A Thread for small, low priority changes and errors.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

6 hours ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

CPU Things - Again

• When CPUs decide to do gov actions and the chance lands on something to help an ally, the ally is the lowest scoring faction (75%) or closest ideology (25%), if tied - randomized.
• If unable to do governor action to help ally, default to solving crisis (75%) or helping own faction ((25%)

I think there’s a section that says they pick random if unable to do an action. Could be wrong though. 

[pman]

Just flagging some issues with Watergate 

"One of your campaign advisors has come up with a brilliant--and fool proof--campaign intelligence plan to ensure victory in your reelection bid. If we wiretap the opposition party's headquarters, then we will always be a step ahead of them in the upcoming election campaign."

- The historic year according to the sheets is 1974. However, the actual break-in happened in 1972. It matters because as it is written, the break-in impacts the 1976 election which is obviously ahistorical. If the impact of the event is on the forthcoming election and the subsequent Presidential term, then it should happen in the 72 (not 76) election and impact the 72-76 Presidency (not the 76-80 Presidency). 

Edited January 11 by pman

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, pman said:

Just flagging some issues with the Watergate issue

"One of your campaign advisors has come up with a brilliant--and fool proof--campaign intelligence plan to ensure victory in your reelection bid. If we wiretap the opposition party's headquarters, then we will always be a step ahead of them in the upcoming election campaign."

- The historic year according to the sheets is 1974. However, the actual break-in happened in 1972. It matters because as it is written, the break-in impacts the 1976 election which is obviously ahistorical. If the impact of the event is on the forthcoming election and the subsequent Presidential term, then it should happen in the 72 (not 76) election and impact the 72-76 Presidency (not the 76-80 Presidency). 

That doesn't affect when it fires, that just marks if it "has fired" for possible mid-game start dates, so it won't really matter in that way.  It more matters for "has this happened yet, yes/no".

[pman]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

That doesn't affect when it fires, that just marks if it "has fired" for possible mid-game start dates, so it won't really matter in that way.  It more matters for "has this happened yet, yes/no".

So when does it fire? Because as it's written, it looks like the President gets the choice to authorize the break-in during the 76 election which is obviously ahistorical for what's supposed to be a historical event. Am I reading it wrong and it actually happens in 1972?

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, pman said:

So when does it fire? Because as it's written, it looks like the President gets the choice to authorize the break-in during the 76 election which is obviously ahistorical for what's supposed to be a historical event. Am I reading it wrong and it actually happens in 1972?

It just fires whenever.  Events do not fire based on historical year.

[ebrk85]

2 hours ago, pman said:

So when does it fire? Because as it's written, it looks like the President gets the choice to authorize the break-in during the 76 election which is obviously ahistorical for what's supposed to be a historical event. Am I reading it wrong and it actually happens in 1972?

Every event has a percent chance of firing each half-term. So if its says 10% then it has a 10% percent chance of firing in 72, 10% in 74, 10% in 76, etc until it fires (or doesn't if you never roll the 10%). So for our test it could fire (if the condition have been met) at any time from now until 2000

[Bushwa777]

Yep for instance in my solo cpu playtest i can end up in war with France but only if I roll a percentage and conditions are met which without looking i believe to be relations with France need to be hostile or worse

[10centjimmy]

Request a clarification on "office" when sweetening VP impact. 

I understood it to mean any pol who held an office, whether appointed or elected (including Generals and Admirals)

[Euri]

And speaking from the opposite point of view, I think that because the rule is to determine who does or doesn’t count as an “outsider,” military offices for this purpose should not count because generals and admirals are typically political outsiders

[10centjimmy]

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

And speaking from the opposite point of view, I think that because the rule is to determine who does or doesn’t count as an “outsider,” military offices for this purpose should not count because generals and admirals are typically political outsiders

Fair, but for the sake of simplicity it might be easier to check a box "yes/no if candidate has a position" when calculating that bonus. If we start digging into which appointed positions are political/outsider, then it can get really muddled - Fed Chair,  FBI, CIA, judges,  etc.

[matthewyoung123]

44 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

Fair, but for the sake of simplicity it might be easier to check a box "yes/no if candidate has a position" when calculating that bonus. If we start digging into which appointed positions are political/outsider, then it can get really muddled - Fed Chair,  FBI, CIA, judges,  etc.

I understand what you're saying, and you so make a good point here.  I will also say that service in the military doesn't count towards "time served" in the government (the 16 year rule).  The military is kind of its own animal.  Therefore, I don't consider it an elected or administrative (cabinet) position.  Thanks!

[OrangeP47]

3 hours ago, 10centjimmy said:

Fair, but for the sake of simplicity it might be easier to check a box "yes/no if candidate has a position" when calculating that bonus. If we start digging into which appointed positions are political/outsider, then it can get really muddled - Fed Chair,  FBI, CIA, judges,  etc.

I get what you're saying, and I don't know what the actual rule is off hand, but I do know the actual rule is really convoluted, because V specifically wanted it to be convoluted who would be considered an outsider and there was a big argument about Govs historically being what was "meant" by an outsider last time this came up.  In that light, erring on the side of complexity is fine.  It wouldn't be hard for a real programmer (notice the word choice).

[10centjimmy]

Regardless of the convolution, I think we agree it should be clarified since as a player it matters in calculating who you want as a running mate. 

I still think the most basic definition of "office" makes the most sense but I won't fight the majority opinion. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

John M Palmer (Draft 1868) has both pliable and puritan. 

[Arkansas Progressive]

1860 Rule

Needing Dom Stab to be on 1 is too restrictive (proper testing is needed ofc). A change would roll a 50% if Dom Stab is on 3(or 4) or less

[matthewyoung123]

5 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

1860 Rule

Needing Dom Stab to be on 1 is too restrictive (proper testing is needed ofc). A change would roll a 50% if Dom Stab is on 3(or 4) or less

Yeah, I think I noted this on the 1860 rule itself.  I think it should just be "in crisis", but 4 or less works for me too.

[OrangeP47]

I'd only make it 1 or 2, it's supposed to be rare.

[OrangeP47]

There are two "Tyre York"s, one needs a name change, kinda like how that one gaston guy has (MA) after his name.

[Arkansas Progressive]

Touring states leading in "industry" is too overpowered for players who can do it to gain massive election bonuses, especially if they have upwards of 3 command and have two half terms to do it.

Those kinds of tours didn't really occur until WJB did it during his 1896 campaign. So the idea is to only allow touring of multiple state groups during the Era of Progressivism or later.

CHANGE: Tour states leading in "industry" is limited to one state group per half-term until the Era of Progressivism. 50% chance of success unless the president's faction has a card that is related to the industry being toured, then 100% chance

ADDITION: Take a vacation, gives points if president has a faction with media card, with a 1-2d6 to hit a scandal, only allowed during the era of neocons are later

ADDITION: "male a speech for/against a bill that passed" for like a 25% chance of impacting ideologies associated with the bill.  Maybe a 50% chance if the President has charisma. Not allowed to take the action if President is harmonious, delegator, or uncharismatic.

Edited February 9 by Arkansas Progressive
Added additional limit on success chance related to lobby card and state group being toured

[jnewt]

Elizabeth Warren has a draft year of 1976 and starts as a Prog Republican. However, she was known to be pretty conservative, and didn't become a progressive until later in life, at the same time as drifting toward the Democratic party, so she was never a progressive Republican. Similarly, Donald Trump starts as a RW Populist Democrat, despite never being a right-wing populist Democrat in real life.

I think it'd be more realistic if these types of pols either started with their real-life ideologies and parties at the time of their draft year (e.g. Warren as a Mod/Cons Red and Trump as a Mod Blue), or their most-well known ideologies and parties (e.g. Warren as a Prog Blue and Trump as RW Pop Red), but not a mixing-and-matching of the two.

Edited February 10 by jnewt

[Arkansas Progressive]

CPU Rules on choosing a nominator for their major candidates: 60% chance the CPU selects someone with orator (if applicable), 40% chance for someone without incoherent. The chosen nominator cannot be one of the Major/Minor/Fav Son's running for the Presidency.

Edited March 15 by Arkansas Progressive

[Arkansas Progressive]

Instead of only the first and last place factions requesting changes to the delegate majority (1/2 etc), any faction can request it - but it would still require two factions agreeing to the same proposal (both R1 and R3 want a simple majority and R2 wants 2/3) then the ballot rule (unanimous for example) would change to 1/2+1 required.

[OrangeP47]

As "owner" of the alt-state and generated pol logic, it's something I think about a lot.  I realized that especially late game, rules as written might not work for large states for generating enough pols, more in relation to large states having a lot of focus reps.  As it stands, a state gets 2 pols per draft and 4 if they're "underpopulated".  I feel a good addition (that I could probably make myself, but I think you'll agree with, hence the feedback here) is that a medium state should get an additional 2 pols per draft (so a non-underpopulated medium state would get 4 per draft) and a large state would get an additional 4 (not stacking with the med state's 2), (so a non-underpopulated large state would get 6 per draft).  This would also definitely be needed in light of the 5% death rule, and also the fact that more reps = more lost pols due to losers.  This rule is more looking towards the era of the future, and actually wouldn't change anything we've done up until this point in the 1840 test with alt-states/alt-pols, as Durango is a small state.

[jnewt]

Kika de la Garza is listed as “Kiki de la Garza”

[Arkansas Progressive]

VP or Pres nominee shouldn't be allowed to give the keynote for their own ticket.