A Thread for small, low priority changes and errors.

[OrangeP47]

14 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Since when can career track pols run for election?

Jimmy you agree'd with me now I'm even more confused I'm going to go take a nap haha.

[ebrk85]

When have they not been allowed to run. I don't see anything in the rules that says they are ineligible to do so.

[matthewyoung123]

I've always done it like this; if they are running unopposed in the primary, Career Tracks can run if they meet the minimum requirements BEFORE coming off the track (like must already have 1 LEG to run for Congress and 1 GOV to run for Governor).  If someone else in the non-career track runs, then they can't run.

I don't KNOW if that's in the rules but it makes sense to me and that's how I run my elections.

[ebrk85]

Honestly looking through the rules I don't see anything in regards to career track and elections. I think we've all just made our own judgements at this point and ran with it.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

In 2.1.2 it says, " However, while they are committing themselves to advancing in their career track, they will be unavailable to run in elections or be appointed to office."

The appointed to office bit was removed but not updated in the rules. I've not run career track folks in elections and when some of them have been added to the playtest, I remove them since they are not eligible.

[ebrk85]

3 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

In 2.1.2 it says, " However, while they are committing themselves to advancing in their career track, they will be unavailable to run in elections or be appointed to office."

The appointed to office bit was removed but not updated in the rules. I've not run career track folks in elections and when some of them have been added to the playtest, I remove them since they are not eligible.

That is does. Can't say I agree with that but I'll abide by it then.

[10centjimmy]

2 hours ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

In 2.1.2 it says, " However, while they are committing themselves to advancing in their career track, they will be unavailable to run in elections or be appointed to office."

The appointed to office bit was removed but not updated in the rules. I've not run career track folks in elections and when some of them have been added to the playtest, I remove them since they are not eligible.

Interesting, I definitely thought you could run them (both primary and general) but if there was a non career tracker, then you would automatically lose the race. Then if there were no career track or real pols, then there would be generated pols for the race. 

[pman]

3 hours ago, matthewyoung123 said:

I've always done it like this; if they are running unopposed in the primary, Career Tracks can run if they meet the minimum requirements BEFORE coming off the track (like must already have 1 LEG to run for Congress and 1 GOV to run for Governor).  If someone else in the non-career track runs, then they can't run.

I don't KNOW if that's in the rules but it makes sense to me and that's how I run my elections.

We're not computers - we're just a bunch of people having fun playing a game manually while they wait for it to come out. Because of that, I totally think what you said is the most user friendly.  The other option is to manually create more pols than we need to have which is just way more work for GMs, etc. Plus the penalty for ending career track in this fashion is that they revert back to the previous 2 years level which is a notable thing. So I am with you Matt on this.

Edited December 30, 2023 by pman

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

So mechanically then what would be the point of the career tracks if you can pull people off when you need them? The incentive is that you put the pols away for 4 year increments for a chance at something better. If we allow for this, then just load up your best people on the tracks and put them in every race. It defeat the purpose. 

Also it’s not terribly hard to generate the alt pols. What I do is if no one can run in a race generate one for each party. Delete the loser and done. 

[ebrk85]

2 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

What I do is if no one can run in a race generate one for each party.

Once primaries exist any faction can generate a pol for any race if they have no one eligible to run in said race.

[OrangeP47]

Yeah, hard agree with Tyler, if you can just take a pol off the career track at any time it really defeats the purpose.  I recall we had this convo with V before and he agreed last time people wanted this to happen.

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, ebrk85 said:

Once primaries exist any faction can generate a pol for any race if they have no one eligible to run in said race.

Also pretty sure that's crazy talk.

[ebrk85]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Also pretty sure that's crazy talk.

If a state allows primaries, and a player hasn’t an eligible candidate for office, then they have the option to generate a candidate to run for that office.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, ebrk85 said:

If a state allows primaries, and a player hasn’t an eligible candidate for office, then they have the option to generate a candidate to run for that office.

That's abhorrent to a functioning game and should probably be changed, it will lead to incredible bloat.

[Willthescout7]

Not having enough candidates to fill every seat isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Yeah, Republicans ain’t filling every Georgia seat in 1900. Why? There weren’t Republicans in Georgia in 1900. That’s why seat biases matter. Pick your battles in that state

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

Not having enough candidates to fill every seat isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Yeah, Republicans ain’t filling every Georgia seat in 1900. Why? There weren’t Republicans in Georgia in 1900. That’s why seat biases matter. Pick your battles in that state

Also the general philosophy expressed several times that generated pols are really a "last-resort" type option as the emphasis should be on the focus pols in game I struggle to understand how that became a rule in the first place.

[ebrk85]

5 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Not having enough candidates to fill every seat isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Yeah, Republicans ain’t filling every Georgia seat in 1900. Why? There weren’t Republicans in Georgia in 1900. That’s why seat biases matter. Pick your battles in that state

I disagree to an extent. If I am doing well enough as a Republican that I can win races in CA but there are not nearly enough Republicans in the game in CA (because IRL there aren't many) for me to contest each house seat then I think that is an issue. Now I am not saying for every faction to get a candidate. But if there are no red pols eligible in any faction to run for such a seat then I do think one should be able to be generated.

Edited December 30, 2023 by ebrk85

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

I disagree to an extent. If I am doing well enough as a Republican that I can win races in CA but there are not nearly enough Republicans in the game in CA (because IRL there aren't many) for me to contest each house seat then I think that is an issue. Now I am not saying for every faction to get a candidate. But if there are no red pols eligible in any faction to run for such a seat then I do think one should be able to be generated.

You have who you have, and they must be used intelligently.  At first, they can be slotted into some (but not all) of the house seats, and intelligence can be used to work the seat biases.  If you lose them though, that's it.  CA would be an extreme case, most likely, but what you'd more often find would be cases where the lack of pols isn't because such pols never existed, but such pols now no longer exist because they've been used and lost losing elections.  In those cases people shouldn't get generic pols to 'do over' with, they must wait for new pols to arrive.  Further complicating matters would be deciding what faction would get the free pol?  There is no fair way to decide.  For a multitude of reasons, it is simply best to avoid the debate entirely and stick to the pol list where possible.

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

You have who you have, and they must be used intelligently.  At first, they can be slotted into some (but not all) of the house seats, and intelligence can be used to work the seat biases.  If you lose them though, that's it.  CA would be an extreme case, most likely, but what you'd more often find would be cases where the lack of pols isn't because such pols never existed, but such pols now no longer exist because they've been used and lost losing elections.  In those cases people shouldn't get generic pols to 'do over' with, they must wait for new pols to arrive.  Further complicating matters would be deciding what faction would get the free pol?  There is no fair way to decide.  For a multitude of reasons, it is simply best to avoid the debate entirely and stick to the pol list where possible.

Couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with pols no longer existing because they lost elections. And that certainly isn't the case in our situation. I know we are trying to mostly adhere to historical guidelines. But I shouldn't be boxed out of potential focus Reps just because CA was historically Democratic and I have an election cycle that is now friendly to me to pick up seats that aren't typically attainable just because their aren't enough pols to go around.

[OrangeP47]

4 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

Couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with pols no longer existing because they lost elections. And that certainly isn't the case in our situation. I know we are trying to mostly adhere to historical guidelines. But I shouldn't be boxed out of potential focus Reps just because CA was historically Democratic and I have an election cycle that is now friendly to me to pick up seats that aren't typically attainable just because their aren't enough pols to go around.

I mean, it's somewhat realistic, even in a good year, if the party base isn't there, the party org hasn't developed to the point to recruit good candidates.  A good candidate doesn't come from no where.

[ebrk85]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, it's somewhat realistic, even in a good year, if the party base isn't there, the party org hasn't developed to the point to recruit good candidates.  A good candidate doesn't come from no where.

I would tend to agree more if we were running every House seat and not focus Reps. Of which I am not advocating for.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, ebrk85 said:

I would tend to agree more if we were running every House seat and not focus Reps. Of which I am not advocating for.

If each party was allowed to generate a pol for an uncontested race, how would you decide what faction it goes to?  I can't evaluate your stance until you propose something.

[ebrk85]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

If each party was allowed to generate a pol for an uncontested race, how would you decide what faction it goes to?  I can't evaluate your stance until you propose something.

Well using V's general methodology it would go to the faction with the lowest points. Although I personally think that could get a bit out of hand with them all going to one faction. Although also hopefully it wouldn't come up that often.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, ebrk85 said:

Well using V's general methodology it would go to the faction with the lowest points. Although I personally think that could get a bit out of hand with them all going to one faction. Although also hopefully it wouldn't come up that often.

Has this been a problem you're actively experienced or is it still hypothetical?  We do have some data from our game.

[ebrk85]

2 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Has this been a problem you're actively experienced or is it still hypothetical?  We do have some data from our game.

We've seen it pop up in the playtests for the more current times. I haven't had it come up in the 1800 playtest yet. It mainly only really comes up in large states like CA and NY with 8-10 house seats.