What AMPU Can Borrow from Victoria 3

[OrangeP47]

Just had a thought.  Two thoughts, really.  One, I'm just going to keep posting in a stream of conciousness and you will all have to deal with it.  Two, here's another potential solution:  Soft cap - instead of capping how many reps there are total, cap how many possible ahistorical gains/losses there are each cycle and make the states fight over them.  Say we want to keep each census cycle within 105% of historical baseline.  That'd be like 8 reps for Ted here.  If the rolls say 6 EV gains, that's good, everyone gets them, but if the rolls say 10, then roll 2 random states to steal an EV from, that's actually probably more in the spirit of redistributing EVs than what we're doing anyway, but I like it because the cap "resets" every census.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

Okay, here's the quick math for Ted's 1800 census.

Your 1800 population is 5,658,483, that is 350,000 higher than IOTL, for an increase to 106.59% from historical baseline.  I wouldn't call that too concerning.

Again, for one census, sure.  But it keeps growing with every census, under the current system.  Over the course of 200+ Years, the us population will be about 150% of what it’s supposed to be, if I’m mathing right.

[OrangeP47]

 

4 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Again, for one census, sure.  But it keeps growing with every census, under the current system.  Over the course of 200+ Years, the us population will be about 150% of what it’s supposed to be, if I’m mathing right.

I don't really have a problem with that number in 2022.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

 

I don't really have a problem with that number in 2022.

Actually hol' up @MrPotatoTed@vcczar

If we don't have the cap in 1920, Ted's 643 CD would result in a US pop of .... 192 million..... LESS than the current US population by like 150 million....

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Actually hol' up @MrPotatoTed@vcczar

If we don't have the cap in 1920, Ted's 643 CD would result in a US pop of .... 192 million..... LESS than the current US population by like 150 million....

This is because capping the house exploded how many citizens there are per congressional district.  If historically it'd never been capped and numbers had been kept reasonable, there'd be a lot less people per CD....  We've all been ignoring this fact in this discussion.

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

 

I don't really have a problem with that number in 2022.

If it makes sense in the context of the game, sure.  But in this case, the population is growing by 150% due to…things that happened in the real world that only took it to 100%.

[OrangeP47]

Here, this is what I need you to look at.

As you can see, historically, when the cap was placed in 1920, the number of people per district skyrocketed.  If the cap is never passed, that never factors is.

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Actually hol' up @MrPotatoTed@vcczar

If we don't have the cap in 1920, Ted's 643 CD would result in a US pop of .... 192 million..... LESS than the current US population by like 150 million....

That doesn’t make sense, when it’s growing every decade.  I don’t think your math is holding up, haha

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Good point.  Also the possibility that you have way more or way fewer states than historical censuses had.  So for "Historical total" it should be the historical total of whatever states are currently active.  If TN isn't a state in my game, then TN's historical EVs don't count for the historical census.

If Canada is part of the US, then you'd include Canada's (fictional) historical EV for that decade.  I believe @vcczar has already populated that.  

So the cap goes up and down depending on what states are in play (if we do a cap at all)

and @OrangeP47

My plan was just equalize it historically regardless of the number of states. So 538 EVs if it is the max # of states or the minimum # in 2022. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

That doesn’t make sense, when it’s growing every decade.  I don’t think your math is holding up, haha

No, it's exactly how it works.  In an uncapped world, the point of adding so many districts would be to keep the number of citizens per CD down.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

No, it's exactly how it works.  In an uncapped world, the point of adding so many districts would be to keep the number of citizens per CD down.

 

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

No, it's exactly how it works.  In an uncapped world, the point of adding so many districts would be to keep the number of citizens per CD down.

I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree on this, because we’re not talking about the same thing. Ha.  You’re talking how many people are in each House district, I’m not worried about that at all — especially as every house district isn’t in the game anyway

[OrangeP47]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

 

I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree on this, because we’re not talking about the same thing. Ha.  You’re talking how many people are in each House district, I’m not worried about that at all — especially as every house district isn’t in the game anyway

Every house district is in the game for this purpose and this projection however.  This is the only way to project population.  If you don't accept my figures, you can't accept the 150% position either though. In an uncapped world it wouldn't be 150% because the formula would change.

[OrangeP47]

Here, from someone that's not me:  This is actually a debate IRL about uncapping the house, and 538 projected that if the house remained uncapped we should have 692 seats in the House (a bit more than your projection) if you don't want to read the whole article.  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

Here, from someone that's not me:  This is actually a debate IRL about uncapping the house, and 538 projected that if the house remained uncapped we should have 692 seats in the House (a bit more than your projection) if you don't want to read the whole article.  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/

That's a separate thing, though.  "A world with no limits on number of Reps/EVs."

Even if you bring in the cap in 1929 in my game, I'm still going to have +117 EVs more than the real world did in 1929.

[OrangeP47]

10 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

That's a separate thing, though.  "A world with no limits on number of Reps/EVs."

Even if you bring in the cap in 1929 in my game, I'm still going to have +117 EVs more than the real world did in 1929.

I guess I just fail to see why that's an issue at all.

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I guess I just fail to see why that's an issue at all.

Only because it's being caused by a real world event -- if it was something ahistorical, I'd be all for it.  But it's a historical event, so it doesn't make sense that it's having this astronomically ahistorical outcome.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Only because it's being caused by a real world event -- if it was something ahistorical, I'd be all for it.  But it's a historical event, so it doesn't make sense that it's having this astronomically ahistorical outcome.

Okay, so you're saying because the event fired, an event referencing real world events, which causes the census to manipulate EVs, that's "double dipping" because the historical EVs are already accounted for? Before I go further let me just make sure I have that right?

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Okay, so you're saying because the event fired, an event referencing real world events, which causes the census to manipulate EVs, that's "double dipping" because the historical EVs are already accounted for? Before I go further let me just make sure I have that right?

I think that’s what @MrPotatoTed is saying. 

[MrPotatoTed]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Okay, so you're saying because the event fired, an event referencing real world events, which causes the census to manipulate EVs, that's "double dipping" because the historical EVs are already accounted for? Before I go further let me just make sure I have that right?

Yes, basically.  If it's +1, maybe +2, no big deal.  But +10 is big, especially when it stacks with every census.  

But we need to see more testing.  Right now I'm averaging +9 per census, but a few weeks ago I was averaging -1 per census.  So we'll need to see longer averages.

[OrangeP47]

Then we have perhaps been derailed indeed. The obvious solution would be "simply have events not do that" but that's probably not a great idea tbh, because while it'd fix the problem it'd make events less fun.

As luck would have it, though, in 1840 we were about to do an event survey because we were going to propose a minor event change here shortly.  We could quickly incorporate some data for this into what we're working on. Specifically, we were revisiting the idea of separating out flavor and non-flavor events and then upping how many happen because, having just completed an era, we only had like 25% of events fire when it should be more like 75%.

How this relates to the present topic:  I kind of suspect that "early game" there are a lot of "good" events that boost industry, and that in later eras its actually not as common, so basically these events are "front loaded" so to speak.  When we check this weekend we'll look into that.

[vcczar]

12 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Then we have perhaps been derailed indeed. The obvious solution would be "simply have events not do that" but that's probably not a great idea tbh, because while it'd fix the problem it'd make events less fun.

As luck would have it, though, in 1840 we were about to do an event survey because we were going to propose a minor event change here shortly.  We could quickly incorporate some data for this into what we're working on. Specifically, we were revisiting the idea of separating out flavor and non-flavor events and then upping how many happen because, having just completed an era, we only had like 25% of events fire when it should be more like 75%.

How this relates to the present topic:  I kind of suspect that "early game" there are a lot of "good" events that boost industry, and that in later eras its actually not as common, so basically these events are "front loaded" so to speak.  When we check this weekend we'll look into that.

The industry boost events are top heavy for early game. Late game has some that reduce industries. I’ll have to go in and see what all my EV boosting events are. May have to always have them decrease EVs in some places when they go up in others. 

[vcczar]

I wonder if I should get rid of historical EVs and then just have more scripted events that try to direct historical EVs 

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

I wonder if I should get rid of historical EVs and then just have more scripted events that try to direct historical EVs 

I think I like this idea.  And of course the possibility of some ahistorical events that lead to ahistorical EVs.  Don't forget ahistorical states -- Canada, South America, etc.

[OrangeP47]

I guess at this point I'm not opposed, it's just it'd be really difficult to balance.  Just woke up and I *finally* got V3 to work (had to run Windows Update 🙄 ) so it'll be awhile before I put my thinking cap on.... probably depends on how long it takes me to give Sweden the public option health insurance in the 1830s. I have a few ideas though.

Edited October 29, 2022 by OrangeP47

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think I like this idea.  And of course the possibility of some ahistorical events that lead to ahistorical EVs.  Don't forget ahistorical states -- Canada, South America, etc.

and @OrangeP47 Ok, I'm going to make a ton of population scripted events. Also going to amend EV-related Legis Props and possibly Gov Actions and Pres Actions too.