Team Leadership

[Unionfield]

This is my first Democracy game, though I have played plenty of multi-player before. So, do we need to select/appoint team leaders?

 

[JoeyDawt]

If we do would it be for terms or the entire game, my keyboard is in french right now and i have no idea how to do a question mark

 

[peter grimes]

... my keyboard is in french right now and i have no idea how to do a question mark

don't worry - Rantamplanzzz is covering for you

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but...

In previous games, sometimes there was an 'elected' leader (usually the turnplayer), other times people would volunteer. In the first cIV MTDG, Memphus, Epsilon's turnplayer, was the turnplayer for just about the whole game. He almost always followed the consensus that developed from team discussion. There was one time he didn't, though, and it nearly caused a mutiny

Alternatively, in the civ3 MTDG2, I'm on The Council. There the turnplayer is simply an instrument of the will of his fellow councilors. We discuss things in depth until a general agreement is reached. It works really well, but that could have to do more with the personalities of the team members than any absolutist "This is the best way to run a team". We'll find what works best for us, I'm sure.

But I dont' think it's a good idea to determine from the beginning that the turnplayer will play the entire game.

 

[Domino369]

We don't necessarily have to have just one turnplayer (case in point, that person can't be on that day)
I think we should make a list of people who have bts and can play the save and who ever wants to (based on a general consensus) can play the save that round. As for leader of the team, it doesn't really matter. It's a team effort and whoever play/contributes the most will be "leader" anyways. Now, if we want someone to break stalemates, that's different. We should elect that person once team sign-up is closed or have a group of ppl, like a hierarchy, if ppl are not on that day. (like, if one person is not here, this person takes his place as leader. But if that person isn't there either, than a third person will be leader) Similar to the way it goes from President -> Vice President -> Speaker of the House in the United States. This can be done with the election as well for like 1st 2nd 3rd etc place.

 

[Unionfield]

We don't necessarily have to have just one turnplayer (case in point, that person can't be on that day)
I think we should make a list of people who have bts and can play the save and who ever wants to (based on a general consensus) can play the save that round. As for leader of the team, it doesn't really matter. It's a team effort and whoever play/contributes the most will be "leader" anyways. Now, if we want someone to break stalemates, that's different. We should elect that person once team sign-up is closed or have a group of ppl, like a hierarchy, if ppl are not on that day. (like, if one person is not here, this person takes his place as leader. But if that person isn't there either, than a third person will be leader) Similar to the way it goes from President -> Vice President -> Speaker of the House in the United States. This can be done with the election as well for like 1st 2nd 3rd etc place.

This is what I was referring to.

 

[peter grimes]

Yes, exactly right. It will be very important to have back-up turnplayers, chain of command.

 

[James009]

When I think of leadership I tend to favor a strong executive run cabinet system, I've never been a fan of committee leadership... Nonetheless, I would certainly suggest that we have some sort of a "leadership cabinet" with at least these...

I'd suggest that we have certain positions like Secretary of Defense, Director of Intelligence, and Secretary of State in order to manage the specific elements and advise the leader/council. Those are all more complicated areas that will require a greater amount of input, these people can focus their energies on these specific areas and we can gain greater results from it.

Secretary of State would be an important diplomatic position in hosting relations with other nations. It would need to be someone who knows or can get along with the other players in a diplomatic setting and also get our agenda across.

Director of Intelligence would manage the various "spy units", perform intelligence operations, conduct counter-intelligence, and maintain intelligence records of our opponents. If you look at real life history you'll know just how important intelligence can be.

Lastly, a Secretary of Defense would be important in order to manage and maintain our armed forces, plan offensive and defensive strategies, and counter opposing military capabilities.

I'm sure that in time the number of positions would grow (so long as we have a large number of players to support it). As for the start I'd suggest we have at least these three positions.


As for the overall leadership I think we should do an election for a President, Emperor, Prime Minister, or something to serve a term and hold occasional re-elections.

 

[Domino369]

I do like the idea of role-playing it, but I feel that that would be difficult to manage, especially if that person is missing for whatever reasons. Also, it would be limiting thinking about the tasks on players rather than the team as a whole. Unless you're talking about the execution, but that would still be difficult because that would mean that many people would have to load the save for that round and would make turns last exceptionally longer.

 

[Unionfield]

Uh-oh Peter, looks like you have competition for sexiest post maker.

 

[James009]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we have an assembly line of players each managing separate things. I'm referencing this to a sort of cabinet system within government where the President leads the country and his cabinet (a group of specialists within a field) administer a department and offer advice. This doesn't mean that they would have any role in turnplay just that they would give advice to the turnplayer on what to do relating to their specific area.

For example, the Intelligence Director suggests that we increase spending to the Celts to see what they are doing, wants to send in two agents to investigate a military buildup, and perform a counter-espionage mission. Then, based on what they discover, he presents a report indicating that the Celts have five Axemen, six Swordsman, and what he assumes they are planning to do.

Additionally, this sort of system will create a little bit of internal conflict and competition among us as the players (which can be healthy). Your ideas and suggestions will have to be weighed against limited resources, not everyone can get their way and everything they want.

And yes, lots of roleplay opportunities but within the concept of Civilization and still contributing to the execution.

 

[Domino369]

I like the idea, but I feel that those decisions should be team decisions rather than individuals decisions.
I can see where this would be useful for getting things done fast, but this also leads to alot of weight for error on the individuals decision.

 

[Domino369]

Oh wait! I found a reasonable way to do this!!!

We could have separate cabinet officers to make the ultimate decision. That way the team can discuss the decision still beforehand. This still places alot of power in his decision however.

 

[DaveShack]

I've played on teams with defined leaders, and others which were pretty much pure democracies. Some patterns have developed:

• Most of the time, elections (if held) are uncontested
• When a leader is designated for an area, often nothing gets done in the leader's absence
• Teams this size tend to reach concensus easily on most issues, the exceptions being diplomatic

I'll go with the flow, but my preference is for leadership by example, except for possibly setting up a hierarchy of turn players. And maybe designate a chief diplomat, once that part of the game opens up.

 

[peter grimes]

When a leader is designated for an area, often nothing gets done in the leader's absence

This intrigues me. Could you elaborate on how that system worked [or failed ] Did one player manage each city? How was empire coordination maintained - what sorts of troops to build, which civics to run, etc.?

 

[DaveShack]

Mostly we didn't get much advance planning at all if the "leaders" weren't leading. It was more turn by turn. Or the turnplayer just took over and treated it like SP.

 

[Unionfield]

This intrigues me. Could you elaborate on how that system worked [or failed ] Did one player manage each city? How was empire coordination maintained - what sorts of troops to build, which civics to run, etc.?

I was going to propose that players are assigned to ensure that one particular city is doing what it should be doing to fulfill the team objectives.

 

[DaveShack]

Here's an interesting twist. Previous games were played as PBEM, meaning a turn player had to play the entire turn. But we're on a pitboss now, and any number of people can log in during our 24 hours, right up until someone presses end turn.

We could have a micromanagement specialist log in to execute the team's MM strategy, a war tactics expert to handle military action, and a historian to capture screenshots, to name just a few. No reason one person can't do all of that either, perhaps it can be flexible depending on the situation. And if it were play by committee I think we'd still want someone designated to make sure it all gets done and ends turn.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm not against attempting some sort of distributed control system, but we'd have to have some sort of mechanism that would override conflicting / imperfect city management. For instance, it we're not running Vassalage (+2xp in cities with state religion), and my city is set to autobuild catapults forever, then we have to have some way of overriding my orders.

Likewise, we can't have a situation where I go in and revolt us to Vassalage when everyone else's cities are constructing buildings to take advantage of Organized Religion (+25% hammers towards buildings in cities with state religion).

I strongly doubt that the specific examples I used would arise - I was trying to make a bold example


But in the final analysis, we can do things any way we want. It's our own team, and if we decide that having a dictator determine game actions, we can go that route. If, on the other hand, we find that the dictator is acting like it's his own personal game, we can revise our system and implement more of a cabinet-style format.

I have a feeling we'll settle on what works best for us after the first dozens of turns.

EDIT: X post w/ DS. That sounds like a great mix!

 

[Tinkerbell]

I guess it's good for managing the foreign relations that someone has an official title. The other teams will know the person speaks for the team and it's not some kind of one-man-show.

 

[cujo376]

I like James' idea of government. We could have one person be the head of those departments and then other people below them who would be willing to step in if they were away and give any suggestions or ideas to the higher ups.