DGIII discussion: Restructuring the Executive Departments

[donsig]

In DGI we built the great library and that nullified the science leader's role for quite a while. In DGII we captured the gret library and spent a good part of the game not doing our own research for other reasons. This also diminished the science leader's contributions. It seems there is little the cultural leader can contribute. Trades and treaties many times include gold, gpt and techs so that any given trade could theoretically fall under the jurisdiction of the science, trade, domestic or foreign affairs departments. Some things (like national projects involving the use of workers) have historically not been under the supervision of any department. With DGIII in the works I thought this would be a good time to discuss how we could improve the duties of our various departments.

To get the ball rolling I will list a few suggestions...

1) Let's give the Science Leader veto power over any trades that involve tech. Or conversely, let's say the Science Leader has to approve any trades that involve tech.

2) Let's put the science leader in charge of the research rate.

3) While we're at it, let's put the cultural leader in charge of the luxury rate and the domestic leader in charge of the tax rate.

(Yes, I know we could end up with all three wanting 40% for their respective rates so we'd have to have a solution for those cases. I'd say let the DP set the rates in those cases.)

4) Let's move our wonder building decision making from the domestic department to the culture department.

5) Let's give the domestic department the authority to prioritize national projects that need worker actions.

6) Let's give the domestic leader veto power over any deals involving gold or gpt.

7) Let's give the trade leader veto power over any trades involving luxury resources.

8) Let's give the military leader veto power over any trades involving strategic resources.

Is the Senate part of the ecexutive branch or not? I forget... anyway,

9) Let's invest the Senate with the power of the purse. Let the Senate divy up our treasury and income among the various departments and then let the various leaders spend that gold as they see fit (within their respective spheres of influence).

10) Let's give the domestic leader the authority to define initial provincial borders. There are times when, despite our best intentions, we do not define our provincial borders in a timely manner. There are times when we need provincial borders NOW and the only way to do that is to give one person the power to do so. Once the domestic leader defines a border it could still be changed by the the people via an official, binding and valid poll.

The floor is now open to any who would speak on restructuring the executive department.

 

[Cyc]

I do like 1, 4, 5, and 10.

On #1, I would go with the approval side of it. If Science has the authority to approve a tech for trade, then who would they be using their veto power on? In my opinion, we trade way too many techs away.

On #2 and #3, I can't see splitting up the sci/lux rate authority. This would cause anarchy, I believe which could be fun, but would really slow the gamedown.

On #4, I like this. A new and important responsibility for the Culture Department. Good suggestion.

On #5, again another good suggestion. This would serve as a check on the President/DP in regards to Worker activity. This responsibility falls right in line with the overall Domestic duties.

On #6, #7, and #8, sorry - I believe that so much veto power lose on the playing field would cause the game to slow down too much. I can see veto power in the Presidential chair, but Departmental decisions should be based more on the polling of the people than the will of the Leader.

On #9, this is not a bad idea. Similiar to the budget process I used as Domestic Leader (only this addresses Departments, not Governors). I tink there might be a problem with participation, though. Sluggish response time of the Senate could cause unwanted animosity between players. The Governor postions are set up to be positions of less responsibility by nature, and this is one of the key points in their attractiveness.

On #10, definitely. Speaking of sluggish response time... . We DO need to lock in a way to get initial borders in place quickly. As you say, they can be changed later.

 

[Civanator]

Maybe we should have citizens elected to senate, and governors. like for every province we have 2 senators, and the governor as senators. this would make the early game have more senators. Then once we get around 12 provinces, change it to 2 senators, an elected citizen, and the governor. How does that sound?

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Lord... Im agreeing with both of you...
I too feel that 1,4,5 and 10 are good ideas. 2 and 3 would just cause a headache. 4 and 5 are things I always wondered about and make perfect sense. The vetos are too risky. If we are going to do vetos, give FA the right to override any of the vetos while your at it (of course, being overrideable by a council vote)
Senate is Legislative, not Executive, though I agree with the entire statement from that point.
And as for 10: I was Dom Head when the NP, Bohemia, TS borders were drawn up. Had 10 been there, I would have saved myself alot of screaming.

 

[donsig]

I'm not so sure I like the veto ideas either but can't really figure out a good way to address trades that really impact many departments. Does anyone out there not like #1 (approval not veto), 4, 5 or 10?

 

[Octavian X]

I still think that rather than restructing, we shuold look at consolidation.

Either way, 1, 4, 5, and 10 look good.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think that 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 are good ideas. I think that the trade leader should have approval power over all deals involving strategic resources and luxuries, but not veto power, and that if they haven't stated that they support or oppose the proposed trade, the DP can make the decision on the trade. I think that the senate should be reformed. Perhaps it should be a fixed body of 9 people, who make decisions regarding Constitutional amendments and on budget issues.

 

[disorganizer]

now how about doing the following departments:

1) persident's office
2) interior department
3) exterior department
4) military department

why do we need a science department? only to set the science slider? this could be under the rule of the interior department for improovements and moods, exterior for trades and slider-setting of for the president's office. it would completely streamline our administrative overhead into 3 departments in the executive and the president with the deciding vote on all executive matters. only 4 people would be needed to represent our executive completely

 

[donsig]

Unless the constitution is changed we will have constitutionally mandated science, domestice, culture, military, trafe and foreign affairs departments. Even if we continue with these leaders things can be restructured by making two mega leaders and having other leaders report to them. The Domestic leader could be the Interior Minister with the military and science departments withn the Interior Ministry. The Foreign Affairs Minister could be the Exterior Minister with the Trade and Culture departments in the Exterior Ministry.

 

[disorganizer]

donsig: so maybe we could change the CONS a bit ;-)

maybe even more change would be:

interior superministry:
existing domestic+ all improovements+war planning

exterior superministry:
existing foreign+ALL treades+diplomacy

presidential office:
science/tax/luxury slider
declaration of war/peace

as you see, the science, culture and military departments could definitely be split up on 3 superministries without big effort. the problem would be that the existing constitutional departments would be split up with their responsibilities (the improovement building of science would be in interior, the slider in presidential, the trades in exterior, for example)


there could be offices beneath those ministeries which report to the minister. only 3 people are needed at the chat. we could also make it mandatory that for special duties (like a war) generals are defined by the minister who take controll about planning the war and moving the units.

 

[Cyc]

@donsig. I believe that's the same basic government structure you proposed in the MSDG. I was one of the people that agreed that Culture should be in the "Interior" (under Domestic), and Military should be under "Exterior" (Foreign Affairs).

But overall, I disagree with changing the basic premise of the game in regards to the Leaders and their Ministries. Civ 3 is played with 6 Leaders. All have their own screens. I feel condensing the departments would be leaving the spirit of the game. It would be like saying "Oh, we don't really need a Vice President, they don't do anything anyway...". I think we need to honor the original intent of the game.

 

[amirsan]

Originally posted by Civanator
Maybe we should have citizens elected to senate, and governors. like for every province we have 2 senators, and the governor as senators. this would make the early game have more senators. Then once we get around 12 provinces, change it to 2 senators, an elected citizen, and the governor. How does that sound?

Yeah, how does the citizens contibute to political and home decisions???? Im kin of confused???

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Cyc
But overall, I disagree with changing the basic premise of the game in regards to the Leaders and their Ministries. Civ 3 is played with 6 Leaders. All have their own screens. I feel condensing the departments would be leaving the spirit of the game. It would be like saying "Oh, we don't really need a Vice President, they don't do anything anyway...". I think we need to honor the original intent of the game.

I agree with Cyc on this. I think we should keep all six departments. It allows people to run for a greater selection of offices, and lowers stress on the council members. It also reduces competition for the offices that are open, especially in the beginning of the game. Perhaps we should reform them a bit, but we should keep all six of the departments.

 

[Noldodan]

Another thing: we already have trouble getting ONE council member out of six to attend the turnchats. This problem will only get worse if halve the council departments. Also: I would like to see the VP being an honorary member of the council, because the VP's office has almost no point, and if they're good enough to get second place in the presential election, shouldn't they be good enough to ADVISE the President?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
@donsig. I believe that's the same basic government structure you proposed in the MSDG. I was one of the people that agreed that Culture should be in the "Interior" (under Domestic), and Military should be under "Exterior" (Foreign Affairs).

I was not the originator of the proposal, I merely synthesized the proposals made by Goonie and Grandmaster. But yes, it's the same proposals from the MSDG. I only offered it as an example (in light of disorganizer's proposal) of how we could still restructure the government even if the historical 6 departments are kept in the constitution.

I am also quite partial to having the original 6 leaders but as I pointed out in the initial post in this thread, the actual demogame leaders have a varied impact on the course of the demogame. The whole idea of this thread is to try to find ways to make the leaders more or less equal powerwise. Still haven't heard any negative response to #1 (approval not veto), 4, 5 and 10. Any one want to volunteer to draft short laws to implement them? #9 may warrant addition discussion.

 

[Cyc]

Ah, I see now. My mistake.

I agree that a few of the Departments seem to have less purpose or impact on the game as it flows through history, especially in the begining. I believe that a Department Leader can actually make their position as involved as they want, though. In their own way, they could seek out parts of the game that relate to their Department, which may go unoticed by the casual player. I've seen the Trade Department go beyond the norm in recognizing the benefit of global trade tables. Strategy maps from the Military Department were a boon in that area. We still need to work on Science.

When I was Cultural Minister, I tried to find a way to make the Department one that could be appreciated and recognized for its own purpose. I made many attempts to write about the Cultural happenings of the day, or discuss the regular, non-Cultural in a Cultural light. I'm not saying the Leader of this department should be a cheer-leader, so to speak, but some one with writing ability (such as yourself), that can point out the Cultural development of our Nation and the World at large. This would not really have any major effect on game play, but could bring a new challenge (and reward) to the Culture Department.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think that the Senate should be allowed to control budget issues. The Senate, as a whole, only had the power to ratify constitutional amendments and was used for discussion by the Governors in the last demogame. The Senate would be given more powers and responsibilities by proposal #9, and I support it.

 

[Curufinwe]

I have long been focussed on the scientific and cultural side of our government, and found that both were often lacking in things to do. I do like the idea of allowing Culture authority over Wonders. But I do not want to see things broken up like that, we should stick to the usual leaders.

 

[Fier Canadien]

What about giving the Vice-President some real power? From what I see, the presidency is a much time consuming office. We could balance that by giving some power to the vice president, those powers being, of course, under a veto power of the president.

Evidently, this could apply to other Deputy/Chat Rep of the DG.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Fier Canadien
What about giving the Vice-President some real power? From what I see, the presidency is a much time consuming office. We could balance that by giving some power to the vice president, those powers being, of course, under a veto power of the president.

One of my proposals involves giving some power to the Vice President, making him (or her) President of the Senate.