Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
DaveShack said:Excellent summary, it is now possible to negotiate and discuss concrete differences in the proposals.![]()
The existing structure for term one groups military with foreign, and trade with science.
Pro
Con
- Trade and Science go hand in hand. It is impossible to plan a strategy for one without planning a strategy for the other. We should only be researching towards things we can sell, and we should be buying everything else.
- FA and Military at this point of the game are both about classifying our neighbors. This means keeping on top of who is stronger, who we can and should fight vs. who we cannot win battles / wars against and need to remain friends with.
- Culture as a standalone is inherently weak.
- Resources & Technology has a larger share of the work than other departments
- DG culture is focused on military being a strong office, and it is effectively absorbed by FA
The proposed alternative groups FA with Trade, and Science with Culture.
Pro
- FA and Trade are both actually conducted on the F4 screen. At least this version of the proposal recognizes that FA is not large enough to stand on its own, in the early game.
- Science and Culture at least have in common that Culture depends on the right techs being acquired, since culture improvements are impossible without the techs.
- In the DG culture some people will be more comfortable with Military being separate.
Con
- In a strategic / tactical split, the military office cannot be easily split between strategy and tactical. The vast majority of the work is still tactical in nature.
- Separate science and trade plans are inefficient at best and problematic at worst. One or the other must be the leader and the other is relegated to following. If science is dominant then trade ends up being forced to bargain under science's plan, and if trade is dominant then science ends up being the same old job of polling which tech to research, one at a time.
I look forward to focused discussion on the actual differences, now that we have a concrete proposal and not just gloom and doom about the sky falling.![]()
Excellent Analysis Daveshack, and I would like to borrow this summary as a template for crafting the specifics to the improvement proposal.
About the cons for the new proposal, I would like to reassess them one at a time.
Military Strategy-Tactical Split
The military can indeed be easily split into a strategic and tactical level.
We just need to think about all the strategic work done at the military level.
Science vs. Trade vs. Foreign Affairs Dilemma
Whatever we do, offices must cooperate, and whatever we do, the relationships with science and trade, science and FA, Trade and FA will always be complex. However, the Foreign Affairs need ready access to the gold budget, luxury and strategic resources in order to engineer the international balances of power. Yes, even science should follow this system of international relations. We may sell iron-working to someone without iron, and give luxuries to a threatening neighbor, and give horses to a minor Civ to survive longer. I would strongly advocate putting FA/Trade together, as a peace treaty, MPP and so on requires full integration of trade in its planning, as all policy agreements have a built in economic value.
This means the FA/Trade deals with International agreements and economics, where Finance, Science and Culture deals with the national sovereignty and national budgets. Since FA/Trade compete for the same funds as the military, we need to separate Trade from Finance. This is all about Checks of Powers in the game. Military and FA/Trade HAS to be separate, not only because of the volume of information and decisions they process, but also because of checks of balances and the differing nature of their scope.
At the Director Level, we need to figure out which long term military planning tasks not covered by the Commander of Armed Forces.
1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military
operations against foreign countries and unit
(excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport)
movements.
Military Consul
Discuss Military target size and budget (upkeep and budget/slider related)
Discuss Military Formation sizes and locations
Dicuss Military research strategy and lobby Finance and Technology
Discuss legitimate war aims for all nations (target cities for conquests)
Discuss Rules of Engagement (When to attack threatening units)
Discuss Major Military Upgrades and Disbands (related to target number)
Discuss use of Military Heroes
Discuss and poll policies
This shows how greatly the military impacts the economy, so long term military economic planning is key, as well as the orderly organization of the military into formations, as well as adjusting the upkeep level and finally predetermining military war objectives by FA interests. Also add military rules for engagement, which should overrule foreign policy when agreed on.
Military disbands are key as well, determining the upkeep level, the criteria for obsoletion and finally where to disband. A good military planner on the strategy level may impact the slider 10-20 % positively. This is clearly not covered by the present Commander, who gives military movement instructions.