Suspend Habeas Corpus RGD

[Ol' Choctaw]

Doesn’t anyone else see this as overpowered and under charged for?

Effects: +20% Loyalty

Cost: 3 VP

First off why does denying people of their rights instill loyalty? Wouldn’t you think being able to lock people up and never be charged with a crime might tend to make people think the government was rather heavy handed? It might keep you quiet for a while but it sure wouldn’t make you feel all happy to be a part of it all.

Still, it is a game so the ability to gain loyalty might prove important, but only 3 vp for 20% loyalty? I would think it should cost not less than 5 times that! And it works in only a couple of turns! By which time I take it that it is over and people can get mad about it then.

I would almost say it should cost 1 NM rather than 3 or even 15 VP.

The word going round at the time was that Lincoln thought he was a king and could do as he pleased.

I think the player should have to think pretty hard before just tossing one of these out there.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[minipol]

The cost is fair. Why would the rest of the country's morale go down because you go habeas corpus on a region that you just conquered?
In a real war, it would probably gain you morale (yeah! bring those b*stards some pain for what they did to us).
3 VP is low, granted.

And for the people in the affected region, being confronted with armed forces tend to shut people up.
That's the whole point: you listen or pay the consequences.

[Ol' Choctaw]

You have the wrong idea. This is not what you do in Memphis or Galveston. That is Martial Law. This is what you do in Danbury, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc. This is what you do to criticizes not enemy populations.

[GraniteStater]

I do think you have some valid observations, O'C. Maybe think of it as a misnomer?

By 1865, there were 14,000 people sitting in Federal prisons without charges filed formally. Habeas was suspended nationwide.

14,000. They weren't kidding around.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Fact is the USSR and the Nazis modeled their police states after Lincoln's, do some digging, you’ll find it.

[minipol]

You have the wrong idea. This is not what you do in Memphis or Galveston. That is Martial Law. This is what you do in Danbury, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc. This is what you do to criticizes not enemy populations.

Ok, then one would indeed expect an effect on NM.

[GraniteStater]

Fact is the USSR and the Nazis modeled their police states after Lincoln's, do some digging, you’ll find it.

I think the characterization is more than a little incongruent. This ain't the place for this discussion, but permit me to point out that the suspension of habeas is provided for in the Constitution. I have given it much thought over the years & fully support Lincoln in every significant case and decision he made - fully, without reservation, after much reading and consideration.

He pressed hard against some limits, very hard indeed, but never, as I see it, beyond them. Merriman is well after the fact, when jurists have the luxury of contemplating principles in well lit, comfortable rooms with no mobs in the streets.

I would have done exactly as he did, in every single instance. People who know me well know that you won't find a stronger adherent of individual liberties and the sanctity of law.

Lincoln was faced with outright treason and the unlawful attempt to establish an illegal government on the soil of the United States. Never, ever forget Grant's comment in his Memoirs about how he felt at Appomattox (close paraphrase): "Never had I felt less like rejoicing at the defeat of a foe who had fought so gallantly and so long against odds weighted so heavily against them; a foe, however, who had fought for one of the worst causes ever and with the least excuse." [Bolding mine]

With the least excuse. Grant was absolutely correct and I still get riled to this day when I reflect how they forswore their Constitutional and moral obligations.

Sorry if that offends some, but a clear look at the events of late 1860 and into early 1861 can be justly viewed in no other way, in my humble and very considered opinion.

E Pluribus Unum

[Ol' Choctaw]

not the whole story, but that is ok for now.

[Skibear]

I think the to this concept is that the +20 loyalty is reflective of taking troublesome folks off the street with a knock-on effect improving the average behaviour of those left walking around. They might not actually be more loyal to the Union, but they might behave in a more loyal law abiding way.
As a cost then 3 VP is abstract, but effectively that city will not contribute VPs to the tally for 6 weeks. But also with a high failure rate the VPs actually can stack up higher on average. Reducing NM would seem wrong to me as a) nobody would use it as too high a cost that effects the whole nation not just a local region b) actually would the national morale be effected as likely many would approve of cracking down on rebels (so long as its not them who are having their liberties removed)

[GraniteStater]

not the whole story, but that is ok for now.

My PM should clarify these points. Thanks for your courtesy.

[Keeler]

Doesn’t anyone else see this as overpowered and under charged for?

Effects: +20% Loyalty

Cost: 3 VP

First off why does denying people of their rights instill loyalty? Wouldn’t you think being able to lock people up and never be charged with a crime might tend to make people think the government was rather heavy handed? It might keep you quiet for a while but it sure wouldn’t make you feel all happy to be a part of it all.

Still, it is a game so the ability to gain loyalty might prove important, but only 3 vp for 20% loyalty? I would think it should cost not less than 5 times that! And it works in only a couple of turns! By which time I take it that it is over and people can get mad about it then.

I would almost say it should cost 1 NM rather than 3 or even 15 VP.

The word going round at the time was that Lincoln thought he was a king and could do as he pleased.

I think the player should have to think pretty hard before just tossing one of these out there.

Anyone else have thoughts?

I think it's overpowered. I like the idea of a NM cost, but we already have a card that raises loyalty at a cost of NM. The HC card needs certainly needs more balancing.

What about loyalty cards costing VP or NM, as long the card is in effect. IE, the card stays in play until cancelled (or no longer valid) at a running cost of VP or NM. That way you're slowly raising loyalty at a political cost, but don't have to keep dropping the card every couple turns.

For Martial Law: NM cost per turn. Base Morale -1 per card in play. Once a Martial Law card is taken out of play, the running cost ends. When I say cost, I don't mean you go from 90 morale to 89 to 88 to 87. Just 90 to 89, or 90 to 88 if two cards are played. And then eventually back to 90 (or whatever your base morale would be).

For Habeas Corpus: VP point cost per turn, but the cost is not repaid (you don't get points back).

[ArmChairGeneral]

I think of this card as part of the loyalty deck along with Demo, Martial Law, Develop, and Defensive works (I am sure I am forgetting some). Loyalty is an important mechanic, and I like the ability to manipulate it. In relation to the cards it counters I don't think it is that under-priced. Is $10 too cheap for Demo?

The name, I think, was chosen to bring historical flavor into the game, but the name itself may be behind some people's uneasiness with the card. The Habeus Corpus decision still angers many Americans today, who see it as a precedent for Federal curtailment of the Constitutionally guaranteed legal rights of citizens, and is inextricably linked to hotly contested contemporary political issues. Considering how important it is to today's law and politics, and its role in the modern interpretation of American history, it is somewhat jarring to see such a "trivial" cost associated with it.

Habeus Corpus was an important national decision that continues to have consequences today and belongs in the game. Perhaps the card name could be changed to something with less baggage, like "Propaganda" or "Arrest Agitators" or "Round Up the Usual Suspects," with Habeus Corpus modeled as a Ledger decision, with costs and effects more appropriate to its historical weight.

[Ace]

Doesn’t anyone else see this as overpowered and under charged for?

Effects: +20% Loyalty

Cost: 3 VP

First off why does denying people of their rights instill loyalty? Wouldn’t you think being able to lock people up and never be charged with a crime might tend to make people think the government was rather heavy handed? It might keep you quiet for a while but it sure wouldn’t make you feel all happy to be a part of it all.

Still, it is a game so the ability to gain loyalty might prove important, but only 3 vp for 20% loyalty? I would think it should cost not less than 5 times that! And it works in only a couple of turns! By which time I take it that it is over and people can get mad about it then.

I would almost say it should cost 1 NM rather than 3 or even 15 VP.

The word going round at the time was that Lincoln thought he was a king and could do as he pleased.

I think the player should have to think pretty hard before just tossing one of these out there.

Anyone else have thoughts?

Your observation is correct. But, as long as we have Demonstration CSA card at a relatively cheap 10$, having habeas corpus to lower NM would unbalance the game - there would be no counter to demonstration. So, NM is fine, but raise the demonstration cost then.

[soundoff]

For me the issues with both the Demo and the HC cards is not in their respective costs. Its in the degree to which they work. I simply cannot get my head around the concept that in a month or less I can take a region with less than 50% loyalty and turn it into a staunch supporter of my cause or vice versa.......its just so unrealistic. To raise or lower support by that amount should take a great deal more time and effort than it actually does. Its just too much too soon particularly as region/city loyalty has so many key knock on effects. Then again its only a game

[ArmChairGeneral]

In relation to the cards it counters I don't think it is that under-priced.

Upon review, I have totally changed my mind on the cost. I don't think the card is overpowered, it roughly matches one of it's opposites, but I DO think it is underpriced.

In the full campaign there will be thousands of VP, if I had to spend $10 to get 3 VP I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't even do it for the ~20 VP's including Skibear's hidden costs. Right now I see it as being discounted relative to the cost of Demos.

I think 1 NM is too expensive for 20 loyalty, but I guess it depends really on what $ price 1 NM trades at. I can't think of many $ for NM decisions in the game so don't have anything to go by. $25? $50?

If Habeus cost NM then Demos would need to be priced accordingly, but Demos aren't trivial now, you use a lot of them and 10 apiece adds up. If that's so many it unbalances the game, then script fewer, but I feel like the quantity is about right. Increasing the cost of both would have the net effect of reducing loyalty dueling as it would become cost prohibitive for both sides.

Habeus Corpus should be $10 or even $15, since the Union has more money. Don't know how many they get over the course of the game compared to CSA's Demos; if CSA has a lot more Demos than Union has Habeus, then more like $5 for a Habeus Corpus because the extra Demos could be used unopposed, making them worth more. (The CSA gets dozens of Demos, how many HC's for the North?)

I am really curious how loyalty dueling is playing out in PBeM, and how valuable the various cards are when played against humans. It is hard to know what value to put on gaining 20 loyalty because Athena is not using her cards to oppose my Demos. If she did, I might think $10 was a lot.

Skibear said:

As a cost then 3 VP is abstract, but effectively that city will not contribute VPs to the tally for 6 weeks. But also with a high failure rate the VPs actually can stack up higher on average.

That's about 20 VPs with the hidden costs included. By failure rate and higher cost on average do you mean that the loyalty gain is randomly less than 20?

[ArmChairGeneral]

Soundoff,

If your opponent is playing their cards back at you, the in-game effects get countered, possibly making it more realistic (and the card sub-game more interesting I would think). How is this playing out in PBEM? Do you find that the cards are overpowering on one side or the other? People just ignoring them altogether?

I see your points on realism. In that sense, we probably shouldn't have a way to affect loyalty at all, like the old days. If you could swing 20% of the people in a city to your side just by staging a $10,000 protest march, there wouldn't have been a Civil War in the first place.

Still, I like the extra layer of play control, I for one have greatly enjoyed the cards. I got used to them in AJE and use them a lot in CW2.

On a related note, I am not seeing loyalty checks happening in the message log when I take strategic and objective towns. We ARE still gaining loyalty the old-fashioned way right?

[Ol' Choctaw]

Your observation is correct. But, as long as we have Demonstration CSA card at a relatively cheap 10$, having habeas corpus to lower NM would unbalance the game - there would be no counter to demonstration. So, NM is fine, but raise the demonstration cost then.

I think it is a serious step. Yes it counters demonstrations. I don’t think that 3 VP to the Union is equal to $10 to the Confederates though.

Were it a vacuum I would say that it would effect NM, but as it is to counter another RGD I stopped short of that.

However, why should they be of equal value?

Causing trouble may be cheap but depriving people of their freedoms is more expensive. They are not equal.

The south had to try and change public opinion to end the war. The Union resorted to propaganda and also some draconian measures to stop people from speaking out. In the end the Union declared martial law everywhere but still had problems with agitators.

This is one of the places where the south deserves some advantage over the Union. The Union has more of everything, including RGD cards. This is one area the Union needs to pay a heavier cost in dealing with a problem and it should have more of an impact.

Victory Points are fine, just so long as the Union player feels it. As to raising the cost of demonstrations, I don’t think so. For one thing they didn’t need to do much agitation at all. It didn’t take agents to do that. The south can’t use them to raise loyalties in their own regions.

$10 is significant to the CSA but not to the Union. 3 VP is not much to either.

I recommended 15 VP but I am really not sure what is significant. I rather thought $10 was worth about 15 VP, IMO.

But in thinking it over it is an unequal proposition and one the Union needs to pay a higher cost for them.

What would most of you say?

[Ace]

Whatever you do, there should be less Habeas corpus cards available. 14.000 people imprisoned without trial may seem a lot to you, but compared to the total population it isn't that big number. There is no way, that could have been employed on massive scale like it can currently in the game.

[soundoff]

Soundoff,

If your opponent is playing their cards back at you, the in-game effects get countered, possibly making it more realistic (and the card sub-game more interesting I would think). How is this playing out in PBEM? Do you find that the cards are overpowering on one side or the other? People just ignoring them altogether?

I see your points on realism. In that sense, we probably shouldn't have a way to affect loyalty at all, like the old days. If you could swing 20% of the people in a city to your side just by staging a $10,000 protest march, there wouldn't have been a Civil War in the first place.

Still, I like the extra layer of play control, I for one have greatly enjoyed the cards. I got used to them in AJE and use them a lot in CW2.

On a related note, I am not seeing loyalty checks happening in the message log when I take strategic and objective towns. We ARE still gaining loyalty the old-fashioned way right?

ArmChairGeneral,

I can only speak for my own PBEM experiences and each of us has a 'unique' way of playing. When I'm the Union then as others have commented the loss of 3VP's is neither here nor there particularly for the gain involved. When I'm playing as the CSA then its an entirely different ball game. Funds (as they ought to be) are so tight and much needed for more important tasks (raising units and building industries spring readily to mind) that playing Demo cards that cost $10,000 just to upset my Union opponent for a turn or two seems like a very bad trade. Now if Demo cards had a cost of 3 VP's then in my game against Banks (for example) I'd have played a whole bunch of them by now. As it is I doubt if I shall ever play a single one. Then again I readily accept that its a 'choice' decision and I have to add the caveat that its with v1.03. If money was not quite so pressing in some future patch then my view could of course change.

[Pocus]

The +20% loyalty is a misnomer, the effect will be less than that in reality, because of how the system works. You add +20% loyalty to the 100 points present, and then you normalize to 100. For example if you start with 20 points, the enemy has 80, then you get +20 (40/80), and then the system normalize to 100, which leads to a final 25% for you probably.

As for 'how loyalty is influenced by restricting rights, etc.', there is an abstraction here. Sure, stamping a steel boot in the face of your neighbor don't really raise loyalty. I think Skibear gives an appropriate description of the abstraction. This is more about 'they will act loyal as if they are loyal, but because they are under hard rule, not because they love you', something like that, in my clumsy English. Remember, the system has only one variable (loyalty) to represent loyalty, fear of the oppressor, calm in the street, nationalism, etc.

Anyway, check the actual game effect.This is not overpowered.

[Q-Ball]

Does changing the loyalty though have that huge of an impact on production anyway? I have not observed a big difference. Some, but not alot. That would be the only real reason to employ those cards anyway. Yeah, FOW, but that impact is limited away from the front.

It would be a bigger deal if Loyalty had an impact on military control, but it doesn't

[Ol' Choctaw]

Right. Overpowered is not it. Severely under priced would be more to the point.


This is one of the very few areas where the south should have a strong advantage.

In contrast the south spends money it is short on and the Union, rich in all resources spends little of nothing to counter it.

It was a serious step and they should feel the impact.

Reversing the costs would be one way, or raising the cost in VP for the Union, the other.

They should feel it and it should give pause before doing it but not enough to stop them obviously.

[GraniteStater]

Well, my PbeM opponent is making me respond. Right out of the chute, Demos in DC, Baltimore, Annapolis.

No advice, pretty please. Just interesting.

BWAHAHA - throw your kiesters in Federal prison!!! No charges - no trial - take that, troublemakers!!!

BWAHAHA!!!!!!

[havi]

I have to but my spoon in this soup. So we are playing the pbem with granitestater, and I will make him replay my demonstrations because it's the only way to affect union economy and get some foothold in the north. I'm not saying anything in the cost of habeus corpus or demonstrations but what I have read it in history of ciwil wars there are riots all over the country's and you havety choose your sides and if you are in the area what is controlled the ruling government it will jail the people ho rebels or as we finish people did shoot them so Abe was bit more humain as he only but them in jail. Yes bit confusing message but I think you got the idea.. I hope...

[Pocus]

Productivity % is equals to (50 + loyalty), so yes, loyalty has a nice impact on production

[tripax]

So if a region is producing 10 money, 10 Supply, and 10 WS, an increase in loyalty of 10 increases each by 1?

[GraniteStater]

...and havi (my opponent) keeps doing it! Demo, demo, demo.

I'd like to say some things about the cards, is he gonna end up wasting money on these, but, please - can't ask for or read any comments in this vein. This is an ongoing Game.

Just wanted to observe that is certainly is attractive for one CSA player.

Legit Q:

* The demo persists, right? Do Habeas & Counter-Intel persist? What if they fail on the first throwdown? Do my guys keep trying to counter his Cards for a number of Turns? Or, if the first throwdown fails, do I have to play my Counter-card again?

[GraniteStater]

Feel free to jump in, but I did follow some of my own advice: Tooltips are your friend.

So I'm in slightly better shape, but any real Cardplayers wanna comment, go ahead, please.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Habeas corpus and Demonstrations can occur in the same place at the same time.

From what I have seen, both can fail to take hold but your opponent won’t know that because it should not show up on their map in that case. Counter Intel would cancel Demonstrations that are underway if it works. Then, provided the loyalty in the region still fit the requirements, Demonstrations could be played again by the other player.

[GraniteStater]

I'm kind of sluffing off high Loyalty Region hits for the moment, but I did notice that NYC, starting at 85%, had dropped to 60%, so I dropped a little Habe on them.

*cackles*

How concerned should I be about Loyalty hits? Loyalty drops affect basic production, ne c'est pas? 60% seems to me to be definite Worryland. Is ignoring the higher Regions targeted OK? I ignored NYC for a bit, but it's The Big Producer, so...

I slapped outright Martial on B-more, the ungrateful wretches (we'll take your football team for that!), cuz I don't think I could use Habeas - "greyed (or oranged) out", IIRC.

And CounterIntel - I don't see a consistency with the Green highlighted places.

In terms of strength/effectiveness/harshness, it would be Martial - Habeas - CounterIntel, no?

I'm all ears here.

&&&&&

And that's why they called him Habe-braham Lincoln.

Ha-ha! I crack myself up!