What AMPU Can Borrow from Victoria 3

[vcczar]

Here's a thread for people who are playing V3. Is there anything in V3 that should be considered for AMPU?

@themiddlepolitical @Pringles @DakotaHale @MrPotatoTed and anyone else?

[matthewyoung123]

On 10/25/2022 at 2:09 PM, vcczar said:

Here's a thread for people who are playing V3. Is there anything in V3 that should be considered for AMPU?

@themiddlepolitical @Pringles @DakotaHale @MrPotatoTed and anyone else?

I'm planning to buy this weekend...

[vcczar]

Hopefully @themiddlepoliticalcould add some suggestions. 

[themiddlepolitical]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Hopefully @themiddlepoliticalcould add some suggestions. 

I think a lot of the stuff i’d suggest AMPU already covers, and the things i do have suggestions of would be a AMPU 2 thing. For example the interest group (+them already having an ideology) dynamically joining and forming parties is probably one of my favorite things in vicky 3

 

Started with Whigs vs Dems

Went to whigs vs dems vs communists vs peoples

The interest group in the people’s party joined the communists

The farmers declared they would forever be communist lead (Former people’s party)

The whig party is now a third party basically getting 1% or less in the last 2 elections,

With the top two being dems and communists.

[vcczar]

19 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

For example the interest group (+them already having an ideology) dynamically joining and forming parties is probably one of my favorite things in vicky 3

Yeah, I had something in mind before V3 was created that was somewhat similar, but then I realized it was too complex and scrapped it. 

[vcczar]

I'm thinking about borrowing these from V3 (I've renamed them) to include as Gov Actions:

• Improve Infrastructure 
  • I'm not not quite sure what it will do yet. 
• Advocate Nationalism
  • Not quite sure what it will do yet, but it will score points for nationalists. 
• Advocate Social Mobility
  • Not quite sure what it will do yet, but it will score points for Civil Rights and LW Activists. 
• Advocate Environmentalism
  • Helps with climate change
• Advocate Military Service
  • Helps with mil prep
• Encourage Domestic Migration
  • It will probably allow for a chance of increasing their population at the expense of a random state in a bordering region. 
• Encourage Immigration
  • I'm not quite sure what it will do yet, other than potentiall increasing the population. Nationalists will hate it. 

If you see anything else from V3 that we could adapt, let me know. 

[OrangeP47]

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm thinking about borrowing these from V3 (I've renamed them) to include as Gov Actions:

• Improve Infrastructure 
  • I'm not not quite sure what it will do yet. 
• Advocate Nationalism
  • Not quite sure what it will do yet, but it will score points for nationalists. 
• Advocate Social Mobility
  • Not quite sure what it will do yet, but it will score points for Civil Rights and LW Activists. 
• Advocate Environmentalism
  • Helps with climate change
• Advocate Military Service
  • Helps with mil prep
• Encourage Domestic Migration
  • It will probably allow for a chance of increasing their population at the expense of a random state in a bordering region. 
• Encourage Immigration
  • I'm not quite sure what it will do yet, other than potentiall increasing the population. Nationalists will hate it. 

If you see anything else from V3 that we could adapt, let me know. 

Like these.  Will say, I think in general it's thought more gov actions that affect meters are needed.  There's a few, but they're generally non-repeatible, such as build mil academy and build roads, bridges, canals, etc, so once you pop them circa 1800 or on admission, inevitably, that state is just spent as far as helping meters forever.  I think if these ones above are added as new things that'd help a lot.  Also anything that messes with the census is great.  It's only 1856 but I'm itching to do the 1860 census already because we have over 30 possible ahistorical EVs to roll for (I've crunched the numbers, this isn't an unrealistic amount of population shift, don't worry).

[MrPotatoTed]

Off topic, but as the census was brought up.  @vcczar:  I wonder if the "alternate census" rules should be replacing the historical census instead of building upon it.

For example, in our single player game, we had Cotton Gin and whatever the other related big cotton plantation event was occur at the same time.  This spreads plantation industry damned near everywhere, and +11 EVs in the next census (spread out across multiple states, of course).

That alone may be fine and even historically accurate, I don't know.  But my concern is that this is going to be +11 EV "on top of" the historical gains.  So there's a historical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin, stacked on top of the ahistorical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin.  It's double-dipping, and will lead to a US Population/electoral votes approximately double what it is in real life in the long term.

I'd propose we get rid of the historical census and move entirely to the new census system -- along with random and/or scripted events giving population growth/decline to more states.

[vcczar]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

Off topic, but as the census was brought up.  @vcczar:  I wonder if the "alternate census" rules should be replacing the historical census instead of building upon it.

For example, in our single player game, we had Cotton Gin and whatever the other related big cotton plantation event was occur at the same time.  This spreads plantation industry damned near everywhere, and +11 EVs in the next census (spread out across multiple states, of course).

That alone may be fine and even historically accurate, I don't know.  But my concern is that this is going to be +11 EV "on top of" the historical gains.  So there's a historical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin, stacked on top of the ahistorical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin.  It's double-dipping, and will lead to a US Population/electoral votes approximately double what it is in real life in the long term.

I'd propose we get rid of the historical census and move entirely to the new census system -- along with random and/or scripted events giving population growth/decline to more states.

I’ll need a solid hour to see if that’s historically viable. Hopefully can do that tomorrow. 

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Off topic, but as the census was brought up.  @vcczar:  I wonder if the "alternate census" rules should be replacing the historical census instead of building upon it.

For example, in our single player game, we had Cotton Gin and whatever the other related big cotton plantation event was occur at the same time.  This spreads plantation industry damned near everywhere, and +11 EVs in the next census (spread out across multiple states, of course).

That alone may be fine and even historically accurate, I don't know.  But my concern is that this is going to be +11 EV "on top of" the historical gains.  So there's a historical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin, stacked on top of the ahistorical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin.  It's double-dipping, and will lead to a US Population/electoral votes approximately double what it is in real life in the long term.

I'd propose we get rid of the historical census and move entirely to the new census system -- along with random and/or scripted events giving population growth/decline to more states.

Before we make any changes, let me run the numbers.... but this weekend, about to go to bed.  As I've said I've prerun the numbers for 1860 for us and it's not a problem.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Before we make any changes, let me run the numbers.... but this weekend, about to go to bed.  As I've said I've prerun the numbers for 1860 for us and it's not a problem.

For reference, the rate of ahistorical gain seems to be about 1% per 10 years which isn't that bad and I don't think it's worth fussing about.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Before we make any changes, let me run the numbers.... but this weekend, about to go to bed.  As I've said I've prerun the numbers for 1860 for us and it's not a problem.

K let me know when you’ve done this. 

[vcczar]

15 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Off topic, but as the census was brought up.  @vcczar:  I wonder if the "alternate census" rules should be replacing the historical census instead of building upon it.

For example, in our single player game, we had Cotton Gin and whatever the other related big cotton plantation event was occur at the same time.  This spreads plantation industry damned near everywhere, and +11 EVs in the next census (spread out across multiple states, of course).

That alone may be fine and even historically accurate, I don't know.  But my concern is that this is going to be +11 EV "on top of" the historical gains.  So there's a historical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin, stacked on top of the ahistorical census boost for things like the Cotton Gin.  It's double-dipping, and will lead to a US Population/electoral votes approximately double what it is in real life in the long term.

I'd propose we get rid of the historical census and move entirely to the new census system -- along with random and/or scripted events giving population growth/decline to more states.

I reread this and I thought I had something in place to equalize the votes. So it doesn’t double the EVs. Historical and alternate boosts would just be calculated together and it would be measured to the historical # of EVs. So MS wouldn’t have like, say 25 EVs if it gets +22 from events, when it historically got 3. For the next census, if there should be 180 total EVs in the nation and the combined censuses show a 320 EVs. It would be remeasured to equal 180. So that 25 for MS would probably come out closer to 12 in the new census period. 

[OrangeP47]

40 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I reread this and I thought I had something in place to equalize the votes. So it doesn’t double the EVs. Historical and alternate boosts would just be calculated together and it would be measured to the historical # of EVs. So MS wouldn’t have like, say 25 EVs if it gets +22 from events, when it historically got 3. For the next census, if there should be 180 total EVs in the nation and the combined censuses show a 320 EVs. It would be remeasured to equal 180. So that 25 for MS would probably come out closer to 12 in the new census period. 

That's not how we've been interpreting it unless a capping legislation is in place, but again, it's not a problem from my preliminary numbers.  Between the 1840 and 1850 census in our game, the US got a total of 3 extra congressional districts for a total of 180,000 additional population.  Granted, that was a decade of poor economy. For reference though, this is like a 0.5% population gain that didn't occur IRL, so it's really nothing to worry about.  I'm going to run the estimate for 1860 in a few hours.

Edited October 28, 2022 by OrangeP47

[vcczar]

These are going to be the new gov actions. Names w/ start dates. I'll fill out the rest later. These are mainly to boost politicians with related interests or to help boost meters. 

Advocate Nationalism	Era of Nationalism
Advocate Social Mobility	Era of Progressivism
Advocate Traditional Family Values	Era of Neocons
Advocate a Return to the Good Ol' Days	Era of the Gilded Age
Advocate Environmentalism	Era of Terror
Advocate Equity for Blacks	Era of the Nuclear Age
Advocate Political Reform	Era of the Gilded Age
Advocate Military Service	Era of Federalism
Advocate Isolationism	Era of Progressivism
Advocate US Exceptionalism	Era of Progressivism
Encourage Domestic Migration	Era of Federalism

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I reread this and I thought I had something in place to equalize the votes. So it doesn’t double the EVs. Historical and alternate boosts would just be calculated together and it would be measured to the historical # of EVs. So MS wouldn’t have like, say 25 EVs if it gets +22 from events, when it historically got 3. For the next census, if there should be 180 total EVs in the nation and the combined censuses show a 320 EVs. It would be remeasured to equal 180. So that 25 for MS would probably come out closer to 12 in the new census period. 

Ok, I don’t think it’s actually written that way, but we’ll be at 1800 in a week or two and I’ll give this a test spin.

[vcczar]

17 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ok, I don’t think it’s actually written that way, but we’ll be at 1800 in a week or two and I’ll give this a test spin.

It says it somewhere, I just don't know where it says it. Could be in a spreadsheet or maybe it was accidentally deleted. I could see myself deleting it to rearrange something and then forgetting to put it back in. It may be in 3.0 somewhere. If you test it out, I'll put it in 3.0 if it isn't already there. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It says it somewhere, I just don't know where it says it. Could be in a spreadsheet or maybe it was accidentally deleted. I could see myself deleting it to rearrange something and then forgetting to put it back in. It may be in 3.0 somewhere. If you test it out, I'll put it in 3.0 if it isn't already there. 

The only thing about equalizing votes IIRC is if a cap law is in place, which IMO is as it should be and how we agreed it was going to be when we had this conversation last time.

[vcczar]

25 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

The only thing about equalizing votes IIRC is if a cap law is in place, which IMO is as it should be and how we agreed it was going to be when we had this conversation last time.

Yeah, it would basically be a cap. That's what the equalizing is, unless you're suggesting that, say DE should never be able to surpass, say 30 EVs or something. 

[OrangeP47]

@vcczar @MrPotatoTed

Okay, here's an in depth report on the 1850 and 1860 (estimated) census from our game. Please note, it's only 1856 in game, so the 1860 figures are sort of the numbers you'd get from wikipedia between cycles that are from the American Family Survey or whatever.

IOTL The US had a population of 23,191,876 in 1850. Our census came out to roughly 23,371,876, or 100.78% of the OTL's population.  This really isn't a concern for game balance as you can see, but to be fair the 1840s were a really bad decade economically in our sim.  Indeed, realistically, we probably should have come in below 100% of actual 1850 population if we were just to eyeball a number, but this is what the system produced. For calculation purposes, IOTL there were 234 Congressional Districts as a result of the 1850 census and our census produced 236.

For 1860, we're on course for an ESTIMATED increase of 11 more Congressional districts (on average) for a total of 13 additional districts since 1840 (the 11 are since 1850). This doesn't count historical increases.  Counting them, it would mean the historic US apportionment in 1860 gave 241 seats and we'd have 254.  These 11 extra seats represents an addition 1.32 million people in the country, which at first sounds like a lot, but the 50s so far has been a boom time and is probably realistic, plus it still isn't that great percentage wise. The real 1860 census enumerated 31,443,322 people in the US, and ours would enumerate 32,943,322.  This is a 104.77% increase over OTL, but also that figure had nearly a 1% head start from 1850.  It's not terribly a big deal.  I see you are concerned with the run away, exponential effect, which WOULD be true if this was actually simulating population growth, but it's not, it's simulating congressional districts, and how many people per congressional district has increased over time, so each census the effect is blunted.  Yeah, you're adding more and more people for the same number of congressional districts each time if you add, say 10 each time, but you have an even larger pool of *existing* congressional districts that are also ballooning which reduces the effect.

[OrangeP47]

15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, it would basically be a cap. That's what the equalizing is, unless you're suggesting that, say DE should never be able to surpass, say 30 EVs or something. 

I'm just stating the state of the rules.  There's no equalizing unless congress passes something under what we have right now, though personally that's how I like it and I think it's fine.

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm just stating the state of the rules.  There's no equalizing unless congress passes something under what we have right now, though personally that's how I like it and I think it's fine.

Ok, I won't fix it then. 

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

@vcczar @MrPotatoTed

Okay, here's an in depth report on the 1850 and 1860 (estimated) census from our game. Please note, it's only 1856 in game, so the 1860 figures are sort of the numbers you'd get from wikipedia between cycles that are from the American Family Survey or whatever.

IOTL The US had a population of 23,191,876 in 1850. Our census came out to roughly 23,371,876, or 100.78% of the OTL's population.  This really isn't a concern for game balance as you can see, but to be fair the 1840s were a really bad decade economically in our sim.  Indeed, realistically, we probably should have come in below 100% of actual 1850 population if we were just to eyeball a number, but this is what the system produced. For calculation purposes, IOTL there were 234 Congressional Districts as a result of the 1850 census and our census produced 236.

For 1860, we're on course for an ESTIMATED increase of 11 more Congressional districts (on average) for a total of 13 additional districts since 1840 (the 11 are since 1850). This doesn't count historical increases.  Counting them, it would mean the historic US apportionment in 1860 gave 241 seats and we'd have 254.  These 11 extra seats represents an addition 1.32 million people in the country, which at first sounds like a lot, but the 50s so far has been a boom time and is probably realistic, plus it still isn't that great percentage wise. The real 1860 census enumerated 31,443,322 people in the US, and ours would enumerate 32,943,322.  This is a 104.77% increase over OTL, but also that figure had nearly a 1% head start from 1850.  It's not terribly a big deal.  I see you are concerned with the run away, exponential effect, which WOULD be true if this was actually simulating population growth, but it's not, it's simulating congressional districts, and how many people per congressional district has increased over time, so each census the effect is blunted.  Yeah, you're adding more and more people for the same number of congressional districts each time if you add, say 10 each time, but you have an even larger pool of *existing* congressional districts that are also ballooning which reduces the effect.

Exceptional work! Thanks!

[OrangeP47]

Now would probably be a good time to mention in Grad School my favorite professor said the easiest way in our field to get set for life was graduate in a year ending with 9 or 0 and join the Census Bureau.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

It says it somewhere, I just don't know where it says it. Could be in a spreadsheet or maybe it was accidentally deleted. I could see myself deleting it to rearrange something and then forgetting to put it back in. It may be in 3.0 somewhere. If you test it out, I'll put it in 3.0 if it isn't already there. 

There's actually multiple rules in 3.0 for calculating EVs, in multiple sections.  Here's the first set:

 

• First check to see if you are in a census election. A census election is the first election after a decade. Thus, the 1860 election does not calculate new EVs because that is the decade year, but the 1862 midterm will calculate new EVs and new US Reps. 

• Use the historical EVs for an election modified by any events or actions that might have altered the historical number.  Therefore, if Ohio historically had 21 EVs in 1864, but your Ohio happens to have 19 EVs, then the historical number of 22 EVs for 1872, should be 20 in your game, because your Ohio is 2 EVs behind the historical value. 

• If a state joins before they did historically, then give that state 3 EVs and add it to the historical EVs for that election. 

• If a state has not yet joined when they did historically, then simply erase their EVs from the historical EVs for that election. 

• See the spreadsheet for ahistorical state EVs

There's also 3.0 rules on calculating number of Reps per state, but they also don't reference a cap.

Then there's a second set of rules later in 3.0.

 

The US Census will automatically be in play when the US Constitution is adopted, and the new census effects will be visible at the beginning of every Half-Term of a US Census Year. That is, the half-term in which an election will end with a 2, so 1792, 1802, 1812, 1822, 1832, and so forth, will show new or lost seats/EVs for each state for the upcoming election. The old census US House seats will be held by the incumbents until this election takes place, then the new seats are applied. 

 

• First, apply historical census changes. By adding the +/- that historically occurred to whatever the EVs are currently at.  

• Secondly, apply any adjustments to the EVs for states based on Scripted Events

  • Scripted Events regarding “Indian Removal” are the primary Scripted Events that will affect state growth. 

• Thirdly, apply an adjustment to the EVs for Industry shifts: 

  • If an industry is improved twice within 10 years, then there’s a 25% chance of +1 EV in that state at the next election under a new census. 

  • If a state becomes the new leader in an industry, then there’s a 25% chance of +1 EV in that state at the next election under a new census. 

  • If a state’s primary industry changes to a new industry, then there’s a 10% chance of +1 EV in that state at the next election under a new census. 

  • If a state industry decreases twice within 10 years, then there’s a 25% chance of -1 EV in that state at the next election under a new census. 

  • If a state is replaced as the state leader in an industry then there’s a 25% chance of -1 EV in that state at the next election under a new census.

• Fourthly, apply any adjustments to the EVs based on legis props:

  • The US Constitutional Convention might start off with some major adjustments because of the slavery question. 

• Fifth, add up the total # of EVs for every state, ensuring no state falls below 3 EVs. 

• Set the number of EVs based on the US House Cap total, if one exists, and the total number of EVs you’ve calculated above:

  • If no cap exists, then this process doesn’t need to be done. 

  • If a cap exists, then compare the EVs you’ve calculated above to the House Cap + the number of states x 2 to take into account the US Senators. (Do not count DC’s, the Moon’s, or Mars’s EVs). You’ll have to get your number in compliance by addition or subtraction. Randomly add/subtract EVs, ensuring that no state loses or gains two times as many EVs as any other state in this process. Also, no state should fall below 3 EVs when it is done. 

• You should now have EVs for every state. 
  
  It, too, doesn't reference there being a max or otherwise capping it unless there's a House Cap in place.
  
  Then there's a second set of rules for determining Reps again too.  Haha.