Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[Cal]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

If able to allow another faction to select a platform plank, the faction enthusiasm given the choice of a platform plank will have a 25% of improving that enthusiasm toward the party.

I definitely see some room for abuse here. For example, I offer to Hestia a new party platform I was going to make anyway just for the 25% chance. I’m actually going to do that with EVERY platform plank in that scenario, and given that we are on the same team I’d be pretty certain he’d do it. That’s an issue imo. 

I think a logical limitation, without breaking the spirit of the mechanic, is that the chosen faction must select a party platform plank that BOTH (1) benefits their ideology and (2) benefits their faction.

The reason the second plank exists is to cover lobbies and interest groups. If a FACTION is selected to choose the plank, the total including the interest groups and lobbies should be a net benefit. This ALSO covers a scenario where hypothetically I am a Conservative, and I have another team member who is also a Conservative, and I give them every plank just because their choices will be beneficial to both of us with that 25% chance of an increase in enthusiasm and no downside.

Of course, I’d like to ping @Arkansas Progressive who’s had more experience than me with this part of the game, but from a play tester viewpoint I see the need for either a limitation or a potential downside to the faction giving away a free plank pick for balance. 

[vcczar]

19 minutes ago, Cal said:

I definitely see some room for abuse here. For example, I offer to Hestia a new party platform I was going to make anyway just for the 25% chance. I’m actually going to do that with EVERY platform plank in that scenario, and given that we are on the same team I’d be pretty certain he’d do it. That’s an issue imo. 

I think a logical limitation, without breaking the spirit of the mechanic, is that the chosen faction must select a party platform plank that BOTH (1) benefits their ideology and (2) benefits their faction.

The reason the second plank exists is to cover lobbies and interest groups. If a FACTION is selected to choose the plank, the total including the interest groups and lobbies should be a net benefit. This ALSO covers a scenario where hypothetically I am a Conservative, and I have another team member who is also a Conservative, and I give them every plank just because their choices will be beneficial to both of us with that 25% chance of an increase in enthusiasm and no downside.

Of course, I’d like to ping @Arkansas Progressive who’s had more experience than me with this part of the game, but from a play tester viewpoint I see the need for either a limitation or a potential downside to the faction giving away a free plank pick for balance. 

The main reason for this change is that I'm trying to reward people for choosing bold, risky platforms and not just easy-to-pass platforms. 

[Cal]

31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The main reason for this change is that I'm trying to reward people for choosing bold, risky platforms and not just easy-to-pass platforms. 

I think that the points gain thing you talked about it great for that. An alternative or additional incentive might be that a President who puts in an Era Goal and completes it gets a chance at an election bonus? Just food for thought there, I’m unsure of the balance.

[OrangeP47]

Just an FYI, I think the census/rep tabulation area of the rules can be a bit improved now that we've done other changes.  Overall now that things will be event based, things will get a lot simpler, which is good, I just think we can have some better "language precision" if we add in something like "Census changes take effect starting with the election cycle for the year ending in 2 (this part is in), industry effects affecting census changes are logged per cycle from 0 year to 0 year".  Obviously that there is bad wording, but my point being I think it was intended but not actually specified that industry changes that affect the census run from, say, 1850-1860 not 1852-1862, even though EV changes and whatnot occur in 1862.  It's early, probably a poor explanation, but hope you can see what I'm getting at.

[Murrman104]

Problem RE postmaster Generals. Many of the start date PM generals ( the one in 1916 and in 1948) lack kingmaker and so must immediately be fired from their job at the first opportunity as they lack the qualifications. I would suggest doing either
1: Giving more historic PM generals Kingmaker
2: amending the rules to allow Transport XP to hold the office

3: Allowing a nonkingmaker to hold the office with a potential penalty like rolling for controversial and/or easily overwhelmed 

 

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Murrman104 said:

Problem RE postmaster Generals. Many of the start date PM generals ( the one in 1916 and in 1948) lack kingmaker and so must immediately be fired from their job at the first opportunity as they lack the qualifications. I would suggest doing either
1: Giving more historic PM generals Kingmaker
2: amending the rules to allow Transport XP to hold the office

3: Allowing a nonkingmaker to hold the office with a potential penalty like rolling for controversial and/or easily overwhelmed 

 

I think the transportation experience was back when I thought postmaster General was literally in charge of getting the mail delivered on time.  V taught me that it was actually about handing out appointments to the President’s allies and repaying favors. It was basically the office of corruption and graft.  Haha.

[ebrk85]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think the transportation experience was back when I thought postmaster General was literally in charge of getting the mail delivered on time.  V taught me that it was actually about handing out appointments to the President’s allies and repaying favors. It was basically the office of corruption and graft.  Haha.

Wait what! It's not about the mail 😛😅

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think the transportation experience was back when I thought postmaster General was literally in charge of getting the mail delivered on time.  V taught me that it was actually about handing out appointments to the President’s allies and repaying favors. It was basically the office of corruption and graft.  Haha.

 

23 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Wait what! It's not about the mail 😛😅

Yeah the PM Gen office was corrupt as all hell. At least since Jackson. No office created more jobs than it by far. It named Postmasters in every single town. Pre-FDR, I’d assume the cabinet handed out about a few dozen jobs each, but the PM Gen was probably appointing 1,000+ people. They were naturally expected to aid the party on their towns. 

[jnewt]

Admittedly, I don't know the rules inside and out, but I was thinking the other day - wouldn't it be theoretically possible for the minority party in the house to have more in-game representatives? For example, Democrats could have so many of the seats that represent 10+ votes, but Republicans dominate the elections that represent fewer votes, leading to Republicans having weaker voting power despite more in-game representatives.

I only bring this up, because of the rule requiring every rep to be assigned to exactly one committee. The scenario above would lead to Republicans controlling the committees despite having less voting power in congress. Is there already something built-in to prevent this that I've overlooked?

[ebrk85]

1 hour ago, jnewt said:

Admittedly, I don't know the rules inside and out, but I was thinking the other day - wouldn't it be theoretically possible for the minority party in the house to have more in-game representatives? For example, Democrats could have so many of the seats that represent 10+ votes, but Republicans dominate the elections that represent fewer votes, leading to Republicans having weaker voting power despite more in-game representatives.

I only bring this up, because of the rule requiring every rep to be assigned to exactly one committee. The scenario above would lead to Republicans controlling the committees despite having less voting power in congress. Is there already something built-in to prevent this that I've overlooked?

Reps now are more spread out. A state gets one for every 5 electoral votes. So a big state like CA instead of having 3 reps would have 10.  With each representing 5 votes (plus or minus one to get to the exact number needed). So no one rep equals 10 votes anymore.

So I think in the case you are laying out that could only possibly come to pass if you has a evenly split Senate.

[MrPotatoTed]

On 12/4/2022 at 4:55 PM, jnewt said:

Admittedly, I don't know the rules inside and out, but I was thinking the other day - wouldn't it be theoretically possible for the minority party in the house to have more in-game representatives? For example, Democrats could have so many of the seats that represent 10+ votes, but Republicans dominate the elections that represent fewer votes, leading to Republicans having weaker voting power despite more in-game representatives.

I only bring this up, because of the rule requiring every rep to be assigned to exactly one committee. The scenario above would lead to Republicans controlling the committees despite having less voting power in congress. Is there already something built-in to prevent this that I've overlooked?

That's an interesting question.  I do believe that what you've described is probably possible.  In that case, it would probably be an approximately 50/50 house, where one party has more named Reps but the other party controls more votes.  So one party might have an advantage in committees while the other party has the advantage in at-large voting.

[jnewt]

53 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

That's an interesting question.  I do believe that what you've described is probably possible.  In that case, it would probably be an approximately 50/50 house, where one party has more named Reps but the other party controls more votes.  So one party might have an advantage in committees while the other party has the advantage in at-large voting.

Right, which would then give the minority party the ability to block bills in committee along party lines. My guess is that the probability of this actually happening are slim to none, however it would be an issue if it did happen.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any suggestions to address it, though. 

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, jnewt said:

Right, which would then give the minority party the ability to block bills in committee along party lines. My guess is that the probability of this actually happening are slim to none, however it would be an issue if it did happen.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any suggestions to address it, though. 

I think that actually happened to us once in 1840 and what we did was allowed the speaker to be a committee member, but I could just be making up a fever dream.

[pman]

I don't think this is a bug but something I didn't know- does a re-elected President not need to get their cabinet reapproved by the Senate as long as the President is retaining the cabinet secretaries? The rules say that the President doesn't need Congressional approval for their second term cabinet as long as they are retaining the cabinet. Is that true in real life? If so, I had no idea, I just always assumed a cabinet needed to reconfirmed every 4 years.

[ebrk85]

Yea IRL they don't need to be reconfirmed if they stay on.

[matthewyoung123]

6 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I think that actually happened to us once in 1840 and what we did was allowed the speaker to be a committee member, but I could just be making up a fever dream.

No, that happened.  It was when there was an even number in the Senate.

[ShortKing]

Just reading through some of the rules again and came across what I assume to be a typo:

If the President resigns, the new Vice President chooses whether to pardon under the current wording, I assume this is supposed to mean the new acting President, former Vice President, chooses whether to pardon.

[0ccultist]

This is a tad of a shot in the dark. While rereading the Legs rules I didn't see anything about reconciliation. It is a pretty important mechanism to beat the filibuster in the modern congresses so it is a little weird for it not to be included. maybe "Legislation that impacts the budget metric can be packaged together in a reconciliation bill that only will need a simple majority to pass," or something like that.

Edit:

adding on, to make it less OP you could have rules for it like:
1)Reconciliation can only be done for packages with 3 or more items

2)all items must impact budget metric

3)Must be created in committee

this makes it a little more rare to happen as the other team can focus on blocking just enough parts in committee so it doesn't hit the 3 items mark. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by 0ccultist

[Murrman104]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/07/politics/jaylen-smith-earle-arkansas-mayor/index.html

 

An 18 year old was elected Mayor of the small city of Earle, Arkansas, could be an interesting candidate to fill out a late draft

[ebrk85]

So in the modern test we have 11 failed cabinet nominations (and counting). Rules state Sen Maj Ldr names 5 people per cabinet spot that the President chooses from who will then be auto confirmed. No rules clarify if the same person can be included on multiple lists. So we have a situation where the Leader has named the same 5 people on multiple lists basically forcing the President to have to pick those 5 in some fashion. Should this be legal?

I do think this is somewhat of playtest issue that may not appear to be as much of an issue in game. I would assume in game you would be presented with each cabinet position one at a time. Sen Maj Ldr submits list then President picks one and then we repeat as many times as needed.

But just wanted to put this here if anyone else has any thoughts.

[ebrk85]

Delete

Edited December 8, 2022 by ebrk85
double post

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, ebrk85 said:

So in the modern test we have 11 failed cabinet nominations (and counting). Rules state Sen Maj Ldr names 5 people per cabinet spot that the President chooses from who will then be auto confirmed. No rules clarify if the same person can be included on multiple lists. So we have a situation where the Leader has named the same 5 people on multiple lists basically forcing the President to have to pick those 5 in some fashion. Should this be legal?

I do think this is somewhat of playtest issue that may not appear to be as much of an issue in game. I would assume in game you would be presented with each cabinet position one at a time. Sen Maj Ldr submits list then President picks one and then we repeat as many times as needed.

But just wanted to put this here if anyone else has any thoughts.

Interesting question!  Yes, in my personal view, this should be legal -- provided that the five nominees meet the minimum requirements of the position, which is always required.  But as always I defer to @vcczar

[vcczar]

48 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Interesting question!  Yes, in my personal view, this should be legal -- provided that the five nominees meet the minimum requirements of the position, which is always required.  But as always I defer to @vcczar

It’s not what I intended but let’s see what happens. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

18 hours ago, ebrk85 said:

So in the modern test we have 11 failed cabinet nominations (and counting). Rules state Sen Maj Ldr names 5 people per cabinet spot that the President chooses from who will then be auto confirmed. No rules clarify if the same person can be included on multiple lists. So we have a situation where the Leader has named the same 5 people on multiple lists basically forcing the President to have to pick those 5 in some fashion. Should this be legal?

I do think this is somewhat of playtest issue that may not appear to be as much of an issue in game. I would assume in game you would be presented with each cabinet position one at a time. Sen Maj Ldr submits list then President picks one and then we repeat as many times as needed.

But just wanted to put this here if anyone else has any thoughts.

For the 1840 playtest, I've assumed the failed nominee couldn't be chosen again and the list must contain all new people for that position. So in theory if you were blocked for one office, you could be on the short list for another but not the office you were originally nominated for.

[ConservativeElector2]

Questions about alternative states requirements:

 

I read that former IL Gov Bruce Rauner is now a registered voter in Florida. Should FL be added as an alternative state with a moving date of 2020?

I also read that Susan Collins served as deputy state treasurer in the office of the Treasurer and Receiver-General of Massachusetts in 1993. Should MA be an alternative state for her?

Oh and I didn't know, that Bill Weld moved to NY in 2000 and even briefly ran for Gov of NY in 2006, after having been Gov of MA already. If he hasn't NY as an alternative state it should be added as well I guess.

Edited December 9, 2022 by ConservativeElector2