Next DG Discussion

[Maniac]

Originally posted by fed1943
The Pontifex and the heads of Dicastery live in HQ.

How about also keeping this as something to be arranged b normal law? I assume this might vary depending on activity level.

Originally posted by mart7x5
I would have a question about game mechanics.

Each turn is played with what frequency?
1 turn/2 days? other?
Has this been discussed here?

I remember Hive SP demogame, that one ended after like 30 turns coz of lack of interest had a sessions that multiple turns were made. Am I correct? So several turns were made within a day. I disliked the idea. Kinda makes players not in control, no time for discussions about details.

In order to speed up first turns they might be played 1 turn/day. Though still a lot of important decisions that can effect later win or loss.

ACDG1 and ACPSG had turnchats in which a number of turns were played. In ACDG1 initially 7 per turn, though it decreased later as turns took longer to play. Quick polls then were made for unexpected events among the present members.
Playing several turns at once of course had the disadvantage that the more you play, the more chance something unexpected and undiscussed happens, and also (depending on the quality of the turnplayer) that things diverged from the governor orders. As a governor back then I kinda found that annoying. So yeah, personally I agree perhaps 1 turn a day might be better to prevent the two problems above.

Instead of elections per month, I would see rather elections per specific number of turns. Initially that might be more turns, then less, like civ3 succesions games.

Seems fine to me. How many turns would initially be in one term?

[vyeh]

A lot of good discussion! I'll address Maniac's constitutional draft in another post.

Originally posted by fed1943
Military- supose two Orders(or regions):A and B;B territory is next and to the north of A;A is an old,powerful Order with plenty unities and no more has borders with another faction;B is young,with few unities and to north of his region there is another faction.We do not want,right now,vendetta with that other faction,but perhaps they want it.And,if they attack sudendly,Order B would be hardly beaten,before the help of A arrives.So,it would make sense to ask A to give passive protection to B,advancing some troops to north(obviously,A should get some credit for it).

It might be in the interest of A to give protection. B is serving as a buffer. So perhaps B should get credit. If these are units under control of A, then whatever compensation A gets should be subject to negotiation among A, B and the Conclave (the Conclave has an interest in expansion and keeping hostile factions away from HQ).

Originally posted by fed1943
About the Hand of God:from partners said,I see him,not as a commander-in-the-field,but as General Chief Head Quarter,planing,advising,pointing the threats and the opportunities.

Could go either way, which is why I've been careful to say "Hand(s) of God" with the "(s)". From the point of view of game players, there might be several players interested in war fighting. If there are several fronts, more than one player can fight. From the point of view of role players, there would be more military role playing.

As Maniac points out, this is something that can be determined during the game.

Originally posted by fed1943
Probe teams - Sure,probe team can perform several,and always useful,tasks.That's true for all(or almost)factions.
And we will want to infiltrate,subvert bases and unities,get energy;others factions want it,too.But (I think and don't know if partners agree or not) there is a task we want more,the said steal of technologie.
Some others research and some times steal a tech;if I'm not wrong,we better look the other way:first research the probes'tech,then steal and sometimes research,if possible.
That was the reason,I told "give"the probes to the Brain;said probes can under control of the Conclave or not,but Bishops must provide a suply of them,since they are going to be of service as fast and as often as possible.The suplier must be credited.

The real issue is who tells the Bishops how many probes to supply. From both game playing and role playing, it would not be very interesting if the Brain of God could unilaterally order a Bishop to produce a probe unit.

This is the same issue for military prototype units pre-Vendetta. There is no immediate benefit to the Bishops, but building prototypes early is advantageous.

I think this can be addressed during the game through Conclave law passed under the Maniac constitution and the discussion we're having can occur during the game.

Originally posted by Maniac
A question on an allocation system - not very familiar with it. Suppose Orders A & B made bids for the same position, but A got it after bidding 7 votes, after B made their last offer of 6 votes. Would B then keep their 6 votes to bid on another position? Meaning there could be bluff poker of Orders bidding high for a position they don't really want to remove votes of a competitor?

Yes. It would be a bidding system. The winner pays one vote more than the next highest bid. The loser would keep their votes.

Two Orders could combine their votes and make a joint bid (they would agree who would take office if they won). In this way, two orders could block an order more powerful than either one of them alone.

Originally posted by Maniac
I don't really understand why bases would voluntarily want to build secret projects. With a few exceptions secret projects benefit the whole faction and not just the base that built it. So freerider behaviour and hoping someone else builds it would seem the standard rule to me. Shouldn't it be the opposite: bases being paid and subsidized big time by the Conclave to convince them to build a secret project, instead of bases bidding for who's allowed to build the project (with of course the exceptions of ME, SC, ToE...)?

I was responding to a post that would give bases (parishes) prestige for building a secret project. Obviously, if the Orders were competing to see which one could build the most "Monuments to the Glory of God," there would be an incentive to build them.

Maybe the way it works is that the parishes allied with an Order will subsidize the individual parish building the Monument (through supply crawlers), but the Order would compete for the right to build the Monuments.

You've proposed Orders and I think you've accepted the idea of private forums for Orders and secret goals (if you didn't propose it). It might make sense if each Order had its own secret projects that they wanted to build and that they might even get a score for building any secret project.

We're trying to create a cooperative/competitive game, which is different from ACDGI (cooperative only), ACDGII (only two human teams) and ACDGIII (no cooperative victories allowed, so eventually one human team won). In this game, some players can play cooperatively against the Planet while others compete among themselves.

Originally posted by fed1943
The Pontifex and the heads of Dicastery live in HQ.

Good point. This is 7av. of my proposed draft and "The Curia live at the Holy See" should be included in Maniac's constitution. The effect of this is to keep the Curia from participating in the regional activities.

Originally posted by fed1943
In a row of elections to Dicasteries,the loser(s)Order keeps his votes for the next election,the winner(s) "loses" same number of votes of strongest opposition.

Actually the winner loses one more vote than the strongest opposition. It is a bidding system.

Originally posted by mart7x5
Each turn is played with what frequency?
1 turn/2 days? other?
Has this been discussed here?

AFAIK, no.

Originally posted by mart7x5
I remember Hive SP demogame, that one ended after like 30 turns coz of lack of interest had a sessions that multiple turns were made. Am I correct? So several turns were made within a day. I disliked the idea. Kinda makes players not in control, no time for discussions about details.

I agree. Personally, I'd like a minimum of one turn per day.

Originally posted by mart7x5
In order to speed up first turns they might be played 1 turn/day. Though still a lot of important decisions that can effect later win or loss.

Is it really desirable to speed up the first turns? Since nothing is known about the surroundings and players are unfamiliar with SMAniaC and Conclave, there would be a lot of game playing discussion. I'd also expect a lot of role playing as players establish their identities and positions.

Originally posted by mart7x5
Instead of elections per month, I would see rather elections per specific number of turns. Initially that might be more turns, then less, like civ3 succesions games.

Turn base seems better as it would allow better planning.

[vyeh]

As Maniac appearantly consulted my document, I don't have many major comments. The only one is about how faction law is created. I'd like a different feel from the Peacekeeper's democracy, so I'm proposing that polls have to come from the Curia or the Bishops. In the early game, if the Clergy have elected the wrong Curia, they might have to wait until the next election cycle to change the law. As bases are constructed, it would probably be easier to find a sympathetic Bishop, although there might be issues if the faction law requires action from the Bishop. Near the end of the game, where anyone should be able to become a Bishop, it shouldn't pose a difficulty.

Other changes:
* elections by game year and not real life
* membership in religious order voluntary
* Curia live at Holy See
* provinces are governed by provincial law

Originally posted by Maniac
Church Structure

The Lord’s Conclave has three organizational levels:
1. The Clergy
2. The Episcopate
3. The Curia

1. The Clergy consists of all the people participating in the ACDG.
Any clergyman is allowed to post a poll on matters concerning the faction as a whole. The poll passes and its content becomes factional law if:
a) The YEA votes are bigger than the NAY votes
b) The number of YEA votes reaches a certain quorum. The quorum is x% of the votes in the last Order membership poll (cfr infra).
c) The poll has been open for x days

Note: Way too democratic for me. We need to distinguish between matters concerning the game, where this is appropriate (time per turn, forum etiquette, etc.) and the Conclave. For purposes of the Conclave, I think it makes more sense for the following change in 1. (points a, b and c remain the same):

1. The Clergy consists of all people who are participating in the ACDG. Clergymen are allowed to vote in polls proposed by the Curia or the Episcopate on factional law. The poll passes and its contents become factional law if:

Originally posted by Maniac
2. The Episcopate consists of all the Bishops. Bishops are base governors, and are allowed to give orders related to their bases. This means control of everything in their base screens, placement of workers, specialists, facility and unit construction, build queues, movement and activities of all units. But it is all subject to general restrictions imposed by factional law.

Add: By majority vote, the Episcopate can propose to the Clergy changes to factional law.

Originally posted by Maniac
3. The Curia is the administrative apparatus of the Conclave.
The head of the Curia and of the faction as a whole is the Pontifex Maximus (in short: Pontifex). S/he is the turnplayer, or may appoint someone to play the turn instead. The Curia is divided into several Dicasteries, each with a specific function. The head of a Dicastery is allowed to give orders to the turnplayer on his or her specific field.

Add: Any member of the Curia can propose to the Clergy changes to factional law.
Note: Should we specify that only the Pontifex Maximus with support of the Episcopate can excommunicate or declare heresy?

Originally posted by Maniac
The hierarchy of authority is as follows:

For factional matters:
1. Factional laws accepted by the Clergy
2. The competent Dicastery head
3. The Pontifex Maximus
4. The turnplayer

For Episcopal matters:
1. The bishop
2. The competent Dicastery head
3. The Pontifex Maximus
4. The turnplayer

Factional law accepted by the clergy and orders by the bishops have the highest authority. If no relevant law has been passed, no orders have been given, or the law or orders need to be worked out in further detail, the competent Dicastery head may give orders. If no orders from the Dicastery have been given, the Pontifex (or his/her appointee) may use his or her best judgement during turnplaying.


Elections

Each month two official polls are held in which all the members of the Clergy may vote. They are open for x days.

Change: "Every 10 M.Y. two official polls are held in which all members of the Clergy may vote. They are open for 4 days."

Note: mart7X5 raised this point.

Originally posted by Maniac
The first poll is the election of the Pontifex Maximus at the end of each month. Every clergyman may announce their candidacy for the Pontificate. A candidate must gain 50%+1 (as always, rounded down) of the votes to be elected. If no one gains that number of votes in the first round, a second round is held between the two candidates with the most votes.

Change: "each month" --> "every 10 M.Y."

Originally posted by Maniac
In the second poll the Clergy must announce or confirm their membership of a Religious Order. The weight each Order has based on the poll results is then used to determine who gains control over which dicastery.

Change: "membership" --> "support"
Note: makes membership in a Religious Order voluntary.

Originally posted by Maniac
Episcopal Structure

Each person can choose to live in a specific base in the faction. People who do not specify a base are assumed to live in our headquarters base.

ADD: The Curia live at the Holy See.

Originally posted by Maniac
Each base and its surroundings forms a diocese. Only people living in a certain base are allowed to elect the Bishop for the corresponding diocese. The only exception is the Holy See, our headquarters, which is always governed by a member of the Curia.

The citizens of bases can decide to unite their dioceses into one bigger Ecclesiastical province (in short: province), and rule it as if it were one diocese, with one bishop election, and factional law applying to the province as a whole. The citizens of a base can at a later date always decide to leave the province.

Change: "factional law" --> "provincial law"
Add: Provincial law may be proposed by any citizen in the province and adopted by majority vote.

Originally posted by Maniac
There can at most only be as many bases in a province as there are people living in that province.

If a base or the province containing the base has been founded for at least a month, and it has at least three citizens, those citizens can vote with a 50%+1 majority to forbid migration of certain people to their base or province.

Change: "a month" --> "10 M.Y."

***

Next steps:

1. Consensus on this Constitution in this thread
2. Maniac posts poll on this Constitution on new thread
3. With permission of moderators, posts on other AC forums about poll
4. If support, organize game - construct map, organize Religious Orders, elect initial Curia
5. Begin game

[vyeh]

It is a problem, when Maniac posts between the time I check the thread and I hit the reply button on a new post!

Originally posted by Maniac
(responding to fed 1943: "The Pontifex and the heads of Dicastery live in HQ."

How about also keeping this as something to be arranged b normal law? I assume this might vary depending on activity level.

Respectfully, I disagree. If the activity level is low, I'd have the Soul of God (one of the Curia officials) run any bases with no governors.

For the two tier system to work, I think it is important that no one can have a foot in both the Curia and the Episcopate simultaneously.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by vyeh
You've proposed Orders and I think you've accepted the idea of private forums for Orders and secret goals (if you didn't propose it).

One worry about private fora for Orders. If Orders will more or less follow the example of political parties in ACDG1, Orders will be created, be disbanded, merged etc during the game. I don't think MarkG would be willing to create a new forum whenever someone decides to form a new Order. So if Orders have their own forum, I think it would be better to have them at a different forum. Eventis perhaps.

Originally posted by vyeh
As Maniac appearantly consulted my document, I don't have many major comments. The only one is about how faction law is created. I'd like a different feel from the Peacekeeper's democracy, so I'm proposing that polls have to come from the Curia or the Bishops.

In the first ACDG1 official polls could only be posted by the Directors (the government) in fact, like you're now proposing. My feeling kinda is it was too legalist in the end, with all kinds of rules how to correctly post a poll. Personally I'd rather prefer things to be more informal.

Re the comment of it being too democratic. We'll probably be all roleplaying as influential members within the Clergy. So if a poll is posted, it shouldn't be seen as some democratic referendum, but rather a clergyman having some informal discussion with his colleagues. You can roleplay an undemocratic or elitist faction while still trying to involve as many people as possible in decision-making. And IMO the more participation in a ACDG, the better of course.

Anyway, I hope some more people will comment on this issue.

Add: By majority vote, the Episcopate can propose to the Clergy changes to factional law.

Would those proposed changes be binding?
In case a system is used in which all Clergymen can post polls, wouldn't this be redundant though? All bishops are also members of the Clergy after all. In case a system of only the Curia being able to post polls, this would be useful of course.

Change: "each month" --> "every 10 M.Y."

Just a question. Assuming for example a turn every two days, this would mean elections every 20 days. Is it intentional to have elections so often?

Change: "membership" --> "support"
Note: makes membership in a Religious Order voluntary.

In this poll there should of course be an "Order of the Banana" option for people who aren't member of an Order, but still wish to announce they're active. Important to determine the quotum for when a poll is binding.

Change: "factional law" --> "provincial law"
Add: Provincial law may be proposed by any citizen in the province and adopted by majority vote.

With

factional law applying to the province as a whole

I meant that if for example there is a factional tax of 33%, it should be possible to let only one base in the province produce for the Conclave to pay the tax, while all the other bases produce what they want.

What would provincial law be though for example? I assume only a couple people would live in each province, meaning probably most stuff would be decided informally by consensus without any formal polling necessary.

For the two tier system to work, I think it is important that no one can have a foot in both the Curia and the Episcopate simultaneously.

I agree it shouldn't be possible for one person to combine a Curia job with a bishop-governor job, but shouldn't it possible to live in a base, but let someone else govern that base?
Otherwise, due to these rules:

There can at most only be as many bases in a province as there are people living in that province.
If a base or the province containing the base has been founded for at least a month, and it has at least three citizens, those citizens can vote with a 50%+1 majority to forbid migration of certain people to their base or province.

taking up a Curia job might mean unwanted people from another Order can suddenly migrate to your region, and that Orders which choose not to join the Curia control much more bases than what should be expected according to their membership weight. Or is this intentional?

[fed1943]

Great.Just three points:
I still think better Pontifex and H.Dicastries live HQ(if no other reason,to make clear they belong to the Conclave and not to an Order).
Perhaps,elections every 15 M.Y.
Since the goal private fora for Orders would be Holy Grail subjects,PM or emails can probably handle it.
Best regards,

[vyeh]

See the end of this post for the bottom line. I have only two major issues with Maniac: Official polls and where the Curia live.

I'm willing to accept a supermajority provision for polls proposed by the Clergy. This would give some protection to minority Orders.

I think members of the Curia should give up their stake in the bases outside HQ in exchange for their position.

Now, my point by point responses to the last two posts.

Originally posted by Maniac
One worry about private fora for Orders. If Orders will more or less follow the example of political parties in ACDG1, Orders will be created, be disbanded, merged etc during the game. I don't think MarkG would be willing to create a new forum whenever someone decides to form a new Order. So if Orders have their own forum, I think it would be better to have them at a different forum. Eventis perhaps.

Fluidity among Orders would make CMN-assigned secret goals more difficult to implement. This is 6a. in my draft. I would prefer fluidity, but I think it is only fair to point out that this would probably eliminate the idea of secret goals.

The other implication of fluidity is on role playing. I think of religious Orders being something that lasts a long time. Founding an Order is a big deal. While Orders die out, they don't merge. It would be interesting for role playing purposes if there were Orders initially set up and back stories were created by (1) the initial participants and (2) the secret goals assigned by the CMN.

I think there may be enough fluidity with people choosing to join Orders or leave Orders and certainly in the support Orders get during each election from Clergy who don't belong to Orders.

And with Orders being created, disbanded and merged, I think there would be the loss of the idea of teams. It really would be individuals jockeying for position.

This is a point we really should think about before the game starts.

Originally posted by Maniac
In the first ACDG1 official polls could only be posted by the Directors (the government) in fact, like you're now proposing. My feeling kinda is it was too legalist in the end, with all kinds of rules how to correctly post a poll. Personally I'd rather prefer things to be more informal.

I'm proposing that official polls could be posted both by the members of the Curia (the Directors) and by a majority of the Episcopate.

We don't need the rules on how to post polls. What is important is that to be factional law, the poll must originate from a member of the Curia or from a majority of the Episcopate and a majority of the Clergy must pass it.

Originally posted by Maniac
Re the comment of it being too democratic. We'll probably be all roleplaying as influential members within the Clergy. So if a poll is posted, it shouldn't be seen as some democratic referendum, but rather a clergyman having some informal discussion with his colleagues. You can roleplay an undemocratic or elitist faction while still trying to involve as many people as possible in decision-making. And IMO the more participation in a ACDG, the better of course.

I'm not commenting on anyone posting an INFORMAL poll, only how a poll becomes FACTIONAL LAW binding on the Curia and the Episcopate. While the Curia and Episcopate would probably listen to an INFORMAL poll, they could do something contrary if the situation warranted. If the Clergy didn't like what they did, they could be voted out during the next election.

Elections would count a lot more if those elected had the power to make decisions.

People could get involved in decision making at the Episcopate level or a Dicastery could be structured where the head of the Dicastery was bound by a mojority vote of the members of that Dicastery (who would not live at HQ).

For the similar reasons to allowing only residents of a region to vote for regional governor, I'm reluctant to allow a majority a voice in every decision. In such a case, LESS people are involved in the decision-making, since a minority could be FROZEN out permanently.

Under the vote allocating system for the Dicasteries, a minority Order could acquire a Dicastery (since the majority would have to spend their votes on the Dicasteries they want). Having a Dicastery or a Base wouldn't lead to much participation if the majority could easily impose their will through a quick poll. (It is one thing to have to obey a factional law like "Do not build boreholes", but it is another to have to obey ones like "During M.Y. 2125, move the former to <11, 20>".)

The issue really seems to be should a majority of players be involved in all decision making or is the decision making divided up so every player gets a portion. I think the latter results in more involvement since the minority get involved.

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, I hope some more people will comment on this issue.

Seconded with fervor!

Originally posted by Maniac
Would those proposed changes be binding?
In case a system is used in which all Clergymen can post polls, wouldn't this be redundant though? All bishops are also members of the Clergy after all. In case a system of only the Curia being able to post polls, this would be useful of course.

The latter is the case. Both the Curia and the majority of the Episcopate can propose changes in factional law (an official poll). The Clergy must adopt it.

Originally posted by Maniac
Just a question. Assuming for example a turn every two days, this would mean elections every 20 days. Is it intentional to have elections so often?

10 M.Y. was arbitrary. 15 M.Y. would be fine.

Originally posted by Maniac
I meant that if for example there is a factional tax of 33%, it should be possible to let only one base in the province produce for the Conclave to pay the tax, while all the other bases produce what they want.

What would provincial law be though for example? I assume only a couple people would live in each province, meaning probably most stuff would be decided informally by consensus without any formal polling necessary.

I misunderstood your intent. I withdraw the change of "factional law" --> "provincial law".

I was thinking of something like "No boreholes will be built in Arcadia."

Originally posted by Maniac
I agree it shouldn't be possible for one person to combine a Curia job with a bishop-governor job, but shouldn't it possible to live in a base, but let someone else govern that base?

From a role playing perspective, no.

Originally posted by Maniac
Otherwise, due to these rules:

taking up a Curia job might mean unwanted people from another Order can suddenly migrate to your region, and that Orders which choose not to join the Curia control much more bases than what should be expected according to their membership weight. Or is this intentional?

I like the results. An Order which controlled the Curia would have less influence among the Episcopates than Orders which had no Curia member. I think it furthers the idea of having a two-tier structure.

Originally posted by fed1943
Great.Just three points:
I still think better Pontifex and H.Dicastries live HQ(if no other reason,to make clear they belong to the Conclave and not to an Order).

They don't belong to a base, but they could still be members of an Order.

Originally posted by fed1943
Perhaps,elections every 15 M.Y.

Fine.

Originally posted by fed1943
Since the goal private fora for Orders would be Holy Grail subjects,PM or emails can probably handle it.
Best regards,

Let's decide whether we're having secret goals or not. If no secret goals, then we don't need private fora. Religious Orders are only for purposes of electing Curia. If there are goals other than election, there should be private fora for planning. PM and emails are too unwieldy.

I can go either way, but I'd like to revisit secret goals and get a consensus. The idea of secret goals was to spice up the game. This may not be necessary since the provinces could be competing to see which one builds the most secret projects and the Orders could be competing to see who gets the most votes or the best Dicasteries.

Bottom line:
1. Private fora/permanent Orders: Need to nail this down before game start; no preference.
2. Official polls: Could accept factional law by polls proposed by Clergy if supermajority (twice as many YEA's than NAY's). Then majority vote elects Pontifex. Bidding by Orders based on the number of votes they receive buys Dicasteries. Two-thirds vote creates factional law.
3. M.Y.'s between elections. The object is to give as many people a chance to participate; no preference.
4. Provincial law: Withdrawn.
5. Pontifex and Curia living at HQ: Might be a bummer for someone with ambitions of being a Pontifex (won't mention names), who has to choose between being Pontifex and seeing a hostile takeover of his beloved province, but it would be fun for the loser of the pontifical election to engineer the hostile takeover and use the province to challenge the Pontifex! Think it creates more meaningful positions.

[Kataphraktoi]

too....much.....text....

[Alpha-fish]

Interesting...

[GeoModder]

Nah, this isn't 'nigma.

[Alpha-fish]

Can you be a little more detailed? Not so much the first part by the way...

[Kataphraktoi]

'nigma

dont look at me like that, atleast he is funny


Lol.

[Chaos Theory]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

[binTravkin]

Guys, Maniac, vyeh.
my 2 cents.

1.Develop the system. Once you're satisfied, drop 50% of rules and regulations in it. Then it will be perfect. It's a bit too complicated now, and as you said yourself, we must make it 'KISS' for new people to no get confused and leave.

2.Point about 'parishes - dioceses' versus 'parishes - orders'.
I would strongly argue against introducing >2 vertical levels of hierarchy. Instead expand them horizontally. The difference between Order and Diocese is that Order is not a part of hierarchy, hierarchy is parish - first bishop, Order merely marks the belonging of that or other base to said party.
Order could also have to do with base priorities, e.g. Order of Sword would be very willing to build military units and related, Order of Heaven (or Happiness or People or whatever its called) would be aiming for population growth, ensuring people's satisfaction and probably triggering GA (which would be a high achievement).

In fact, we could make competition - which Order has become the strongest throughout the game (however, the fairness of their start shouldn't be going into extremes to balance, if First Bishop decides that Order Of Sword is gonna have 1st base founded after HQ, so be it, although he should look that he distributes them evenly afterwards).
That would make factions inside faction which is quite realistic and would on a global scale disrupt the factions performance a little as to portray how nations really work (I hope noone's thinking it's the SMACX way of total control).

[vishniac]

Just coming to let you know I'll be in.

And...yes: develop it, then write a simplified version, then make a cartoon for me!

I'll come again when we'll know the date of start.

(Bloody Hell: must change my sig now! )