Jump to content
The Political Lounge

AMPU: Trading Factions Option


 Share

Should Players Be Allowed to Trade their faction for a faction of the other party?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. *Read first comment before voting* Should Players Be Allowed to Trade their faction for a faction of the other party? [Pick all that you are comfortable with]

    • Yes, there should be a point in the game when the game prompts players if they want to trade.
    • Yes, players should be able to trade factions at any time.
    • Yes, and players should be forced to trade once the the Democrats become the more socially progressive party and Republicans become the more socially conservative party, say 1964, 1972, or 1980.
    • No, players should stay with their faction/party for the entire playthrough.
    • Other solution -- mention below


Recommended Posts

As the game currently stands, a player playing as the Federalists in 1788 will be a Republican when they get to 2020, and a Jeffersonian Republican playing in 1788 will be playing as the Democrats in 2020. This creates a potential problem for players who want to play exclusively as "Progressives" or "Traditionalists." A player wanting to be Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz, might have to play as Jefferson Davis and Robert La Follette, respectively for part of the game. 

@MrPotatoTed @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @WVProgressive @Rodja @SilentLiberty @Cal @themiddlepolitical and anyone else interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand the question -- but of course you have the statesman draft every four years, and also the possibility for you as the player to shift your statesman's ideology.  So i don't think anyone is being forced to play anything.  If I start out as the red team because I think Alexander Hamilton could be fun, I'm under no obligation to eventually draft Donald Trump -- and even if I do, I can get enjoyment out of benching him and never letting him actually do anything.  "Hooray!  I saved America!"  ;c)

That said, I've always liked the idea of playing without formal parties and just letting alliances and opponents emerge naturally overtime over whatever issues, and let those shift naturally over time, just like it did in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm not sure that I understand the question -- but of course you have the statesman draft every four years, and also the possibility for you as the player to shift your statesman's ideology.  So i don't think anyone is being forced to play anything.  If I start out as the red team because I think Alexander Hamilton could be fun, I'm under no obligation to eventually draft Donald Trump -- and even if I do, I can get enjoyment out of benching him and never letting him actually do anything.  "Hooray!  I saved America!"  ;c)

That said, I've always liked the idea of playing without formal parties and just letting alliances and opponents emerge naturally overtime over whatever issues, and let those shift naturally over time, just like it did in real life.

 

3 minutes ago, Hestia said:

To elaborate on my answer, I think it should prompt at major switches (i.e death of Federalists, rise of the GOP, and when the parties change near 1920-ish). 

@MrPotatoTed I guess my question is this. Should the player that wants to be Bernie Sanders in 2020 have to play as the party of slavery in 1788 since Jeffersonians become Democrats? 

@WVProgressive I'm talking about factions of parties. Parties will change historically. Federalists become Whigs become Republicans. Jeffersonians become Democrats. The issue is the ideological switch that correlates with the Solid South going from Blue to Red. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

@MrPotatoTed I guess my question is this. Should the player that wants to be Bernie Sanders in 2020 have to play as the party of slavery in 1788 since Jeffersonians become Democrats? 

@WVProgressive I'm talking about factions of parties. Parties will change historically. Federalists become Whigs become Republicans. Jeffersonians become Democrats. The issue is the ideological switch that correlates with the Solid South going from Blue to Red. 

Well...I don't know that anybody "wants" to play as the party of slavery.  I know you're not a fan of W Bush, but hopefully most of the people who would enjoy playing as him don't think it would be fun to advocate in favor of slavery either.  ;c)

That said, if I recall the game mechanics correctly, nobody is "forced" to advocate in favor of slavery -- some are simply incentivized to, by the awarding of points.  But it's a loooooong game.  Folks could feasibly win even if they decide not to support slavery and give up those points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Well...I don't know that anybody "wants" to play as the party of slavery.  I know you're not a fan of W Bush, but hopefully most of the people who would enjoy playing as him don't think it would be fun to advocate in favor of slavery either.  ;c)

That said, if I recall the game mechanics correctly, nobody is "forced" to advocate in favor of slavery -- some are simply incentivized to, by the awarding of points.  But it's a loooooong game.  Folks could feasibly win even if they decide not to support slavery and give up those points.

I'm just thinking there may be players that want to play both as Charles Sumner and Bernie Sanders or as both Samuel J Tilden and Ted Cruz. Currently, that's impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what I might do is have the default as no trading, but then have an option for trading factions, but it requires the CPU or Human playing agreeing. I suppose the CPU would always agree. One would not get the points from that faction. You'll always have your points as of the faction you control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think what I might do is have the default as no trading, but then have an option for trading factions, but it requires the CPU or Human playing agreeing. I suppose the CPU would always agree. One would not get the points from that faction. You'll always have your points as of the faction you control. 

Sure, if that's possible.  Just seems overly complicated.  Might be easier to just have an option to not have parties on, so players can draft both Tilden and Cruz or whatever.  

Playing from 1788 to 2020+ will probably take so long that I imagine if somebody is truly passionate about advancing the Bernie Revolution or whatever, they probably pick a 1990s-2020 starting point rather than a 1788 one.  

Edited by MrPotatoTed
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of prompts at "realignment" times if you want to call it that. Any time is also a good idea just for player freedom.

For example, I'd be a Anti-Federalist/Democratic Republican from the start all the way to 1856. Then I'd stick as a Republican, may switch around at some point during the 1870s-1880s, and spots here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Sure, if that's possible.  Just seems overly complicated.  Might be easier to just have an option to not have parties on, so players can draft both Tilden and Cruz or whatever.  

Playing from 1788 to 2020+ will probably take so long that I imagine if somebody is truly passionate about advancing the Bernie Revolution or whatever, they probably pick a 1990s-2020 starting point rather than a 1788 one.  

I'd agree with that, but the game seems pretty focused on factions, so trying to unravel that at this point seems like quite a bit of work. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Sure, if that's possible.  Just seems overly complicated.  Might be easier to just have an option to not have parties on, so players can draft both Tilden and Cruz or whatever.  

Playing from 1788 to 2020+ will probably take so long that I imagine if somebody is truly passionate about advancing the Bernie Revolution or whatever, they probably pick a 1990s-2020 starting point rather than a 1788 one.  

Yeah, maybe turning parties off is an option, but that would throw the whole faction-mechanism of the game out of the door, so I probably shouldn't do that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, maybe turning parties off is an option, but that would throw the whole faction-mechanism of the game out of the door, so I probably shouldn't do that. 

I'm not sure that it would, but of course you know the game better than I do.  

In my mind, the factions still work exactly as designed -- you've already created the systems that enable this "no party" idea.  The fact that ideologies can shift within a faction so that someone who really wants to and makes the effort could switch from being the Conservative Faction to the Progressive Faction without actually throwing out their roster for a whole new team.  If ideology is fluid, perhaps party can be too.

Personally, I have a harder time following the concept of jumping from one faction to another.  To me, that's akin to switching teams in Madden football half way through a season because the other team is winning more games.  I'd rather stick with my team and try to rise them up.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course, and I suppose the more options we can give a player the better.  I just don't understand why there's a scoring system for a faction if you're jumping factions.  I'll just be whatever faction happens to be the President, for all of American history, to get the high score.  ;c)

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I'm not sure that it would, but of course you know the game better than I do.  

In my mind, the factions still work exactly as designed -- you've already created the systems that enable this "no party" idea.  The fact that ideologies can shift within a faction so that someone who really wants to and makes the effort could switch from being the Conservative Faction to the Progressive Faction without actually throwing out their roster for a whole new team.  If ideology is fluid, perhaps party can be too.

Personally, I have a harder time following the concept of jumping from one faction to another.  To me, that's akin to switching teams in Madden football half way through a season because the other team is winning more games.  I'd rather stick with my team and try to rise them up.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course, and I suppose the more options we can give a player the better.  I just don't understand why there's a scoring system for a faction if you're jumping factions.  I'll just be whatever faction happens to be the President, for all of American history, to get the high score.  ;c)

 

Yeah, I'll probably not allow faction trading then. Good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...