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.