reliminary strategy discussions (City Placement)

[Cyc]

gentleman, it almost sounds like bickering already. this is the nations first step. we must be careful where we place our foot. grey fox, i think it is a good idea that you are testing your theory.but i think you should play out you theory alone and not start the other one. play it out for a long time. (as much as possible.) i do have a question for you. have you ever seen this city placement strategy done by any of the AI nations?
my feeling is that you will be self-imposing a corruption standard on the core cities. i see your point about fitting more cities in closer later, but i don't see the return outwieghing the restrictions we will be placing on the core cities. of course, i've never tried this. so you may be right. test out your theory and play till the birth of christ. then post your findindings. by the way, i fully support my president in his decisions.

 

[Pggar]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders


My friend Pggar has experience in the democracy game's ,but it seem's he isn't aware of the reform's that have swept through the democracy game the last few turn's.So when he is reading this ,wich i hope he will ,then i want him to read this thread ,so that he is updated on this new information.Basicly ,leader's decide for themself's defacto now instead of polling the citizin's.

I'm aware of the reforms.
The problem I foresee is that we'll end up having too much discussion about city placement in the begginig, because it's a crucial matter and as we can see in this thread we have lots of different views on the subject.
What I think it'll happen: the domestic advisor will post his decisions, everytime he posts about city placement, someone will disagree and start a discussion that will be followed by a poll. This might become overwhelming.
What I'm trying to say is that city placement is an special topic, and I believe we should make a queue of positions in the beggining because it's such a crucial matter. However, we can try this way first and see if things go well.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I'm in agreement with Pggar. City placements are very important and shld be polled I think, to reflect the wishes of the citizenry. Otherwise, the citizenry may have too little time to respond before the plan is posted by the Prez and then the city is placed in the game. Not everyone can log on 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week like you guys.

Prez Grey Fox, while I understand the rationale behind your idea, this is not the way to play the demo game. As Prez, you shld lead the discussion, taking into acct all views; not simply imposing your own (or seemingly so) over the citizenry.

Otherwise, it'll simply scare and drive away interested new potential players, with all this top-down I-know-it-all approach.

Apologies first if I misconstrue your posts.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Prez Grey Fox, while I understand the rationale behind your idea, this is not the way to play the demo game. As Prez, you shld lead the discussion, taking into acct all views; not simply imposing your own (or seemingly so) over the citizenry.

Otherwise, it'll simply scare and drive away interested new potential players, with all this top-down I-know-it-all approach.

Apologies first if I misconstrue your posts.

Sorry about that, I got carried away a little...

Anyway I have the fullest confidence in everyone here in choosing good city locations. And I would like us to discuss them all of course... My Idea was only a suggestion to Eyrei as he is the Domestic Leader.

I don't really think that my theory would work that well with our demo-game.

Again, I'm very sorry if I stepped on anyones toes.

 

[Cyc]

you da man, grey fox. i stand behind you 100%. hold true to your constitution, and we will follow you

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
Sorry about that, I got carried away a little...

Anyway I have the fullest confidence in everyone here in choosing good city locations. And I would like us to discuss them all of course... My Idea was only a suggestion to Eyrei as he is the Domestic Leader.

I don't really think that my theory would work that well with our demo-game.

Again, I'm very sorry if I stepped on anyones toes.

Don't worry about it. Now let's get this show on the road. Lead on, Mr Prez.

I do hope we'll get more committed players though. Only time will tell.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Mr Spice and Knight-Dragon ,are you aware of the changes i made in the constitution regarding the presidential power?
From now on ,the president can make evry decission he want's ,and can override any leader ,as long as he has the support of the cabinet.
What does this mean? Well every turn the president could make some decission's like "we gona build a wonder in that city" or "we gona start a war against that civ" ,and as long as nobody of the cabinet opposes to that ,then it will be done.However ,if somebody opposes ,a cabinet vote will be initianated and if more than 50% of he cabinet opposes nhis decission will not pass.
Why have i made this a rule? Under the reform's in the CivII demo game all leader's get much more power ,but the president's power wasn't changed ,and i feel the president needs more power to make it interresting for him.I don't think he will try to make all decission's ,with all his work he would be likely to make a few though important decission ,and if mostof the people disagree his decission can still be overturnd.
In real life it's a bit like that to ,in a democracy a president can declare war against a civ ,and if the "senate" (in this ex. the cabinet) agree's then his decission passes ,otherwise it is overturnd.
I will try to implement that in the CivII demo game to ,although with a poll there ,over here it will be a rule at start.

 

[Pggar]

I think you are taking to much power from the citizens with those changes. In this model, even decisions made by people consensus might be overturn by a few group of leaders, and that´s not good.
I think if the leaders decide to use this too much, it'll be the first time we'll need a revolution. The first time we'll use section F of the constitution.

 

[joespaniel]

I like the new rules, Duck. The old game moved way too slow.

This time, there will be more controversy too.

Should be a good one!

 

[duke o' york]

How can the President overrule a leader with the support of the cabinet? Surely the cabinet must contain that leader being overruled. If the cabinet are split then surely it would go to the people to decide the course of action to be taken.

 

[Daaraa]

I think I have an idea on how to solve the city placement question.

Why not hold an election for a governor of the new "province" and then the elected person decides the placement. Also, with the new governor's "core city" he can expand hs own little fiefdom and if the greater empire wants to contribute then the president decides.

As to the core cities I'd say let the domestic minister decide, whoever that is. The domestic guy is the one that has to deal with all the inner-goings-on of the empire.

So in effect the only ones involved in city placement are the president, the domestic guy and the governor if there is one.

It'll keep discussion down and it could demonstrate leadership on the governor's part so he can get elected elsewhere if he wants to.

 

[Benjamin Miller]

I think we should go with Daaraa's solution. It'll make more people feel special .

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Mr Spice and Knight-Dragon ,are you aware of the changes i made in the constitution regarding the presidential power?

Yes, I am aware, vaguely.

But city placements can make or kill a game, considering the level of corruption in Civ3 so I feel in this particular case, shld still be made with input fr the citizenry. I don't want us having to live with lousy placements all thru the entire game, which would hinder all succeeding Prez and leaders.

After the city founding, everything else can go your way.

Except for war. Only a war supported by the citizens shld be allowed to be put into op, esp if we're the aggressor. War in Civ3 is very very tempting and rewarding (haha), and we shld put some safeguards in place, just in case we got warmongers in the govt (haha).

 

[Daaraa]

Yeah! That's my goal! Make everyone feel special!
Didn't think of it that way but ok. Whatever blows yer skirt up.

 

[Grey Fox]

When we are starting to get many cities and the names on them are starting to be called "New [CityName]", why don't we get to name ONE city ourself. So that some players, if many, all players get to NAME a City?

 

[Pggar]

Thet'll happen from the start. There's no reason for us to keep the name of the cities since we're changing the name of the civilization.
You're probably getting one of the first cities since you're the mighty president.

 

[das]

Near Resources, Rivers and not (unless specially decided) next to any mountains aor hills (so if the enemy is near the city, they won't have any defense bonus if we coutnerattack from the city itself.)