A Thread for small, low priority changes and errors.

[jnewt]

Richard M Daley is listed as Protestant. He should be Catholic (his father, Richard J Daley, is correctly listed as Catholic).

[Bushwa777]

Found a major issue all

I am doing my own personal playtest now starting in 1772

Continental Congress is never activated.  Not on era evos sheet at all

it is mentioned that it turns to confederation congress but never a time when continental congress is established. 

This needs to be fixed and rushed to Anthony before he uses this as an excuse to work on PI 2035 

[matthewyoung123]

17 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Found a major issue all

I am doing my own personal playtest now starting in 1772

Continental Congress is never activated.  Not on era evos sheet at all

it is mentioned that it turns to confederation congress but never a time when continental congress is established. 

This needs to be fixed and rushed to Anthony before he uses this as an excuse to work on PI 2035 

I think you just begin in 1774 WITH electing the Continental Congress.  

 

[Bushwa777]

Found a mistake

William Preston is listed in bio as being sec of Navy for Taylor and Fillmore and serving in Confederate Army....problem is he was born in 1729 so that is some accomplishment! 

[Bushwa777]

Ok here is an issue @ebrk85 @Ich_bin_Tyler @vcczar

In my playtest I am in the midst of the Revolutionary War.  Having won my naval battle I moved to land.  

The first Battle of Monmouth was difficult and ended with a defeat.  Result after rolls using CPU rules led to Sr. General Horatio Gates being declared incompetent (50% chance) and fired

Second Battle of Monmouth (I guess they really like fighting there) was difficult and ended with a defeat.  Again result after rolls using CPU rules led to Sr. General George Washington being declared incompetent (50% chance) and fired.

Would it not be better to lower that 50% to maybe 25%?  Otherwise you can have a great general winning 10 victories and lose 1 battle and being fired after declared incompetent.  Once West Point and Annapolis is established that is it for some great generals.  

 

[Largo833]

12 minutes ago, Bushwa777 said:

Ok here is an issue @ebrk85 @Ich_bin_Tyler @vcczar

In my playtest I am in the midst of the Revolutionary War.  Having won my naval battle I moved to land.  

The first Battle of Monmouth was difficult and ended with a defeat.  Result after rolls using CPU rules led to Sr. General Horatio Gates being declared incompetent (50% chance) and fired

Second Battle of Monmouth (I guess they really like fighting there) was difficult and ended with a defeat.  Again result after rolls using CPU rules led to Sr. General George Washington being declared incompetent (50% chance) and fired.

Would it not be better to lower that 50% to maybe 25%?  Otherwise you can have a great general winning 10 victories and lose 1 battle and being fired after declared incompetent.  Once West Point and Annapolis is established that is it for some great generals.  

 

I do think that 50 percent might be too high, but I believe you’re only supposed to roll for the effects on the Senior General/Admiral after ALL battles have concluded for the turn, not every individual battle.  They then gain bonuses if you won over half of the battles and penalties if you lost over half, so if your Battles of Monmouth were in the same turn then only Gates should have gained Incompetent.

[Bushwa777]

6 minutes ago, Largo833 said:

I do think that 50 percent might be too high, but I believe you’re only supposed to roll for the effects on the Senior General/Admiral after ALL battles have concluded for the turn, not every individual battle.  They then gain bonuses if you won over half of the battles and penalties if you lost over half, so if your Battles of Monmouth were in the same turn then only Gates should have gained Incompetent.

Yeah thanks.  It was two turns. 1774-1776 and then 1776-1778

 

[OrangeP47]

The rev war is just brutal.  A lot of people will just fail there, it's by design.

[Arkansas Progressive]

Reconstruction Misc Rules 3.0.22

• Reconstruction is automatically triggered when the Union is victorious in a Civil War, and it can be removed state-by-state via federal legislation.
  • "Reconstruction" in this instance means that "Create Military Districts to establish Martial Law in the Reconstructed South" legis prop becomes legis active upon implementation of Appomattox Treaty (for the Confederate Civil War)
  • During the first half term of reconstruction (the next legislation session):
    • The secessionist politicians are appointed by the following rules:
      • Following Civil War victory by the Union, the next legislative session will start with appointing members of the legislature in states that had seceded. The governors in these Reconstructed states will be appointed by the president, but they must be of the party with the majority in Congress. The US Senators in these states will be selected among any faction or party by the faction controlling the Sen Pres Pro Tempore and the US Reps will be selected among any faction or party by the faction controlling the Speaker of the House.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Arkansas Progressive

[OrangeP47]

I'm about to go to bed, and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but if you're tidying up language, recall the North can secede as well.  This looks to fail that metric.

[Arkansas Progressive]

4 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm about to go to bed, and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but if you're tidying up language, recall the North can secede as well.  This looks to fail that metric.

This was targetted towards the southern reconstruction. I'll specify that in an edit

Edited December 8, 2023 by Arkansas Progressive

[Arkansas Progressive]

During the convention when making an offer to another faction/politician who has less delegates the following weights should be considered:

50% for State, AG, War/Deffense, and Treasury

25% for all other cabinet positions

10% for Ambassadorships

[OrangeP47]

This is what I was talking about earlier @vcczar

We've decided basically the legis that Caps the House at 100 Reps should be limited to only scenarios where the US did not obtain the Louisiana Purchase, otherwise the math really becomes stupid once there's too many states.  Announcing it here so everyone can see.  Everything else unchanged.  This is in line with how the SCOTUS caps are scaled with the size of the nation already.  We don't want to open the floor to mess with this, we just want to head it off at the pass before someone with 54 states has to deal with a House that's only 100 reps and it's utterly broken.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

This is what I was talking about earlier @vcczar

We've decided basically the legis that Caps the House at 100 Reps should be limited to only scenarios where the US did not obtain the Louisiana Purchase, otherwise the math really becomes stupid once there's too many states.  Announcing it here so everyone can see.  Everything else unchanged.  This is in line with how the SCOTUS caps are scaled with the size of the nation already.  We don't want to open the floor to mess with this, we just want to head it off at the pass before someone with 54 states has to deal with a House that's only 100 reps and it's utterly broken.

Yeah, that's fine to make playing this on the forum more manageable. Not sure what I''ll do for the PC version though. If the PC can handle it, I'll probably allow a maximum number of reps. 

Before you joined the AMPU bandwagon, I used to have only a Focus Rep for each tegion that represented the leader of the majority party in that region. I also had a Focus Gov. I forgot if I had a Focus Senator or all the Senators. Basically, the game was much more simplified outside of the presidency. It was initially basically a "Be President" game, but you couldn't be president without a Congress and Supreme Court. Governors were added at first just because many Governors become presidents, and so they needed a way to get some name recognition. Focus Govs, Sens, and US Reps could run for pres. And VPs and Cabinet members. Over time, the game just spiraled into an all-encompasing game. I kept adding more and more and more to the game. 

The initial game could have been a board game. It was quite simple. Now it's titanic. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, that's fine to make playing this on the forum more manageable. Not sure what I''ll do for the PC version though. If the PC can handle it, I'll probably allow a maximum number of reps. 

Before you joined the AMPU bandwagon, I used to have only a Focus Rep for each tegion that represented the leader of the majority party in that region. I also had a Focus Gov. I forgot if I had a Focus Senator or all the Senators. Basically, the game was much more simplified outside of the presidency. It was initially basically a "Be President" game, but you couldn't be president without a Congress and Supreme Court. Governors were added at first just because many Governors become presidents, and so they needed a way to get some name recognition. Focus Govs, Sens, and US Reps could run for pres. And VPs and Cabinet members. Over time, the game just spiraled into an all-encompasing game. I kept adding more and more and more to the game. 

The initial game could have been a board game. It was quite simple. Now it's titanic. 

I think you may be under the wrong impression, the problem is not too many reps, but too few.  With the full 50 states, if the house is capped at 100 reps, on average, each state with have 4 EV, and the average state will have EVs, between 3-5.  Every state will be 3-5 basically.  This isn't a forum issue, this is a math issue/real life issue.  A house with only 100 reps and 50 states is... like... I don't even have a word.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I think you may be under the wrong impression, the problem is not too many reps, but too few.  With the full 50 states, if the house is capped at 100 reps, on average, each state with have 4 EV, and the average state will have EVs, between 3-5.  Every state will be 3-5 basically.  This isn't a forum issue, this is a math issue/real life issue.  A house with only 100 reps and 50 states is... like... I don't even have a word.

This is why the 435, 500, and 1000 caps are fine.  Because the math isn't stupid on those.  Really, I feel like using the word 'stupid' belittles the point, but 100 reps for 50 states is, simply put... stupid.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

This is why the 435, 500, and 1000 caps are fine.  Because the math isn't stupid on those.  Really, I feel like using the word 'stupid' belittles the point, but 100 reps for 50 states is, simply put... stupid.

Oh ok, I see what you're saying. I should change that then. I'll have Anthony delete it once he puts out Early Release. He already has all the legis props in his system (although not workable), so me deleting it now won't do anything.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, vcczar said:

Oh ok, I see what you're saying. I should change that then. I'll have Anthony delete it once he puts out Early Release. He already has all the legis props in his system (although not workable), so me deleting it now won't do anything.

Yeah, and I do like the option, having lower than 435 be the cap is an interesting idea that would be cool to explore in game... just maybe with a smaller US.

[Bushwa777]

Stephen Hopkins who signed declaration of independence is not in game 

[matthewyoung123]

When the Plantation Economy ends, there is no guideline as to what to do with the Industry.

Suggest it convert to Agriculture at a 3:1 ratio so the land doesn't "disappear", it instead reverts to low scale Agriculture in the form of sharecropping.  So if a state had 9 Plantation economy, that would be deleted and 3 would be added to Agriculture.

If Plantation Industry is not a multiple of 3, say 7, then it converts to 2 Agriculture.  If 8, it converts to 3 agriculture.

[matthewyoung123]

Found CPU Rules, they were just in a different place than I expected them to be.

Edited December 21, 2023 by matthewyoung123

[10centjimmy]

In primary and general elections: when a career track is facing off against a non-career track pol, the non-career tracker wins automatically. However, if unopposed or if facing another career tracker then the race is run as normal. 

I don't think it makes sense for a career tracker to beat a non career tracker in a straight up race. 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by 10centjimmy

[ebrk85]

4 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

In primary and general elections: when a career track is facing off against a non-career track pol, the non-career tracker wins automatically. However, if unopposed or if facing another career tracker then the race is run as normal. 

I don't think it makes sense for a career tracker to beat an non career tracker in a straight up race. 

I agree for the primaries but don't think this applies to a general election match-up. Thoughts by others?

Edited December 29, 2023 by ebrk85

[10centjimmy]

I think it should be the same across both primary or general, but I'm open to the debate. 

If they can run, then win or lose they should be pulled from the career track. If it's meant to be a space to lock away your pols then there should be a penalty for risking their careers. 

Otherwise there could be a blanket -1 for being career track rather than a straight up loss in primary/general. Anything in one race should count for the other, that's how I understand the rules as they currently sit. 

[OrangeP47]

Since when can career track pols run for election?