Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gkrieg13]

I feel like with resistance, there isn't a reason to shoot down the first election. We simply need more data.

[Hydrad]

I've never played resistance so I'll just do whatever.

[Archetype]

I feel like with resistance, there isn't a reason to shoot down the first election. We simply need more data.

I tend to reject it a few times just to see where people prefer to vote, but the group I play with often just accepts the first mission automatically so there really isnt that much info to garner. I've never played this game before, so hopefully things will be different.

[gkrieg13]

I'll pick someone who could be president in the second round if we elect me. So that's archetype, tables, or ADK. ADK seems best because I think we want to pick more toward the middle at the beginning. Does anyone have objections to this?

PPE

[gkrieg13]

I feel like with resistance, there isn't a reason to shoot down the first election. We simply need more data.

I tend to reject it a few times just to see where people prefer to vote, but the group I play with often just accepts the first mission automatically so there really isnt that much info to garner. I've never played this game before, so hopefully things will be different.

I feel like there won't be any tendencies seeing as none of us really know each other, and (I think) none of us have played this before.  I think that is why it is in best interest to accept the first mission automatically with resistance, because even if there is a spy on the mission, they will probably pass the mission just to get resistance credit.

[faust]

I'll pick someone who could be president in the second round if we elect me. So that's archetype, tables, or ADK. ADK seems best because I think we want to pick more toward the middle at the beginning. Does anyone have objections to this?

PPE

If I were Arch or Tables, I would oppose any government that does not include me. After all, if your proposal fails, they will get a chance to form a government.

[faust]

Hi all. I have been crunching some numbers. There is a strategy to be followed in this game which simply goes like this: We never successfully elect a government, which results always in the top policy being enacted. Crunching numbers, this strategy gives us a chance at winning that is slightly below 50%. If we believe the game balanced, that is not an optimal strategy... but as we get more liberal policies enacted, we should definitely think about strategically not electing a government at some point.

Nice try, facist. But no, if my maths is correct, the chance of this working is only 15.95%. Which is significantly more than "just under 50%" by my reckoning. Basically, it requires picking 5 or 6 Liberals out of 6 from the first 10 cards, as you said. Or well it's equivalent to that problem anyway. And the chance of getting 6 is 1.70% and the chance of getting 5 is 14.25%. The chance of getting 4 is 35.63%, the chance of getting 3 is 33.94%, the chance of getting 2 is 12.73%, the chance of getting 1 is 1.70% and the chance of getting none is 0.06%.

So... let's not do this. I don't want to roll such a stacked die and just hope to win.

You're right... I think I have calculated this with 7 liberal policies for some reason.

[ghostofmars]

So from the rules, I gather that this plays more like Resistance than Mafia. I think that we should carefully manage who (potentially) becomes president in the same way you need to manage who proposes a mission in Resistance. Unlike Resistance we don't have to accept any of the three proposals, but that comes at the cost of a (likely) fascist law, so we don't want to do this except in extreme cases.
Hence, we should accept one of gkrieg, Archetype, or Tables proposals. As I am a potential president in the 2nd turn if gkrieg is not elected, I will reject the first government unless I would be chancellor.

Currently, I think that the president is the more important role. While the chancellor ultimately decides which policy is enacted the president can discard a liberal law and claim that he didn't draw any.

What do people think about revealing the drawn cards. I think it is in our best interest that the president and the chancellor claim what cards they drew so that we can card count. Obviously, either of them could lie, but perhaps one can deduce a fascist from that...

One thing, I'd like to propose is shadow cabinets. The idea is that all of the potential president candidates suggest which chancellor they would appoint if it came to them. So we get some information out of the later players even if we accept an earlier government. Perhaps this makes only sense after gkrieg's proposal when we have some information. Obviously there is no rule that forces a player to actually appoint the chancellor that one had in one's shadow cabinet, but that would demand some scrutiny.

One final point: What do you think about the strategy for the president in the 2L1F case. In my opinion one should pass both liberal laws to guarantee a success over passing 1L1F and letting the chancellor decide.

[A Drowned Kernel]

Hi guys!

I need to read the rules, you're all super scummy for having done so already.

[Tables]

Yes, I think objectively speaking passing 2 Liberal Laws is best. Remember there's only 6 liberal laws in the deck in total. If two come up together and both get passed over, that means there's only four left before the deck reshuffles. That seems to me like it'd make things very dangerous.

Shadow Cabinets... intuitively it sounds good, especially later in the game when people have good reads I think it'll happen somewhat naturally actually, as people will start being somewhat more vocal about reads, saying who they trust and whatnot, but earlier in the game I think it's going to come down so much to how people vote and the like in the previous round that I don't think it'll be effective.

I'll pick someone who could be president in the second round if we elect me. So that's archetype, tables, or ADK. ADK seems best because I think we want to pick more toward the middle at the beginning. Does anyone have objections to this?

PPE

If I were Arch or Tables, I would oppose any government that does not include me. After all, if your proposal fails, they will get a chance to form a government.

Yes, pretty much that. Especially as I have 3rd proposal, I don't see any reason to vote up anything that doesn't include me at this point, and even if it does include me, I'd have to consider if I prefer Chancellor, president, or even just drawing the game out longer to get more voting information. Showing my hand how I'm going to vote a little, sure, but it seems fairly intuitive right now.

[A Drowned Kernel]

Vote: faust

Like Resistance, it's pretty much a guess as to who to pick if you're a Liberal President (or, Hitler too, I guess)...I think you should choose me, but I may be a bit biased. Faust and Tables are giving me scummy math vibes.

I don't think I would vote for a government with Archetype on it right now, just based on this post. How is math scummy?

If gkrieg nominates me I'll vote yes, otherwise I guess I'll have to wait until I see what tables is doing.

[Tables]

Vote: faust

Like Resistance, it's pretty much a guess as to who to pick if you're a Liberal President (or, Hitler too, I guess)...I think you should choose me, but I may be a bit biased. Faust and Tables are giving me scummy math vibes.

I don't think I would vote for a government with Archetype on it right now, just based on this post. How is math scummy?

If gkrieg nominates me I'll vote yes, otherwise I guess I'll have to wait until I see what tables is doing.

Sleeping, most likely. Night y'all.

[Kirian]

What do people think about revealing the drawn cards.

Assuming you mean actual revealing of the cards, that's outside the scope of the rules.  If you mean the players telling you what was drawn (and possibly lying), that's fine.

[gkrieg13]

I don't want this to lag too much so I'll nominate after I hear what Archetype and Tables plan to do.

[Archetype]

I don't want this to lag too much so I'll nominate after I hear what Archetype and Tables plan to do.

Considering I'm next in line, it wouldn't make sense to vote ja! for your proposal unless I'm on it.

Vote: faust

Like Resistance, it's pretty much a guess as to who to pick if you're a Liberal President (or, Hitler too, I guess)...I think you should choose me, but I may be a bit biased. Faust and Tables are giving me scummy math vibes.

I don't think I would vote for a government with Archetype on it right now, just based on this post. How is math scummy?

If gkrieg nominates me I'll vote yes, otherwise I guess I'll have to wait until I see what tables is doing.

I was (mostly) kidding. If everything is known, it's hard for a bad guy to get away with using math to convince somebody since they'll usually be called out if they're wrong.

I like ghost's shadow idea, but agree it should be done on later missions when people have a better idea of who they'd like to choose.

[faust]

I know now why my math was wrong:

If Hitler is executed, the Liberals win.
If 5 Liberal policies are enacted (of 7 in the deck), the Liberals win.
If 6 Fascist policies are enacted (of 11 in the deck), the Fascists win and Hitler rises to power.
If Hitler is elected Chancellor after three Fascist policies are enacted, the Fascists win.

Kirian, you might want to change this for future reference.

[faust]

Yes, pretty much that. Especially as I have 3rd proposal, I don't see any reason to vote up anything that doesn't include me at this point, and even if it does include me, I'd have to consider if I prefer Chancellor, president, or even just drawing the game out longer to get more voting information. Showing my hand how I'm going to vote a little, sure, but it seems fairly intuitive right now.

So this is problematic. I don't think it matters much for Liberals if they are President or Chancellor. Fascists however really would prefer being President, where they can discard liberal policies without anyone knowing. Just going by this, I don't think I want Tables in the government.

[ghostofmars]

I don't want this to lag too much so I'll nominate after I hear what Archetype and Tables plan to do.

I would prefer if you wait until every player has checked in at least once. I think we have not heard from EgorK and Grujah yet.

[Tables]

Yes, pretty much that. Especially as I have 3rd proposal, I don't see any reason to vote up anything that doesn't include me at this point, and even if it does include me, I'd have to consider if I prefer Chancellor, president, or even just drawing the game out longer to get more voting information. Showing my hand how I'm going to vote a little, sure, but it seems fairly intuitive right now.

So this is problematic. I don't think it matters much for Liberals if they are President or Chancellor.

Strongly disagree. There's only one person I have any information on right now. Why would I trust any team that doesn't include me? That increases the chance of having one or both facists making the choice considerably. As president, I would have some control over the cards the Chancellor received, and also knowledge of them - and would get the investigate power should he choose a facist agenda. All things I'd want to guarantee are going to a person I can trust. As Chancellor, I get to see the two cards the president passes - if he passes liberal/facist, I get that information and can choose liberal. If he passes facist/facist, I at least know he did that.

[faust]

Yes, pretty much that. Especially as I have 3rd proposal, I don't see any reason to vote up anything that doesn't include me at this point, and even if it does include me, I'd have to consider if I prefer Chancellor, president, or even just drawing the game out longer to get more voting information. Showing my hand how I'm going to vote a little, sure, but it seems fairly intuitive right now.

So this is problematic. I don't think it matters much for Liberals if they are President or Chancellor.

Strongly disagree. There's only one person I have any information on right now. Why would I trust any team that doesn't include me? That increases the chance of having one or both facists making the choice considerably. As president, I would have some control over the cards the Chancellor received, and also knowledge of them - and would get the investigate power should he choose a facist agenda. All things I'd want to guarantee are going to a person I can trust. As Chancellor, I get to see the two cards the president passes - if he passes liberal/facist, I get that information and can choose liberal. If he passes facist/facist, I at least know he did that.

You got me wrong. I did not mean to say that liberals don't care whether they are in the government, but that it's not that important which of the posts they take.

[ghostofmars]

So I had a look at the possible scenarios leading to a fascist law. There are two main scenarios
a) The president claims he drew 3F, so that the government was forced to pass a F law.
b) The president claims the chancellor chose the F law out of a F/L choice.
Considering that the relative chances for 3F/2F1L/1F2L are approximately 25%/50%/25% it is more likely that the president is lying than that he is honest in scenario a. In scenario b, we know that (at least) one of president and chancellor are fascist. In scenario b, I would exclude both president and chancellor from any future government. In scenario a, I would hesitate to include the president in a government.
Furthermore, I doubt the chancellor would frequently opt to enact a fascist law (given the choice) if he knows the president is liberal. He must know that he is excluded from future governments and he gives the special power to a liberal president. Therefore, I think whether a fascist law is enacted reveals much more information about the president than about the chancellor.

Another thing I wonder is how we should use the investigation power (once it comes up). Should we vote which player to investigate and regard the president as fascist if he doesn't follow the vote; or should we let the president decide which player to investigate? In the latter case, we get more information about the president, because he is forced to select a player and can not hide behind the vote of the majority. On the other hand, we might select a more useful candidate as a group than the president does and the votes will also reveal some information about the other players.

[EgorK]

I am reading, just not yet ready to post math post

[Tables]

You got me wrong. I did not mean to say that liberals don't care whether they are in the government, but that it's not that important which of the posts they take.

Oh, I see. Hmm... As I said, I haven't actually considered it much. I think you're probably right, though. Facists have a lot more power as the President, but by a similar token I think that means liberals want to be president far more than facists do too, to avoid them getting that power. Liberal president, facist chancellor seems a lot better than the other way around.

PPE: Ghost's post seems to make sense. And I checked the numbers, they work out okay. Of course, there's also the chance the president wants the facist power specifically. I don't know how likely that is, perhaps later in the game to execute someone it's plausible, but... still seems like a very risky move, unless we have a very solid read on who Hitler is. So yeah, I think passing liberal laws should always be liberal priority, which seems obvious but eh, just saying.

[Grujah]

Will read everything after a finish the movie, but genreally accepted strategy that I saw on test playthroughs is that you give chancellor spot to somebody near the end of the queue cuz you get to know stuff about them sooner rather than having 1 player be completly unknown till for long time and you kinda disperse the power cuz he wont be president in long time.

[Grujah]

Furthermore, I doubt the chancellor would frequently opt to enact a fascist law (given the choice) if he knows the president is liberal. He must know that he is excluded from future governments and he gives the special power to a liberal president. Therefore, I think whether a fascist law is enacted reveals much more information about the president than about the chancellor.

Has some sense, but not really sure that's right. If fascist dont chose fascist law when president is liberal, than they either have to wait for their own turn and hope to draw 3 fascicsts or only make fascist-fascist teams which can easily be seen through.
Maybe veryearly, sure, enact a liberal one, but later, no way.