Things on the agenda

DaveShack said:
1 - Backbone ruleset
This can go both ways. If rules are too specific, then we get certain individuals who can't go a day without looking at every little thing and complaining about every violation, no matter how small. On the other hand, when rules are too general then we either get arguments over the grey areas, or someone who takes great liberties even to the point of totally ignoring input from others and common sense. We need a compromise between these two extremes.

I agree. How the hell to actually do this is another matter. I've killed games in the past with my longwindedness, so I can't really give any advice. ;)

2 - Mimic Game Advisors
There are several things to consider here
  • How well is power balanced?
  • How do we handle things which span multiple positions. With the Labor & Finance dept we "solved" the worker question but still who decides what gold to put into trade offers, Trade or Finance?
  • Providing a variety of positions with differing participation requirements, so that people with limited time or who are not yet confident can still participate.
  • The positions should make sense. The advisors in the game are actually set up to balance screen space, not because those items go together. I would rather be able to set the tech to research and tech slider setting on the same page.

Well, first of all, if we do go with the game advisors, Domestic would be running everything now military. So one thing we should do is divide up the domain. First of all, outsource all the things that should, logically, be under someone else's power. I would not, however, recommend we split up the slider settings between culture and tech, because that could lead to problems, but that a undersecretary of the treasury be made to do the budgeting. Similarly, other undersecretaries (or deputy ministers, whatever you want to call them) could be added within the domestic department, to the point that the actual minister is just a coordinator. Tech, Culture, and Trade would remain independent, taking the necessary parts of the domestic advisor page, and open for lazy people who like authority, such as myself.

4 - Size of Provinces based on amount of Land Mass
How about graduated province sizes? Make the ones close to the capitol small, and the further out we go make them bigger. This will balance governors who have to plan a queue several things deep on a few cities per play session with ones who can put 2 things in the queue and take a week off if they want.

As I said, I agree, but we need to do it geographically. Provinces should not span oceans and mountain ranges just to get the right number of tiles. Do it the way it seems natural, with river, mountain, see, forest, etc. boundaries.
 
Domestic wouldn't be running everything military. Military still controls troops.
 
My 2 cents about the legal issues. It seems to me that most of the legal activity occurs early in the game as everyone gets used to the new ruleset. Stop creating brand new rule sets for each game and you may avoid the legal flurry.
 
zorven said:
My 2 cents about the legal issues. It seems to me that most of the legal activity occurs early in the game as everyone gets used to the new ruleset. Stop creating brand new rule sets for each game and you may avoid the legal flurry.
agreed, in that I wouldnt want to diverge too far from the curent set.
 
Keeping the current ruleset for DG5 would be even dumber than trying it out in DG4. It could be argued that before DG4 started we didn't really know if the ruleset was good or bad. But now we it has many faults.
 
Or, for a novel idea, why not junk the concept of a ruleset entirely?

We already know how we operate - elections, the ministers, TCs, etc. We just boil down the essentials to a paragraph that's easy enough for everyone, from vets to newbies, to understand. That done, we work and try to cooperate with one another without some meaningless rules being shoved down our throats every time two people disagree on the slightest subject.

Any 'backbone ruleset' that we try to create will, I believe, fail. We tried that in DG3. Look at what happened - everything got a strict interpretation, and nothing was accomplished, save the reestablishment of the CoL and CoS in DG4. Any new minialmist constitution will inevitably be interpretted to the word, rather than an interpretation on the spirit of the law.
 
Rik Meleet said:
Donsig: we have to learn from our "faults". First step in this evolution process: pinpoint the "faulty-area". Care to express and list them ?

I've been trying to do that throughout DG4 only to be called a nitpicker. I've also tried to bring both you and Chieftess to account for ignoring legally posted instructions yet this bloody ruleset has prevented us from even having a decent discussion on whether what you and CT did was against the rules!

Dump the CoL and CoS and just use the constitution.
 
Octavian X said:
Any 'backbone ruleset' that we try to create will, I believe, fail. We tried that in DG3. Look at what happened - everything got a strict interpretation, and nothing was accomplished, save the reestablishment of the CoL and CoS in DG4. Any new minialmist constitution will inevitably be interpretted to the word, rather than an interpretation on the spirit of the law.

Wrong, Octavian. In term three of DG3 I shook everyone up by ignoring those at the chat and basing my decisions on what was posted in the forums. It was the knee jerk reaction to that and not any *strict interpretation* of the DG3 constitution that gave us the horrid DG4 ruleset. The demogame can be played just fine with the DG3 or DG4 constitution only.
 
Top Bottom