Jump to content
The Political Lounge

AMPU: Should Some Gov Actions Be Scripted Events?


vcczar
 Share

Should Some Gov Actions Be Scripted Events?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you read my first comment?

  2. 2. Should some Gov Actions be Scripted Events?

  3. 3. Care to Elaborate?



Recommended Posts

Many of the Gov Actions really should be Scripted Events, which is what I initially wanted to do except until I realized we needed a ton of Gov Actions. @MrPotatoTed has me thinking about my original idea as he rightly mentions that state legislatures would probably prompt some changes. 

What I think I will do is create Scripted Events but also leave the Gov Actions in the event one wants to make the change early or wants to manually change from the Scripted change. 

Let me know what you think. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some gov actions (like the adoption of Jim crow) or other historically common actions should be done via scripted events so that the AI (or player) fail to properly introduce them "on time" they would happen regardless. It wouldn't apply to everything but 8t would still be something I could see regarding significant things governors instituted. 

Edited by Arkansas Progressive
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to refrain from voting, simply because: it depends.  I'd really want to go on a case by case basis, this isn't something I'm ready to blanket statement on.  Should *some*? Probably. If we adopt that attitude though we'll probably throw the baby out with the bathwater though.  I'd rather "fix" each action as it comes up as mentioned by testers, Jim Crow could be one, but I think we need an event formation like (if {state} has {gov - trad/rw pop} then {do Jim Crow}) Rather than forcing it on all states at the same time.  In other words, make the event happen upon the installation of the governor "friendly" to the idea being event'd (the above coding was just an example it could be tweaked, etc).  This would still allow *who* the governor is to matter, but it'd just make the things that need to be automatic... automatic...

  • Agree 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm going to refrain from voting, simply because: it depends.  I'd really want to go on a case by case basis, this isn't something I'm ready to blanket statement on.  Should *some*? Probably. If we adopt that attitude though we'll probably throw the baby out with the bathwater though.  I'd rather "fix" each action as it comes up as mentioned by testers, Jim Crow could be one, but I think we need an event formation like (if {state} has {gov - trad/rw pop} then {do Jim Crow}) Rather than forcing it on all states at the same time.  In other words, make the event happen upon the installation of the governor "friendly" to the idea being event'd (the above coding was just an example it could be tweaked, etc).  This would still allow *who* the governor is to matter, but it'd just make the things that need to be automatic... automatic...

I've wanted to really rework the CPU decision making for Gov actions for a while to kind of work this way -- prioritize various actions depending on ideologies, cards, experiences.  Also tie growing/shrinking certain industries to having relevant experience too.  But it's a significant undertaking that I haven't had the time to really focus on yet.  Open to others trying their hand at it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I've wanted to really rework the CPU decision making for Gov actions for a while to kind of work this way -- prioritize various actions depending on ideologies, cards, experiences.  Also tie growing/shrinking certain industries to having relevant experience too.  But it's a significant undertaking that I haven't had the time to really focus on yet.  Open to others trying their hand at it!

I'd be open to automating gov actions more.... as long as who the governor is still *matters* basically.  I think we're on the same page as far as that goes.  I think I have an idea, but I'd need to see the new format first and also need some time to fully idealize it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'd be open to automating gov actions more.... as long as who the governor is still *matters* basically.  I think we're on the same page as far as that goes.  I think I have an idea, but I'd need to see the new format first and also need some time to fully idealize it.

For this part, I’m not so much talking about random events but rather how CPU governors decide which Gov action to take.  Like you, I want it to be tied to their traits/ideologies in some way.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

For this part, I’m not so much talking about random events but rather how CPU governors decide which Gov action to take.  Like you, I want it to be tied to their traits/ideologies in some way.

To be fair we could probably develop something pretty good just by simming in 1840... though gov actions is something we're a bit lazy on haha.  I think if you want we could maybe focus a bit more on it the next 2-3 cycles and then present you a flow chart of improvement.  We're already "getting creative" compared to how some of you run the CPU I think, but it's an overall improvement without going overboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

To be fair we could probably develop something pretty good just by simming in 1840... though gov actions is something we're a bit lazy on haha.  I think if you want we could maybe focus a bit more on it the next 2-3 cycles and then present you a flow chart of improvement.  We're already "getting creative" compared to how some of you run the CPU I think, but it's an overall improvement without going overboard.

I’d be happy to hear any ideas for improvements on CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

I’d be happy to hear any ideas for improvements on CPU.

The #1 thing I can say right now, off the top of my head, is we're a lot more liberal with improving industries.  If an AI rolls to help the faction or party, and the faction/party has a card that is tied to an industry, we (or at least I) count that as being able to improve that industry in that state. I'm not sure everyone's doing that.  It's led to a lot of dems boosting agriculture/planation (and even some maritime!) though so far in our playtest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ah, yes, I do that as well.  Though I ultimately want to tie it to Gov experience so only govs with say agriculture experience would boost Ag or plantation for example.

Maybe that's an opportunity for a Gov action? Have governors roll for random expertise so that they have the chance to improve industry?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly "new knowledge" but these term limits/4 year terms that seem to be at the forefront of the current drive we had govs initiate if their faction was "Reformist".  We did get some passed that way.... though ironically the thing holding that back in our particular run was the factions with those cards were never elected at the specific times they had those cards, and then when they did get elected realignment gave the card to someone else haha.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...