- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
As a newb to this, I have obviously been taking some time to get to grips with the different aspects to the game, and have been particularly interested in the way the government runs. What surprises me most is that there are a multitude of threads on very detailed specifics for the game, but none that I can find on overall startegy.
Peculiarly, we have a chain of command that appears to be President - Strategist - Tactician - Governor - Judiciary and yet all discussion seems confined to the Tactician level. All of the separate tactical discussions take place in their own environment, isolated from one another. How then does the right hand know what the left is doing?
I expected that the presidents thread would contain long term strategy. E.g Victory condition, general expansion parameters (Direction, density etc.), overall war plans - which civs to go to war with in what order etc.) overall cultural expectations and so on.
I would then expect the strategists to devise strategies to deliver this expectation. So the war commander would decide on how many units are required of what type by when and in which location, science strategists would decide on research rates and order, cultural startegists would decide on how much and at what rate and in what regions culture should accumulate, department of commerce can allocate a budget to each department etc.
Then we would have the tacticians who would be responible for delivery of the overall strategy. Where units should be placed, which cities should be attacked first, what improvements would need to be made in order to acheive military, cultural and scientific expectation etc.
The governors then manage their province to deliver what is needed. They might be expected to deliver 5 horsemen, 3 libraries a courthouse a barracks and 3 workers by a specific date and deliver them to specific locations for instance. The Governor would then decide which tiles to improve, how build queues should be set, how to micromanage his province etc.
How the Judiciary get involved beats me, all ends up. But hey! I'm new here.
The lack of a "big picture" thread means that all the tacticians go their own merry way. The thinking is not "joined up" which means that the development of our nation wanders aimlessly with no clear direction.
On a similar, but connected note. We don't appear to have a war cabinet. The government does not appear to change during war. How can this be so? War is a very specific exercise. When on a war footing it is necessary for a war cabinet to be able to demand the change of build queues, to specify the behaviour of the governors - in short, we need some way of making reporting lines shorter, making action more immediate and delegating responsiblility down the hierarchy closer to the front line.
I am not trying to propose a new type of government. I am just pointing out the weekness in the tail wagging the dog. There should at least be an official thread somewhere that sets out overall strategy and allows for it's discussion.
Peculiarly, we have a chain of command that appears to be President - Strategist - Tactician - Governor - Judiciary and yet all discussion seems confined to the Tactician level. All of the separate tactical discussions take place in their own environment, isolated from one another. How then does the right hand know what the left is doing?
I expected that the presidents thread would contain long term strategy. E.g Victory condition, general expansion parameters (Direction, density etc.), overall war plans - which civs to go to war with in what order etc.) overall cultural expectations and so on.
I would then expect the strategists to devise strategies to deliver this expectation. So the war commander would decide on how many units are required of what type by when and in which location, science strategists would decide on research rates and order, cultural startegists would decide on how much and at what rate and in what regions culture should accumulate, department of commerce can allocate a budget to each department etc.
Then we would have the tacticians who would be responible for delivery of the overall strategy. Where units should be placed, which cities should be attacked first, what improvements would need to be made in order to acheive military, cultural and scientific expectation etc.
The governors then manage their province to deliver what is needed. They might be expected to deliver 5 horsemen, 3 libraries a courthouse a barracks and 3 workers by a specific date and deliver them to specific locations for instance. The Governor would then decide which tiles to improve, how build queues should be set, how to micromanage his province etc.
How the Judiciary get involved beats me, all ends up. But hey! I'm new here.
The lack of a "big picture" thread means that all the tacticians go their own merry way. The thinking is not "joined up" which means that the development of our nation wanders aimlessly with no clear direction.
On a similar, but connected note. We don't appear to have a war cabinet. The government does not appear to change during war. How can this be so? War is a very specific exercise. When on a war footing it is necessary for a war cabinet to be able to demand the change of build queues, to specify the behaviour of the governors - in short, we need some way of making reporting lines shorter, making action more immediate and delegating responsiblility down the hierarchy closer to the front line.
I am not trying to propose a new type of government. I am just pointing out the weekness in the tail wagging the dog. There should at least be an official thread somewhere that sets out overall strategy and allows for it's discussion.
