred there may be some confusion stemming from that.

[OrangeP47]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Quote

(Edited your quote down to save space)

Again though, I agree with this.  In a 1 v 6 I'd hold that it's fine for blue to win.  That's why we run the simulation instead of read a book.  Ya'll ever see those XCOM memes?

Edit:  I was going to head to bed posting a gif of it but I can't find a good one, rest assured it's a thing I'm not just ranting like a madman.

Edited October 19, 2022 by OrangeP47

[Pringles]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ah, yes.  So I'll defer to your game manager and the players on whether an actual error was made, but the fact this was a "1 vs 6" die roll situation, I'd call more of a one-off fluke than something that requires a rule rewrite.

Assuming the rest of the numbers are correct, the possibilities for Texas after a D6 die roll ranged from Red 5-10 vs. Blue 2-7.  

Red 5 Blue 2 = Red
Red 5 Blue 3 = Red
Red 5 Blue 4 = Red
Red 5 Blue 5 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 5 Blue 6 = Blue
Red 5 Blue 7 = Blue
Red 6 Blue 2 = Red
Red 6 Blue 3 = Red
Red 6 Blue 4 = Red
Red 6 Blue 5 = Red
Red 6 Blue 6 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 6 Blue 7 = Blue
Red 7 Blue 2 = Red
Red 7 Blue 3 = Red
Red 7 Blue 4 = Red
Red 7 Blue 5 = Red
Red 7 Blue 6 = Red
Red 7 Blue 7 = Tied, and I think favoring red in the tie breaker?
Red 8 Blue 2 = Red
Red 8 Blue 3 = Red
Red 8 Blue 4 = Red
Red 8 Blue 5 = Red
Red 8 Blue 6 = Red
Red 8 Blue 7 = Red
Red 9 Blue 2 = Red
Red 9 Blue 3 = Red
Red 9 Blue 4 = Red
Red 9 Blue 5 = Red
Red 9 Blue 6 = Red
Red 9 Blue 7 = Red
Red 10 Blue 2 = Red
Red 10 Blue 3 = Red
Red 10 Blue 4 = Red
Red 10 Blue 5 = Red
Red 10 Blue 6 = Red
Red 10 Blue 7 = Red

So something like 34/36 times (or 94% of the time), Red wins Texas.  This was just one of those 6% times, assuming the rest of the math is right.

Interesting, thanks for doing that. This very could be a 6% of the time kinda deal. However, I'll point out some other interesting anomalies. Illinois and New York were 1 point states. So in an election where the incumbent President was dealing with mass protests, a recession, a third party left wing challenger, New York and Illinois were the closest solid blue states to being red. Yet Texas did what it did. 😂

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

Interesting, thanks for doing that. This very could be a 6% of the time kinda deal. However, I'll point out some other interesting anomalies. Illinois and New York were 1 point states. So in an election where the incumbent President was dealing with mass protests, a recession, a third party left wing challenger, New York and Illinois were the closest solid blue states to being red. Yet Texas did what it did. 😂

Yep!  Of course, I'd imagine Bernie/DeBlasio played a factor there.

It's also a fourth consecutive term for Democrats.  It's a weird freaking election across the board.  ;c)  But one that is technically within the realm of possibility given the spread on those die rolls.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yep!  Of course, I'd imagine Bernie/DeBlasio played a factor there.

It's also a fourth consecutive term for Democrats.  It's a weird freaking election across the board.  ;c)  But one that is technically within the realm of possibility given the spread on those die rolls.

Just wait until after this 1 state loss, next election will be the Republican comeback with Governor David Duke who will win in a lanslide of 330+ electoral votes. I'm calling it right now. 💀

[Murrman104]

7 hours 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 primaried out 1 in PA (only for V to lose again smh), both HI reps, one in Or, 1 in NY (and lost another to a primary in NY). No Sen's or Govs I primaried won but I did lose one of my Sens (Al Franken if MN) to a primary challenge. Considering all but one of these was in a state where my ideologies were favoured I don't think it's that strange. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Murrman104

[Cal]

I think a small change to what happens in the case of no available general/admiral for a battle is needed. Just a small one, that rather than randomly selecting someone from the military track first, the first priority goes to someone on the military track with Military Leadership (as some enter the game with it, and they're very likely to be placed in the military track). 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar

@10centjimmy identified a potential issue with the "compel cabinet member to resign" executive action.

1)  Cabinet appointments are for life until a President takes this executive action for the first time.

2)  The ability to take this executive action is extremely limited -- both the President AND the cabinet member must have certain traits at the same time.

3)  This executive action expires by the Era of Republicanism...presumably meaning that if no cabinet member has been fired by then, then cabinet positions are indeed for life for the remainder of the game.

This will likely lead to the majority of 1772/1788 starts keeping life-time cabinet appointments through 2020 and beyond, as the opportunity to prevent it is so scarce.

Solution: I'd propose requiring either the President OR the cabinet member to have the relevant traits, rather than requiring that they BOTH have them.  I'd also propose removing the expiration era from this action.

 

[vcczar]

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar

@10centjimmy identified a potential issue with the "compel cabinet member to resign" executive action.

1)  Cabinet appointments are for life until a President takes this executive action for the first time.

2)  The ability to take this executive action is extremely limited -- both the President AND the cabinet member must have certain traits at the same time.

3)  This executive action expires by the Era of Republicanism...presumably meaning that if no cabinet member has been fired by then, then cabinet positions are indeed for life for the remainder of the game.

This will likely lead to the majority of 1772/1788 starts keeping life-time cabinet appointments through 2020 and beyond, as the opportunity to prevent it is so scarce.

Solution: I'd propose requiring either the President OR the cabinet member to have the relevant traits, rather than requiring that they BOTH have them.  I'd also propose removing the expiration era from this action.

 

I immediately agree with this. I've removed the expiration. I have, however, changed the trait required of the president to "does not have passive." So a passive president can't use the action, but other than that, any president can issue it, so long as the cabinet members have the required traits

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar On the one hand, I like that there needs to be a balance between slave and free states or else all hell breaks loose, which of course has historical accuracy.

But I wonder if the current system for that (3.0) needs a tweak.  It doesn't kick in at all until you add a new state, so it seems to assume that you start with a balance between slave and free states.  But in a 1772 start, that absolutely might not be the case.  We're currently in 1796-1798, and only Massachusetts has ended slavery.

Now that we've added our first new state (Tennessee), we have our first check for slave/free balance and of course it's lopsided 13-1 slave states versus free.  This has devastating effects across the board, including a huge backlash against the otherwise successful incumbent President and a 40% chance of civil war.

Not sure what the solution should be, but raising it as something to consider.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar On the one hand, I like that there needs to be a balance between slave and free states or else all hell breaks loose, which of course has historical accuracy.

But I wonder if the current system for that (3.0) needs a tweak.  It doesn't kick in at all until you add a new state, so it seems to assume that you start with a balance between slave and free states.  But in a 1772 start, that absolutely might not be the case.  We're currently in 1796-1798, and only Massachusetts has ended slavery.

Now that we've added our first new state (Tennessee), we have our first check for slave/free balance and of course it's lopsided 13-1 slave states versus free.  This has devastating effects across the board, including a huge backlash against the otherwise successful incumbent President and a 40% chance of civil war.

Not sure what the solution should be, but raising it as something to consider.

I'll add it to the To Do list. Thanks

 

[vcczar]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar On the one hand, I like that there needs to be a balance between slave and free states or else all hell breaks loose, which of course has historical accuracy.

But I wonder if the current system for that (3.0) needs a tweak.  It doesn't kick in at all until you add a new state, so it seems to assume that you start with a balance between slave and free states.  But in a 1772 start, that absolutely might not be the case.  We're currently in 1796-1798, and only Massachusetts has ended slavery.

Now that we've added our first new state (Tennessee), we have our first check for slave/free balance and of course it's lopsided 13-1 slave states versus free.  This has devastating effects across the board, including a huge backlash against the otherwise successful incumbent President and a 40% chance of civil war.

Not sure what the solution should be, but raising it as something to consider.

Here's three ideas:

1) We have the penalty not come into effect until Era of Republicanism

and/or

2) The penalty occurs only if two free states or two slave states are admitted in a row. 

and/or

3) The chance of civil war is a less in eras prior to the Era of Manifest Destiny. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Here's three ideas:

1) We have the penalty not come into effect until Era of Republicanism

and/or

2) The penalty occurs only if two free states or two slave states are admitted in a row. 

and/or

3) The chance of civil war is a less in eras prior to the Era of Manifest Destiny. 

I like these ideas, and maybe say a combination of all three.

[MrPotatoTed]

19 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here's three ideas:

1) We have the penalty not come into effect until Era of Republicanism

and/or

2) The penalty occurs only if two free states or two slave states are admitted in a row. 

and/or

3) The chance of civil war is a less in eras prior to the Era of Manifest Destiny. 

Assuming it's historically accurate, I like idea 1 the most.  We'll also need to add some CPU logic awareness that they need to balance the states prior to/during the Era of Republicanism.  In general, CPU is not particularly motivated to ban slavery in states so we end up with things like our current single player game where only one state has banned slavery by 1798.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Continuing the free state/slave state balance discussion:

Perhaps, in addition to making it era specific, we should add that it's not necessarily that it has to be balanced, but that it needs to be MOVING in the right direction?

For example, we currently have 12 slave states and 1 free state.  We're adding another slave state.  That's continuing to move the balance in the wrong direction = rioting in the streets.

But if we have 12 slave states and 1 free state, and add another free state, that's moving toward balance so no backlash

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed Doing teaching stuff now, but in maybe 30 minutes, I can start crafting something. What I think I'll do to encourage balance is one of the following -- let me know which you all think is preferable:

1. Create a Scripted Event that abolishes slavery in historically free states that have not yet freed slaves. It would pop up sometimes in the Era of Democracy, most likely. 

2. Create a Scripted Event that magnifies the points for abolishing/maintaining slavery sometimes in the Era of Republicanism. States with Plantation Economy as their leading industry will get a ton of points for keeping slavery, while states in New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest will gain a lot of points for abolishing slavery. Both at the next Gov action phase. 

3. Make abolishing slavery award more points as a gov action, but also have it somehow increase the influence of RW Activists, possibly an election bonus. 

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@MrPotatoTed Doing teaching stuff now, but in maybe 30 minutes, I can start crafting something. What I think I'll do to encourage balance is one of the following -- let me know which you all think is preferable:

1. Create a Scripted Event that abolishes slavery in historically free states that have not yet freed slaves. It would pop up sometimes in the Era of Democracy, most likely. 

2. Create a Scripted Event that magnifies the points for abolishing/maintaining slavery sometimes in the Era of Republicanism. States with Plantation Economy as their leading industry will get a ton of points for keeping slavery, while states in New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest will gain a lot of points for abolishing slavery. Both at the next Gov action phase. 

3. Make abolishing slavery award more points as a gov action, but also have it somehow increase the influence of RW Activists, possibly an election bonus. 

Sounds good.  I've actually thought a few of the gov actions (such as term limits, and maybe slavery bans) should be random events rather than gov actions to indicate a state legislature doing their own thing.  Term limits in particular seem like they'd be rarely created by human players as there's rarely a reason to do so.  Slavery bans could be included in that too -- though I agree with your idea that maybe it's a scripted event instead.  (I'd make one for each historically free state rather than looping them all together into a single event, just my personal take).

On point two, the main issue with assigning points based on state industry rather than ideology is that most factions have their hands in every industry pot.  For example, right now, all ten factions would score at least "some" points by doing something that scores for the plantation industry.  

[vcczar]

 

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Sounds good.  I've actually thought a few of the gov actions (such as term limits, and maybe slavery bans) should be random events rather than gov actions to indicate a state legislature doing their own thing.  Term limits in particular seem like they'd be rarely created by human players as there's rarely a reason to do so.  Slavery bans could be included in that too -- though I agree with your idea that maybe it's a scripted event instead.  (I'd make one for each historically free state rather than looping them all together into a single event, just my personal take).

On point two, the main issue with assigning points based on state industry rather than ideology is that most factions have their hands in every industry pot.  For example, right now, all ten factions would score at least "some" points by doing something that scores for the plantation industry.  

This was actually my original idea, but we needed Gov Actions. I'll make a poll. 

[vcczar]

3.0 Rule Regarding Free and Slave States is invalid until Era of Republicanism. 

[vcczar]

3.0 Rule specifies that there is no penalty for admitting two free or two slave states in a row if it is going towards achieving a balance. 

[vcczar]

I have created Scripted Events for state legislatures abolishing slavery, if slavery has not yet been abolished and if the Gov is not a RW Activist. These include:

• New England state legislatures abolish slavery -- they pretty much all did so at the exact same time, with RI as the only hold out for 2 years. 
• PA bans it
• NY bans it
• OH bans it
• NJ bans it. 

All of these award pts to Civil Rights but give election bonuses to RW Activists

The rest of the Free States, I believe, enter as free states, so I don't think they need events, but I could be wrong. I'll assume I'm not. Don't have time to look right now. 

[vcczar]

I've identified 5 to 7 Gov Actions that will also be scripted events. 

[vcczar]

I've now created 2 Scripted Events for popular vote in the states. State Legislature will flip KY and NC early. Then there's a huge wave that flips them all, except for DE and SC, in the Era of Democracy. 

[vcczar]

I've created many ____ States Pass 4-year Governor Terms Scripted Events.