fe3333au
Deity
Who is interested in the position of Chairman of Defence
Nominations for Chairman of Defence
- Thread starter fe3333au
- Start date
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Peter Grimes & Tomasjj !
Either of you interested? Consider yourselves nominated!
Either of you interested? Consider yourselves nominated!
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
How can we not nominate our General to this position?
One nice thing is that, at least for the first 20 turns, I assume these are pretty easy positions.
Defense! We have are building a warrior - what more do you want???
Turn taker! I hit spacebar this turn. the worker is still irrigating, the warrior seems to be doing pushups to get into shape.
UN! We havent' met anyone, but this stand of oaks over here is ready to talk terms.
Domestic! We have nothing.
One nice thing is that, at least for the first 20 turns, I assume these are pretty easy positions.
Defense! We have are building a warrior - what more do you want???
Turn taker! I hit spacebar this turn. the worker is still irrigating, the warrior seems to be doing pushups to get into shape.
UN! We havent' met anyone, but this stand of oaks over here is ready to talk terms.
Domestic! We have nothing.
True that.... very true that
I'll step up, if The Council think it wise
The Prioirities of The Defense of The Council as I see them:
Early exploration and contact with the other civs is vital in multiplayer. There are no AI to meet and exploit, just human teams to encounter and manage.
Our goal for the first 20 turns (is that what we decided on?) should be to expand our horizons, busting some fog and hopefully meeting no barbs.
I seriously doubt we'll meet another civ this term.
fe3333au
Deity
The person I vote for will depend on their build priority as I would like a naval vessel ASAP ... Unblack the Map !!!
Well, since the chairman is only an advisor, who cares what he thinks about the build queue. It's all up to the team anyway.
I will emphasize this whenever the need arises. Consensus. The chairmen have no powers, only responsibilities. Being chairman of defense means you need to analyse and report the game from a defense perspective, and possibly suggest a course of action, but it doesn't mean anyone else can't suggest e.g. a curragh being built, or the scout to move in a certain direction.
I will emphasize this whenever the need arises. Consensus. The chairmen have no powers, only responsibilities. Being chairman of defense means you need to analyse and report the game from a defense perspective, and possibly suggest a course of action, but it doesn't mean anyone else can't suggest e.g. a curragh being built, or the scout to move in a certain direction.
fe3333au
Deity
Hmmm ... I must have misunderstood what the Chairman position entails.
I agree with the above regarding the duties, however with a multitude of ideas being expressed surely the Chairman would weigh up arguments and pros/cons and then make the decision which is then relayed to the TurnTaker.
EDIT ... I'm not saying that I disagree with the above system ... just confused.
I agree with the above regarding the duties, however with a multitude of ideas being expressed surely the Chairman would weigh up arguments and pros/cons and then make the decision which is then relayed to the TurnTaker.
EDIT ... I'm not saying that I disagree with the above system ... just confused.
Well, ultimately the decision lies with the turn taker. So in my view, the Chairman position means to give the turn taker as much on his feet as possible. Yes, that would entail a weighing of arguments, resulting in advise to be relayed to the turn taker. But I wouldn't call it orders or decisions, just advise.
With a curragh having movement 2 for us (no differential naval movement here, right?) I'd favor a warrior first to do some inland exploration and maybe MP duty later. So I guess I will vote for the other guy
This sounds logical to me, as the turntaker is the chariman/PM or something.
His specific minsters giving advice, but the decision rests with the PM.
I wouldn't mind having a say in the defence dept. After all, I have worked in the Norwegian Defence ministry on defence policies...
As for build order and such, that has to wait until we see the map, right?
Ok.. Let me ask the domestic chariman if he can build us 4 workers to carry the vessel to the coast then...
fe3333au
Deity
How FITZCARRALDO of you 
The guy in white would probably be the defence chairman
The guy in white would probably be the defence chairman
If he is pulling his hair in the last picture, yes, then it is him.
fe3333au
Deity
We have 2 members interestedpeter grimes and tomasjj
Anymore?
How do we resolve this without an election?
How do we resolve this without an election?
Easy!
We both serve as Advisors to The Council on Defensive Matters
I see no reason this idea wouldn't work.
Easy!
We both serve as Advisors to The Council on Defensive Matters
I see no reason this idea wouldn't work.
fe3333au
Deity
Surely we would want to have someone responsible 
I am confused as to how that system would work ... who would be doing what and who reports and who sends orders ... seems a tad unstructured.
I am confused as to how that system would work ... who would be doing what and who reports and who sends orders ... seems a tad unstructured.
I don't see the problem,,,,
this is, after all, about consensus. The Advisors, or Chairmen, of the departments are simply there to advise the turnplayer how to proceed. These decisions are arrived at (ideally) through team input. It shouldn't be that much of an issue if there are two rather than one.
Of course, if people think this is unworkable, I will happily step aside, as I really don't care whether I'm the one to post Defense orders in the Instructions thread or not
this is, after all, about consensus. The Advisors, or Chairmen, of the departments are simply there to advise the turnplayer how to proceed. These decisions are arrived at (ideally) through team input. It shouldn't be that much of an issue if there are two rather than one.
Of course, if people think this is unworkable, I will happily step aside, as I really don't care whether I'm the one to post Defense orders in the Instructions thread or not
How do we resolve this without an election?
Easy!
We both serve as Advisors to The Council on Defensive Matters
I see no reason this idea wouldn't work.
I could be your vice advisor. No problem.
I don't see the problem,,,,
this is, after all, about consensus. The Advisors, or Chairmen, of the departments are simply there to advise the turnplayer how to proceed. These decisions are arrived at (ideally) through team input. It shouldn't be that much of an issue if there are two rather than one.
Of course, if people think this is unworkable, I will happily step aside, as I really don't care whether I'm the one to post Defense orders in the Instructions thread or not
Yes, like you say, it is concensus based and all the input is used to make a logical and rational decision. I mean, one has to justify ones strategies and decisions in a debate here, so if you can't back your choices and get support for them in the team they wont happen anyway.
For once I actually agree with Fe!
I think it would be good to have one person appointed as the Chairman. This person has the responsibility to lead and summarize the discussion. All other team members should of course join the discussion, and there is nothing that says the chairman has to be the one to dig up all the details.
In summary: The more people who take up the roles of vice chairmen, the better. But IMO there should be one who has the main responsibility.
I think it would be good to have one person appointed as the Chairman. This person has the responsibility to lead and summarize the discussion. All other team members should of course join the discussion, and there is nothing that says the chairman has to be the one to dig up all the details.
In summary: The more people who take up the roles of vice chairmen, the better. But IMO there should be one who has the main responsibility.
Similar threads
