OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Government style, final decision

[DaveShack]

We need to make a final decision on what government type, and soon!

In the interest of getting this started, I'm going to begin without links and then edit them in. We have 4 popular proposals, and a number of significant but less popular ones. In particular I want to mention that there were several variations on my theme, in particular Ravensfire's excellently worded alternative. They are fundamentally similar but differ in details, and I think we need to just agree on the concept first which will determine if we have a mountain of work or a mole hill.

Let's start with just the 4 popular ones and go from there.

• DG5 with minor modifications
• DaveShack et al. Alternative (strategic / tactical)
• Strider's modified traditional
• Provolution's alternative

The level of concensus I would like us to reach is one which does these things, in decreasing order of importance:

• Choose the structure that the most people can live with. We don't have to prefer it, as long as we can live with it.
• Facilitates playing using Conquests 1.22, a version that not all players have
• Something which excites the most people. Something which draws new people to the game without driving away the veterans.
• Few, or no, people actively dislike it. I can live with a few people not liking it

 

[DaveShack]

I should add, for the detractors of the alternative plans, I know you don't like them in part because they are too vague because they're not fully defined. Do we keep going on defining them, or not? The poll on this issue was way too evenly split for it to be called decisive by any stretch of the imagination, so we need to either keep working, or settle on the easy choice.

 

[Ashburnham]

• Something which excites the most people. Something which draws new people to the game without driving away the veterans.

This is the main area where the alternative styles (all of them) are weak. If someone were coming to the boards for the first time and say the Demogame, they would most likely respond better to a system that looks more like the in-game advisors than an "alternative" style they've never seen before.

However, for the moment, I still prefer having an alternative style for DG6 than the traditional government.

 

[Black_Hole]

Actually provos alternate government is really just a traditional government in the sense it doesnt split up long term planners and short term planners.

Why go for Ravensfires or DaveShacks alternate government?
Allows people without conquests to play
Lets people choose a position that better fits how they work
Only long term stuff will be polled
Allows some leaders to focus on discussion and polls, while others to micromanage
Elections will be more fiercely fought
Its a change for once!!!(what major change has happened in the last 5 dgs? none...)
Not a large change in the number of offices
People could be in 2 positions(with my plan)

 

[Black_Hole]

This is the main area where the alternative styles (all of them) are weak. If someone were coming to the boards for the first time and say the Demogame, they would most likely respond better to a system that looks more like the in-game advisors than an "alternative" style they've never seen before.

However, for the moment, I still prefer having an alternative style for DG6 than the traditional government.

Why?
In my view the alternate government will be much harder for Veterans(who are use to the traditional government) then people just joining...

 

[blackheart]

There's the old proverb "don't fix it if it isn't broken". While the traditional government isn't "broken" in the technical sense, it does need fixing, from the glaring lack of contested positions and player participation in the last DG.

 

[ravensfire]

This is the main area where the alternative styles (all of them) are weak. If someone were coming to the boards for the first time and say the Demogame, they would most likely respond better to a system that looks more like the in-game advisors than an "alternative" style they've never seen before.

However, for the moment, I still prefer having an alternative style for DG6 than the traditional government.

I'm not so sure about that. Part of the appeal of the strategic/tactical system is that it matches my thought process, how I work. I like to come up with the broad plans, the general ideas for the games I play. Only then do I dig into the details.

In the alternate system, there will be discussions, and some good ones, on both sides. The cool aspect is that the strategic discussions will be somewhat abstract, requiring general information and screenshots. You won't need Conquests to meaningfully participate. Much of the knowledge from Vanilla carries over.

The tactical people will need the game, but will find their discussions much more focused. The strategic guidelines will help focus those discussions on certain aspects of the game. We'll end up with better viewpoints, plans and options because of the additional focus.

That's good for the game. Someone new into the game, say in the middle, can jump into the tactical discussions pretty easily because the focus is much smaller. For example, instead of "Where do we settle next", it becomes "Where in the SouthEast, using a tight build layout maximizing production, do we settle?" As they get more familiar with the game, their ability to meaningfully participate will go up quickly and dramatically.

It's a great way for people to participate just a little, or a whole lot, as they want to.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

I'm not so sure about that. Part of the appeal of the strategic/tactical system is that it matches my thought process, how I work. I like to come up with the broad plans, the general ideas for the games I play. Only then do I dig into the details.

But not everyone works the way you do. The constitution shouldn't suit one person.

 

[Chieftess]

This discussion now has a poll.