DG6: Alternative Government Structure

Honestly, if we do not put in a minum number of turns per term, we can basically scrap the idea of strategic planners for a term. You would need minimum 40-60 turns worth to make a long term strategy worth it. And in that time, when the term ends, one elects a new set of strategic planners that will make new strategic plans. With no guaranteed minimums, this strategic plan model will fail. There is a distinct need to forecast

Donsig wants 60 turn terms for this purpose
We need to let the Judicary work with calender dates
We need to allow some flexibility in number of turns per term

If we want a strategic layer, there is no way around a turn quota, allowing strategic leaders to actually plan some 50 turns ahead, and let the plans be implemented.
I cannot recommend a system where these plans are vulnerable to the whims of some random urges, lazy/slow DPs or in general a lack of direction. Strategic planning with a tactical layer requires predictability in the number of turns both per term and per turnchat. Good leaders should also cover all conditionalities and eventualities 10 turns ahead, and for strategic leaders 50 turns ahead. If we cannot agree on that, I see no reason to continue this thread. If there is less than 30 turns per term, we really do not need a real strategic layer, as most of it will be defined tactical anyways.

What worked well Term IV, to a fault, was that we all agreed on war objectives, upgrades and military build quotas. Without such a model, for the military for example, we frankly do not need strategic military planners. I know some players would just take it on the fly on a first come first serve basis as wars jump into our way.
So it is basically a strategic planning side versus a populist improvization-discuss-poll side.
 
Provolution said:
Honestly, if we do not put in a minum number of turns per term, we can basically scrap the idea of strategic planners for a term. You would need minimum 40-60 turns worth to make a long term strategy worth it. And in that time, when the term ends, one elects a new set of strategic planners that will make new strategic plans. With no guaranteed minimums, this strategic plan model will fail. There is a distinct need to forecast

For the last time, Provo, HOW WOULD YOU MANDATE THAT MINIMUM?

How would you "punish" leaders that can't reach it?
When do you "punish" them?
What about extenuating circumstances.

It's not a bad a idea, but totally impractical given a finite time period.

-- Ravensfire
 
provo if you want someone to lots of turns a term vote for someone that will do that... Some people might want a slower pace especially since we will probably be playing emperor where mistakes will kill us
 
NO MORE QUOTAS!!!

No more trying to bind the hands of people. Everyone has their own playing style and certain phases of the game may require a faster or slower pace, let the voters decided that when they choose the president/DP.
 
Well, then we could scrap the "strategic planning" and go all tactical, since then the system would at least be robust and accountable, and stop turnchats when there is wars.
 
For operating a set number of turns, we could call for a flexible range, so the DPs knew wht they would get at. Some strategic planners plan 10 turns away, some 50. But frankly, we do not need strategic planners for a 25 turn term. If this is the case, we should go for Donsigs DG3 Constitution, and make new alternative government structures per term, depending on who the elected President is.

For this to work, the DP need to commit to a range so the strategic committee can plan with the concept of time, game time. If not, I can hardly see strategic planners be successful in anything without the room to develop, discuss and poll plans.
As soon as the term ends, they may well be replaced.

Sorry Daveshack, but I think the strategic-tactical layers are running into a meat-grinder.
 
Let's try an experiment. We've had a lot of theory, time for the practical stuff.

I need 2-3 people to volunteer to be the "Strategy group" and 2-3 people to volunteer to be the "Tactical group". We'll use the turn chats from DG5 at various points to test this out.

If you are interested, please note which group you'd like to be in, or no preference.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
Let's try an experiment. We've had a lot of theory, time for the practical stuff.

I need 2-3 people to volunteer to be the "Strategy group" and 2-3 people to volunteer to be the "Tactical group". We'll use the turn chats from DG5 at various points to test this out.

If you are interested, please note which group you'd like to be in, or no preference.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Doesn't starting from a known position run the risk of second-guessing because we know what the outcome was?

I'm interested in this concept, not sure if RL will be kind enough.
 
DaveShack said:
Doesn't starting from a known position run the risk of second-guessing because we know what the outcome was?

I'm interested in this concept, not sure if RL will be kind enough.

Not really. In part, it's an intellectual exercise. Everyone also has different ideas of what *should* have been done.

I want to test out the interaction between the two groups. That difference alone will change things. For the purpose of this test, that the future is known won't matter. For the first attempt, I'm going to grab the Term 1, TC3 save and go from there.

So, which group do you want, DS. Strategic or Tactical?

-- Ravensfire
 
I've been putting some more thought into this (mostly because I'm actually off the on-call rotation, having been on-call for two freakin' weeks). Assuming we went with something like this, we'd need two documents to make this work because it IS new.

First, the ruleset. Obvious, but it needs to be there. The second is a FAQ about the process, including some examples. This IS new. There are a lot of questions (see various pages above) that need to be answered. My experiment above is intended to try some of them out, to see how it would actually work, to find some of the issues and work on fixes.

-- Ravensfire
 
Ok, I'll be Strategic. I'll go look and see if I have that save zipped. Probably do.
 
Ok, I've got it. You're using the DG5 Term 1 TC3 save to plan for the TC4, which just happend to fall on a Friday the 13th. :) Intentional? :lol:

BTW, you want me to be Internal, External, or what? I should probably know before we start. ;)
 
Cyc (and all others interested),

I've started a thread here to avoid cluttering up this thread.

-- Ravensfire
 
we need to have an official vote on whether people want a traditional governement or a governemnt with tactical/strategic split
 
We need a citizens registry before we can have an official vote.
 
YNCS said:
We need a citizens registry before we can have an official vote.
there has never been a problem of people voting in ratifacation polls that werent interested in the DG
 
I think we should decide how exactly we want out alternative government to work before we force people to vote on whether we should use it or not. Currently, we have 3 possible options for how it would be structured, and everyone else is welcome to post their suggestions. However, at the moment, an official vote would be premature.
 
I am currently working on an entire constitution based on DaveShack's structure. But I wont post any of it until I get DaveShack's permission. I am doing this so people know exactly how an alternate government would work.
 
Top Bottom