Questions on game

[EYates]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

 

It's something we've gone back and forth on.  Should a politician's stats (at roughly age 25 when they enter the game) be based more off of what they achieved in real life or what they achieve in the game?

We ended up with a compromise in which most stats and traits are based off of what they achieved in real life, but certain ones, such as command (the ability to run for President), leadership, and I think maybe controversial have to be earned in game.  That said, if you begin a game in, say, 1990, any politicians who had earned command, leadership, or controversial by that point in the real world will already have it when your game starts.

Of course, all skills, traits, etc can change over the course of the game.  It's just a matter of what they have when your game begins and/or when they reach 25 years old and become draftable.

I was more thinking of Michael Kerr who started representing IN-3 as he is speaker in a decade's time and was the Democrat nominee for Speaker in the 1869 speaker election

[Bushwa777]

Im thinking about this in game will reveal my thoughts this evening 

[Imperator Taco Cat]

In the 1868 playtest James Nesmith has a bonus that says: Kingmaker to James English, however the rules say:  The Kingmaker provides a permanent +1 bonus to their protégé in all future elections in their state. A “master kingmaker” provides this same +1 bonus nationally. This bonus exists only as the protege bond is active.

 Shouldn't James English get the bonus?

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

In the 1868 playtest James Nesmith has a bonus that says: Kingmaker to James English, however the rules say:  The Kingmaker provides a permanent +1 bonus to their protégé in all future elections in their state. A “master kingmaker” provides this same +1 bonus nationally. This bonus exists only as the protege bond is active.

 Shouldn't James English get the bonus?

It's probably just bookkeeping so you can keep track of who is linked to who better, we've developed these techniques over time.

[ebrk85]

1 hour ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

In the 1868 playtest James Nesmith has a bonus that says: Kingmaker to James English, however the rules say:  The Kingmaker provides a permanent +1 bonus to their protégé in all future elections in their state. A “master kingmaker” provides this same +1 bonus nationally. This bonus exists only as the protege bond is active.

 Shouldn't James English get the bonus?

Yes for the ones I GM I always put that in for the Kingmaker just to help me keep track of things. So for instance if Nesmith retires or dies when I go to delete Nesmith that will remind me to delete the bonus from his protégé.  I am assuming Bushwa did a similar thing for his game.

[Imperator Taco Cat]

If a governor successfully challenges a law in the supreme court does it move Ideological enthusiasm for point movement?

[EYates]

If a Governor challenged reconstruction as a piece of legislation what is the chance the Supreme Court rules against it and secondly if it did rule against reconstruction would it get rid of reconstruction in each state or just the state it is challenged in?

[OrangeP47]

14 hours ago, Imperator Taco Cat said:

If a governor successfully challenges a law in the supreme court does it move Ideological enthusiasm for point movement?

I'd say points gain only, not enthusiasm.  I can see the argument for enthusiasm, but that's actually tied to the phase not the legis.

1 hour ago, EYates said:

If a Governor challenged reconstruction as a piece of legislation what is the chance the Supreme Court rules against it and secondly if it did rule against reconstruction would it get rid of reconstruction in each state or just the state it is challenged in?

I'm a proponent of reconstruction being modular and have a lot of reconstruction chops, but there are others that disagree with this approach.  I've stated in our own playtest it could be affected on the state level but it was never attempted, so I say go for state level.  It wasn't a rules issue for us, just neither Matt nor the AI ever rolling for the action to actually occur.  As for the chances, it depends specifically on who's on your court, their ideos, and their traits.  There is no blanket answer.

[Imperator Taco Cat]

2 hours ago, EYates said:

If a Governor challenged reconstruction as a piece of legislation what is the chance the Supreme Court rules against it and secondly if it did rule against reconstruction would it get rid of reconstruction in each state or just the state it is challenged in?

there are separate reconstruction laws for each state, I think a governor can challenge any.

[Willthescout7]

I would say a gov can challenge for their state, while legislation can do either state or national.

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I would say a gov can challenge for their state, while legislation can do either state or national.

That would make sense, but unfortunately the rules as written wouldn't prevent them challenging for another state.

[Willthescout7]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

That would make sense, but unfortunately the rules as written wouldn't prevent them challenging for another state.

You could rewrite them to be an automatic repeal of reconstruction for that state, and depending on the traits of the justices that vote Yay on repealing it, it gets applied nationally. 

Or you do a percent chance it gets applied nationally.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

You could rewrite them to be an automatic repeal of reconstruction for that state, and depending on the traits of the justices that vote Yay on repealing it, it gets applied nationally. 

Or you do a percent chance it gets applied nationally.

I'm saying each one IS an individual legis, it's not a gov action.  They are challenging a legis.

[Willthescout7]

16 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm saying each one IS an individual legis, it's not a gov action.  They are challenging a legis.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing you. 

I'm saying that the gov of that state challenges the legi for that state alone, but there could be a chance for it to be applied more broadly if successful. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Willthescout7 said:

Yes, I'm not disagreeing you. 

I'm saying that the gov of that state challenges the legi for that state alone, but there could be a chance for it to be applied more broadly if successful. 

Yeah but that'd need a fix.

[Willthescout7]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah but that'd need a fix.

I know lol, 

just throwing it out as an idea for when early access comes out and we consider fixes again. Since we were on the topic

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I know lol, 

just throwing it out as an idea for when early access comes out and we consider fixes again. Since we were on the topic

I'm basically saying if you want that go put it in the other thread because I'm fine with it as is lol 😛

[Willthescout7]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm basically saying if you want that go put it in the other thread because I'm fine with it as is lol 😛

I mean...I don't care lol. Especially after making a stink the other day about changing the game lol

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar can we get an explanation on exactly how enthusiasm is meant to be implemented during elections, etc?  Not the theory behind it, but the actual gameplay mechanics?

If Moderates are +2 Blue, what does this actually mean?

1)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in blue primaries but nothing in the general election?

2)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in general elections in blue leaning states, regardless of party?

3)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in general elections as long as they're part of the blue party, regardless of the state's lean?

4)  It doesn't have anything to do with the candidate's personal ideology at all, but actually refers to a faction's ideology cards instead?

5) Some combination of things listed above?

6) Something entirely different?

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar can we get an explanation on exactly how enthusiasm is meant to be implemented during elections, etc?  Not the theory behind it, but the actual gameplay mechanics?

If Moderates are +2 Blue, what does this actually mean?

1)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in blue primaries but nothing in the general election?

2)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in general elections in blue leaning states, regardless of party?

3)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in general elections as long as they're part of the blue party, regardless of the state's lean?

4)  It doesn't have anything to do with the candidate's personal ideology at all, but actually refers to a faction's ideology cards instead?

5) Some combination of things listed above?

6) Something entirely different?

They get a +2 bonus in states in which there is a moderate bias, regardless of party bias. 

[MrPotatoTed]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

They get a +2 bonus in states in which there is a moderate bias, regardless of party bias. 

For primaries too, or just general?

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

For primaries too, or just general?

We've been doing primaries.

[vcczar]

32 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

For primaries too, or just general?

Primaries too, I believe. 

[ebrk85]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

3)  Moderate candidates get a +2 bonus in general elections as long as they're part of the blue party, regardless of the state's lean?

Woof I thought it was this. Time to recalculate all the election sheets.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Woof I thought it was this. Time to recalculate all the election sheets.

That’s why I asked!  Not you specifically, just a lot of inconsistency in how we (even me, game to game. Haha)