Proposal: Should we have an "assumed" set of TCIs?

[Chieftess]

During turn 5 of the recent turn chat, DR was at size 5, and had a warrior in 2 turns. That's fine, however, it only needed 2 food to grow, and was wasting 3 food (5 food per turn). A simple micromanagement of the floodplain tile to the tile 1 S of the city would have resulted in the warrior being finished 1 turn quicker, and the city growing in the same amount of time.

The same could be said for Van delay, which has a settler in 9 turns. A floodplain tile could be moved to a plains tile and the settler would be done in 6, quickening our much needed expansion.

Also, some of our cities were sacked by Barbarians. This did 2 things:

1 - killed off the population of one of our cities, LENGHTENING our research time.

2 - Messed up production, something a governor can't forsee, since they're instructions are generally an "if all goes well" plan.

So, I propose this: (someone could help me with the needed legal mumbo jumbo. )

The president can make any needed micromanagement in the event that an unforseen circumstance comes up. Examples are: change in city size (due to barbarians, settlers, workers, new cities being built, city being captured/conquered/razed). They can also micromanage a city if the city can have better production without sacrificing city growth (in the case of DR and Vandelay, switching a tile to get a warrior and settler out quicker).

 

[Cyc]

I can't see this either, CT. Once again, you're taking power away from the Governor and giving too much to the DP. If the Gov says that the DP can MicroManage such and such cities, then fine. But you can't just give the DP power to change whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of how important you think it is for the game.

 

[zorven]

Even simple instructions like "manage for food" or "manage for production" could be helpful. Of course, the Governor could specify no changes are to be made to laborers, or more detailed management of the laborers could be detailed.

 

[Cyc]

Yes, zorven, that's the way to do it. Detailed Instructions from the Governor telling the DP what is to be done or not done is the way to go.

 

[donsig]

Instructions should remain explicit.

Don't you know the old saying about what happens when you ASSUME?

 

[DaveShack]

Cyc, I think you're overreacting in favor of the Governor position on every issue based on the bad experiences of your own past, and that these concerns may not be shared by the majority of players. How about we put it to the vote and see just how many people are worried about this type of issue?

 

[ravensfire]

This scenario is also a great chance for the more knowledgable cities to educate some of us by suggesting to Governors how to micromanage.

I used to lurk in the succession game forum, and picked up a fair amount through osmosis. The same can happen here.

We are not always going to have the best possible leaders - and frankly that's part of the game I enjoy. It gives a chance for citizens to remain active in the game by pointing out better ways to do things. *I* get to learn from that, by understanding how that citizen found the problem, and how they fixed it.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
Don't you know the old saying about what happens when you ASSUME?

Something about you and me, but just how is the parent of a mule involved?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

I don't really see the need to do this. Most effects that happen in unforseen events are minor and wouldn't have much of an effect on the game, and whenever something major happens, the DP should just stop the chat. However, if the governor posted no orders that would disallow micromanagement by the DP, then the DP could do it. And the governors should provide detailed instructions that deal with some of these contingencies, so that the DP doesn't have to step in.

Originally posted by donsig
Instructions should remain explicit.

I would agree, but then again sometimes certain leaders get CC'd for posting detailed instructions where every detail couldn't be polled.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by DaveShack
Cyc, I think you're overreacting in favor of the Governor position on every issue based on the bad experiences of your own past, and that these concerns may not be shared by the majority of players. How about we put it to the vote and see just how many people are worried about this type of issue?

DaveShack, it's called learning from the past. I know this to be a bad thing. I'm trying to help the Citizens who aren't aware of all the pitfalls hidden in a move like this. There are plenty of people that haven't been a Governor yet. They haven't had there plans put aside for the President's wishes. Provinces and the cities within them are the responsibility of the Governor. It is also a privilage for that Governor to be a part of the Province developing. If this Governor doesn't care about their Province, the can leave Instruction foe the DP to do whatever they wish in the Turn Chat. But you can't just take away the rights of every Governor just because there are a few bad ones. Mass punishment is not the answer, DS.

EDIT: And this thread has only been open for an hour! Don't you think it's a little early for a Poll? Why don't we just wait 5 days after we're ready to poll and then do it?

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Cyc

EDIT: And this thread has only been open for an hour! Don't you think it's a little early for a Poll? Why don't we just wait 5 days after we're ready to poll and then do it? [/B]

Yah, I deserve that... That thread was active when I looked at it, it just died out right after i looked.

Hopefully work will die down soon and it won't take several days to look again at the forum. And it would be nice to not fall asleep at the computer -- the dents in my forehead are getting noticeable.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I don't really see the need to do this. Most effects that happen in unforseen events are minor and wouldn't have much of an effect on the game, and whenever something major happens, the DP should just stop the chat. However, if the governor posted no orders that would disallow micromanagement by the DP, then the DP could do it. And the governors should provide detailed instructions that deal with some of these contingencies, so that the DP doesn't have to step in.

It may seem minor (like a granary for example), but it can help or hurt in the long run. i.e., beating the AI to a city or two.

What I'm trying to get at (and I never seem to do...) is that governors, and OTHER LEADERS are going to be required to make redundant instructions. We should make some sort of "Gameplay Standard", something that the president always has to do.