 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:23
|
|
Thanks for your explanations on the turns, adaMada & TKG, that clarifies a few things... I think the best solution would be to play for a certain number of turns, but have the exact number depend on the in-game situation. In the early game it's probably easily possible to play 20 in one stretch without having too much exciting stuff happening, later on in the game a lot of things can happen in just five turns...
quote: Originally posted by adaMada
To be honest, I quite perfer having a core set of ministers who can delegate responsibilities if need be. Though I understand the reason to have a flexible system, it seems like every distruction/creation of a ministry will be a fight, and I think it'll be inefficent in that people won't want to get rid of ministries as soon as they become obsolete, and ministries will only become obsolete or needed slowly -- there probably won't be any one huge event that'll signal the need or lack of for a minister. That's why I like assigning the base powers to four elected officials, and letting them 'delegate down'. |
I read the new C3DG constitution and I must say I really like that system too (In large outlines It's quite similar to the ACDG Constitution BTW )
mapfi,
I guess we'll have to have a vote on that voting issue The only problem is, will that vote be an anonymous one or not? 
Gilgamensch,
I guess were gonna have to have a brainstorm session on names 
On the government choosing: I meant that I think the President (or whatever he'll be called) should be responsible for running polls and stuff on this issue. It goes without saying that all players should be consulted on this issue. But rather than leaving it to the Minister of Domestic Affairs (or whoever) to advise the President on this, the President could work on this himself. But when polls don't give conclusive results or there is no time for polls, the President could decide for himself...
quote: One thing I would like to 'change' is, to move the part 'what to do with conquered cities' over to the Supreme Commander. I would say it is his call to enslave a resisting population or enlarge our Empire. |
I disagree, that city could become a vital part of the economy, as could the slaves that can come from it when the population is enslaved or the gold/PW when it's razed. The Supreme Commander has nothing to do with the economy, so such an important economic decision should not be his call IMHO.
quote: All 'moves' from the GD and PA's do be posted before, so that WE could run a poll/meeting at a certain time....whatever..., trying to stop an action which WE wouldn't like ( like with 66%/75% majority). WE are ruling (I hope ) |
IMHO ALL decisions by the cabinet normally have to be approved by the General Assembly of citizens. Only if unexpected things happen in the middle of playing the game should they be able to make their own decisions...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
Locutus,
Normally throughout history, yes the Supreme commander had general orders how to 'take care' of new citizens, but their were many occasions, even in recent history, were those 'suggestions' were not followed by the local military command.
So in other words, yes the PA/GA (or whatever ), could give the general order, but I think, the decision at the moment of freeing our neighbours, should be taken by the commander, according to the guidelines/commands given by the government. Afterwards we can always bring up a jury/tribunal/.... which will decide if our (ex-)supreme-commander was within his limits or if he should be executed right away.
This would, I think, keep the people a bit more involved also on the military site........
Leaving in general the 'final' decision to the GA, I think is not such a good idea. JUST imaging we would have a corrupted idiotic stupid .... (I think you know what I mean) GA, he could, with overruling, bring us down to zero. And we would have not a lot of chance (in short time) to stop him from doing it. If we distribute the 'power' a bit between the top, would work out better.
BUT still: final decision should be to US, the 'civilisation.
For the names: I will open up two new threats (no polls yet) were we can discuss our names (country/government)
Was to late for one Turambar was quicker here they are:
discuss our name
Discuss our leaders name
Last edited by Gilgamensch on 24-10-2002 at 11:26
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Turambar
|
|
England
Apr 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
Perhaps if we plan to take a city before the turns are played out, a poll could go up to let people decide what to do with it before it is taken?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000 time: 06:23
|
|
Maybe a breakdown of all the areas and the workload is usefull
Different areas
Empire setting - wages, rations, workday, pw percentage, government type (little work, a few polls now and then)
City build orders (lot of work, organizing polls etc)
Military units - land, sea and air units, creating armies (lot of work, polling on targets, and army composition)
Special units - Settlers, Diplomats, Clerics etc(little work, depending on the amount of units)
Trade - creating trade routes (very little work, polling on trade routes when there are caravans)
Science - choosing techs to research (very little work, a poll once every few turns)
Foreign Affairs - trading maps, creating treaties etc. (little work at first, could become more later on)
Terraforming/Infrastructure - farms, mines, roads etc.(lot of work, many polls needed, on avg one for each city, if there is enough PW off course)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
centrifuge
|
|
Good point, they are the basis for many laws of western civilization (but hemisphere?)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
I just think the military commander has enough power with all the combat units at his disposal, so don't give him the special units.
I don't want our LAUWF (Lemurian Agency for Uncoventional WarFare) to be ruled by the armed forces!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:23
|
|
Good analysis, Lemmy I must say I *really* like that suggestion for ministers, but there's one problem: you left out Diplomacy. It would make a lot of sense to put Diplomacy and Unconvential Warfare under the position of a new minister: the Minister of Foreign Affairs (after all, UW deals with foreign nations and it can greatly affect diplomacy). Although I *really* like such a system, it does mean our government has 5 rather than 4 cabinet members... 
I really like the Civ3 system of allowing the ministers to appoint lackeys deputies when things get too busy as well, it combines the advantages of creating ministers when they needed and having a fixed core group of ministers.
One important thing we haven't discussed yet is the judicial branch: the Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it). I'll start a seperate thread about that so we can limit this discussion to the executive branch of government.
CoT,
Hmm, in itself a nice idea but the game we play is a Democracy Game, so even though our in-game government may not always be a democracy, we should at least ensure the organisation in the forum in Democratic. If the Ministers get too much power and abuse it, it won't exactly encourage non-government members to participate and polls and stuff (since they probably won't be listened to), which takes away much of the fun.
Pedrunn,
Every game needs rules, including the Democracy Game. In our game these rules are set in the Constitution, we can't do without it. Of course, our Constitution doesn't have to be nearly as long and complex are a real constitution or even the C3DG Constitution (or the CFC one ), but we do need to establish what rights and duties everyone has and what procedures to follow to play this game properly. The ACDG and C3DG Constitutions merely state what responsibilities the 3 branches of government have (executive (ministers), legislative (citizens) and judicial (judges)) and how elections, impeachment and conflicts of laws should be handled. All these things have to be arranged in our game as well, or chaos will inevitably follow.
Turambar,
That goes without saying. But the issue here is, who should be responsible for holding that poll? (And who should decide when a city is taken unexpectedly when there's no time for a poll).
Gilgamensch,
Hmm, although I agree that impeaching ministers or commanders from time to time can be fun, I think we shouldn't deliberately design the rules to promote ministers to abuse their powers. Since the decision of what to do with a new city affects the economy and the economy only (well, in the long run anyway), such a decision should not be made by the military. But I guess we're gonna have to have a poll on that 
Last edited by Locutus on 25-10-2002 at 02:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Pedrunn
|
 |
of Natal, Brazil
Jul 2001 time: 02:23
|
|
quote: Pedrunn,
Every game needs rules, including the Democracy Game. In our game these rules are set in the Constitution, we can't do without it. Of course, our Constitution doesn't have to be nearly as long and complex are a real constitution or even the C3DG Constitution |
I started to brainstorm something about constitution and looking the other games constitution. Therefore i take back what i have said before. The constituition is needed and isnt 10 laws that will be enough. We need a nice one and deeply thought one. I am already having some ideas and even feel a bit excited to do so. So should we wait a thread from you about it first or maybe have different therads for different points of it?
Last edited by Pedrunn on 25-10-2002 at 09:23
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pedrunn
I started to brainstorm something about constitution and looking the other games constitution. Therefore i take back what i have said before. The constituition is needed and isnt 10 laws that will be enough. We need a nice one and deeply thought one. I am already having some ideas and even feel a bit excited to do so. |
I thought I was in for a tough battle with you to get any kind of rules laid down Good to hear you changed your mind and GREAT to hear you have some ideas and are actually excited about this 
quote: So should we wait a thread from you about it first or maybe have different therads for different points of it? |
Okay, time for a note of caution, not just for you but more for everyone with a CtP2 background (who may expect me to take the initiviative in important developments) and everyone else who might be a little shy. I want to clearly state this: this is a DEMOCRACY game, EVERYONE is equal, including yours truly. I don't have time to run this game on my own and CERTAINLY wouldn't want to do so. This game is doomed to fail if I have to do everything myself. So please, DO feel free to start your own initiatives, open discussions on features that this DG should have, organize polls, argue with or critize me when I'm all wrong, etc, etc. Things started by 'newbies' are just as important as things started by long-time veterans or staff members (just look at the original DG thread: it was started by SMIFFGIG, a relative newbie to CtP2 - if he hadn't started it and if Wise Ass (another relative n00b) hadn't bumped it, we almost certainly wouldn't be posting here now). I know some of the people here wouldn't hesitate to do some or all of these things (from time to time, anyway) but I'm getting the distinct feeling that too many people are too often looking at me to take the lead. I think this is already bad enough in the CtP2-General and Creation forums, but in the Democracy Game this will considerably slow things down and in the end probably lead to the failure of this game. We play this game with a group, so the initiatives should come from the entire group (or at least from more than 1 person).
(Oh, and don't be afraid to spam the forum with a dozen or so threads like I did yesterday, spam is allowed in Democracy Games - to a certain extend anyway )
So in short, yes, feel free to start your own thread 
Dale,
Hmm, I find your continuous fascination with government types such as fascism and communism slightly worrisome I won't be voting for you as President 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
|
|
aachen, germany
Aug 1999 time: 05:23
|
|
well, reading through this whole thread there is one question not at all discussed so far:
do we want a centralistic or a federal state?
in the later case there should be mayors or something like that controlling the different towns/regions. perhaps it would be interesting to assign the registered citizens to those cities (by random or by choice, another interesting question) so they might get real different opinions on matters of the whole state. regional interests might often contradict statewide interests.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
centrifuge
|
|
Good Idea Zaphod, Though the amount of participants required to have mayors is probably beyond our limits. Though I do like that Idea... Each participant gets his own city, nice...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
I think the foreign minister should be around from start. We don't know when we'll meet the first civ and then the next few turns are quite decisive for our foreign policy. E.g. map trading comes up right then, same with giving away gifts.
To let the MoD do that is going to make this position less interesting because you'll end up with whatever was decided by the warmonger per se... I do want a MoD that is concentrating on domination but that might not be the goal of the minister for foreign relations.
I don't think it'd be a bad thing that this minister wouldn't have much to do till that First Contact (OT: just aired tonight - live long and prosper...). I don't think we'll have difficulty filling positions now but later on! And if I do apply for a position I'll want one with a small workload, like a few others I'd guess.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|