Demogames suffer with that it is always the most fun to be a governor of the core provinces and less fun to run the peripheral ones. WE saw frequently that our rim was neglected, and that distant provinces attracted more novice players.

With England as the new Civ, we need to develop a fair, simple and effective economic system by law that enables distant colonies to prosper.
There are several factors that may make overseas colonies or domestic provinces lucrative.

Strategic resources
Luxuries
Bonus resources

A luxury and strategic resource may be traded, or used by the nation.

So the first luxury of a kind is always spent on the nation, and the remainder traded. So in terms of national economy, the first used luxury holds a national monopoly of sorts. Establishing which province holds the monopoly depends on three situations, one of exclusivity (only one resource available, one of proximity, if there are two luxuries, and the luxury closest in tiles to the capital gets the monopoly and finally one of market domination, where the province with the most luxuries of that kind would win the monopoly.

This national monopoly should be rewarded by X amount of gold saved as a Provincial Trade Tax on luxuries.

The tradeable or surplus luxuries follow a different pattern.
If the good is not traded, there should be no income but a subsidy of 1-5 gold per turn, depending on the size of economy. If it is traded to another nation, trading privileges must be established in the same manner as monopoly, by ranked criteria.

1. Market Access (luxury most distant to Capital in tiles)
2. Market Domination (largest supplier of the luxury wins all contracts)
3. Competition Law (maximum of two successive trade contracts allowed to be held by a province)

The International Trade Customs Tax, should give a fixed percentage of any luxury trades to the contract holder, as established by the ranked criteria.

Strategic Resources should be handled differently, with the same mechanism for establishing national monopoly and trades, but should rather be considered as defense contracts. This means that no Competition Law is in place.
However, this also means that Foreign Affairs and the President can dictate the resource to be a matter of national security, and expropriate it and gift it to another Civ.

Luxuries may also be gifted for the same reasons, but the Province should be granted a limited subsidy.

Finally, the nation should agree on a general gold Tax based on the income of a Province in a Census year (3000, 2000, 1000, 0 etc., or following turnchat)

This system would guarantee basic gold for rushes for each province, regardless of interpersonal politics and the moodswings of the treasurer.

This system is simple, sturdy, reliable and easy to manage, and would make the game more interesting for governors. I would also like to make the Governors responsible for their own culture in an Amendment.

So in general, empower the Governors.

*watches the thread fly over her head*

So, the provinces that are established first will always get the first picking, right? Since they'll have higher income, more markets, etc.?

i.e., Please post this in English. ;)

Why don't we just treat every province equally and provide the gold needed when necessary, instead of creating intranation competition?

You keep bringing this up, Provo. I'll keep saying no.

Reason 1: Gold and workers should be treated as a National resource, and used as such.

Reason 2: Manageability - this is easily a paperwork nightmare to manage.

-- Ravensfire

Reason 3: There is no reason number 3!

No, this is just a base fund, to guarantee a minimum of income per Province for rushes and to empower the autonomy of governors.

CT

Distant Provinces would be the most likely to get fund transfers, as the Trade tax would remain at 10-40 % of the gold income. However, this gives the Governors a reliable fund from which to finance rushes. I will run a test of the system on our first Province, and show how easy it is to implement.

Then how would we determine gpt income? It would vary too much throughout the game. Seems to me that this would require intense turn-by-turn micromanagement. In DG1 (or DG2), we had a simple budget structure --

Allocate X amount of gold to each office, and a pool for governors, or "other uses".

Not really, it is all about setting a value to a resource and multiply it by turn number and gold income per turn, and apply trade deals in the forums to figure out the numbers.

For example, Camelot has a Diamond and is the only province in the realm. The province gets a fixed 2 gold per turn economic value when connected. By turn 100 (connected diamond turn 20), the gold tax income for the province has reached 160 Gold. (80X2). This is a sort of extra earnt gift for the Province, which may be used to rush a city improvement at will by the Province Governor.

In the "Definition of Offices in Alternative Government Structure" thread, DaveShack says:
Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and trading. Sets exact tech queue. Adjusts slider and approves/denies requests from governors regarding rushes(in a government requiring gold to rush).
So if a governor wants a rush, he applies to the Director of Commerce for the gold. Changing this will require a revision to the Constitution.

Not really, we have a lower set of laws, a code of laws. The Director of Commerce would still have the decision on the slider setting. The Governors would still have to apply for gold to the director, but the tax would secure the relative autonomy of the governors.
As in real life, tax laws are not necessarily a part of the constitution, but a part of the Code of Laws.

Provo - it's way, way to complicated and can easily undermine national efforts. Imagine we need nearly all our cash for some trade or agreement - but 2-3 governors don't want to because of pet projects.

Sorry, keep the cash under one person's control, and allow the governors and other leaders to request funds from that one person.

Cash is a National resource - treat it that way.

-- Ravensfire

We are talking marginal gold transfers here, not something threatening national interests.
Also, we can add a clause of national security, for Director of Commerce override of the tax. However, the tax system will balance the pet projects out in the game.

I agree with Ravensfire. Gold is a national resource and needs to be controlled by one office, just like every other resource.

We can at least use the system to benchmark pet project privileges, if that is the issue, fo the governors and the director of commerce consent. I still run a test on it.

When I was Domestic Advisor / Minister / etc, the problem was pretty much never a lack of gold, it was a lack of governors requesting it. The governors who make a lot of requests get a lot of gold, and those who dont, don't.

At most we need a statement in the CoL saying that excess gold should be distributed in a non-discriminatory fashion. No need for a complicated formula.

If governors start requesting funds and inequities result, you may refer back to this thread as a statement from the Founding Fathers that it should be fair. :D

Well, the formula is indeed simple, and much much more simple that our legal system.
It is pure math and ranking orders. Again, I will run a test on this even though someone outright dismiss the idea for political reasons.

It may be simple to you, but probably not to others. What makes a game fun? Why, keeping it simple, of course. I don't think governors want to worry about what tax percentage of XYZ terrain and city will allow them to have ZYX gold on turn 5. All they care about is, "I want to rush this temple on turn 3 for 50g".

Now, if you wanted each province to have their own gold, then maybe that's an idea for a more provincial-run game, where governors act like the governor and senate. (i.e., if 3 out of 5 governors wanted war with the Zulus, then war is declared). That's more like Civ2 though. :)

I agree with Provolution here. This can make it more fun to run a totally corrupt province.

The way I see it we need no changes to the constitution or laws. The Director of Commerce can seed authority (but not responsibility) to the Governors to spend X ammount of gold each play session. They keep a veto in case there is a pressing national interest.

But surely the Governor can't have the final say on extra gold? You're saying he can rush whatever/whenever/fofr however much without any discussion or approval from a higher power?

This is why we should vote on a Provincial Budget every second turnchat or so, and approve the proposal or options.

Corrupt provinces should almost always get the lion's share of rush cash for cultural improvements, which would be provided by the commerce-rich and shield-rich core. We don't need an elaborate formula to determine that. ;)

What if most of our resources originate in our core provinces? Do we then further reward these provinces at the expense of our corrupt ones? Sorry, but this proposal runs the risk of undermining sound fiscal policy by putting conditions on the random placement of resources. I gotta say "no."

When I was Domestic Advisor / Minister / etc, the problem was pretty much never a lack of gold, it was a lack of governors requesting it. The governors who make a lot of requests get a lot of gold, and those who dont, don't.

At most we need a statement in the CoL saying that excess gold should be distributed in a non-discriminatory fashion. No need for a complicated formula.

If governors start requesting funds and inequities result, you may refer back to this thread as a statement from the Founding Fathers that it should be fair. :D

I agree with DS here. We really don't need a formula to determine this. I remember when I was in charge of Domestic, we had over 4000 g, making 1000 g IIRC gold and very little requests to use it.

We don't need to put in affirmative action style laws for provinces, they all should be treated equally and get equal shares of the national gold stock. By equal shares I mean they should all get a fair chance in using the excess gold.

You can reject it as much as I want, and this is not a thread to make this happen in the first go, but to introduce the concept. We will see a test of the system pretty soon,a d that test will certainly dismiss several of the preconceptions here.

Again, we see how hard the simplest laws are to pass, due to DG politics.

I agree with DS here. We really don't need a formula to determine this. I remember when I was in charge of Domestic, we had over 4000 g, making 1000 g IIRC gold and very little requests to use it.

We don't need to put in affirmative action style laws for provinces, they all should be treated equally and get equal shares of the national gold stock. By equal shares I mean they should all get a fair chance in using the excess gold.

I agree that all provinces need an equal chance at the gold, but what say we have a conflict in spending (not really likely it seems), but whatif City Y wants the money as does City X but we only have enough for one project. Who makes the compromise?

Dominik I agree 100 %

We need a fair system based on objective criteria that is fair and transparent in handling such conflict of interest disputes. We see such conflicts arise on a regular basis, and everytime we see apathy of the governors in requesting gold. However, some key principles for fair and reasonable distribution of funds between provinces would be a good way to do so. As we see from this debate, some like the idea, and other dislike the idea, but that is the nature of a democracy.

However, this is the only bid I have seen seeking a fair model for balancing provinces across corruption. I have been told to not bring up my personal old DG experiences by some here, but at the same time, I have to endure listening to DG1-4 lessons at the same time. But I can tell you this much, we had an extremely bizarre process in localilizing the forbidden palace, as everybody's pet cities would be affected, and it took no less than 1200 years to find a compromise location. We also had heavy sponsoring of some regions thanks to strong patrons and other regions were so neglected that we even had a city defect. People were questioning the fairness of where units should be disbanded and workers integrated in cities. We actually saw attempts to make rules throughout the process, and all of these raised controversy.
These processes were not an election issue either.

Well, several of us have identified the problem, which is quite big, and we want to deal with it this game, especially as commerce will be critical. Sound financial planning wil be essential here, not to mention fair and structured planning among provinces.

We will see a test of the system pretty soon,a d that test will certainly dismiss several of the preconceptions here.


I'm actually interested in what might result from such a test. We're 1000's of years away from when such a test could be attempted in a demogame setting, care to elaborate on where such a test could be run?

Let me dispel a possible preconception as well. I am not against the idea of someone volunteering to run a system and do the calculations necessary to run it. :) However, it does appear to be a major undertaking that we cannot mandate, when we have such a high percentage reporting that free time is what keeps them from holding offices.

Again, we see how hard the simplest laws are to pass, due to DG politics.

For me, if it's a good idea, I'll support it.

This isn't. You have not clearly identified a problem as of yet. You ignore workload concerns. There aren't enough details to support your assertions, just vague generalities and off-handed dismissals.

This isn't politics, this is a bad idea.

-- Ravensfire

Here's an idea:

Let's not lump all our good cities into one prvince. Let's make our prvinces wedge shaped so they will each include somewhat equal amounts of core, semi-core and corrupt cities.

Good idea donsig, at least you are more constructive than destructive and condescending.

I have no DG exp. but it seems that this could be a way to gaurantee that x amount of gold is available for use as long as its in the coffers without needing proir approval for the funds. It would be a way to absolve conflicts among provinces over scarce funds for projects. Not a hard and fast rule for gold distribution, but more of a bylaw. Also it was brought that governors werent asking for money to rush and as a result were lagging in improvements, maybe knowing x amount of gold is there for their use would help encourage rush projects.

apopholeus813

Great you are bright and open enough to see this, some just shoots down the concept as a matter of principle. Your assessment is close to what has been the reality and what is the solution.

apopholeus813

Great you are bright and open enough to see this, some just shoots down the concept as a matter of principle. Your assessment is close to what has been the reality and what is the solution.

Who's shooting the concept down on principle? I shoot it down because the idea is seriously flawed, as you'd see if you took an impartial look at the details, and not through your usual rose-colored glasses.

-- Ravensfire

I have some questions about Provo's scheme.

Let's say a governor has 200 gpt allotted to him (just pulling a number from the air). He wants to rush a temple, which costs 450 gold on the first turn, decreasing by 5 gpt. Can he save up his gold for the necessary 3 turns? Is the balance (165 gold) kept in his account or does it revert to the national treasury?

Can governors loan their gold to other governors? Would any loans be interest free?

Ravensfire

Well, it started out with an idea, and you could have come up with something like apopholeus813 did, and instead you flame me individually with punchlines, bad idea, rosy glasses, blind squirrel and what have you coming from your side. I try to separate the issue from the person, you don't.

Other posters concentrated on assessing the problem, not to make me look bad. They know the idea is flawed, as it is not worked on, in fact, quite novel, but they see I identified a key problem that must be addressed structurally, not mopped under the carpet. Well, I admit the idea is flawed as posted, as very few here would and could implement it with the present game population, but the core vision is there.

I didn't flame you or your idea. I asked some simple, straight-forward questions that I believe need to be answered.

YNCS, you did not, I was referring to Ravensfire here :D
I just observe the response pattern to my proposals, some react with individual-target insults to make them look incredibly sharp and aristocratic and the undersigned as a blind bat with ADHD syndrome and multiple other handicaps, other respond with respectful counterproposals and some analysis.

I have some questions about Provo's scheme.

Let's say a governor has 200 gpt allotted to him (just pulling a number from the air). He wants to rush a temple, which costs 450 gold on the first turn, decreasing by 5 gpt. Can he save up his gold for the necessary 3 turns? Is the balance (165 gold) kept in his account or does it revert to the national treasury?

Can governors loan their gold to other governors? Would any loans be interest free?

For sure, Governors should be free to develop economic relations between them, with loan agreements and so on, overseen by the Director of Commerce.
This will make the cooperation, financial management of the game and the organizational relationships much more interesting. What I do not want to see, is a financial model we had last game. In fact, Donsig, Zarn and to some extent Blackheart did a good job there to remedy the problem, but no structural changes were made.

We will see the "National Resource, One Leader" argument over and over (Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuhrer, but a democracy game is more than mob rule, polling standards, laws, oratory and individual flames, it is also about sound organizational planning and room for intra-governmental organization with structured negotiations across the system.

Provo - That's just adding a whole new level of complexity. With gold as a national resource, governors don't have to worry about that. Remember, people have real life commitments. They can't be spending 5 hours everyday seeing if X governor will give them gpt, and how much gold they'll have alotted in Y turns. I know you tried to convince me in the chatroom, but this idea is a bit too complex for a forum game where real life takes precidence.

CT, you blow the organizational restructuring out of proportions.

I am talking about a simple fund per province given out by the Director of Commerce based on objective criteria. You just shoot down the idea because you want to do the game as it has been done for three years. Maybe some of us want to make financial planning and provincial balancing more a center of the game.

I saw that you failed to call for gold for the Minami province for example, since you did not apply, as many others forgot. Again, some of us will work on this, and in place of shooting it down, please come with constructive alternatives that has some matter to them in place of calling on the ancient traditions that has no real substanc or solution.

Provo,

Please understand that I'm an accountant in RL. I know how complicated keeping books on even a simple bit of financial work can be. There would have to be some hard and fast rules made for your scheme to work. Here's some things that would have to be decided:
If each governor has a capital account, somone, probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a ledger on the account.
Each governor would have to be told periodically how much was in his account.
If governors can make loans, then someone, again probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a separate ledger for loans, including any details like when the loan would be repaid.
Would the governors' accounts stop at the end of the term, or be carried forward?
What percentage of the national treasury would be allocated to governors?
In the event of a national crisis (an unexpected war) or a trading opportunity, can the governors' funds be redirected to rushing units or paying for some advantageous trade? Would this require a WOTP poll?

(Note to self: If Provo's scheme does come into effect, do not run for Director of Commerce.)

Provo,

Please understand that I'm an accountant in RL. I know how complicated keeping books on even a simple bit of financial work can be. There would have to be some hard and fast rules made for your scheme to work. Here's some things that would have to be decided:
If each governor has a capital account, somone, probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a ledger on the account.
Each governor would have to be told periodically how much was in his account.
If governors can make loans, then someone, again probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a separate ledger for loans, including any details like when the loan would be repaid.
Would the governors' accounts stop at the end of the term, or be carried forward?
What percentage of the national treasury would be allocated to governors?
In the event of a national crisis (an unexpected war) or a trading opportunity, can the governors' funds be redirected to rushing units or paying for some advantageous trade? Would this require a WOTP poll?

(Note to self: If Provo's scheme does come into effect, do not run for Director of Commerce.)

If each governor has a capital account, somone, probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a ledger on the account.

They already did so in a budget thread, and they had to make a new one for every single turnchat last game, to no avail.

Each governor would have to be told periodically how much was in his account.

Well, they did so in a way by responding to the applications, and had to post a breakdown of the payouts.

If governors can make loans, then someone, again probably the Director of Commerce, would have to keep a separate ledger for loans, including any details like when the loan would be repaid.

A simple principle of transferrability of funds on a simple single-sum transfer with a pre-defined payment could be readily deducted.

Would the governors' accounts stop at the end of the term, or be carried forward?

Provinces budgets should be carried forward, but a maximum deficit should be defined at for example 20 % of the budget.

What percentage of the national treasury would be allocated to governors?

We should pick a simple percentage figure of the gold surplus, the national provincial budget/tax, set at a number of 10-40 %, with possibly variations in 5 % intervals. Foreign Affairs, Military Upgrades and a buffer in case we want to run on deficit for more luxes and science should be the national resource.
Since we are running a mock government simulation, this would enrichen the game and make it more interesting for those of us interested in a more realistic and organization-oriented game. I have realized that the more people think about solutions and models, the more civic the game becomes, and the more simple and slower turn pace, the more restless and aggressive people become. This would also present clarity to how the budget is organized and distributed, as well as assessing the ability to forecast a very simple budget.

In the event of a national crisis (an unexpected war) or a trading opportunity, can the governors' funds be redirected to rushing units or paying for some advantageous trade? Would this require a WOTP poll?

Force Majeur, as defined by a Volcano outbreak (requiring the rushing of a new settler) or the outbreak of a war would call for a national override.

I have seen more complex models work fine in the DG, and I believe in more structure based on fair, effective, and simple principles.

Provo - you're interpreting disagreements via your ideas as flaming - don't.

Every time someone disagrees with something you come up with, you take it as a personal affront. Understandable - I get upset when someone disagrees with my ideas. You bet I use various statements when talking to you - I see them in quite a few of your own posts. Don't toss stones from your glass house, Provo.

Every time I have seen an idea of yours I like, I have supported it. Every time I see an idea I don't like, I state my reasons for the opposition. I do not, and have not, tossed out a "Don't like it 'cause Provo came up with it" statement. Heck, I haven't done that for anyone's idea.

I have my reasons for not liking your ideas. Get it? Stop taking this as an attack on you, and treat it for what it is, an attack on your ideas. Stop ignoring the people against your idea, and actually talk about our concerns. You're trying to dismiss those valid points and shove them under the table. It's not going to happen. I will make you address the problems we're seeing.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire

I am sorry to say, but I cannot remember last time you supported a proposal I came up with, probably it was last DG. Again, you ignore most of what I write you have written on multiple locations (I can provide links if required). I like people to disagree if they can pose constructive questions bringing along a solution, and I have seen some in this thread. I admit for giving you some criticism for the private polling and abstain campaign which was your main message for the first part of last DG, but I have been very moderate in attacking your persona as such for half a year or so, which could be testfied by the majority in here. I cannot remember last time I insulted you with a derogatory remark. Again, most of your posts in this thread have been "I don't like this, please shut up and go away".

I will address the five reasons you posted for opposing the identified problem and suggested remedies.

Reason 1: Gold and workers should be treated as a National resource, and used as such.

Gold and workers are indeed national resources, but building rushes and provincial infrastructure are both impacting provinces and requested by Governors. However, all Governors are measured on their relative performance, so we need to find a fair model for limited resource distribution that is predictable and structured enough to allow an organized procedure. The request system used in DG5 was arbitrary, and financial planning had no idea about the needs between all the ministers and governors. My ministry posted military upgrades by the entire volume several turnchats ahead down to the last penny, so the Domestic Minister could integrate that into his planning.
Foreign Affairs did rarely call for gold do do espionage and only 2-3 governors utlized the strategic gold rushes to some extent, where MOTH did a great job in rebuilding war torn Itakaji Province, running many extra bouts due to an incredibly inept system.
Minami lost Niagara due to a failed cultural counter-move by temple rushing.
Kitakinu barely made it due to some military surplus disbands and later rushes by Blackheart (good work by Tim Bentley and Blackheart).

The lesson was for many of us, we may need a more reasonable, functioning and smart
organization of our economic model next game. I saw several reasonable rushes rejected on unfair and unreasonable grounds, due to a lack of principles for distributing funds.

Reason 2: Manageability - this is easily a paperwork nightmare to manage.

Well, speaking of paperwork nightmare, I am tempted to provide a couple of links to DG5 in argumentation down the line. If what you mention would be a paperwork nightmare, the past showed us a system where hell froze over of needless paperwork.
Brave MOTHs crafty and diligent work was ignored and rejected due to systemic deficiencies, and Donsigs attempt to reshape finance died out due to the same organizational catatonia.

I just saw the light in the ISDG where we play Fanatica (Mayas), and I observed how this Russian scientist (Molecular biologist) took over as DP, and brought detail level economic planning to a new level. In fact, I would like to introduce a couple of guest speakers to prove the value of proper organization and planning of the economy.

Reason 3. 2-3 Governor Pet Projects threatening national planning

This is the very reason we need a model to organize inter-provincial competition for scarcity goods such as gold rushes. A proper distribution model is needed, and will be designed and shaped. From now on the extent of pet projects would be subject to budget restraints. Budgets for all parties cause a less gamey demogame simulation.

Reason 4. Workload concerns

I can see this stem for time constraints, limitiations effectiveness, limited skill and other issues. I can only guarantee that the proposal will represent less combined work compared to the bureucratic morass and idiocy facing MOTH with the Itakaji Province.
In fact, such a model will save time, and this is why MOTH supported this idea. If you Ravensfire are not to keen to look closely on the Judiciary, feel free to do so, you are a great writer, good at finding legal procedures, arguing cases and simplifying legal codes to become effective. However, I recognized you stay out of military discussions and economic discussions as much as possible, and prefer to snipe a little bit instead.

I am quite confident we will greatly improve the economic planning this game with our present resource of people, and will sure put up a competent management team.
Reason 5. Details

I will get back to the details in more comprehensive post compounding all the constructive citizen input in this post. :D

This is a major issue to deal with. We should also have some form of coordination between governors so that they are all generally developing in the same manner. For example, we should not have 1 province devoted to making workers, 1 for military, etc.

Corrupt provinces should almost always get the lion's share of rush cash for cultural improvements, which would be provided by the commerce-rich and shield-rich core. We don't need an elaborate formula to determine that. ;)

What if most of our resources originate in our core provinces? Do we then further reward these provinces at the expense of our corrupt ones? Sorry, but this proposal runs the risk of undermining sound fiscal policy by putting conditions on the random placement of resources. I gotta say "no."

Well, we are not necessarily running either what Blackheart refers to as "affirmative action", or what a EU citizen would call "structural funds" or the notion of a socialist plan economy subsidizing a non profitable periphery.
However, each strategic and luxury resources have a separate value, justifying the existance of a city. I would rather surrender a distant city with no resources or strategic importance to talk of, than subidizing it.
A transfer model based on resources makes perfect sense, since that enable the governor to develop the province based on relative importance for the nation. The money follows the value so to say, the funds follow the source of trade goods and base strategy and luxury resources.

Another reason is the relative tile value of a Diamond for example. It would make perfect sense to allocate a fixed sum of money for rushes to a city holding 3 diamonds for example. A natural model would be to give a subsidy for the value of that city, and a way to assess that value is trade goods.
Still, the value is only based on the resource itself. An Isthmus port with access to two oceans would be a special case to be handled by the Director of Commerce.

DZ, indeed the random placement of resources will decide the entire strategy for the entire game, sorry to say. Regentman knows this with his iron-horses research policy. Random placement will affect where we fight wars, where we settle cities, build roads, place military units and do other gamey activities in order to win the game. The random placement of resources define the value per tile around the city as well, leveraging city improvements.

As a commercial civilization, you can be damned that the same random placement of resources will affect the rentability, profitability and utilty of future cash rushes.

Therefore, a payment per resource would reflect the relative value of a city.