Constructive Results of AMPU Summer Playtest

[vcczar]

@MrPotatoTed @Cal I'll be able to add more things like this if I can get the rules "done" quickly. The quicker the rules are finished, the quicker we can add flavor improvements. I do know that Anthony, in a zoom call with me, told me it is a lot harder to add stuff later. So basically having everything "done" (including flavor additions as you've suggested) at the time when I present the material is what we want. 

Basically, what needs to be done is: 

1. Rules "done" + any adjustments based on this Era of Independence playthrough, since Era of Independence is very different from all the other eras. I also need to add some of the changes I've been posting in this thread, but have yet to add to the rules. 

2. Once rules are "done" the flow charts can be made. 

3. Flavor stuff added. 

4. Update to rough draft screens to include any new additions, including flavor. 

5. Additions to things that won't impact the above, such as fine-tuning events, politicians, legislation, etc.,  including adding more of these kinds of things. 

6. Present the game c. October 1st. 

This will probably go to Anthony but I'm going to write a few more developers sometime over the weekend. 

What I'd like volunteers for (I understand if you are all busy): 

• Anyone with time to proof-read rules (make them clearer, organized better). Basically, if something is confusing let me know. If something seems out of order let me know. If you have a very easy to implement idea that won't require overhauling stuff, I could take in those suggestions. I can probably handle the rules on my own but it's always great to have a 2nd mind. Something that seems comprehendible to me might not be comprehendible to someone else since our minds think differently. 
• Someone who can make flow charts, hopefully @MrPotatoTed
• Anyone that would like to "create" the screens based off my rough drafts. I doubt anyone has the skills or time to do this among us, but shot in the dark. I'm considering hiring someone to make screens that look like a CPU game. Hopefully, I can pay someone like $500 to do some of the major screens just for something to show. 
• The three things above are all the major things, at some point I'll ask for easy things like flavor or suggestions to add more of things, but now is not the time for that. 

Will also tag @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @Rodja @Rezi, I doubt @jvikings1 or @DakotaHale have any time to volunteer. In fact, none of you may have time. 

[Hestia]

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

• Anyone with time to proof-read rules (make them clearer, organized better). Basically, if something is confusing let me know. If something seems out of order let me know. If you have a very easy to implement idea that won't require overhauling stuff, I could take in those suggestions. I can probably handle the rules on my own but it's always great to have a 2nd mind. Something that seems comprehendible to me might not be comprehendible to someone else since our minds think differently. 
•  

I can do some of this over time. I should have some time now and again. 

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

5. Additions to things that won't impact the above, such as fine-tuning events, politicians, legislation, etc.,  including adding more of these kinds of things. 

As I have time every now in then, I might be able to help out in this area. Shouldn't be too difficult and doesn't seem like something that would need people to commit a bunch of time to.

[Cal]

I'm always happy to help with minor things, but I definitely can't commit to anything very sensitive. Like with @jvikings1, law school is my top priority right now and I'm mostly fitting in AMPU between time spent studying and class and checking in sporadically throughout the day for smaller moves. However, I do enjoy getting to know the rules better and I think that I have proved (sometimes as a nuisance!) that I consider the impact of those rules a lot down the road. I can look at whatever section of the rules you ask me to if you point me in a direction and I'll proofread, see if I can find some way to "misinterpret" (for the sake of a dev who isn't familiar with the game looking at the rules blind) or suggest revisions. Just let me know where to direct my attention and I'll fit it in where I can. 

I can definitely help with finding more politicians if that's ever wanted, though. That's fun enough for me to justify spending my outside-AMPU free time on 😛 

[vcczar]

32 minutes ago, Cal said:

I'm always happy to help with minor things, but I definitely can't commit to anything very sensitive. Like with @jvikings1, law school is my top priority right now and I'm mostly fitting in AMPU between time spent studying and class and checking in sporadically throughout the day for smaller moves. However, I do enjoy getting to know the rules better and I think that I have proved (sometimes as a nuisance!) that I consider the impact of those rules a lot down the road. I can look at whatever section of the rules you ask me to if you point me in a direction and I'll proofread, see if I can find some way to "misinterpret" (for the sake of a dev who isn't familiar with the game looking at the rules blind) or suggest revisions. Just let me know where to direct my attention and I'll fit it in where I can. 

I can definitely help with finding more politicians if that's ever wanted, though. That's fun enough for me to justify spending my outside-AMPU free time on 😛 

Yeah, I think proofing the rules will be best. I'm going to break the rules up into separate documents (with links to the other documents). Basically, each section will be a document. This is just to prevent endless scrolling. The table of contents is too long. It also scrolls slowly with so much text, so this will help and I could arguably add graphic and charts this way since it will scroll quicker. So what I'll probably do, is point you to one section or subsection at a time. 

[vcczar]

@ConservativeElector2 if you’re around, could you add to the master statesman’s spreadsheet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_F._McKenzie_Jr.

@MrPotatoTed I’ll look at your spreadsheet for 2022 when I get the chance. Might not be until tonight. 

[ConservativeElector2]

20 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@ConservativeElector2 if you’re around, could you add to the master statesman’s spreadsheet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_F._McKenzie_Jr.

@MrPotatoTed I’ll look at your spreadsheet for 2022 when I get the chance. Might not be until tonight. 

I can do that at some point later today.

[ConservativeElector2]

@vcczar I've added McKenzie. I awarded him Moderate, can be independent, Blue (?) team and 1957 as birth year. It's either 1956 or 57 according to WP. Doesn't make a difference for the draft class though. Oh and I took Alabama as his initial state. He was born there so it seems fine.

[Cal]

Feedback from AMPU Rules: 1.2 - Intro and Settings

Option 1:
Maybe consider allowing a slider for the ideological range, or a custom setup for what ideology consists each faction. For example: You set the slider to two and keep the full 10 factions. Factions would look like this:

Red Faction 1: Right Wing Populists, Traditionalists, Conservatives
Red Faction 2: Traditionalists, Conservatives, Moderates
Red Faction 3: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals
Red Faction 4: Moderates, Liberals, Progressives
Red Faction 5: Liberals, Progressives, Left Wing Populists

That's just an idea that would allow for players to choose the level of overlap that they want. 

Now, for some actual feedback not based on the above sliding system.

This system has one large exploitation: Strategic drafting. If I'm the Progressive/Liberal faction for example, I'm going to draft as maaaaany Liberals as I want, because no one else can grab a Liberal from me. In fact, it's likely that the highest valued liberals will be concentrated on my team, as the actual liberal faction will be pulling from high ranking moderates as well. In a draft of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, I'm likely to get 2/3 I'd wager. I don't have to draft my progressives/populists early for any reason. 

While this doesn't SEEM like a huge issue, it would after several drafts result in the liberal faction having a far more moderate presence than intended from their faction card and a huge amount of moderates voting for liberal legislation. 

One way to counteract that would be to have some kind of rule regarding a faction having to draft from their faction ideology more often. Whether this is a ratio, that the first certain number of picks must come from their dominant ideology, or that they simply must draft all of those above a certain value, something could probably be done to force factions to actually have the higher ranked politicians of their ideology within them. 

It does make scoring a lot easier versus the other rulesets. 

The other rules I won't delve into because honestly it seems like they're whole separate ball parks. 

[MrPotatoTed]

20 minutes ago, Cal said:

Feedback from AMPU Rules: 1.2 - Intro and Settings

Option 1:
Maybe consider allowing a slider for the ideological range, or a custom setup for what ideology consists each faction. For example: You set the slider to two and keep the full 10 factions. Factions would look like this:

Red Faction 1: Right Wing Populists, Traditionalists, Conservatives
Red Faction 2: Traditionalists, Conservatives, Moderates
Red Faction 3: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals
Red Faction 4: Moderates, Liberals, Progressives
Red Faction 5: Liberals, Progressives, Left Wing Populists

That's just an idea that would allow for players to choose the level of overlap that they want. 

Now, for some actual feedback not based on the above sliding system.

This system has one large exploitation: Strategic drafting. If I'm the Progressive/Liberal faction for example, I'm going to draft as maaaaany Liberals as I want, because no one else can grab a Liberal from me. In fact, it's likely that the highest valued liberals will be concentrated on my team, as the actual liberal faction will be pulling from high ranking moderates as well. In a draft of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, I'm likely to get 2/3 I'd wager. I don't have to draft my progressives/populists early for any reason. 

While this doesn't SEEM like a huge issue, it would after several drafts result in the liberal faction having a far more moderate presence than intended from their faction card and a huge amount of moderates voting for liberal legislation. 

One way to counteract that would be to have some kind of rule regarding a faction having to draft from their faction ideology more often. Whether this is a ratio, that the first certain number of picks must come from their dominant ideology, or that they simply must draft all of those above a certain value, something could probably be done to force factions to actually have the higher ranked politicians of their ideology within them. 

It does make scoring a lot easier versus the other rulesets. 

The other rules I won't delve into because honestly it seems like they're whole separate ball parks. 

Fair points.  Perhaps it’s just “you have to draft everyone in your primary ideology before you draft someone else.”

So if there’s 10 rounds in a draft, and there’s 7 progressives, the progressive is getting all 7 progressives and then they can take statesmen of other ideologies for their final three draft picks.

[vcczar]

Slight rule changes:

• Those with Puritan cannot shift their ideology. Previously, they could but would lose "Puritan"
• Those with Lackey can now shift their ideology; however, now they cannot if they have the same ideology as their faction leader. 

[vcczar]

Another rule change: 

• If a kingmaker with proteges is converted, then all the proteges are also converted, except any with "puritan." A protege cannot be converted unless their kingmaker is converted, unless they are "pliable"

[vcczar]

Also another rule change:

• I'm following @MrPotatoTed instructions and splitting LW Pop and RW Pop again.

The difficulty in deciding whether to lump them or split one is mostly due to a HUGE overlap between Populists, historically. For instance, a LW Pop like Robert La Follette and a RW Pop like Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman were almost arm-and-arm in their support for Progressive Era legislation domestically, Isolationism abroad, and in other areas. The primary difference between them was in regards to Civil Rights/Voting RIghts and Executive Power interference. Tillman favored progressivism if it came via Congress or state governments, but he did not favor federal force. 

The Progressive Era actually had four types of progressives:

1. Southern Progressives (RW Pop) like Tillman, who favored a state-based Progressivism, but would obey Congress so long as their state wasn't strongly opposed, especially in Civil Rights or Voting Rights. There was no clear leader of this group. Tillman is just a notable example. Huey P Long kind of became a belated leader of the residue of this group, but less intolerant. 
2. Midwest and Western Progressives (LW Pop) like La Follette, who preferred reform coming from the state, but favored the Federal government being involved in making sure other states follow in line if they're stubborn. La Follette led this group but it also had Hiram Johnson and other leaders. This group could be of either party. They favored more power to the people--referendum, recall, etc. unlike most of those in the other groups.
3. East Coast Republican Progressives like Roosevelt (Lib or Prog), who wanted a National/Nationalist progressivism which adhered a little more to the Establishment as a means to carry out the reform. Unlike the first two Progressives, this group was not Isolationist. They generally supported US Imperialism. They favored states leading the Progressive charge only so long as they were keeping pace with Roosevelt. This group was more of a cult of Roosevelt. 
4. East Coast Democratic Progressives like Wilson (Lib), these were probably the least progressive as they were aiming more for a big tent environment, which makes them more in the mold of contemporary Democrats. They were fence-sitters on a lot of things like Civil Rights and military intervention. They favored going through the establishment. They were less-likely to take risks on reform. 

[Cal]

Did @MrPotatoTed end up making new changes to the rolls on Faction Leaders as he previously mentioned during the last time it came around? I'd be curious about that. I feel like the 1% rolls added to the various committee positions really adds a lot even if it's very rare. It gives an opportunity for players to have "happy surprises" so to speak without it only being general events (that often only give a positive trait to the lowest scoring player). 

[MrPotatoTed]

16 minutes ago, Cal said:

Did @MrPotatoTed end up making new changes to the rolls on Faction Leaders as he previously mentioned during the last time it came around? I'd be curious about that. I feel like the 1% rolls added to the various committee positions really adds a lot even if it's very rare. It gives an opportunity for players to have "happy surprises" so to speak without it only being general events (that often only give a positive trait to the lowest scoring player). 

Not yet, but I’ll try to get that done before we reach that phase

[Cal]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Not yet, but I’ll try to get that done before we reach that phase

Yay! Assuming I get the RW populist card as planned, there’s a chance for Arnold to increase his value further!

[vcczar]

Just now, Cal said:

Yay! Assuming I get the RW populist card as planned, there’s a chance for Arnold to increase his value further!

I think it would be funny if Arnold finally grasps the Command trait he's been desperately wanting only to get Random Death. 

[Cal]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I think it would be funny if Arnold finally grasps the Command trait he's been desperately wanting only to get Random Death. 

There's definitely a good chance! I've not had any heartbreaking deaths yet so it's bound to happen soon. 

[Cal]

Also, is there a way to unhide future legislation (or maybe there's a different document with it somewhere) so that I could try and make some future plans?

[ConservativeElector2]

@vcczar let's assume a Senator goes maverick and becomes an independent. How will it be determined with which faction the senator will caucus? Can the player who controls the senator decide or is there going to be a die roll?

In the Alaska State House there had even been Republicans caucusing with Democrats and in the State Senate it's theother way round. I don't ever remember us talking about caucusing in the AMPU Senate at all.

Edited August 31, 2021 by ConservativeElector2

[MrPotatoTed]

6 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

@vcczar let's assume a Senator goes maverick and becomes an independent. How will it be determined with which faction the senator will caucus? Can the player who controls the senator decide or is there going to be a die roll?

In the Alaska State House there had even been Republicans caucusing with Democrats and in the State Senate it's theother way round. I don't ever remember us talking about caucusing in the AMPU Senate at all.

There's rules for Senators going rogue depending on their traits -- but it's so complicated that I've been scared to run it myself.  Haha.  

[ConservativeElector2]

@vcczar I wanted to pitch this for long but I've always forgotten about it. Although we have party leaders in the game, the position of RNC/DNC chair - or Red/Blue Chair - is not. I'd argue that both Ronna Romney McDaniel and Jaime Harrison as well as many of their predecessors have enough name recognition to include their position in the game.

[vcczar]

3 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

@vcczar I wanted to pitch this for long but I've always forgotten about it. Although we have party leaders in the game, the position of RNC/DNC chair - or Red/Blue Chair - is not. I'd argue that both Ronna Romney McDaniel and Jaime Harrison as well as many of their predecessors have enough name recognition to include their position in the game.

Maybe. I thought about it. Just not sure what they'd do for game purposes. Also if it would add anything that wouldn't just slow the game down further. I might change my mind. 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Maybe. I thought about it. Just not sure what they'd do for game purposes. Also if it would add anything that wouldn't just slow the game down further. I might change my mind. 

I see. Yeah, what it could do? Besides hypothetical prestige it could give you the chance to get kingmaker (5%) and another random trait or so.

[Hestia]

I think we should be able to decline general appointments. Especially since in this game, we're not coming from the military. Gerry just got appointed to General when I worked to get him to be Gov, and now we just lost the governorship since no one else in MA not in the Career Track is blue. It's just kind of frustrating knowing that he may die before I try and get him back in office again and I lost my only governor because I couldn't decline. It said "nominate", but I wasn't asked for a chance to turn down the nomination.