Questions on game

[Pius XIII]

Thank you for the response! The generalizations make sense to me. I would assume that if things got too complicated, the game would turn into something similar to the Hearts of Iron series. A playtest where Napoleon does not come to power twists my brain into a pretzel. Vcczar mentioned that DLC will be added at some point. I am curious as to how that will be implemented down the line. I used to download President Infinity through email, so I assume that AMPU will be done in a similar way? I assume that is a question that is being debated!

[Willthescout7]

1 hour ago, Pius XIII said:

Thank you for the response! The generalizations make sense to me. I would assume that if things got too complicated, the game would turn into something similar to the Hearts of Iron series. A playtest where Napoleon does not come to power twists my brain into a pretzel. Vcczar mentioned that DLC will be added at some point. I am curious as to how that will be implemented down the line. I used to download President Infinity through email, so I assume that AMPU will be done in a similar way? I assume that is a question that is being debated!

More information to come on that front😀 gotta finish the game first lol

[Bushwa777]

Question for peeps.  In the military in the 19th century there was mandatory retirement at age 62 and now its 64.  

In the game you can only serve political office for 16 years total but nothing about military. 

1. Should that not be given a year limit 

2. As the President is commander in chief he should be allowed to fire and hire as part of appointment time 

[ebrk85]

40 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Question for peeps.  In the military in the 19th century there was mandatory retirement at age 62 and now its 64.  

In the game you can only serve political office for 16 years total but nothing about military. 

1. Should that not be given a year limit 

2. As the President is commander in chief he should be allowed to fire and hire as part of appointment time 

Rules state military does not count toward the 16 year limit. Mandatory retirement age can be set in the game. It's in Pres Ex Actions. 

That has been discussed multiple times before. It was ruled and is in the rules that the president can not fire and hire at will during appointment phase. There are circumstances where he is given that option. Like an Iron Fist president before a new war begins.

[Bushwa777]

Need help on a ruling:

We are doing cabinet confirmation 

Rules say this: 

2.3.2 Cabinet Confirmation in the Senate:

Note: A player cannot block a non-controversial nominee from confirmation unless they are two ideologies away from their faction leader’s ideology. Thus, a moderate faction leader would have to support a conservative or a liberal. A faction with a leader that is “harmonious” will not block a non-controversial nominee. A faction with a leader with “integrity” will not block a nominee with “integrity.” 

So does that mean players cannot vote against non-controversial peeps if they are close to their ideology?  I think that is unfair and it means we might as well stop playing the playtest as it would just be robots doing the rules and not us following our conscience 

[OrangeP47]

Block is different than vote, though I think you'd people would prefer more nominees to go through not less, so if any fit is gonna be pitched about rule changes we're gonna jerk it the opposite direction of what you want.

[Bushwa777]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Block is different than vote, though I think you'd people would prefer more nominees to go through not less, so if any fit is gonna be pitched about rule changes we're gonna jerk it the opposite direction of what you want.

HUH? What i want is a smooth running playtest.  But with people having fun.  IT sounds like your saying I want problems?  

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

HUH? What i want is a smooth running playtest.  But with people having fun.  IT sounds like your saying I want problems?  

Nearly every cycle so many of our nominees just get shot down because the rules force a block.  Allowing more blocks is going to make things worse and we will oppose any such changes.

[Bushwa777]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Nearly every cycle so many of our nominees just get shot down because the rules force a block.  Allowing more blocks is going to make things worse and we will oppose any such changes.

1. I am not your GM so not sure what your talking about

2. I do not want people blocked.  BUT I want to get clarification on the rules is all.  

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

1. I am not your GM so not sure what your talking about

2. I do not want people blocked.  BUT I want to get clarification on the rules is all.  

In our playtest we consider the highest priority defect right now the rules make it too difficult to confirm people as the AI can't get any of their people past first try. @vcczar says this is not the time to fix this however.

@Ich_bin_Tyler can probably best explain the mechanics of the process the best, but in short, if you read carefully, there's voting, and then there's blocking.  Certain pols like senate leaders with iron fist can prevent someone from even coming to a vote and that's what this is referring to.

 

[Largo833]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

@Ich_bin_Tyler can probably best explain the mechanics of the process the best, but in short, if you read carefully, there's voting, and then there's blocking.  Certain pols like senate leaders with iron fist can prevent someone from even coming to a vote and that's what this is referring to.

 

There are some sections of the rules where blocking and voting seem to be used interchangeably though, namely Supreme Court nominations.  It says that the President's makes a second nomination with certain restrictions on who they can pick if their initial nominee is "blocked".  Furthermore, the rule segment Bushwa posted earlier states that factions can only block nominees that are two or more ideology jumps away from their faction leader, and therefore must support nominees within one ideology jump.  From my view, the rules seem to suggest that voting against a nominee is a form of blocking them.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Largo833

[Bushwa777]

Thanks for answers.  I am saying that block is block and vote is vote.  Most in my game agree with me now.  I asked that rules be cleared up before Anthony gets done creating PI 2456 and finally gets to this game 

[Imperator Taco Cat]

6 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

 before Anthony gets done creating PI 2456 and finally gets to this game 

*PI 1.7×10^106

[OrangeP47]

28 minutes ago, Largo833 said:

There are some sections of the rules where blocking and voting seem to be used interchangeably though, namely Supreme Court nominations.  It says that the President's makes a second nomination with certain restrictions on who they can pick if their initial nominee is "blocked".  Furthermore, the rule segment Bushwa posted earlier states that factions can only block nominees that are two or more ideology jumps away from their faction leader, and therefore must support nominees within one ideology jump.  From my view, the rules seem to suggest that voting against a nominee is a form of blocking them.

This has come up before and we've ruled that blocking and voting are separate things.  I don't have time to call up the docs right now, but there should be a section that explains blocking, and it's just sloppy writing.  We had a big to-do over this about 6 months ago.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Yep, very much in agreement that the section referenced is for blocking only. 

Right now players can vote however they wish for their faction but blocking can only be done if the conditions are correct.

I do agree that the rules jump around in language and verbiage but that is just the by product of the various iterations. 

This was litigated at some point previous, as Orange mentions.

[Bushwa777]

Question.  I have several factions that have gerrymandered.  The way the rules say this means that there is +1 in House elections for 10 years.  However is this only if that party or faction holds office?  What about if it is Red that does it and Blue wins governor before 10 years is done.  Do I take back Gerrymander at that point?

[ebrk85]

44 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Question.  I have several factions that have gerrymandered.  The way the rules say this means that there is +1 in House elections for 10 years.  However is this only if that party or faction holds office?  What about if it is Red that does it and Blue wins governor before 10 years is done.  Do I take back Gerrymander at that point?

No gerrymander outlasts whoever is Gov. So remains in place for 10yrs regardless (unless a future Gov undoes it by doing the appropriate Gov action)

[Bushwa777]

Two issues/ideas:

1) Why not have it so that all laws can be repealed like they can be in real life?  I think it would be fun if for instance the North just said to the South in the 1850's "Ok well you want to leave you can because we have repealed your right to be a state so your now a territory under our control, no slavery thanks see ya later!"

2) If a cabinet member dies after being appointed why not have the cabinet member that is replacing him or her just be a receees appointment by the President and then they can go through the committee and Senate next time it comes around?  

[Willthescout7]

54 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Two issues/ideas:

1) Why not have it so that all laws can be repealed like they can be in real life?  I think it would be fun if for instance the North just said to the South in the 1850's "Ok well you want to leave you can because we have repealed your right to be a state so your now a territory under our control, no slavery thanks see ya later!"

2) If a cabinet member dies after being appointed why not have the cabinet member that is replacing him or her just be a receees appointment by the President and then they can go through the committee and Senate next time it comes around?  

1. The game would become to messy and cause more issues. Plus it’s not necessarily realistic. Some stuff would just never be repealed and once done it’s done. 
 

2. Whenever there is a new cabinet appointment in real life they have to, so the game tries to mimic that

[Bushwa777]

Question.  The rules say that a President of the Bank of the US cannot be removed unless the President of the US is a member of his faction.  What about if I wanted to take that Bank Pres and promote him up to like Sec of Treasury?  I cannot do that still because the president is not a member of the faction?

[Arkansas Progressive]

2 hours ago, Bushwa777 said:

Question.  The rules say that a President of the Bank of the US cannot be removed unless the President of the US is a member of his faction.  What about if I wanted to take that Bank Pres and promote him up to like Sec of Treasury?  I cannot do that still because the president is not a member of the faction?

A promotion of the PotUSB is the same as removing him from his position, so unless the bank is unchartered - the Bank Pres remains unless removed by a Pres of their faction

[Bushwa777]

I am not there yet but it could and may happen.  I looked in rules and cannot find it.  If a Civil War were to occur how does that work?  Who stays who goes and so on.  Can someone point out or post rules needed to be followed?

[ebrk85]

5 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

I am not there yet but it could and may happen.  I looked in rules and cannot find it.  If a Civil War were to occur how does that work?  Who stays who goes and so on.  Can someone point out or post rules needed to be followed?

I haven't gone through one as gm but use 3.0.35 Secessionist Politicians to determine which pols secede.

Edited March 15 by ebrk85

[Arkansas Progressive]

On 3/14/2024 at 9:03 PM, Bushwa777 said:

I am not there yet but it could and may happen.  I looked in rules and cannot find it.  If a Civil War were to occur how does that work?  Who stays who goes and so on.  Can someone point out or post rules needed to be followed?

sounds like a hartford convention civil war

[OrangeP47]

Somewhere there's a rule that says by ideo there's a % chance but I don't recall where it is specifically.