I could use some advice....

[eyrei]

As some of you may know, I am the Domestic Leader in the Civ3 version of this game. Only a few citizens ever played this one, and none of the current government. What I want to know is, what exactly fell within the realm of the domestic leader as far as unilateral decisions when this game was still quite large? Did you require this leader to poll the citizenry before every decision about worker allocation, buying improvements, the budget, etc?

Also, I am guessing at least some of you have played Civ3, so you know about population rushing. Do you think this would fall within the realm of the domestic leader?

Finally, how were revolutions handled? Did they start as a citizen vote, and then have to pass through the cabinet? Or did the citizen vote force a revolution? Or did the cabinet decide? Our constitution says nothing about this.

Anyway, thanks for any advice you can provide.

PS. We are always in need of experienced players.

 

[Kev]

Eyrei:

Seems like the Civ3 Domestic Leader is taking on the role that we've slated for governors as well as our Minister of Interior. Our governors decide upon the city improvements while the MOI takes care of more national concerns like wonder-building, government, trade, and Sci/Tax/Lux rates.

The Civ2 version here has actually undergone several changes - at least over the time that I've been involved. At first, every single decision was put up for a vote. The governor would put up polls regarding each improvement available. The MOI would poll reagarding each and every combo of Sci/Tax/Lux. That led to a great deal of time needed for each turn break and a fair amount of confusion as well. Further, it forced the president to stop after only a few turns of play since he could not continue without the strict, explicit information from his/her cabinet.

Later, we decided to have the cabinet members make specific decisions and then have the president go with them unless there was a huge amount of dissent.

In this manner, the governors were able to actually decide upon a building queue, stating that "we should build a temple and then a library in city XYZ". If there was a large disagreement, then a vote would ensue - but so far that's not been a huge issue at all.

The nice thing about this method is that it allowed the president to play for more turns, made the discussion threads clearer and easier to navigate, and it made the election process more important as you'd be voting for people who would be making the initial decisions.

Of course, in our version we barely have enough for cabinet members, a few citizens, and an annoying National Enquirer wannabe

For worker allocation, while we discuss the basics of what we'd like, we give the president carte blanche pretty much as those decisions are usually better made in the flow of the game. Same now holds true for things like exploring and city placements as well. In the past, exploration direction and specific city spots were done with screenshots and huge, unwieldly discussions.

I have Civ3 and have played quite a bit. I would estimate that the pop-rushing thing would likely be best decided by the governor on a local level - or whomever decides upon the building queues for specific cities. The governor would be better able to discern the pro-to-con ratio of doing this in his city. That being said, there are exceptions. I would think that the military advisor, being forced to conscript troops, could override a governor's decision and require that troops be pop-rushed in a given city for example.

With revolutions, now basically our MOI posts a decision on where we should be given our government choices and we discuss. The choices are usually found to be pretty well accepted, but polls won't be out of the question I fear as we debate democracy vs. communism. Our decisions that have involved changing government used started like "we have the opportunity to become a Republic, what shall we do?" In the past, it was all poll driven and voted on. Now, we'll have a vote if there is a fair amount of disagreement amongst the players here.

I haven't really had a chance to visit the Civ3 forum, so I don't really know how you split up the duties. I know that DuckofFlanders participates in the Civ3 version, and since he has been instrumental in pretty much all of the permutations here, he would likely be a good candidate to ask questions of as well.

Have fun, and we could always use some experienced players here too...

 

[eyrei]

We do use governors, and the Domestic Leader or MOI is the governor of the first province. We also allow the governors to make the build queue for each city unless there is significant dispute. We are currently starting the monarchy/republic debate, and it should be interesting. I am not sure it would go over well if I posted that we are going to have a revolution at a certain point and we will be switching to this unless there is significant disagreement. We have significant disagreement about everything. I think part of this is because, while I would imagine that everyone participating in your game is a very good Civ2 player and the winning strategies well documented and proved, we have many degrees of skill and the winning strategies for Civ3 are less proven. This makes for a lot of fun discussion, but we occasionally get bogged down to the point that nothing happens, or a decision is simply not made, leaving the leaders to make them on their own and then be subsequently 'slapped' around with the constitution.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I would join your game, but my duties keep mevery busy. Good luck!

 

[Kev]

Good luck to you as well.

I imagine the size and scope of our game as it stands has lent itself to a more "manageable" procedure.

It would seem a simple poll of "should we switch to republic" with the subsequent pros and cons should be what's needed. Probably the poll choices being stay, switch at "X" date, switch at "Y" date, or switch at "Z" date. I'm sure you get the idea. I was MOI during the time that we were looking to switch to Republic as well.

Enjoy.

 

[Dell19]

We have also started making generalised sticky threads that show the key points that each department expects to follow in the near future of the game. There is a general governor's thread whcih states what cities should build, so the president can carry on playing without much work at all from the governors...

 

[eyrei]

Will someone please tell me what role your VP plays? We are approaching our first election, and there is some confusion about what the VP's role is. Is the VP position a cabinet position, in and of itself? Or is it a title given to whichever cabinet minister was runner up for the presidency, and only affects the chain of command?

 

[Dell19]

We no longer have a proper vice president but when we did it was a redundant position really as they were just second in command. It would have been more useful if they had an offical department as well.

I guess there job is to check everyone else is doing their job but you could give them some of the MOIs tasks or just let them them help the president rule the nation...

 

[duke o' york]

We don't have a VP any more, but when we first started then the VP was also the mod liaison. It is the VP's job to take over the game if the President is unable to for whatever reason, whether this be ill health or travel or exams or whatever. The next elections would then choose another President but the VP would have to keep the ship steady until the time for those elections arrived. I'd also expect the VP to take charge of the Presidential elections to ensure fairness, but this is the Mod Liaison's job if they are not one and the same as they were here. Good luck with the elections!

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I took care of the issue in the Civ 3 thread, but I want to see what you guys think of the VP position.

It is a redundant position right now. Should it be? Basically they are just a deputy Pres. As long as the Pres does his job, the VP just keeps the chair warm.

I want to try and get some ideas together to present them in the Civ 3 game.

 

[eyrei]

One proposal from the Civ3 forum suggested we make the VP a full cabinet member, and make him/her a governor of one of the provinces as well.

 

[Dell19]

Maybe the Vice president has to take a position in the cabinet. This could be any position from governors to military advisors. This would be more useful as the VP tended to not do much at all...

 

[Kev]

One suggestion that I had was to give the VP some specific duties - other than waiting around for the President to keel over or something.

As the MOI, I was innundated with very many activities. I was supposed to deal with wonders, governments, trade, tax/sci slider rates, exploration, new city planning, and the movements and activities of all the settlers in the nation. It was way too much. Thank goodness I ended up with a very capable deputy/co-MOI in duke.

I suggested that the VP, with no specific duties listed in the constitution, take over one or two of the duties. I thought that the VP could easily be in charge of new cities and exploration or something to that effect.

I think that giving the VP specific responsibilities like that is a great way to keep that person involved.

 

[duke o' york]

Those are some good ideas, but as I recall, the Civ 3 ministers have slightly different remits than ours did. Trade is totally different of course, and they have a culture minister too, in a sort of military override of governors role but with buildings rather than troops.
We also started off with a city planning/exploration role, but once your empire is a certain size then it becomes less useful and it was merged with the MOI. This is probably only because you were so good at it Kev, rather than it naturally going with that area. In fact, if we were to play another game then I think that the Foreign Minister should take charge of this too, as Hippo had nothing to do for the first couple of presidencies with regard to meeting foreign dignitaries. The diplomacy role rises at the same rate as the exploration and city planning role decreases so I think they ought to be bracketed together.
I think that the Veep should be an honorary position conferred by the elected President on one of the members of his cabinet that the Pres believes best suits his/her viewpoints on important issues. There should not be a separate role as such, but this person must be able to take control of the empire if necessary. Therefore this would mean that those running for Presidency are allowed to also run for another (just one ) position in the cabinet should they so wish and so the loser of the Presidential election may not necessarily be left with little to do for the next term.