This thread should be used to discuss domestic issues with a broad scope. Discussion about city queues and such should take place in the provincial thread of the city, or in a separate thread. You may also use this thread to request that I start a poll on an issue that concerns you.

Domestic Department Term 1 Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19192)

Domestic Department Term 2: Organization and Goals

Minister of the Interior: Eyrei
Deputy Minister of the Interior: Donsig
Chat Representative(s): Now hiring
Governors: Eyrei (Istar), SKILORD (Cormyr)
Mayors: I will compile this list when I can do it from home.

Current National Budget: 10% Science/90% Taxes
Current Departmental Budgets: Forthcoming

Major proposals up for discussion:

1. Provincial budgets: I propose that each province's governor be allowed to build what he/she wants, provided the build queues are not contrary to public opinion, and the city produces enough income to maintain the improvement. If the city cannot maintain the improvement, permission will have to be acquired from the domestic leader, who may post a poll (we might require that a poll be posted, but this could become very cumbersome).

2. Departmental Budgets: I propose that (once we have switched to a more advanced government) each department and province have its own budget. These budgets would depend on the needs of the department as compared to the needs of other departments. A good chunk of the treasury, however, would be put in a discretionary fund, that can be used wherever it is needed. All gold produced during a particular turn session would be considered part of this fund until the end of the turn, at which point the budgets would be redistributed. Access to the discretionary funds would be decided by a popular vote for each and every instance where a department or province wished to draw on these funds to rush a building or use this money to trade with other civs, etc. The percent of the treasury that each department or province has available would probably need to be decided by a popular vote and ratified by the cabinet. Each department would be responsible for keeping track of its total treasury, as this could grow if the department does not spend all of its funds. This could potentially result in one department 'owning' almost the entire treasury at points, though this would probably mean that the budget would be readdressed. An official of the domestic department, possibly the deputy would be charged with making sure that all departments treasuries are accurate and up-to-date. Departments are expected to cooperate with each other if it is for the good of the nation, and a popular poll could obviously force one department to give funds to another. In a way, we would have to start ignoring what the game tells us the total treasury is when plotting strategy, although a great national need could obviously reset the budget to 100% being in the discretionary fund. I realize this is complicated, but if we could implement something similar to this, I believe it would add a new level of fun to the game. Please, offer your thoughts.

This was posted in the old domestic department thread just before it was closed:

Originally posted by chiefpaco:

I'm not sure whether this was covered in another thread but, about

build queues.

Right now, we have access to 4 luxuries. In towns, I think temples

should be low on our priority list right now. Libraries are of higher

culture, are cheaper to build, and contribute to our science funding.

I noticed Washington was on "temple". It already has a library. Could

this be changed?

Some things we could use instead of temples, in general:
- Military unit for each town.
- Workers. Especially our 1-shields cities. That is one thing they

can produce in 10 turns.
- Library to expand our borders.
- Some barracks in our frontal towns. For healing and upgrading units.

Perhaps we can make Temples a consideration of all size 7

cities?




The main reason that temples are a priority right now is because of the

age bonus for 1000 year old culture buildings. I do agree that we need

more workers, and I actually suggest that all cities not designated for

military production (which are still most of them, because we are still

at war with everyone)build a worker of their own immediately after

finishing their first culture building. Personally, I think Washington

should finish its temple, but this is in Skilord's province. I do

agree that libraries have priority over temples for the reasons you

stated. I believe, that right now, a city with 2 military police (the

max for despotism) and access to all of our luxuries, will have two

happy citizens, 2 content citizens and two unhappy citizens at size 6.

If we add a temple, it will negate one unhappy citizen giving us only

one unhappy and 3 happy. If we switch to monarchy, which seems likely

to happen, and add another unit for police, the final unhappy citizen

will be eliminated, and there will be 4 happy, which will spark a WLTK

day. Note that the last two conditions can be interchanged, and both

need to be met for a WLTK day. If the city has been pop rushed in the

last 40 turns, I believe there will still be 3 happy and 3 content, if

these are both met which will still allow a WLTK day. My reason for

explaining this is that, without an increase in the luxury rate, cities

will not be able to enter a WLTK day without a temple or an

entertainer. An extra working citizen for a city will almost always

make up for the maintenance of a temple.

WLTK days are very important for managing corruption and waste, which

is going to be pretty bad otherwise, until we build the forbidden

palace.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I also suggest we consider rushing a military unit in any

defenseless town that is 2 squares away from an enemy unit and no help

in sight? If that is ever to occur?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is up to the military. If you are referring to the legion that is

about to sack Atlanta, I say this is necessary.

Eyrei, please vote in the Cabinet vote for the revised constitution. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21595)

Term 2 Interior Ministry Manifesto

Government: It appears we will soon have a more advanced form of government, which will greatly increase our economic potential. Because of the state of foreign affairs, we will likely have to choose monarchy over republic. I hope this will be a temporary situation. Republic offers us a much more powerful and flexible economy, and our nation has access to enough luxuries to make it feasible, as long as we are not constantly at war.

Happiness: The one major advantage that monarchy will offer us over republic is the use of 3 military police. This, combined with luxuries and temples should allow our size 6 towns to celebrate WLTK days. This will require expanding our military and evenly dispersing these units throughout the empire. A large military will also have the added benefit of deterring other nations from declaring war. We should have no need to raise the the luxury rate as long as we are in monarchy.

Improvements: The first prioriy for improvements should be those that produce culture. The earlier we build these the more culture they will produce. Once they reach 1000 years old, this culture value per turn will double. That is a great incentive to build these ASAP. Once we reach about 700 AD, culture buildings will not longer be the highest priority unless they are needed to expand the borders. Obviously, libraries are cheaper than temples, so they should be the first culture building in a city, unless it has very good production, in which case a temple should be built. Regardless, a temple and library should be the first two improvements in city, unless the military has need of a barracks or walls. Once these improvements are in place, a marketplace should be constructed, increasing our citizens happiness and improving our economy. The marketplace will also serve to pay maintenance costs for the cultural improvements in low to medium corruption cities. Finally, any city that is growing quickly, but does not have access to fresh water, will need to construct an aqueduct. Once one of our cities reaches size 7, it will produce one bonus shield, and also increase our military support by +2. Note that there will be numerous military units and some workers interspersed within these queues.

Tax rates: Until we discover Education, the tax rate will remain at 10% science and the rest in taxes. Once we discover education, we will need to do our own research. I suggest that we set our science as high as possible while still gaining gold/turn. As the empire grows, we may want to adjust this higher, but under monarchy it is often necessary to buy technology, so we will want a decent amount of gold coming in.

Rushing improvements: Once we can rush with gold, we should rush at least one cultural improvement in each city that is cultureless, ASAP. After this, most of our cash will probably have to be used to buy technology.

Workers: At least one worker per city should be built (not necessarily by that city) to improve our land. This will be necessary to take full advantage of our bonus tiles, particularly.

As the Department of Trade Minister, I also support more settlers for improving our lands. I have included an assessment in the Trade Department thread, as well as the Presidental and Military Department threads for their review. I suggest that we need to connect trade resources and roads heading north and south. That will aid us if we are invaded, and need quick troop movement.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is currently sponsoring a poll on behalf of the Domestic Department. This poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=273307&t=8122) will decide our Provincial Borders. It is the right, privilege and duty of every citizen to vote in this poll.

The Department of Foreign Affairs requests a dedicated budget or significant commitment of the Treasury towards acquiring embassies with our former enemies. These nations have shown the good sense to accept peace with us and we believe that our relationship with them can grow to a healthy and mutually beneficial one. The first step to healing the rift between our peoples is to get normalized relations with them, i.e. embassies.

originally posted by eyrei:
Major proposals up for discussion:

1. Provincial budgets: I propose that each province's governor be allowed to build what he/she wants, provided the build queues are not contrary to public opinion, and the city produces enough income to maintain the improvement. If the city cannot maintain the improvement, permission will have to be acquired from the domestic leader, who may post a poll (we might require that a poll be posted, but this could become very cumbersome).

From our constitution: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

Section F: Governors and Provinces

Article 1: A governor controls the production (building queues) of the cities within a province. A governor's production decision can be overturned by a council vote or by the Military Leader during time of invasion.

I respectfully point out to our Domestic Leader that our constitution clearly states that governors decide what is to be built in the cities within their provinces. The constitution specifies how and when a governor's choices can be overturned as can be seen in the quote from the constitution listed above. Please note that it does not say: "permission will have to be acquired from the domestic leader"!!!

If the domestic leader wants to impose restraints on our governors' powers he should seek to have the constitution changed rather than stretch the interpretation of one clause to its limit while ignoring other clauses.

Originally posted by donsig
originally posted by eyrei:


From our constitution: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)



I respectfully point out to our Domestic Leader that our constitution clearly states that governors decide what is to be built in the cities within their provinces. The constitution specifies how and when a governor's choices can be overturned as can be seen in the quote from the constitution listed above. Please note that it does not say: "permission will have to be acquired from the domestic leader"!!!

If the domestic leader wants to impose restraints on our governors' powers he should seek to have the constitution changed rather than stretch the interpretation of one clause to its limit while ignoring other clauses.

Point taken. I am, however, concerned that we will end up paying maintenence on improvements that have little or no benefit, but I will trust our governors to make that decision.

Point taken. I am, however, concerned that we will end up paying maintenence on improvements that have little or no benefit, but I will trust our governors to make that decision.

If we can get the governors to list their build queues ahead of time in an accessible thread then there will be plenty of time for citizens and government officials alike to debate the pros and cons of the build queues.

The idea of a city not being able to build improvements that it cannot support is not addressed in the constitution. I can understand the Domestic Leader's concerns about our cash flow. I am wary of imposing such large budgetary rules at this point as the picture is not complete. Peace will come one day and after that we will one day begin trading with other countries. This trading will hopefully add to our surplus making it easier to maintain improvements in cities that can not pay their total upkeep.

You could propose a Constitutional amendment. Something along the lines that provinces must support their own improvements. You could also extend the budget to include provinces.

Example:
20% of the budget is applied to provinces.
Each province nets 7 gold per turn.
Each province could build improvements so long as they cover the cost of them with their regular income +7 gold.

Of course, this would get into some serious accounting.

Also, there would be the question of what happens when income drops. Would the province have to sell off buildings?

Our budgetary process does need to be worked out and there are many angles to it. We've not done any trading yet but when that starts the accounting will get even more involved.

The idea of a provincial budget is a good one though I would point out that our provinces may be laid out such that we have rich and poor provinces. Since our provincial borders are not being fixed with budgets in mind we should keep an open mind and remain flexible so as not to permanently relegate certain provinces to poverty.

Originally posted by donsig
Since our provincial borders are not being fixed with budgets in mind we should keep an open mind and remain flexible so as not to permanently relegate certain provinces to poverty.

That is a major concern of mine. Some provinces will not really benefit from certain improvements, and will actually be a drain on the rest of the country, until other improvements, such as courthouses are built. They will also not be able to support many improvements for a while. We will need to work to cause WLTK day celebrations to further reduce this corruption. I will probably want to raise the luxury rate to 10% if we become a republic, for this reason.

I too feel a little concerned about putting some provinces into poverty simple because they don't have courthouses. I'm not sure that if we take over Zululand in the future if it will ever be a fully productive province.
I think I might have a proposal that could prevent that yet accomplish independency.

If the improvment you are seeking will put your provinces annual income into the red you need to seek approval by either the domestic leader or the cabinet. (ie if your provincial gross income is 50 gold and your maintenance [perhaps including garrisons] is 49 and you want to build a catherdral which will put you into the red you need approval from the cabinet or domestic dept.)

Just a thought as it feels like this is brainstorming. :confused:

There are pros and cons to that approach, Daaraa. In one sense it is unconstitutional, and usurps some of the power of the governors, as Donsig pointed out. It could also result in a province remaining poor. However, it would help the national economy. I would suggest that, for the time being, governors be required to clearly post build queues the day after the previous turn. If the domestic leader disapproves for this reason, he/she may veto, but the governor is allowed to post a cabinet vote on the subject if he/she sees fit. This would save time by not requiring a cabinet vote in this instance, but allowing for one. Just a thought.

Use the "no building in the red" rule with an exception list of improvements that may always be built. Such buildings would be courthouses and police stations (corruption reduction) and basic buildings such as temples, libraries and harbors.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Use the "no building in the red" rule with an exception list of improvements that may always be built. Such buildings would be courthouses and police stations (corruption reduction) and basic buildings such as temples, libraries and harbors.

Good idea! We could further expand on that by making certain buildings require prerequisites. For example, a courthouse would be a prerequisite for a marketplace, if the province is in the red. It might actually be better to judge this based on the cities ability to upkeep, rather than the province's.

Just a thought. A strong budget for the Hwy Dept. may help in a few areas mentioned above. A well-connected nation is a happy nation...

My main focus in the "no building in the red" thing was to prevent provinces from becoming drains on the nation without proper authorization.
If the decision were left to me and I had to decide if (from my example with the cathedral) they could build the cathedral and I had 5 gold per turn allocated to my budget, I would sacrifice the 2 (cathedrals cost 3 gold right?) gold per turn.
Otherwise, if building were done un checked without budget constraints we could quickly run into the red and end up having to sell things and that could lead to the bigger headache of deciding what to sell.
As far as being unconstitutional, would it not also seem (although it is not in the constitution) unconstitutional to run up a debt without "authorization" and cripple the nation as a whole all because a governor wanted colesseums in every city?

I like the suggestions made by Shaitan and eyrei. My thoughts were just a very rough idea and you refined them better. Thanks. :goodjob:

I also agree with connecting all cities and building more roads to promote trade. (We might need to build workers for that as "slave" workers work at half the rate.)

originally posted by eyrei:

If the domestic leader disapproves for this reason, he/she may veto, but the governor is allowed to post a cabinet vote on the subject if he/she sees fit. This would save time by not requiring a cabinet vote in this instance, but allowing for one.

This would indeed be time saving but it would also be unconstitutional. I will quote from the constitution once more: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

Section F: Governors and Provinces

Article 1: A governor controls the production (building queues) of the cities within a province. A governor's production decision can be overturned by a council vote or by the Military Leader during time of invasion.

The domestic leader cannot unilateraly veto a governor's build queues. If the domestic leader does not like what the governor's want to build then he will have to persuade them to change their minds, get their choices overturned by a council vote or persuade the military leader to overturn the choice if it is 'during a time of invasion."

There will undoubtedly be times when governors will make 'bad' choices that aren't or can't be overturned. We will just have to live with those choices and move on. I doubt that any given governor or set of governors could ruin our country with their build queues.

Originally posted by donsig
originally posted by eyrei:



This would indeed be time saving but it would also be unconstitutional. I will quote from the constitution once more: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)



The domestic leader cannot unilateraly veto a governor's build queues. If the domestic leader does not like what the governor's want to build then he will have to persuade them to change their minds, get their choices overturned by a council vote or persuade the military leader to overturn the choice if it is 'during a time of invasion."

There will undoubtedly be times when governors will make 'bad' choices that aren't or can't be overturned. We will just have to live with those choices and move on. I doubt that any given governor or set of governors could ruin our country with their build queues.

Right, but I was talking only about a situation where the city cannot pay for the upkeep of the improvement. At any rate, I trust our governors will do a good job, and the proposed change only affected who called the council vote. The problem with requiring a council vote to overturn is that build queues will not always be posted immediately after the last turn. Council votes must stay up for 48 hours, I believe, or is that just the way we have done it?

OK, clue me in here. In an instance where the Cultural Minister overides a Governors build decision, and the Governor opposes the Cultural Minister's decision, doesn't the game stop for a Cabinet vote on the matter? I believe both would cry injustice! if the matter went against their issue. It is a key point and needs to be discussed. If the CM overrides a Gov. and the matter can not be worked out before either of the build commands are completed, (and a majority of Cabinet members are not present in a chat) then the game chat must end until the matter is resolved. Wouldn't the same principles carry over to the Domestic or Military Leaders?

Originally posted by Cyc
OK, clue me in here. In an instance where the Cultural Minister overides a Governors build decision, and the Governor opposes the Cultural Minister's decision, doesn't the game stop for a Cabinet vote on the matter? I believe both would cry injustice! if the matter went against their issue. It is a key point and needs to be discussed. If the CM overrides a Gov. and the matter can not be worked out before either of the build commands are completed, (and a majority of Cabinet members are not present in a chat) then the game chat must end until the matter is resolved. Wouldn't the same principles carry over to the Domestic or Military Leaders?

I see your point. This could really bog the game down, though. In the matter of the cultural and military overrides, it is very unlikely the governor will disagree, as it these both provide a benefit to the province. The difference with the domestic override we are discussing is that the governor is more likely to disagree, as he/she may really want the building. It should be a little while before we run into budget problems because of upkeep, so we should have some time to hammer this out.

While I have you on the horn Eyrei, what do you propose be done with that Chinese settler outside of Khatovar?

Originally posted by Cyc
While I have you on the horn Eyrei, what do you propose be done with that Chinese settler outside of Khatovar?

I would prefer to block its path with units, but if not, and it settles in the wrong spot, we should wait until we have had peace, and then pick a fight with China, which shouldn't be too hard. This is pretty much out of my realm, though if it settles within the borders of Istar, I will be quite upset.

Also, the settler being built in Khatovar could be rushed, and we could guess at the Chinese settler destination, and take it, while units temporarily block them.

Concidering that the Rider is coming up in the tech tree, I'm against conquering any city the Chinese build.

I do propose however, that we might try to overwhelm it with culture, depending on where it's placed.

(I realize this garentee's nothing)

In an instance where the Cultural Minister overides a Governors build decision, and the Governor opposes the Cultural Minister's decision, doesn't the game stop for a Cabinet vote on the matter?

First of all I don't think the cultural minister can unilaterally over-ride a governor's build choice any more than the domestic leader can. The president can't even do that. Only the military advisor can single handedly over ride a governor's build order and then only during time of invasion. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

Governor's build queues "can be overturned by a council vote". Section L, article 4 reads:

Article 4: Administrative votes are called by the President. An affirmative result overrules an elected official's instructions and decisions for game play.

It would appear that only the president can initiate a council vote to overturn a governor's build queue. the cultural minister (or any other cabinent member for that matter) would have to convince the president to start a cabinet vote. Article 7 provides for 'spot votes' so the build queues could also be over-turned during turn chat. I hope that spot votes are only used in emergencies and not as a regular substitute for council votes in the forum.

Donsig, ole buddy. You might want to reread the constitution on this one. Check the Cultural Leaders job description. (unless its changed and I'm not awared of it.) I could have done it.

Just to set the record straight:

Article 3: Cultural Leader: Makes decisions regarding city expansion and construction of cultural city improvements. The Cultural leader can override a governor's decisions for the construction of cultural improvement's.

Now I would not do so without discussing it with the governor, and so far have not felt the need, but if it were a border/crisis situation, that is one of my responsibilities. Of course, if the Governor objected, I think it could trigger a council vote.

As to this whole matter of council votes, I think there needs to be some clarification. In most organizations (I have been on the board of a couple state associations), the first question at a meeting is if there is a quorum, or at least half the voting members of the board. If not, there is no official meeting.

If the quorum is present, however, any votes that they take only require a majority of those present, not a majority of the total. For example, if there are 9 members of the board, there must be at least 5 present to have the meeting. As long as there are 5 or more, the meeting proceeds, and anything that comes before the vote needs only 3 to carry, not 5. We may need to clarify the constitution, but I believe that is the point of having deputies, etc. to represent the interest of each official at the turn chats. If they are not represented, they forfeit their right to vote on quick votes.

Article 3: Cultural Leader: Makes decisions regarding city expansion and construction of cultural city improvements. The Cultural leader can override a governor's decisions for the construction of cultural improvement's.

The quote above is taken from Section E. It does appear that the cultural minister can overturn a governor's queue in so far as cultural improvements are concerned. I stand corrected.

Cyc's original scenario can be made even more complicated by assuming the president wants a cabinet vote to overturn the cultural minister's over-ride of the governor and then (since it's a time of invasion) the military leader wants to over-ride everyone and put the city into military production. The constitution doesn't seem to specify a pecking order here.

If any situation like this arose and couldn't be resolved by turn chat time then the president (or acting president) would surely be within his rights to hold a spot vote (or two) to sort it all out. To go back to Cyc's original concern, I don't think the game would have to be halted if these disputes arose. The 'spot vote' mechanism was written into the constitution so these type of occurances could be handled during turn chat.

Once again, my only concern is that spot votes be used only in emergencies and not as a replacement for a formal council vote in the forums.

I agree with you completely on this point Donsig.
(wow, doesn't that sound weird!) ;)

The point of the game is to have debates and discussions on these issues, involving as many people as possible. The spot votes should only be taken on issues that would hold up the game, and even then I think we have seen several instances when turn chats are stopped short (7-8 turns) because we hit a decision point that should have popular input.

In reply to Justus II's post regarding quorums:

The constitution does not mention quorums. Formal council votes in the forum are given 'at least 48 hours or until all members have voted' (not an exact quote but close). I do not think deputies can vote in these polls. I also think that the idea behind the two day period is give the entire cabinet time to vote so as to have a full vote. The constitution does say:

Article 8: A plurality of the responding voters is required for a Council Vote to pass. The President may cast a vote to break a tie. The President does not otherwise vote.

So, in spot votes during turn chat a majority of those present and voting are needed to carry a vote. A question that hasn't been addressed is whether chat reps can vote in spot votes. I assume deputies would be able to vote only if the council member from that department is absent. If both council member and deputy are absent would an appointed chat rep be able to vote in the spot poll?

have to disagree again. The constitution says a Cabinet vote. Not a quorum, not a spot vote, a Cabinet vote. Now who's bending the constitution?

Cyc, I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with but 'spot votes' are council votes held during turn chat to overturn a descision made made by an elected official.

The relevent quotes from the constitution are (from section L): (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

Article 2: Polled council votes will last a minimum of 48 hours or until all council members have responded. Spot votes (in the Turn Chat) will be tallied and carried immediately.

Article 4: Administrative votes are called by the President. An affirmative result overrules an elected official's instructions and decisions for game play.
Article 7: Spot votes are Administrative votes carried out within the turn chat. They are called by the designated player.

Article 8: A plurality of the responding voters is required for a Council Vote to pass. The President may cast a vote to break a tie. The President does not otherwise vote.

Article 9: A single official will have one vote, no matter how many departments they are currently representing.

Even though the cultural minister could unilaterally overturn a governor's build the president could still call for a council vote to over-ride the cultural minister and if done during turn chat would be a spot vote.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 8: A plurality of the responding voters is required for a Council Vote to pass. The President may cast a vote to break a tie. The President does not otherwise vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, a plurality of responding voters means that you do not need a majority of the actual cabinet members, just among those who actually voted. And without a quorum requirement, that means that if we had a council poll, and only three members responded in the 48 hours, two votes would carry it.

Another question then becomes what rules apply to spot votes during turn chats. Are spot votes considered council votes? Are they even officially binding at all? Maybe we need to define them more clearly. I would suggest that any council vote must have responses from at least half the cabinet (a quorum) to be binding.

As for the deputies, I believe that is their function, to fill in for the official when unavailable. That would include the right to vote. If the official does not vote within the 48 hours, the deputies vote counts. Chat reps, however, are unofficial positions, and do not have the right to vote.

Just my recommendations, not trying to spark a new constitutional debate!

Just my recommendations, not trying to spark a new constitutional debate!

Too late: you're already deep in the middle of one!:lol:

I think 'spot votes' are clearly council votes according to section L. If only three departments are present at turn chat then 2 would carry a spot vote and it would be as binding as a full cabinet vote in the forum.

As for these votes being binding (or any votes or polls for that matter) they are only binding in the sense that by not following the dictates of a vote or poll the official in question risks impeachment. And impeachment is not removal from office but a 'trial' and vote on whether to remove the official.

An official could disregard any vote or poll, get impeached (if someone actually complained to a mod) and still be confirmed in his or her office by the impeachment poll.

All that aside, Grey Fox is a master of getting a consensus during turn chat anyway. It's been an interesting debate anyway.:)

After looking at the game, it seems that one of our major problems is the unconnected former Egyptian cities. This is causing major unrest and rioting. It will take a long time to build a road to connect them to our empire through the mountains, so I looked at what it would cost to connect them by harbor, and wanted to present my idea to see if the domestic department would be interested. I could not find the chat log, so if this was already discussed, please forgive me.

The first step would be to build a harbor in our homeland, connected to our capital. The two most likely choices are Shailonega, which has been building our galleys, and New Falcon, which is nearby and also fairly productive. It is currently building a marketplace, and has a decent number (35) of shields already accumulated. Switching to a harbor would cost 180 there, or 244 at Shailo. If left on their own, it would take 9 turns at New Falcon, or 13 at Shailo.

The second step is a harbor connected to the Egyptian cities. The obvious choice is El Amarna, which has 9 shields accumulated toward a library. (I know, I am recommending switching AWAY from a library!!) By switching, it could rush the harbor for 284 gold. Total cost would be 464, or 528 for the Shailo option. Obviously, this would drain our whole treasury in one move, so it is a major decision. Someone could work out the options if we wait x number of turns, then rush, etc. to see what the costs would be. Regardless, this would be a major, national project, and so I thought it best to present it here for the Domestic Leader, as well as other cabinet members, to comment on before creating a poll.

Advantages:
+ It would connect 5 cities in one step, and the other Egyptian cities could then connect to the harbor quicker than our core cities, reducing corruption.
+ It makes two more luxuries available to those cities, reducing unhappiness. Less entertainers, better production.
+ It connects an extra source of iron and horses to our main trade network, allowing us to sell these strategic resources to recoup some of our investment.
+ By building the first harbor, we will be able to trade with other nations. Despite my earlier comment about the AI being slow to connect harbors, 3 of them already have, Greece, China, and India. India also has 2 luxuries we do not, Silk and Fur, while Greece has gems (not connected yet). China has no luxuries, meaning they would likely buy from us!
+ We will be able to start building veteran galleys, on two opposite coasts, strengthening our naval capabilities.

Disadvantages:
-It empties the treasury in one turn! At least we wouldn't have to decide how to divide up the budget this time!

Seriously, it is a considerable sum of money in one turn, but it truly would be a national achievement that would aid in unifying our empire. THEN we can switch to building libraries!

That's an excellent idea, Justus, and very well laid out. My main concern right now is China. My plans were to court the Iroquois for a counter to possible future Chinese agression. If we can set a trade deal with China that would be an excellent step towards keeping them from nipping at our heels. I would be willing to postpone Foreign Affair's plans for a chat turn if Trade can guarantee a deal will be struck with China. That is, if China doesn't have enough cash/income to make a decent deal, we may have to give them a luxury for next to nothing (or nothing, if it comes to that).

Chieftess, what say you?

My take on this stuff:

The lack of a quorum requirement was intentional. The game must go on, even if the Council is depleted.

Deputies take over for their leaders when the leaders are absent. They are the leader for all intents and purposes except for the Chain of Command. Deputies can vote, call polls, etc if their leader is absent. "Absent" on the forum is a question as nobody except Eyrei is here 24 hours a day (;)). I'd say if a leader hasn't posted in 36 hours then it would be safe for a deputy to act.

The Military and Cultural leaders can arbitrarily override a Governor's build decision under particular circumstances. The Governor may not like it but he has no legal recourse except to convince the President that the build queue was the right choice and try to get the Pres to use a Council Vote to override the Military/Cultural leader. If the Military and Cultural overrides should come to a head, the Military leader wins. This is precedented in the Chain of Command.

A Council Vote is the trump card. It beats everything except a Moderator.

The President can call a vote to override any elected official's plans. There's little chance of this happening on the Forum. Instructions for game play tend to come in just before the game starts (as it takes time to analyze and discuss plans). Council Votes on the Forum take 48 hours (less, if all Councilors respond quickly). As a result, this would have to be done as a spot vote in the chat turn. In this case, the spot council vote overrides the rest of the chain (Military override, Culture override, Governor queue).

Did I miss anything?

I have to agree with Shaitan's take on this. Should we start a "Constitutional Debate" thread? This one is supposed to be clean and easy to read.....

I'd have to agree. I came into this thread to read domestic department information. Not to wade through a constitutional debate. :)

Eyrei, now that the Provincial Borders have been "unofficially" approved by the Cabinet, shouldn't we start an election of Governors so that we can have 3 new Governors by Saturday's turn chat?

Originally posted by Cyc
Eyrei, now that the Provincial Borders have been "unofficially" approved by the Cabinet, shouldn't we start an election of Governors so that we can have 3 new Governors by Saturday's turn chat?

Most certainly, however, the mods are supposed to post the elections....

Not sure the best thread to debate your point, Justus. I can sum up my reaction though, because I don't think the advantage outweighs the cost.

I don't think our new towns will be close enough to our palace to be very productive. Spending this much will not result in gaining enough gold back to make it worthwhile, I think. There are no resources or luxuries in the new region we do not already have. Furthermore, we can get a "free" connection by building a road between them in perhaps a little longer a time than it would by building harbours.

While I like harbours in our new towns, to ensure transport of goods when roads are severed, I don't think these towns are valuable enough to put that much money into.

That said, if a priority existed for using workers to unite our provinces, I'd support that. I also support making a harbour in our homeland, so we can also trade with other empires with harbours.

Originally posted by Shaitan
That's an excellent idea, Justus, and very well laid out. My main concern right now is China. My plans were to court the Iroquois for a counter to possible future Chinese agression. If we can set a trade deal with China that would be an excellent step towards keeping them from nipping at our heels. I would be willing to postpone Foreign Affair's plans for a chat turn if Trade can guarantee a deal will be struck with China. That is, if China doesn't have enough cash/income to make a decent deal, we may have to give them a luxury for next to nothing (or nothing, if it comes to that).

Chieftess, what say you?

The shortest route looks like 1 plains, and 2 mountains

Time for quickest completion: (Civantoria to El-amarna)

1 mountian w/5 workers = 1 turn (workers 3 & 4 take 2 turns, so 4 is a waste unless we have a 5th)
1 hill w/2 workers = 1 turn
(3 turns total)

Closest industrial workers = Fox Nest (9 American, 1 Chinese)
Min time to arrive at the first plains - 6 turns.

10 turns, plus 3 for road building, and another 2 to go to each mountain = 19 turns total. (Note, we only have 10 turns left with China on the ROP agreement)

We are making 68 per turn, 680 gold total (in 10 turns), if we were to save all of our gold.

Shailonega Harbor - 180 gold or 9 turns
El Amarna Harbor - 284

The China ROP ends in ten turns. Having a one turn windows is a little too close in my book. If we rush both:

364 gold. At 68 per turn (66 after the harbors)
We'll match that amount in 6 turns. Much better than having 1 turn to prepare for whatever China decides to do. In 9 turns after the purchase, we'll have 594, 660 in 10 turns. A deficit that we can make up for in trade, 9 turns turns before the Chinese ROP runs out. Depleting the Chinese cash reserves could better help our chances of keeping our "Egyptian cities" safe while we build up our defenses, and allow us to build/upgrade to better units, if applicable.

So, yes, I'm for build the harbors. It's one of the goals for the Trade Department.

I'll go with the harbor rushing.

Anybody here think that unconnected incense between San Fransico and NY is being wasted while we have War Warriness?

I suggest we move to quickly connect it to the empire.

Just as a note... there are Egyptian workers working on a road through the mountains.

originally posted by eyrei:
I have to agree with Shaitan's take on this. Should we start a "Constitutional Debate" thread? This one is supposed to be clean and easy to read.....

I think this is exactly the place for the constitutional debate since it was the domestic leader's post regarding the veto of a governor's build queue that started the debate.

originally posted by Shaitan:

Did I miss anything?

I also agree with Shaitan's take on things. It makes sense. The only thing Shaitan did not address was the question of chat reps being able to vote in spot polls or not. that discussion probably should have its own thread.

Re: rushing a harbor in El Arman.

Eyrei is attempting a budgetary process that gives each department something to spend as it sees fit. I'd prefer to see that continue rather than spend the whole treasury on one harbor. Let's take our time and build the roads to Egypt. That way our workers won't be cutting down the forests near our beloved capital.

Originally posted by donsig
The only thing Shaitan did not address was the question of chat reps being able to vote in spot polls or not.
[/B]
No, appointed reps should not have Council powers. They can speak for their department leaders as those leaders appointed them. They were not appointed by the electorate though so should not be allowed to speak for the citizens.

Originally posted by Shaitan

No, appointed reps should not have Council powers. They can speak for their department leaders as those leaders appointed them. They were not appointed by the electorate though so should not be allowed to speak for the citizens.

If the deputy is the runner-up from the election he/she is not necessarily any more of a democratically elected official than the chat rep would be, particularly in instances where there were only two candidates for that position. Chat reps are granted that position by the choice of the elected department leader (unlike most of the deputies) so could possibly be considered a more legitimate representative of the will of the people. Just felt this point should be made. :D

Excellent point, Eklektikos. I think you'll make a fine Governor.

Not sure where exactly to post this, but I think it has the most to do with the domestic department. Noticed something interesting when I looked at the save game after the chat tonight. Our Egyptian cities are all connected, even though the road is not done!! The only way I can explain it is that they were connected by road with the Greeks, whom we have an ROP with. So, when we completed our harbor, we are connected to the Greek harbor, and through their roads, to our egyptian cities!

We are within 2 turns of completing our own road, but the main thing is that there are several cities (Abydos, Memphis, Helio, Byblos) where the workers are entertainers, but now that they have luxuries they don't need to be!

Also, Fox Nest has two entertainers, but doesn't need them now that it finished the cathedral, and NY doesn't need one, I guess because of the temple. Just a few things I noticed, but the harbor thing was weird, it took me a few minutes to figure it out.

That is wierd. Aren't you glad the Trade Department also supported building the harbor? :)

But, once we finish securing the roads, we'll have a definate trade route (connecting the extra resources) just incase a road is severed.

I am currently leading an expedition of Pheonatica's finest explorers, warriors and diplomats to count the resources in the known world. :viking:

A table of our findings has been sealed in a scroll using the most enduring Pheonatician wax and sent towards the palace in Fox Nest with a trustworthy carrier pigeon for Pheonatica's leaders to analyse.

I would like the input of the Domestic Department on suggestions for trades. Pls. see Trade Department thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=281448&t=9370#post281448

I have posted an excel table with a breakdown of resources for each civ and possible trades.

PDX is currently building a cathedral. It has 2 entertainers & the citizens there long for some buidings that provide entertainment.

Current options are:
Cathedral - 6 content faces. Ready in 5 turns.
Marketplace - Bonus trade & 2 happy faces. Ready in 1 turn, sacrificing 10 shields.
Forbidden Palace - Additional Centre to our empire! Ready in 9 turns!

Which does the domestic department feel is most valuable? I ask here because it seems we do not have a governor in place there yet. I noticed the mayor there also suggesting the FP as a good alternative.

Perhaps the domestic dept wishes to poll? At least so if you are considering the FP. If not FP, then I ask that the FP location be immediately addressed as a priority issue & steps taken to ensure its construction begins as soon as possible.

Good post chiefpaco. I vote for the Forbidden Palace.

Originally posted by Zur
I am currently leading an expedition of Pheonatica's finest explorers, warriors and diplomats to count the resources in the known world. :viking:

A table of our findings has been sealed in a scroll using the most enduring Pheonatician wax and sent towards the palace in Fox Nest with a trustworthy carrier pigeon for Pheonatica's leaders to analyse.

I would like the input of the Domestic Department on suggestions for trades. Pls. see Trade Department thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=281448&t=9370#post281448

I have posted an excel table with a breakdown of resources for each civ and possible trades.

Did you count resources that are under cities? (right click them). Some are "hidden".

Did you count resources that are under cities? (right click them). Some are "hidden"

Yes, my surveyors went digging under the cities too (when no one was looking). ;)

could the department heads please open a new post in the "chat-voicing-list (term2)":
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20797

is should contain the following:
department-name
chat represenatatives in order of priority

for example this could be:
joke-department
1.) leader-name
2.) deputy-name
3.) chat-rep name

this will be the only source for voice-rights, so please update it!
otherwise your reps wont get voice in the chat.

Three cities did not have build queues specified in the turn instructions thread. They may be part of ungoverned provinces. If so then the domestic leader is the de facto governor for now. I'm not sure and don't have time to check. (It is my anniversary and we're going to see Episode II this morning!:love: )

The cities are: Heliopolis, Elephantine and Macao (I think - working under ptime pressure and from memory here
:confused: .)

Also, we ended one turn away from some of our trade deals ending. I suggest the settler be given orders and one turn processed so chieftess can do her job unrushed.

The build queue from Macao was posted in the turn instructions thread. It was to rush a library using funds from the foreign affairs budget, and then to build a temple and a barracks. It was posted late, but well before the chat turn. I will try to make the post more uniform next time, I guess. I think the other two cities are in one of the other provinces.... For the time being, I suggest we consider Macao part of Istar, as it seems to be the only 'free' city, we are not expanding our borders, and it is close to the border of Istar.

The library did get rushed so Macao's probably not one of the three then.

Originally posted by donsig
Three cities did not have build queues specified in the turn instructions thread. They may be part of ungoverned provinces. If so then the domestic leader is the de facto governor for now. I'm not sure and don't have time to check. (It is my anniversary and we're going to see Episode II this morning!:love: )

The cities are: Heliopolis, Elephantine and Macao (I think - working under ptime pressure and from memory here
:confused: .)
The build queue for Elephantine is in the top post of the Asphinxia thread, I thought those queues were implemented in the previous chat. There were a couple of ex-egyptian cities (Heliopolis and one other that I can't remember the name of either) that I didn't post queues for since I wasn't sure that they were in my province. Since it was Cyc who drew up the province divisions, I'd appreciate it if he'd let me know whether they are or not. If it turns out that they aren't, I'd still be happy to take on their administration until their true province comes into existence.

Cyc (and Chieftess?) has already posted new maps with the province names, etc, that should show all of the cities. (Nice job, by the way!)

All turn instructions should go in the turn instruction threads. You can also have them in your individual threads for reference, discussion, etc but the ones in the instruction threads are what the turn chat attendees will look at.

I suggest the creation of a New Government Thread for all official City Queues to go. To simplify things for those running the Turn chat.

We've got the turn chat instruction thread where Leaders and Governors can put their turn instructions.

Okay, it looks like the Build Queues weren't posted in the insturction thread till the last one, and I didn't get a chance to view it before being kicked off the net earlier. Thanks.

Heliopolis and Alexandria were two of the cities without build queues (not Elephantine). They are in province #6.

We did see the build queue for Macao. I had it linked with the others in my mind since it wasn't included in the 4 provincial build queues. Macao and nearby Justinian are not in any province as far as I can tell.

The domestic department is:

sponsoring a poll regardnig the provincial fate of Tlaxcala (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=295172&t=5653#post295172)

Other discussions pertaining to domestic policy:

prebuilding a wonder or wonders (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23035)

What should we do with our great leader? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23102)

Citizen input needed for May 26 budget allocations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23111)

Edit: fixed link to budget discussion.

I urge all citizens to make their views known!

Links are good. Thanks Donsig ;)

R U sure? The citizen input link brought me to the GL thread...

Originally posted by Zur
R U sure? The citizen input link brought me to the GL thread...

I fixed the link.:)

The domestic department is sponsoring a poll to determine where to rush JS Bach's cathedral.

Please vote! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23142)

The domestic department is sponsoring a citizen poll to decide whether or not to accept the proposed new borders for provinces #6 & #10.

Please vote! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23162)

The domestic department is hosting a citizen poll to accept or reject the proposed May 26 budget.

Please vote! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=297926&t=6829#post297926)

the domestic department is sponsoring a citizen poll to determine where 'New CAP City' should be built.

Please vote! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23286)

The domestic department has called for the following polls and discussions:

Citizen poll: Should we build Copernicus's Obs. in Fox Nest? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23288)

Citizen poll: Where should we build Smith's trading co.? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23289)

Discussion: Should we pre-build a wonder in one of our cities? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23290)

We've lost the Copernicus's Observatory and I wish to build Newton's. With you as the Domestic Leader you're assistance would be desired. A pre-build is asked for in PDX, and we switch when the time comes. what do you think?

I would prefer to build Newton in Fox Nest and Smith's in PDX. We can also start Magellan's and perhaps pre-build another in Pherris. I have called for a citizen discussion on wonder building.


Please contribute to the discussion! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=300135&t=9465#post300135)

The domestic dept. is conducting a poll to determine if specific trades should be made before the 5/29 turn chat.
Please vote! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23480)

The domestic department is conducting the following information polls:

Which two wonders are more important? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23527)

Should we concentrate on building as many great wonders as possible or on building Wall St. quickly? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23529)

Please vote!

originally posted in the wonder building discussion thread

I have made the two trades and we have silk imports again!

I've looked at the luxury rate and how it affects our unhappy citizens. At 0% lux we have 16 unhappy faces in ten cities. Upping the lux rate to 10% leaves 12 unhappy faces in 7 cities. Only Fox Nest, Khatovar and New York benefit. (However, Khatovar is not growing and cannot have WLTKD anyway and New York can switch it's scientist to an entertainer and eliminate its unhappy face even at 0% lux.) Raising the lux rate to 20% would leave 8 unhappy faces in 4 cities but would also seriously hamper our research rate and gold surplus.

Therefore I have decided to leave the luxury rate at 0%. I offer the following recomendations for specific cities:

Khatovar: Send some workers to irrigate the desert so this city will have a food surplus.

New York: Switch the scietist to an entertainer.

Washington and Boston need entertainers now.

Philadelphia needs a cathedral.

Thebes: See if entertainers will bring back WLTKD.

Chicago and Atlanta need markets.

For our wonder building program I suggest that PDX immediately switch from bank to palace in an effort to pre-build a wonder.

I am splitting our income 50/50 between the treasury and research in an effort to beeline to Theory of Gravity. It will take 7 turns to get physics. I urge the NSD to authorize research into the theory of greavity next and free artistry after that. I also urge our trade dept, and FA to investigate other means of acquiring these technologies. The NSD has 156 gold at its dispolsal.

I would remind everyone that Pherris is a prime candidate for pre-building a wonder as well.

I have changed Malinalco's build queue to an aqueduct and then Magellan's Voyage.

Any action plan for this poll?
Information poll: Which two wonders are more important now? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23527)

I think we as a nation should decide soon which wonders we will go for. It will simplify our trading priorities.

Yes, chiefpaco the time has come to make the final decisions, and I hope the new domestic leader will see this project through.

We are currently three turns away from knowing theory of gravity and we can acquire free artistry through the trade department.

The possible trades are listed here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21758&pagenumber=4)

These will allow us to work on four wonders: Newton's University, Magellan's Voyage, Shakespeare's Theatre, and Smith's Trading Co. While we may not finish them all in time we could consider some of these as pre-builds for other wonders great and small. We will soon be able to build Wall St. A Military Academy and other great wonders will be possible in the not too distant future.

Well, it's about time to close up shop for term two. My short time as domestic leader has been enjoyable and I hope I have served well.:)