The Land of the Free

[Sparthage]

Alright, I will try to restart the game later this week. But first, I have a few things that I want to know your opinions on:

1) Congress: Do we want a two-house system or one house?
2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?
3) Generals: An idea I had to form armies of several units under the control of a President-appointed player. Generals would be represented by Great Generals in-game.
4) Governors: Would you guys like to see Congress or Governors decide what a city produces. Governors would also control the focus of the cities.
5) Party Limits: Should I limit the number of parties, and should I limit the membership of parties?
6) Coalitions: I plan on keeping Coalitions going (banning them was a stupid idea that I wasn't going to follow through on anyways). But how should coalitions be represented in Congress and in elections?

@CivOasis: It's never fun to see a player stop playing, but I'll respect your decision, since it's your own.

 

[JohannaK]

1)Two-house Congress, that's clear. At least at the beginning it will put power in more hands than a one-house congress. That's the spirit of democracy, and thus of this game.

2)Dunno, maybe a VP, Chief of Staff/Secretary of Defence and Foreign Minister (at least). Also a Minister of Education or something, to decide about the Tech Tree, and one of Culture (why? it's obvious).

3)That'd be great, but in case the upper positions finally exist, they should be appointed by the CoS/SoD.

4)This is ok for me, but I think they should only decide a city's production.

5)Limit the numbers to five members per party at the beginning, each time a new city is created a referendum would be carried out on whether to keep it, to abolish it or to change it.

6)Coalitions should count as different parties in the Senate and the same one in the House.

 

[Dem Taqat]

Alright, I will try to restart the game later this week. But first, I have a few things that I want to know your opinions on:

1) Congress: Do we want a two-house system or one house?

-One House System. It's simpler, and requires less players than the alternative, so is more exclusive.

2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?

-Domestic, Diplomatic, and Military Advisors/Ministers. You could merge Military and Diplomatic into 'foreign' if you want to keep things down, but those 3 should take care of all major areas.

3) Generals: An idea I had to form armies of several units under the control of a President-appointed player. Generals would be represented by Great Generals in-game.

-I don't much like this idea. NPC generals would be okay, but remember we have limited number of players. Making too many positions is asking for trouble, we want an opposition remember.

4) Governors: Would you guys like to see Congress or Governors decide what a city produces. Governors would also control the focus of the cities.

-IMO Congress is a replacement for governors in terms of giving the opposition potential to affect things. Having both is unnecesary. I also prefer to leave city construction orders in the hands of a central authority, in order to prevent a beauraucratic pile-up.

5) Party Limits: Should I limit the number of parties, and should I limit the membership of parties?

-Limiting the number of parties to 10 seemed to work fairly well last time it was tried. Limiting the party members to 4 (or perhaps 5) should prevent any 1 party becoming overbalencing.

6) Coalitions: I plan on keeping Coalitions going (banning them was a stupid idea that I wasn't going to follow through on anyways). But how should coalitions be represented in Congress and in elections?

- Good. (nice to know you agree ) To me it seems like we should keep things to the old ways, add the votes together for Presidential elections, and assume they will work/vote together everywhere else. After all, if one player doesn't like what the coalition is doing, leaving him free to vote against them in congress makes sense. If they can't add the votes together in the Presidential elections then having 2 votes makes no sense.

DT
Analysing Options

 

[Jwitti]

I agree on all points with DT today. I know I'm not being very vocal..

 

[JohannaK]

One House System. It's simpler, and requires less players than the alternative, so is more exclusive.

Hey, man, this game was to be some kind of AMPU's sequel, and it was about American politics. I think the two-house system is better because of what I already said, and is also the kind of Congress most countries have. But when the game is advanced, we should pass to a one-house Congress to prevent too many NPCed offices.

IMO Congress is a replacement for governors in terms of giving the opposition potential to affect things. Having both is unnecesary. I also prefer to leave city construction orders in the hands of a central authority, in order to prevent a beauraucratic pile-up.

What does IMO Congress mean? Anyway, for the same reason I support a Two-house Congress I support Governors, but as I have already said, when the game is more advanced, we should get rid of them (before eliminating one house of the Congress).

Of course there'll be some trouble in the elimination of governors and Senate (most likely the most populous house will be the surviving one)

 

[christos200]

1) Congress: Do we want a two-house system or one house?

One.

Also: My opinion is that every action of the gonverment should be passed from the Congress or be vetoed if it dont pass.

2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?

My opinion:

1) President.

2) Vice president. (social policies)

3) Minister of interior (techs)

4) Forgein minister. ( Diplomacy)

5) Minister of National defense. ( Make this minister leader of the armed forces instaed of the president.

3) Generals: An idea I had to form armies of several units under the control of a President-appointed player. Generals would be represented by Great Generals in-game.

Idea: Those players can be politoicains. That means that a players should choose if he is to become general or politician. At first he will control 1 unit but if he wins many fight, the Minister of National defense will make him general of 2 units and so on.

4) Governors: Would you guys like to see Congress or Governors decide what a city produces. Governors would also control the focus of the cities.

The gonvernors should decide what their cities will built but it will have to be passed by the Congress or vetoed if it doesnt pass.

5) Party Limits: Should I limit the number of parties, and should I limit the membership of parties?

lmit of partys: 12

limit of members: 5

6) Coalitions: I plan on keeping Coalitions going (banning them was a stupid idea that I wasn't going to follow through on anyways). But how should coalitions be represented in Congress and in elections?

I agree with DT:

- Good. (nice to know you agree ) To me it seems like we should keep things to the old ways, add the votes together for Presidential elections, and assume they will work/vote together everywhere else. After all, if one player doesn't like what the coalition is doing, leaving him free to vote against them in congress makes sense. If they can't add the votes together in the Presidential elections then having 2 votes makes no sense.

Ideas:

1) Add in game gold.

2) Maybe add in game jobs, like work on a bank or a combany and a RNG will decide how many money you will get. That will keep politicians of the opposition and generals in peace times from getting bored.

3) Add more opposition actions (protests, sabotage, armed revolution.)

 

[JohannaK]

I do agree with christos' cabinet, but I still think the Minister for war should be called Secretary of Defence.

And about generals I've had an idea: only appointed when at war, one per each army branch (at least, in any branch there can be more than one GG and each could be a player).

They can be deposed by popular vote (if a number X of people don't like his performance, they call a vote to kick him out).

Still appointed by the Secretary of Defence on a row of candidates (When war is declared, any non-official players announce their candidacy, if someone's been kicked, the replace would come from those volunteers)

Maybe too complicated.

 

[Jwitti]

Hey, man, this game was to be some kind of AMPU's sequel, and it was about American politics. I think the two-house system is better because of what I already said, and is also the kind of Congress most countries have. But when the game is advanced, we should pass to a one-house Congress to prevent too many NPCed offices.


What does IMO Congress mean? Anyway, for the same reason I support a Two-house Congress I support Governors, but as I have already said, when the game is more advanced, we should get rid of them (before eliminating one house of the Congress).

Of course there'll be some trouble in the elimination of governors and Senate (most likely the most populous house will be the surviving one)

IMO is In My Opinion

 

[JohannaK]

Oh, thanks. I'm still getting used to some acronyms.

 

[Jwitti]

and IMHO is in my humble opinion

 

[Tycho]

Whatever the majority decides.

 

[GreyWithAnE]

1) Congress: Do we want a two-house system or one house?

2-house, definitely. Mostly for flavor reasons, since this is America and all. An England-style parliamentary democracy game would be interesting in its own right (one elected house, Prime Minister is elected by members of the most popular party, powerful cabinet with individual powers pertaining to each member's Ministry, negotiations between minority parties to form majority governments)...but really isn't this game.

2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?

I'd vote no mandatory cabinet at all, including the VP. Whoever wins the presidency should have the discretion of creating whatever cabinet positions he likes, with whatever powers they agree upon. This would be a common way for a presidential candidate to garner support (by offering other players cabinet positions). Ideally, these cabinet members could stay on as members of Congress.

3) Generals: An idea I had to form armies of several units under the control of a President-appointed player. Generals would be represented by Great Generals in-game.

You should just give the President control over all military units. If he wants to give vague orders or cede control over to other players or to you (Sparthage), then that's his prerogative. This Generals stuff is too complicated.

4) Governors: Would you guys like to see Congress or Governors decide what a city produces. Governors would also control the focus of the cities.

This idea I like. But we don't have nearly enough players to seed two chambers of Congress and a full suite of Governors. So unless we want to kill Congress completely (which we don't), then we should probably lay off the Governors unless you're comfortable managing a lot of NPCs.

5) Party Limits: Should I limit the number of parties, and should I limit the membership of parties?

No and no. I can see interesting strategic possibilities from a 2-party-only game where both factions have to vie for the support of various NPCs...but that's not this game.

6) Coalitions: I plan on keeping Coalitions going (banning them was a stupid idea that I wasn't going to follow through on anyways). But how should coalitions be represented in Congress and in elections?

As long as there's no "major party minimum" like there was in Yahzuk's Perfect Union game, there's no need for the rules to formalize anything about coalitions. They would be player-generated cooperation. Yay for emergent gameplay!

 

[Dem Taqat]

2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?

I'd vote no mandatory cabinet at all, including the VP. Whoever wins the presidency should have the discretion of creating whatever cabinet positions he likes, with whatever powers they agree upon. This would be a common way for a presidential candidate to garner support (by offering other players cabinet positions). Ideally, these cabinet members could stay on as members of Congress.

Actually, I like this Idea. I like this idea a lot, as it allows the president to decide just how much power he is willing to give away, rather than only having a set amount. He is the ruler after all. The only thing I don't like is lack of a VP. Sure it's okay to have a VP with no power unless the president is unavailable, but for the purposes of the game we need someone for if the Prez can't get online for some reason. Make VP the only mandatory position and leave the rest to the president's preferences.

DT

 

[swimandciv]

Alright, I will try to restart the game later this week. But first, I have a few things that I want to know your opinions on:

1) Congress: Do we want a two-house system or one house?
2) Cabinet Positions: How do we want to use them? At minimum there would be a Vice President, but other than that, what would you guys want to see?
3) Generals: An idea I had to form armies of several units under the control of a President-appointed player. Generals would be represented by Great Generals in-game.
4) Governors: Would you guys like to see Congress or Governors decide what a city produces. Governors would also control the focus of the cities.
5) Party Limits: Should I limit the number of parties, and should I limit the membership of parties?
6) Coalitions: I plan on keeping Coalitions going (banning them was a stupid idea that I wasn't going to follow through on anyways). But how should coalitions be represented in Congress and in elections?

@CivOasis: It's never fun to see a player stop playing, but I'll respect your decision, since it's your own.

1: Two-house system. I think it would be more fun having to deal with inter house politics.
2: I think a VP should be in the rules but then players should be able to decide what posts to create.
3: I like that idea for generals.
4: I would prefer to have governors because that more accurately reflects the American federal system. It would also complicate the political seen if the congress and governors disagree.
5&6: There should be any number of parties but only parties with a certain number of members should be "major" and be able to run for president. I know this is "unrealpolitik" but I think there should be no coalitions. In American politics, parties have combined or ceased to exist several times. This system would give an incentive to play the same way. Maybe this way we could have a two-party system. That seems to me like it would be more interesting.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

Can I still join this? (I read the game restart later this week)

 

[Sparthage]

@Dirk: Unfortunately no, I never started the new one since another similar forum game came out before I could post mine. Since I figured that LH's Realpolitik would get more attention than mine, I decided to hold off on the new one until LH ended his game. Once it does, I'll be back in business on this one. The rules and such are already prepped.

So if you stick around, I will continue this eventually.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

Damn, I've been really wanting to do something like LH's, but with America.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

So now that it's ended, are you going to restart this?

 

[Sparthage]

Maybe. It'll be in mid-March if I do. Until then, I've got quite a busy schedule (Celtic Fury, School, etc.)