I was reading in the Citizen Intiatives: Falcon Doctrine in one of ice2k4 posts that last demogame war ministers were not required to submitt a war plan to the public when we are at war. Should we make this law and any suggestions on how this might work.

Discuss!:D

PS i am just putting this up for discussion

The problem you get into is (1) how defined descriptive are they? and (2) How does the law affect the plans after they've been altered due to actions made by the AI? If we state that war plans are mandatory by law and the AI does something the first couple of turns during the war that throws our plans out the window, than how do we legally react?

Rather than state that war plans are by law posted, I suggest instead suggesting to our military leader to post his/her ideas. I know I doubt I'll vote to re-elect a candidate if I know they don't bother including the citizens in their ideas.

Heck no!

We don't need everything as a law, just the important areas and the confusing areas.

-- Ravensfire

I agree ravensfire but I am putting it up for discussion beacuase I am not sure about it either and i want to other peoples opinion

NO let the official have some flexibility during the war.

What would you consider to be valid plans? Definition of the objectives and criteria for success or something on a more tactical level. The objectives and success criteria should be defined by the citizens and the tactics left up to the experts. I think clear goals should be a requirement before declaring war and that the miliary leader (Chieftan or later official) should set guidelines for the DP with the understanding that the man in the field has the final say about what happens.

General policy decisions like force compositions, strengths, strategic and tactical objectives, and logistics are the type of things I'd expect to see in initiatives. During the exploration and settlement phase this might be policy on how many defenders and what type, and how many scouts/warriors/boats are exploring. Later it could be how many units of each type, where to station them during peace, and how much advantage do we want before going to war. During a war it's which cities to target, whether to pillage & raze or leave improvements & keep, and what reinforcements are needed where.

I agree with leaving details to the professionals. I'd want to see the plans posted and discussed to verify in fact the official and DP are knowledgeable about combat and give the citizens a way to be involved.

The problem you get into is (1) how defined descriptive are they? and (2) How does the law affect the plans after they've been altered due to actions made by the AI? If we state that war plans are mandatory by law and the AI does something the first couple of turns during the war that throws our plans out the window, than how do we legally react?

Rather than state that war plans are by law posted, I suggest instead suggesting to our military leader to post his/her ideas. I know I doubt I'll vote to re-elect a candidate if I know they don't bother including the citizens in their ideas.

Instead of suggesting, maybe we should require for a military leader or candidate for the position to provide war plans.

No, stratagies and plans should not be made into law. We should not be fixed on just one plan. We should be able to change and adapt to changes that come across to us.

Would you think the warfare in Napoleon's time would work in say World War II? ;)

No, stratagies and plans should not be made into law. We should not be fixed on just one plan. We should be able to change and adapt to changes that come across to us.

Would you think the warfare in Napoleon's time would work in say World War II? ;)

That's the thing, the doctrine would be constantly adapting and changing. With the invention of say, Bronze Working, the doctrine would be rewritten.

No, stratagies and plans should not be made into law. We should not be fixed on just one plan. We should be able to change and adapt to changes that come across to us.


In this context, laws today are functionally equivalent to polls in previous demogames. In fact, it's arguable that the current rule that a later poll on the same subject supercedes a previous poll makes the laws of this game more liberal than polls in previous games, because we won't have people yelling "we've already decided that, why have another poll".

If we replaced the original question with
Should war plans be approved via polls?
would that change your response?

I believe that what should happen is that we discuss plans and the offical act on the citizens advice, i would also support polling a war plan before putting it into action

i would also support polling a war plan before putting it into action

The broad plans for a war should always be polled. Stuff like our objectives and priorities, rough estimates of troop levels and anything special our cities or other leaders might need to do. This can be nicely bundled up in a combined poll for the declaration of war.

The specifics about how to accomplish those goals, and non-significant changes, I would just want to see discussion or the opportunity to discuss them.

-- Ravensfire

The broad plans for a war should always be polled. Stuff like our objectives and priorities, rough estimates of troop levels and anything special our cities or other leaders might need to do. This can be nicely bundled up in a combined poll for the declaration of war.

The specifics about how to accomplish those goals, and non-significant changes, I would just want to see discussion or the opportunity to discuss them.

-- Ravensfire

I agree with that totally, my post wasn't really specific but thats what I wanted people to think

Simple.... NO!

Gameplay decisions should NEVER be integrated into law.

Leaders are subordinate to citizen decisions. However, placing gameplay decisions into written law, especially in such detail as the Falcon Initiative, puts too many constraints on leaders.

Heck no!

We don't need everything as a law, just the important areas and the confusing areas.

-- Ravensfire


Here, here! Words of true wisdom>

BTW, when did the war start? A guy goes away for a couple days and...

Here, here! Words of true wisdom>

BTW, when did the war start? A guy goes away for a couple days and...

Didnt' it start in DG3?

:mischief:

:satan:

-- Ravensfire

Didnt' it start in DG3?

Ahh, the good old days. :old:

I would like to see plans from whoever's in charge of war- definitly not legally binding ones, but basic plans for "how to approach war with nation y" and where to concentrate troops, and that sort of thing would be good to see, so that citizens can discuss these before any war occurs- this might allow for a more developed strategy to be implemented when we end up at war... (And given that we're the mongols... :satan:)

That said, such plans shouldn't be legally binding! Nor should it be legally binding to produce them, but I would humbly suggest that a minister who involves the citizen body in decision making is usually more popular than one who dosen't, and involving them in the middle of a war may be difficult, especially if the war proves fast paced.

If we replaced the original question with
Should war plans be approved via polls?
would that change your response?
If it was reworded with "war plan approved via polls", it would change my response.

I would like to see plans from whoever's in charge of war- definitly not legally binding ones, but basic plans for "how to approach war with nation y" and where to concentrate troops, and that sort of thing would be good to see, so that citizens can discuss these before any war occurs- this might allow for a more developed strategy to be implemented when we end up at war... (And given that we're the mongols... :satan:)

That said, such plans shouldn't be legally binding! Nor should it be legally binding to produce them, but I would humbly suggest that a minister who involves the citizen body in decision making is usually more popular than one who dosen't, and involving them in the middle of a war may be difficult, especially if the war proves fast paced.

Sigh. If only we had horses :sad:

Sigh. If only we had horses :sad:

Actually I don't believe we have animal husbandry yet, and that reveals horses if my memory isn't mistaken. We might have settled right on top of horses but never figured it out because we don't know what a horse is yet :)

I agree with what seems to be the general tone of this thread, war plans should be published prior to the outbreak of war. (if possible if the enemy attacks us this could be a bit more tricky) The citizens should be given time to discuss the plans on a strategic level, but leave tactical choices to the comanders in the field.

Possibly war plans should be approved by a poll, however this is only truely practical with a war we plan on declaring many turns in advance, I'd hate to see a war plan voted down while we're at war leaving no time for a revised one to be drafted before the next play session.

Actually I don't believe we have animal husbandry yet, and that reveals horses if my memory isn't mistaken. We might have settled right on top of horses but never figured it out because we don't know what a horse is yet :)

I agree with what seems to be the general tone of this thread, war plans should be published prior to the outbreak of war. (if possible if the enemy attacks us this could be a bit more tricky) The citizens should be given time to discuss the plans on a strategic level, but leave tactical choices to the comanders in the field.

Possibly war plans should be approved by a poll, however this is only truely practical with a war we plan on declaring many turns in advance, I'd hate to see a war plan voted down while we're at war leaving no time for a revised one to be drafted before the next play session.

You're right, AH does reveal horses. But I also feel that we can also assist in discussing tactical choices unless something pops up all of the sudden while the DP is playing. The DP would have to use his or her discretion on how to proceed next.