AMPU Playtest Draft

[Hestia]

Squire Boone @MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

Draft list is up to date. The draft phase will end at 8am EST. After that time, I'll autodraft. 

 

 

[vcczar]

I slept in for the first time in months. I’m autodrafting soon. I'll autodraft all of Blue first. 

[vcczar]

Blue Party Draft is finished:

• @WVProgressive leads in Progressive, Populists, LW Media and RW Media (!) and is tied in Liberals
• @Hestia leads in Conservatives and Traditionalists, Big Agriculture, and is tied in Military-Industrial, Trade (could be Free Trade or Protectionism)
• @Rodja is tied in the lead in Moderates, and leads in Reformists, Law & Order, and is tied in Military-Industrial
• @themiddlepolitical is tied in the lead in Moderates and in Expansionists
• @MrPotatoTed (Blue CPU) is tied in the lead for Expansionists and in Military-Industrial
• @Rezi leads in Nationalists, Big Corporations, and is tied in Military-Industrial, Trade (could be Free Trade or Protectionism)

Some of this will translate into cards, but it will depend on the Red Party Draft, which could see the Red Party more numerous in some of these. 

[vcczar]

The 1774 Active Draft is completely done. I'll start a new thread to let you all know what cards you have. 

[vcczar]

I'm curious who everyone is most excited to play as in their faction

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious who everyone is most excited to play as in their faction

Mine would probably be Elbridge Gerry 😛

[Timur]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Mine would probably be Elbridge Gerry 😛

Would you be able to "Gerrymander" Massachusetts in this game?

[vcczar]

Just now, Timur said:

Would you be able to "Gerrymander" Massachusetts in this game?

Yeah, it's an option. Very useful but it decreases the "Honest Government" meter. 

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious who everyone is most excited to play as in their faction

Having Washington will be entertaining 

[vcczar]

33 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Having Washington will be entertaining 

I'm kind of curious how his life plays out:

• Will he be selected to fight in the Rev War or will he opt for the Continental Congress?
• Will he preside over the Constitutional Convention?
• Will he become the first president or president at any time?
• Will he live beyond 1799?

One thing with the game vs real life is that few players will allow Washington to run uncontested for president. It's possible since there's drawbacks to losing an election. 

[Timur]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm kind of curious how his life plays out:

• Will he be selected to fight in the Rev War or will he opt for the Continental Congress?
• Will he preside over the Constitutional Convention?
• Will he become the first president or president at any time?
• Will he live beyond 1799?

One thing with the game vs real life is that few players will allow Washington to run uncontested for president. It's possible since there's drawbacks to losing an election. 

Will he serve a third term?

[Rezi]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious who everyone is most excited to play as in their faction

The Clinton family is coming 😁

[WVProgressive]

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious who everyone is most excited to play as in their faction

Probably either Sam Adams, or Patrick Henry

[MrPotatoTed]

Although I won’t be actively strategizing for him specifically because I’m playing as the CPU, I’m most interested in seeing where Philip Schuyler goes.  He was Hamilton’s father in law — and his re-election bid was defeated by Aaron Burr.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Although I won’t be actively strategizing for him specifically because I’m playing as the CPU, I’m most interested in seeing where Philip Schuyler goes.  He was Hamilton’s father in law — and his re-election bid was defeated by Aaron Burr.

I first learned about Philip Schuyler when I was about in 3rd grade. There was an old NES or SNES game (I think SNES) called Liberty or Death, which was an American Revolution game made by Koei, the same company that makes Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition. Like in those game, you control hundreds of generals, unlike in those games, you only have two options of which force to play as (US or UK in this instance). Anyway, Philip Schuyler is one of the generals, and his portrait looked really cool, so I remember choosing to promote him more frequently than others. 

The game is a cool game, but I remember it being relatively easy for the US so long as you can secure New England fairly quickly, which wasn't too hard. It helped that the UK starts with Thomas Gage who is a terrible General-in-Chief in the game. The easiest way to lose as the US is to not move quickly, because you lose support by being inactive, but it seems counter-intuitive because your troops are few and untrained while the British troops are better and sending better troops. 

It was fun. 

Another good Koei game from that time is L'Empereur. The player plays as Napoleon (can't play as anyone else) but you control all the generals under his personal command in a battle and can give instructions to those in other parts of the realm. This is easily Koei's most difficult game for beginners. The hardest and nearly impossible part of the game is when Napoleon starts. He's completely outnumbered and his officers are inexperienced. However, if you luck out and win the first 3 or 5 battles then the rest of the game is kind of simple. In fact, half the game is knowing you are assured but you just need to mop up half of Europe. You totally outnumber the enemy. Morale is so low for them that their officers are joining you. This latter part is one of two major flaws in an otherwise fun game.  For instance, I had the Duke of Wellington join me. Napoleon with Wellington cannot come close to losing. The other major flaw is that Horatio Nelson will randomly destroy an ocean going French fleet at some point, but then die in the attempt. The trick is to send one boat with one man into the ocean until Nelson destroys it and dies, then send your massive navy to undefended England. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar what if, instead of having folks nominate statesman for positions so the CPU can choose, the CPU just made it's selection using the current rules?  So for example, if the die roll says CPU chooses the eligible statesman with the highest overall value, then that's who the CPU chooses without requiring this nomination phase?

It'll make things go a bit faster, without losing anything I think.

[vcczar]

23 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

@vcczar what if, instead of having folks nominate statesman for positions so the CPU can choose, the CPU just made it's selection using the current rules?  So for example, if the die roll says CPU chooses the eligible statesman with the highest overall value, then that's who the CPU chooses without requiring this nomination phase?

It'll make things go a bit faster, without losing anything I think.

The only reason I don't do this is that the President of the CC wasn't an executive position. For instance, John Adams proposed Washington to be C-in-C of the C Army. That was then voted on. Really, the appointments should be handled like legislative proposals. If anything changes, I'd probably change it to that, I just think that might be kind of inconsistent with how appointments will generally be in the game. 

[MrPotatoTed]

29 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The only reason I don't do this is that the President of the CC wasn't an executive position. For instance, John Adams proposed Washington to be C-in-C of the C Army. That was then voted on. Really, the appointments should be handled like legislative proposals. If anything changes, I'd probably change it to that, I just think that might be kind of inconsistent with how appointments will generally be in the game. 

Fair enough, but right now the human player makes the appointments like that anyway, doesn't he?  if he's the President of the CC I mean.

 

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair enough, but right now the human player makes the appointments like that anyway, doesn't he?  if he's the President of the CC I mean.

 

I might just change it to having the relevant committee chairs propose someone and then the congress votes. The President could break a tie. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Maybe balance it with a faction's right to refuse such an appointment from the CC President?

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Maybe balance it with a faction's right to refuse such an appointment from the CC President?

I think the more that I think about this, it needs to be historical. CC president basically presided, similar to the VP when serving in the Senate. No real power or function. The only reason I have given the CC some power is just because I want the transition from CC President to US President to not be too jarring. 

Here are the options I'm deciding between:

• Any faction can propose a nominee. Delegates vote. CC Pres breaks a vote if states are tied b/c of abstaining states. 
• Chair of the relevant committee, such as Foreign/Military Chair, makes the nomination. Delegates vote. CC Pres breaks tie.
• Chair of the relevant committee makes the nomination. Other members of the committee votes. CC Pres breaks tie. 
• Factions nominate. CC Pres selects. Delegates vote on that selection. 

Historically, Adams nominates Washington to be C-in-Ch of the army. CC Pres Hancock (who actually wanted the position himself) calls for a vote. Delegates approve GW as general. 

Adams was chairing so many committees. That once can argue that the factions or chairs could nominate. Hancock's calling for a vote could be said to have been purely procedural or a confirmation of that choice. Then there is clearly a vote. 

So I think any of these 4 choices could be close to history. Which do you think is best? 

[MrPotatoTed]

43 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think the more that I think about this, it needs to be historical. CC president basically presided, similar to the VP when serving in the Senate. No real power or function. The only reason I have given the CC some power is just because I want the transition from CC President to US President to not be too jarring. 

Here are the options I'm deciding between:

• Any faction can propose a nominee. Delegates vote. CC Pres breaks a vote if states are tied b/c of abstaining states. 
• Chair of the relevant committee, such as Foreign/Military Chair, makes the nomination. Delegates vote. CC Pres breaks tie.
• Chair of the relevant committee makes the nomination. Other members of the committee votes. CC Pres breaks tie. 
• Factions nominate. CC Pres selects. Delegates vote on that selection. 

Historically, Adams nominates Washington to be C-in-Ch of the army. CC Pres Hancock (who actually wanted the position himself) calls for a vote. Delegates approve GW as general. 

Adams was chairing so many committees. That once can argue that the factions or chairs could nominate. Hancock's calling for a vote could be said to have been purely procedural or a confirmation of that choice. Then there is clearly a vote. 

So I think any of these 4 choices could be close to history. Which do you think is best? 

Ooh, that's interesting.  I lean towards Chair of the relevant committee nominates, delegates vote.  

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Ooh, that's interesting.  I lean towards Chair of the relevant committee nominates, delegates vote.  

Ok, I'll make that change to the rules when I can. 

[vcczar]

26 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ok, I'll make that change to the rules when I can. 

@MrPotatoTed rule updated