Fourteen Points on Impeachment, or The Insane Ramblings of an AMPU Fan

[10centjimmy]

Impeachment 

Currently the rules on impeachment (3.05) exist but certain points are unclear. Specific concerns around requirements for being impeached, the House Judicial committee actions (qualifying offenses), player agency and CPU actions, and circumstances for non-Presidential statesmen. It seems that impeachment trials have not been a regular event across the various human-run playtests, so we haven't had a proper chance to review these rules. 

Background/Why are we talking about this?

This issue popped up in Ideologies Playtest due to a General Event, "Improper SC Justice," and as actions regarding General Events fire automatically, we immediately dove into an impeachment trial process (prior to the Scripted Events phase). The rules behind the General Event called for an impeachment trial for a justice with "controversial" or Judicial less than 3. As no justices currently have "controversial," I rolled for the remaining justices who had less than 3 Judicial, and landed on Justice Sanford (2 Judicial, no controversial). 

Justice Sanford, by luck of the draw, dives into an impeachment trial, skipping the "Special Committee" outlined in 2.2.2. This is where the rules get wonky. 3.05 explicitly requires a politician with "controversial" to become impeached. It then starts with the House Judicial Committee, with every member of the committee picking a "qualifying offense" for the statesman. The rule then states that if no qualifying offenses qualify, then the member doesn't pick one. There is a list of 13 "qualifying offenses." In the case of the Ideologies playtest, the House Judicial Committee has 25 unique members, including the chair and ranking minority member. If each member rolls for an article, there's 25 articles of impeachment. This seems excessive, and unlikely. Also, it is unclear what a "qualifying offense" exactly is or why each member has the opportunity to suggest one (out of 13). 

The whole house then takes on the vote for impeachment, with reps with integrity required to vote impeachment on statesmen with "controversial". There's a potential "ironfist" and "leadership" speaker roll to control their party. And another that allows same-party converts to vote for impeachment if the statesman on trial has both "unlikable" and "controversial." Then typical vote conversion rules for the House are followed. If it passes the house with simple majority the statesman is impeached and the trial begins in the Senate to determine if they're convicted. 

I won't recite the rest of the rules because I wanted to share my opinion on a new path for impeachment.

Proposed Updates to Impeachment 

1. In the event a General Event or Scripted Event calls for an immediate "Impeachment Trial," we instead follow the process in 2.2.2 and the creation of a Special Committee to investigate the relevant office/office-holder. The timeline is slightly odd, as 2.4 takes place after 2.2, and is the Special Committee enacted/appointed/processed immediately or in 2.6? I would argue that if the general/scripted event fires, the committee is immediately built, votes to investigate the various officeholders and determines if there were impeachable offenses, and the impeachment process begins/ends prior to 2.5. (<- this would require a review of the General and Scripted Events to shift the language to allow immediate creation of a committee in the House in line with 2.2.2) 

2. In a General Event/Scripted Event that calls for an "Impeachment Trial" requires a office-holder with "Controversial," and none exist, the event should randomly award the "controversial" trait to a relevant office-holder and either proceed with the Special Committee process, or skip it completely as it was the first time that office-holder received the trait. 

3. Jumping to 3.05. If the Special Committee rules that an office-holder rolled "impeachable" or "at-fault" (see 2.2.2 to understand what those mean), then we proceed to the "Impeachment Trial." At this point, we know the office-holder on trial has controversial at least (because that's the only way they would've rolled an "impeachable" or "at-fault" offense). The Special Committee is dissolved, and the House Judicial Committee takes over (this is in line with existing rules). Rather than every committee member rolling a dice for "qualifying offenses," the Articles of Impeachment can be built like this:

a. Judicial Chair can select (1) of the (13) existing articles; however, if they have "Leadership," they can select an additional (1) making the total (2); with "Lawful," they can select an additional (1); with "Integrity," they can select an additional (2), meaning if the Chair has "Leadership, "Lawful," and Integrity", they can select (5). A die is rolled for each selection. If a 4-6 is rolled, that Article is confirmed and cannot be selected by another member. They can also choose not to select any. If Chair is "disharmonious," "illicit," or "controversial," they cannot select any.

b. Ranking member (if any) can select (2) articles, excluding any that were selected by the Chair. If Ranking Member has "Integrity," they can select an additional (1). The most the ranking member can select is (3). A die is rolled for each selection. If a 5-6 is rolled, that Article is confirmed and cannot be selected by another member. They can also choose not to select an article. If Ranking member is "disharmonious," "illicit," or "controversial," they cannot select any.

c. Members in order of Leg Ability then each have an opportunity to select (1), unless they have the trait "integrity," which would allow them an additional selection bringing the total to (2). A die is rolled for each selection. If a 6 is rolled, that Article is confirmed and cannot be selected by another member. They can also choose not to select an article. If member is "disharmonious," "illicit," or "controversial," they cannot select any.

d. If all articles of impeachment are selected before eligible  members have the opportunity to select, no additional selections may be made and all (13) Articles of Impeachment are compiled and submitted to a full House vote.

4. After the compiling of the articles, the relevant player or CPU will have the opportunity to voluntarily resign their office-holder. CPU will choose to resign voluntarily 33% of the time. If the office-holder resigns, there is a 33% chance they automatically retire and are removed from the game. If the office-holder remains in the game, there should be a dice roll of (5-6) to gain illicit (if they do not have it), (4) to gain "disharmonious" (if they do not have it), (2-3) to gain "teflon" (if they do not have it), and (1) to lose "controversial" and gain "integrity."

5. If the office-holder does not voluntarily resign, the full house will vote on the Articles of Impeachment individually, one by one. Reps with "Integrity will always vote for the Articles regardless of party. Reps with "lawful" will always vote AYE on impeachment regardless of party if the office-holder has "illicit". Factions will vote with normal Congress in session rules. Faction votes are potentially overruled by a 25% roll if the Speaker has both "leadership" and "ironfist". CPU factions will vote to impeach opposing party members currently facing the impeachment trial and acquit same-party members. 

6. If the House votes 50% +1 to impeach, the office-holder is impeached and goes to face the Senate trial. For each Article of Impeachment, the player managing the impeached office-holder loses 100 points, and the faction leader faces a 33% roll to lose -1 in their next election.

7. Senate Trial. All Senators hold an initial vote on each Article individually. CPU will vote in line with their party, Blue will not convict Blue and likewise Red will not convict Red. In order of special cases, the following will supersede a Player/CPU agency in the initial vote:

a) Senators with "integrity" and/or "lawful" will roll 50% to convict if the office-holder on trial has the "controversial" and "disharmonious," "illicit," or "manipulative" traits regardless of party;

b) Senators with "RW Activist" and/or "Theocrat" will always vote to convict if the Article of Impeachment is: Public Indecency, Perjury, or Unethical Private Behavior. Senators with "Reformist" and/or "Pacifist" will always vote to convict if the Article of Impeachment is: Corruption, Contempt of Congress, or Unlawful decision making. Senators with "Nationalist" and/or "Expansionist" will always vote to convict if the Article of Impeachment is: Tax Evasion, Obstruction of Justice, and Bribery. Senators with "LW Activist" and/or "Civil Rights" will always vote to convict if the Article of Impeachment is: Abuse of Power, Inciting Violence, and Unethical Political bias.     

c) If the impeached office-holder has "likable," "charismatic," and/or "harmonious," Moderate Senators that are "pliable," "lackey," and/or "harmonious" will vote to acquit on a 25% roll, regardless of party (this percentage stacks, so if a Moderate Senator is "pliable," "lackey," and "harmonious," it is a 75% roll)

d) Senators with LW or RW Populist will always vote against impeachment of a fellow LW or RW Populist, respectively.

8. If the officeholder on trial is in a faction with LW Media or RW Media card, then there is a 33% roll of +1 faction enthusiasm for their party.  If the office-holder has "likable" and/or "charismatic," then there is a 33% roll of +1 party preference for their party. If none apply, then there is an automatic -1 to the office-holder's party preference.

9. After the initial votes on each Article, follow standard vote conversion in Senate in Session Rules. If any article reaches 2/3 majority, then the office-holder is convicted and immediately removed from the game.

10. The person controlling that convicted office-holder loses 1,000 pts, unless they are in first place, then they lose 5,000 pts. The loss of these points are avoided if the person on trial resigned prior to the trial. Party Preference will also have a 1-5 die roll chance of decreasing for that party. If the person convicted is a party leader, then that party loses -2 party preference and -1 faction ideology enthusiasm. If the person convicted is a faction leader (party leaders are also faction leaders), then everyone in that faction gains a temporary -1 in the next election, midterm or general, whichever is first (this stacks with the impeachment negative hit from step 6 above). If the person on trial is not convicted, then there is a 1-2 die roll chance that  Congressional Leaders that voted for impeachment get “unlikable” and a 1-2 die roll chance of the party favoring impeachment gets -1 party preference.

11. On successful conviction, the factions that control the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker each gain 1000 points. If conviction fails, those factions lose 1000 points. 

12. If the office-holder is the President, and they are not successfully convicted, there is a 25% chance of no change in party preference or ideology enthusiasm, 25% chance of -1 party preference for the President's party, a 25% -1 enthusiasm for their faction ideology, and a 25% of +1 party preference for the President's party.

13. Reps that vote to impeach, and Senators that vote to convict, a President or Vice President of their own party have a 25% chance of gaining "disharmonious", 50% chance of gaining "integrity", and a 25% chance of gaining nothing. They also have a separate 5% roll to gain "can party flip" and a 25% roll to gain "independent". Finally, these politicians have a 75% chance of -1 in their next primary, and a 25% chance of -2 in their next primary.

14. There are no special gains/losses for any other office-holders beyond President and Vice President. 

TL;DR
My Fourteen Points to really complicate but also streamline/clarify the impeachment trial process. It's rare and complex in real life, but it can be more straightforward in AMPU.  I'm not too attached to any of these suggested points, but I'm open to discuss!

[MrPotatoTed]

One thing that occurred to me as I read your preamble:  I believe the current impeachment rules predate the current rules related to the House.  It used to be that each committee only had 3 members.  (I advocated that every Rep and Senator should be on a committee, and ultimately created the rules for that).  So that could be why it says "every member of the committee" -- it used to only be 3 people, not 25.  Haha.

Haven't read your recommendations yet, will do that now.

[10centjimmy]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Haven't read your recommendations yet, will do that now.

I will say several of them are purely for flavor, specifically the Senate traits/special interests requirements. 

 

I also pulled from the existing rules since I felt some of the penalties and bonuses were reasonable and realistic from a historical standpoint.

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar Jimmy has identified a series significant problem with the impeachment process -- mostly attributable to the fact that the rules are so old that they don't fit within the confines of the current version of the game at all, and also they were never tested so we didn't notice obvious issues with them.

I know you're resistant to making significant changes while Anthony's programming the beta version of the game, but in this case he can't program the existing version of the impeachment rules because they just don't work (they're both too complicated and too vague, are tied to the old version of how the House worked before we completely revamped it, and conflict with various other sections of the rules and events).  

I believe we can quickly fix all of this before Anthony gets anywhere close to this section of the rules.  Jimmy has his own proposal above, but to keep it both simple and effective, here's my proposal:

1)  We eliminate the rules related to special committees, its an unnecessary complication.  Rather, we'll leave any "special committee" duties to the Judicial committee, which is currently underutilized.

2)  Create legislative proposals for the impeachment of the President, Vice President, a Cabinet Member, a Senator, a Representative, and a Supreme Court Justice (there is historical precedence for the impeachment of each of these, except Representative).  Requirements:  The person targeted has Controversial, has unlikeable, or is at least four ideologies away from the proposer.  I'd also add that a disharmonious politician can propose the impeachment of anyone regardless of ideology or traits, and that a harmonious politician can't propose it at all.

3)  Draft a guide (based on traits) about how folks vote on impeachment.  Naturally, the human player can decide for themselves, though some of their politicians may not follow their lead just like we already do with legislative proposals, etc.

4)  Draft rules regarding what happens if the politician is impeached but not convicted, is convicted, is not impeached, or resigns prior to impeachment/conviction.  

I can take the lead on these, @vcczar, just wanted to give you a heads up and/or chance to object.

 

[vcczar]

14 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar Jimmy has identified a series significant problem with the impeachment process -- mostly attributable to the fact that the rules are so old that they don't fit within the confines of the current version of the game at all, and also they were never tested so we didn't notice obvious issues with them.

I know you're resistant to making significant changes while Anthony's programming the beta version of the game, but in this case he can't program the existing version of the impeachment rules because they just don't work (they're both too complicated and too vague, are tied to the old version of how the House worked before we completely revamped it, and conflict with various other sections of the rules and events).  

I believe we can quickly fix all of this before Anthony gets anywhere close to this section of the rules.  Jimmy has his own proposal above, but to keep it both simple and effective, here's my proposal:

1)  We eliminate the rules related to special committees, its an unnecessary complication.  Rather, we'll leave any "special committee" duties to the Judicial committee, which is currently underutilized.

2)  Create legislative proposals for the impeachment of the President, Vice President, a Cabinet Member, a Senator, a Representative, and a Supreme Court Justice (there is historical precedence for the impeachment of each of these, except Representative).  Requirements:  The person targeted has Controversial, has unlikeable, or is at least four ideologies away from the proposer.  I'd also add that a disharmonious politician can propose the impeachment of anyone regardless of ideology or traits, and that a harmonious politician can't propose it at all.

3)  Draft a guide (based on traits) about how folks vote on impeachment.  Naturally, the human player can decide for themselves, though some of their politicians may not follow their lead just like we already do with legislative proposals, etc.

4)  Draft rules regarding what happens if the politician is impeached but not convicted, is convicted, is not impeached, or resigns prior to impeachment/conviction.  

I can take the lead on these, @vcczar, just wanted to give you a heads up and/or chance to object.

 

I'm fine with this. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar @10centjimmy

Here's what I've come up with for impeachment.  

(Everyone, feel free to give any feedback)

 

Impeachment

Impeachment is triggered by a legislative proposal.  These proposals may target the sitting President, Vice President, or a member of the US Senate, House, Cabinet (including cabinet-level),  or Supreme Court.  Governors, military leaders, and ambassadors cannot be impeached. 

Impeachment proposals can only be selected by members of the US House.  The following criteria must be met:

1)  The proposer cannot be Harmonious.
2) Domestic stability must be below level 5
3)  One of the following conditions must be met:

a)    The target for impeachment has controversial.

b)    The target for impeachment has unlikable.

c)    The target for impeachment is at least four ideologies away from the proposer (for example, a LW Populist can propose impeaching a Traditionalist for no real reason other than ideological differences, and vice versa, but a Moderate cannot propose impeaching anyone without meeting one of the other conditions)

d)    The proposer is disharmonious

An impeachment proposal is voted on by the House Judicial committee.  It can be blocked and/or replaced by the committee chair following the same rules that are found under committee voting rules.  An impeachment proposal can only be packaged with other impeachment proposals (such as simultaneous proposals to impeach both the President and Vice President simultaneously).  An impeachment proposal can not be chosen as a replacement proposal by a chair.  (That is to say, a Justice committee chair cannot block and replace an unrelated bill by proposing an impeachment instead.)

If the impeachment passes the House Judicial committee with 50%+1 support, it is then voted on by the House.  If it passes in the House, it is then voted on first by the Senate Judicial committee and then by the Senate at large.  While passing the House at large and the Senate Judicial committee only requires a 50%+1 vote, passing in the Senate at large requires a 2/3 majority for conviction.

If a politician is successfully convicted, they are immediately removed from the game and that faction loses -1000 points.  The successful proposer gains integrity and their faction gains +1000 points.  The convicted politician is replaced through the established methods within the game (The Presidency is filled via the established succession rules, the cabinet position is filled via the nomination process, the Senator is replaced by the Governor’s appointee, etc).  Domestic stability and Honest Government both drop by 1 over perceptions of a witch hunt, fair or otherwise.

If at any point the impeachment/conviction attempt is defeated (regardless of whether its defeated by a committee, defeated by an at-large vote, or blocked by a Judicial chair,  the politician remains in their current office and their faction gains +1000 points.  The failed proposer gains controversial and their faction loses -1000 points.  Domestic stability and Honest Government both drop by 1 over perceptions that the accused politician got away with their crimes, fair or otherwise.

Finally, at any point during the impeachment/conviction process prior to the Senate at-large vote, the accused politician can choose to resign instead.  This will end the impeachment/conviction process.  The politician is removed from their position but remains in the game.  They gain controversial and take a permanent -3 to any future elections, and cannot be appointed to any position.  Their faction loses -500 points.  There is no gain for the politician who proposed the impeachment in this scenario.  Domestic stability and honest government each increase by 1, over perceptions that the right thing was done, fair or otherwise.

In all voting scenarios regarding impeachment and conviction (for both committee and at-large votes), politicians will use the following guide:

1)  First, any politicians with integrity will vote in favor of impeaching/convicting controversial figures and will vote against impeachment/conviction figures who are not controversial.

2) Second, disharmonious figures will always vote to impeach/convict and harmonious figures will always vote against impeachment/conviction (unless integrity/controversial has already decided their vote).

3)  Third, puritans will always vote to impeach/convict those of a different ideology than them, and will always against impeachment/conviction for those of the same ideology (unless integrity/controversial or harmonious/disharmonious has already dictated their vote).

4)  Finally, all other politicians will follow their faction’s vote.  This is decided by the human player, unless the human’s faction leader’s vote was already determined by one of the three prior steps.  For CPU factions, follow the following guide:

a)    First, if the faction leader’s vote was already determined via the first three steps, follow that.

b)    If the faction leader’s vote isn’t decided yet, then the proposer’s faction leader will always be in favor of impeachment/conviction, and the target’s faction leader will always be against impeachment/conviction.

If the faction leader’s vote still isn’t decided, then the CPU faction leader will vote to impeach/convict 75% of the time if the target is from the opposite party, and only 25% of the time if the target is from their same party.

 

[vcczar]

I'll look at it when I have a solid 30 min to read it and think about it. 

[10centjimmy]

13 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

3)  One of the following conditions must be met:

a)    The target for impeachment has controversial.

b)    The target for impeachment has unlikable.

c)    The target for impeachment is at least four ideologies away from the proposer (for example, a LW Populist can propose impeaching a Traditionalist for no real reason other than ideological differences, and vice versa, but a Moderate cannot propose impeaching anyone without meeting one of the other conditions)

d)    The proposer is disharmonious

Would it be reasonable to include illicit as a trait that could be impeachable?

 

Similarly, lawful would force a statesman to impeach someone with illicit

Edited April 4, 2023 by 10centjimmy

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Would it be reasonable to include illicit as a trait that could be impeachable?

 

Similarly, lawful would force a statesman to impeach someone with illicit

I'd be fine with that. I defer to @vcczar as I don't remember what those rare traits are actually meant to represent that is somehow different from integrity or controversial.

[10centjimmy]

Also we would need cpu rules if their statesman was being impeached.  Do they always stand their ground since the point differential is so great? Or is there a dice roll of they have more than one of the impeachable traits?

 

Also, would a presidential pardon remove all the election penalties and appointment prohibitions?

[Willthescout7]

Overall: I like them. A few changes I might make: maybe make the requirements for impeachment 2 of the 4 or 3 of the 4 optional ones are met I don't think we want too many impeachment and I worry that having only 1 requirement being met would see it happen too often. 

Second change would be to specify that if the impeachment charges pass the House, then the person who proposed impeachment gets 1 command and will act as impeachment manager (like what Adam Schift did.). This politician will have an opportunity to vote sway during the senate portion.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Willthescout7

[Bushwa777]

Love it

[MrPotatoTed]

16 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Overall: I like them. A few changes I might make: maybe make the requirements for impeachment 2 of the 4 or 3 of the 4 optional ones are met I don't think we want too many impeachment and I worry that having only 1 requirement being met would see it happen too often. 

Second change would be to specify that if the impeachment charges pass the House, then the person who proposed impeachment gets 1 command and will act as impeachment manager (like what Adam Schift did.). This politician will have an opportunity to vote sway during the senate portion.

I considered making more requirements, but I feel like it will already be a rarity as it's not only hard to meet all of the existing requirements but also extremely hard to actually get a conviction (which means the proposer will likely lose 1k points).  

I like your second suggestion.

I also need to figure out CPU rules for when they should propose an impeachment, but I don't have any big ideas on that right now.

[ShortKing]

59 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Finally, at any point during the impeachment/conviction process prior to the Senate at-large vote, the accused politician can choose to resign instead.  This will end the impeachment/conviction process.  The politician is removed from their position but remains in the game.  They gain controversial and take a permanent -3 to any future elections, and cannot be appointed to any position.  Their faction loses -500 points.  There is no gain for the politician who proposed the impeachment in this scenario.  Domestic stability and honest government each increase by 1, over perceptions that the right thing was done, fair or otherwise.

The part that gives me pause is that these meter changes are assured, there's no roll. One can imagine using these maneuvers to game the meters. For example, in the 1948 playtest, the dom stab crisis is what's killing the GOP, but any Republican rep, under these rules, can begin impeachment proceedings for any politician who clears one of the requirements (currently, Taft is unlikable and thus eligible) and if Taft voluntarily steps down, there's an automatic uptick in dom stab and honest government. Currently, there are three federal officeholders in the GOP that are unlikable, if they pursued impeachment proceedings against all three of them in one turn with the understanding that they all voluntarily resign their office, would that move these meters up three spots?

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

The part that gives me pause is that these meter changes are assured, there's no roll. One can imagine using these maneuvers to game the meters. For example, in the 1948 playtest, the dom stab crisis is what's killing the GOP, but any Republican rep, under these rules, can begin impeachment proceedings for any politician who clears one of the requirements (currently, Taft is unlikable and thus eligible) and if Taft voluntarily steps down, there's an automatic uptick in dom stab and honest government. Currently, there are three federal officeholders in the GOP that are unlikable, if they pursued impeachment proceedings against all three of them in one turn with the understanding that they all voluntarily resign their office, would that move these meters up three spots?

These are fair questions.  The caveat is that even resigning comes with significant point loses (-500 each).  I know some players have said "I don't care about the points," but...like...the points is the whole game.  The points are intended to reward you for doing the things your faction would want to do, and to penalize you for going too far outside their desires.
 

[vcczar]

I'll let the debate go on today and tomorrow and then I'll look at it on Thursday. I'll be away from my computer all day tomorrow. 

[ShortKing]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

These are fair questions.  The caveat is that even resigning comes with significant point loses (-500 each).  I know some players have said "I don't care about the points," but...like...the points is the whole game.  The points are intended to reward you for doing the things your faction would want to do, and to penalize you for going too far outside their desires.
 

that's fair, but the loss of 500 pts is equivalent to one incumbent losing reelection. if you're in a dom stab crisis where the penalty for your party is -2 or -3, you save points getting it moved up and saving yourselves from electoral slaughter.

[Willthescout7]

I was thinking along the same lines as @ShortKing. Another scenario is if there is a great draft pick coming up, you immediately take the point loss in an attempt to get the #1 pick. Essentially, tanking like in a sports league. 

 

For CPU rules, I would make it so they won't support impeachment if they are of the same party 80% of the time, 10% of the time they will support it if the accused is a different ideology, and will support it the last 10% if the faction leader is harmonious.  Then flip it to be the same bit 80% of the time they will support impeachment if it is a different party, 10% of the time they will vote against it if it is the same ideology, and 10% against if they are disharmonious. 

[10centjimmy]

35 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

but...like...the points is the whole game.  The points are intended to reward you for doing the things your faction would want to do, and to penalize you for going too far outside their desires.

OFF TOPIC

Crazy thought. And maybe way too late to make this change...but what if the faction with the highest points at the end of an historical era gets to give a trait to a statesman of their choice? I only suggest this because for players, as @ShortKing and @Willthescout7 mention, oftentimes being best at the game prevents you from getting the big names/pols. An incentive for having the most points would be welcome and throw an additional strategy into the mix rather than tanking for the best pick.

BACK ON TOPIC

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, 10centjimmy said:

OFF TOPIC

Crazy thought. And maybe way too late to make this change...but what if the faction with the highest points at the end of an historical era gets to give a trait to a statesman of their choice? I only suggest this because for players, as @ShortKing and @Willthescout7 mention, oftentimes being best at the game prevents you from getting the big names/pols. An incentive for having the most points would be welcome and throw an additional strategy into the mix rather than tanking for the best pick.

BACK ON TOPIC

My only concern is that’s “the Rich get richer” incentive.  If you score the most points, we’ll help you score even more points even though you’re the faction who needs the least help. Haha

[10centjimmy]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

My only concern is that’s “the Rich get richer” incentive.  If you score the most points, we’ll help you score even more points even though you’re the faction who needs the least help. Haha

At the same time, it would also incentivize you to keep doing better - I look at the Civil War playtest where @matthewyoung123 is continually getting hit with the high/low faction penalty because he declines to help out his CPU teammates. Ultimately, he gets rewarded for that by getting higher picks which in turn seems to allow him to perform even better, leaving his team in the dust. There's no parity there, if that's one of he goals. Last comment, and I totally realize that we're likely not going to make any change like that. I'll get back to impeachment 🙂 

[10centjimmy]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I also need to figure out CPU rules for when they should propose an impeachment, but I don't have any big ideas on that right now.

Something along these lines?

If the requirements for an impeachable statesman are met, CPU faction with a disharmonious statesman with the debater or orator trait will propose impeachment only if the House is majority their party, and their party has 50% +1 seats, 25% of the time.

 

You'd want it to be especially rare from the CPU, but not impossible right?

[matthewyoung123]

12 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

At the same time, it would also incentivize you to keep doing better - I look at the Civil War playtest where @matthewyoung123 is continually getting hit with the high/low faction penalty because he declines to help out his CPU teammates. Ultimately, he gets rewarded for that by getting higher picks which in turn seems to allow him to perform even better, leaving his team in the dust. There's no parity there, if that's one of he goals. Last comment, and I totally realize that we're likely not going to make any change like that. I'll get back to impeachment 🙂 

It's not that I don't help them, it's that they are lame.  😉  In all seriousness, I have never picked higher than 5th in the draft for my faction, so last.  EVERY. TIME.  I also lost two elections in landslides to the Red Party AI.  So, despite being the leading faction of my party, there are still some things I can't do.

[Willthescout7]

22 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

At the same time, it would also incentivize you to keep doing better - I look at the Civil War playtest where @matthewyoung123 is continually getting hit with the high/low faction penalty because he declines to help out his CPU teammates. Ultimately, he gets rewarded for that by getting higher picks which in turn seems to allow him to perform even better, leaving his team in the dust. There's no parity there, if that's one of he goals. Last comment, and I totally realize that we're likely not going to make any change like that. I'll get back to impeachment 🙂 

It's more that he bullies his allies lol

[10centjimmy]

30 minutes ago, matthewyoung123 said:

It's not that I don't help them, it's that they are lame.  😉  In all seriousness, I have never picked higher than 5th in the draft for my faction, so last.  EVERY. TIME.  I also lost two elections in landslides to the Red Party AI.  So, despite being the leading faction of my party, there are still some things I can't do.

Kills my argument, but to be fair you also started out way ahead as President Marcy and 1000 Kingmakers, but I think my point would stand. Maybe you wouldn't get National kingmaker, but decisive general or crisis admin might be positive enough incentives. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by 10centjimmy