Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[Bushwa777]

@vcczar I am not an experienced play tester so cannot put in to change rules but did notice something in the rule book you allowed me to see.

Section 2.1 leaders emerge you talk about career tracks and list careers: private, military, judicial, government, admin, legislative, and backroom

But then in chart spelling out possible bonuses you list them as private, military, state admin, state governing, state legislative, judicial, and backroom.  

Not really different but sometimes hard to switch mind back and forth when quickly looking up rules

[Bushwa777]

Again not sure if this goes here @vcczar but I have noticed in the spreadsheet for my game on the military tab there is 

Chief of Staff 

Chief of Naval Ops 

Both are filled (well not the latter one currently) but usually filled with army or navy as needed

Then there are several army generals which has several historical people who served in the army or air force and a couple of politicians for fun I guess

But then there is squadrons and that is supposed to be what navy?  Because some of the people we have there are army people in historical basis.  Like for instance we have John Chaffe who somehow is an Admiral at 28 but lets forget that weird fact.  He was marine corps in real life.

I guess my question or a suggested fix is to have the game make sure if a person was army they cannot be navy or earn navy points and vice versa and that should include marine corps people.  Also there should be an age limit I think with ranks not going to people under a certain age.  

[Bushwa777]

@vcczar I'm really not trying to cause problems but the way I see this game as a more perfect union is that it can be and should be better then the current situation.  We are faced in the 1948 playtest with a possible senate standoff as the blue did not, could not, appoint someone if they wished from each red faction. While that could be the way people play it I suggest a rule allowing 5 cross party appointments to be able to hit 1 for each faction

[jnewt]

I would suggest some sort of penalty for obvious and excessive obstructionism in the cabinet confirmation process. Holding the entire confirmation process hostage unless you get 5+ cross party appointments with at least one of them being State, Treasury, Defense, or AG is unprecedented, which is what was attempted in the 1948 playtest. 

[Bushwa777]

Fine 5 cross party appointments does not need to be big 4

[vcczar]

33 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I would suggest some sort of penalty for obvious and excessive obstructionism in the cabinet confirmation process. Holding the entire confirmation process hostage unless you get 5+ cross party appointments with at least one of them being State, Treasury, Defense, or AG is unprecedented, which is what was attempted in the 1948 playtest. 

and I'll tag @Bushwa777 . In regards to obstruction, I do have rules for preventing abuse, but it only works for CPU factions, as humans can be obstructionist if all human factions opt to vote against a nominee. What I'll probably do is just make it so that moderates will always support Mods, Lib, and Cons nominees, unless they're controversial. Libs will always support Prog an Mod, unless controversial, and so forth. Harmonious will always support anyone, unless controversial. I'll probably have some sort of rules based on competency. If someone has a really high admin skill, they might face even less opposition. 

[Bushwa777]

@vcczar not trying to be a problem but the red has 4 people currently with 3 or higher admin which means when it is our turn in oval office we wont be able to sweep the table ever with only red appointments

[OrangeP47]

I don't know what's going on in that playtest, I'm not following it, but I don't think we should let what humans are doing influence what we code the AI to do.  That's just silly.

[Bushwa777]

As long as I as a human can do what I want in game I'm fine

[jnewt]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

and I'll tag @Bushwa777 . In regards to obstruction, I do have rules for preventing abuse, but it only works for CPU factions, as humans can be obstructionist if all human factions opt to vote against a nominee. What I'll probably do is just make it so that moderates will always support Mods, Lib, and Cons nominees, unless they're controversial. Libs will always support Prog an Mod, unless controversial, and so forth. Harmonious will always support anyone, unless controversial. I'll probably have some sort of rules based on competency. If someone has a really high admin skill, they might face even less opposition. 

I was more so thinking of a penalty, rather than completely prohibiting someone from voting as they please. My suggestion would be somewhat along the same lines that you laid out: blocking someone 2+ ideologies away would be fine, but mass blocking appointees simply because they are from the other party could cause a decline in party preference (with exceptions for controversial appointees and appointees with significant ideological differences). 

Edited December 23, 2022 by jnewt

[Bushwa777]

1 minute ago, jnewt said:

I was more so thinking of a penalty, rather than completely prohibiting someone from voting as they please. My suggestion would be somewhat along the same lines that you laid out: blocking someone 2+ ideologies away would be fine, but mass blocking appointees simply because they are from the other party could cause a decline in party preference (with exceptions for controversial appointees and appointees with significant ideological differences). 

That works for me...just not sure how with current rules red will be able to have a fully red cabinet when we have 4 maybe 5 people with 3 or higher admin 

[jnewt]

Just now, Bushwa777 said:

That works for me...just not sure how with current rules red will be able to have a fully red cabinet when we have 4 maybe 5 people with 3 or higher admin 

You only need 2 admin to serve in the cabinet

[Bushwa777]

2 minutes ago, jnewt said:

You only need 2 admin to serve in the cabinet

Misread rules I guess. Sorry I tried to take away your right to get your people

Edited December 23, 2022 by Bushwa777

[vcczar]

42 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I was more so thinking of a penalty, rather than completely prohibiting someone from voting as they please. My suggestion would be somewhat along the same lines that you laid out: blocking someone 2+ ideologies away would be fine, but mass blocking appointees simply because they are from the other party could cause a decline in party preference (with exceptions for controversial appointees and appointees with significant ideological differences). 

I'l add this to the to do list for consideration. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'l add this to the to do list for consideration. 

I'll throw my hat in as I prefer jnewt's solution than actual manipulating of the votes.  By and large I'm in favor of making people learn by suffering consequences, rather than baby gating off the consequences.

[Bushwa777]

15 hours ago, Bushwa777 said:

Again not sure if this goes here @vcczar but I have noticed in the spreadsheet for my game on the military tab there is 

Chief of Staff 

Chief of Naval Ops 

Both are filled (well not the latter one currently) but usually filled with army or navy as needed

Then there are several army generals which has several historical people who served in the army or air force and a couple of politicians for fun I guess

But then there is squadrons and that is supposed to be what navy?  Because some of the people we have there are army people in historical basis.  Like for instance we have John Chaffe who somehow is an Admiral at 28 but lets forget that weird fact.  He was marine corps in real life.

I guess my question or a suggested fix is to have the game make sure if a person was army they cannot be navy or earn navy points and vice versa and that should include marine corps people.  Also there should be an age limit I think with ranks not going to people under a certain age.  

@vcczar wanted to bring this one up as it may have been pushed down cause of my other issue

[OrangeP47]

Fiddling with that too much would cause a pol shortage in eras with less pols. It's probably best to not touch it.

[vcczar]

29 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

@vcczar wanted to bring this one up as it may have been pushed down cause of my other issue

I'll put this in the to do list for considering too, although I thought either I or MrPotatoTed had made a rule that fixed this. 

[pman]

1 hour ago, jnewt said:

I was more so thinking of a penalty, rather than completely prohibiting someone from voting as they please. My suggestion would be somewhat along the same lines that you laid out: blocking someone 2+ ideologies away would be fine, but mass blocking appointees simply because they are from the other party could cause a decline in party preference (with exceptions for controversial appointees and appointees with significant ideological differences). 

I understand what you're saying and your proposal would stop pretty much every cabinet blockage. It would also more closely mirror reality. However I think the rules should be left as they are. A President with a strong cabinet can do a lot, independent of legislation, to move the meters in their favor. Blocking the cabinet is one of the major ways a minority party can slow down the incumbent's advantage outside the legislative practice.

If you're going to make it harder to stop cabinet picks then I also think you have to at the very least take away the potential ideological pref bonuses for a balanced cabinet, etc.  Otherwise you're basically saying that cabinet selection is just a major plus for the incumbent party. Which is why I think we should leave the process alone. It's also difficult to block a cabinet nomination in the game. You need every faction of the minority party to play along otherwise the President will get their pick. It's not easy getting all 5 factions onboard. In 1948, only 1 or 2 factions wanted to block the cabinet picks. In 2016, 3 of the 4 wanted to block the picks- we only blocked as many as we did because of an alienated faction of progressives in the President's Party. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, pman said:

I understand what you're saying and your proposal would stop pretty much every cabinet blockage. It would also more closely mirror reality. However I think the rules should be left as they are. A President with a strong cabinet can do a lot, independent of legislation, to move the meters in their favor. Blocking the cabinet is one of the major ways a minority party can slow down the incumbent's advantage outside the legislative practice.

If you're going to make it harder to stop cabinet picks then I also think you have to at the very least take away the potential ideological pref bonuses for a balanced cabinet, etc.  Otherwise you're basically saying that cabinet selection is just a major plus for the incumbent party. Which is why I think we should leave the process alone. It's also difficult to block a cabinet nomination in the game. You need every faction of the minority party to play along otherwise the President will get their pick. It's not easy getting all 5 factions onboard. In 1948, only 1 or 2 factions wanted to block the cabinet picks. In 2016, 3 of the 4 wanted to block the picks- we only blocked as many as we did because of an alienated faction of progressives in the President's Party. 

Perhaps one of the most well thought out arguments put forth during playtesting.

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, pman said:

I understand what you're saying and your proposal would stop pretty much every cabinet blockage. It would also more closely mirror reality. However I think the rules should be left as they are. A President with a strong cabinet can do a lot, independent of legislation, to move the meters in their favor. Blocking the cabinet is one of the major ways a minority party can slow down the incumbent's advantage outside the legislative practice.

If you're going to make it harder to stop cabinet picks then I also think you have to at the very least take away the potential ideological pref bonuses for a balanced cabinet, etc.  Otherwise you're basically saying that cabinet selection is just a major plus for the incumbent party. Which is why I think we should leave the process alone. It's also difficult to block a cabinet nomination in the game. You need every faction of the minority party to play along otherwise the President will get their pick. It's not easy getting all 5 factions onboard. In 1948, only 1 or 2 factions wanted to block the cabinet picks. In 2016, 3 of the 4 wanted to block the picks- we only blocked as many as we did because of an alienated faction of progressives in the President's Party. 

I'll put this in my to do notes as well. 

[pman]

I do think the LW Media/RW Media lobbies are too valuable in the game. (Correct me if I am wrong) They're the only lobbies that give an automatic +1 across the board, both in the primaries and in the general, regardless of the state/region. 

We could have a fun historical debate on whether or not that's merited. For example you could make a case that the business lobby has been way more important across American history. However, regardless of historical rationale, once we get to player vs computer, having the LW/RW Media card as a +1 will make it pretty easy for the player to game the system. We'll all just draft for the card because that one lobby is so important. It seems like that +1 is often vital in primaries (moreso than in general elections where more factors come into play). Just my two cents but it's something I've noticed across playtests.

I suppose a compromise fix could be to give the LW/RW Media card holders +1 in the general but not in primaries. It just seems to have such a weighted importance in primaries.

Edited December 28, 2022 by pman

[Rezi]

36 minutes ago, pman said:

I do think the LW Media/RW Media lobbies are too valuable in the game. (Correct me if I am wrong) They're the only lobbies that give an automatic +1 across the board, both in the primaries and in the general, regardless of the state/region. 

We could have a fun historical debate on whether or not that's merited. For example you could make a case that the business lobby has been way more important across American history. However, regardless of historical rationale, once we get to player vs computer, having the LW/RW Media card as a +1 will make it pretty easy for the player to game the system. We'll all just draft for the card because that one lobby is so important. It seems like that +1 is often vital in primaries (moreso than in general elections where more factors come into play). Just my two cents but it's something I've noticed across playtests.

I suppose a compromise fix could be to give the LW/RW Media card holders +1 in the general but not in primaries. It just seems to have such a weighted importance in primaries.

What if we changed it so the +1 in the primaries didn't come into effect until say, the Era of the Neocons? Because in the modern day, weighted media can definitely shape the primaries, as we can most commonly see with right wing networks supporting candidates. I'm not sure if that was so much a phenomenon in the past, though.

[ShortKing]

10 minutes ago, Rezi said:

What if we changed it so the +1 in the primaries didn't come into effect until say, the Era of the Neocons? Because in the modern day, weighted media can definitely shape the primaries, as we can most commonly see with right wing networks supporting candidates. I'm not sure if that was so much a phenomenon in the past, though.

This might be too convoluted to implement at this point, but what about a 50%+1 for lobbies like LW/RW media, labor unions, big business, etc across the board and then maybe 75%+1 for lobbies that match the leading industry in a given state? So like candidates from the faction with big agriculture are favored in the primaries in Nebraska and candidates from the faction with big oil are favored in Alaska.

I definitely think giving an automatic bonus to just media cards is off for gameplay reasons and historical context, even just this year I can name primaries more impacted by what candidates got labor unions to mobilize for their candidate and races where business groups like Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth had more of an impact. 

[OrangeP47]

I think the thing is the cards shift quite often, so it's not like you're going to hold onto it.  One player isn't going to get those bonuses all the time.  A lot of different players will get those bonuses for maybe a cycle or two at a time.