Tweet
Googlie
Reply to : Impaler
Well, that was one of the early attrractions for me to throw my lot in with Morgan instead of the Angels, my first choice.
I liked the thought that I could manage, say, Morgan Terraforming Inc - building first, a defensive unit (from a civiliam muster) then a former or two, (and perhaps "leasing "the rights to another base to build a former while I built my Rec Commons and Rec tanks). Then I'd grow a Colony Pod and shuffle to the coast and build Morgan AquaFormers Inc, and do the same for the ocean. I'd be responsib;le for generating the cash to upgrade to fungiformers, then superfungiformers, armor them as needed, and trance too, if applicable. Then when the new super model (the rover chassis foremer) appeared, I'd churn them out. My base would be mineral rich, perhaps with a genejack factory, but certainly a borehole or two until the advent of clean formers.
Likewise someone would control Morgan Transport, and be responsible in a similar way for producing transports and crawlers/trawlers - maybe build probe cruisers to spec for the Government (and with a naval yard, perhaps the odd Aegis Cruiser or two)
Morgan Aerospace likewise would be the primary producer of the AirForce (perhaps with a Punishment Sphere for the Attack Noodles and missiles)
Morgan Armaments might have a skunkworks, and be responsibele for prototyping new armor and weapons.
Morgan Energy Inc might be the base that builds the solar farm (energy park) with, of course, an awful lot of help from Morgan Terraforming 9for the formers) and Morgan transpport (for the crawlers)
I saw it as giving a rich component to what is really an otherwise pretty dull game for 7 days of the 9 while the turn circulates - I foresee meetings between base managers haggling out what they need and when, reports to the CEO and Executive Committee, and to the Board as necessary.
In short, a totally different way to run the faction geared to the Corporate model instead of the political model
I'd see us having, maybe, 20 bases by 2175, enough for everyone to have a base to manage if they wanted.
It'd be fun for those that want to manage individual bases (and I sense only a handful would) but my idea of the first five bases being "core bases" was to ensure that faction-wide stuff did get done - the early SP's, the creation of a Super science City, etc
All, of course, would be produced in the context of the Strategic Plan (see my post in the Rollcall section)
But the point is, I wouldn't need overly concern myself with the research aspect, unless the Strategic Plan called for research centers and Fusion Labs in every base, in which case I'd then build them as soon as feasible and affordable.
So it wouldn't pit base vs. base, or result in a horribly inefficient faction (but the potential is there for it to be inefficient) provided the early spade work was done re: an initial strategic plan updated periodically from the Board and a vibrant, evolving tactical ploan enunciated by the CEO and the executive
To me is sounds like a lot of fun (as does the Sparta model, which is taking this concept even further and identifying specific units as being member controlled)
Googlie
Chaunk
How about then, we introduce votes of no confidence for base owners? Then if the board sees someone isn't doing whats best for the faction, then they can be potentially voted off, opt to change their build orders or successfully defend their build orders (or lack of them).
I think the CEO should be allowed some executive rights though, such as the right to rush builds where necessary, or deny rushes in other places. Also the right to change workers (Best use of resources, stopping riots etc). In extreme cases change builds altogether, but that should be seen as the last resort I feel.
arginine
I would like to see this faction as a bunch of 'companies' bound together as a single faction to make money. I would see units, cities, and land (I don't think this is feasible) being owned and run by individuals, and most business be contracts between individuals.
If this were taken to an extreme. A powerful individual, could decide that a nice, weakly defended gaian base would be nice to own, so he/she buys some military units from fellow morganites and conquer that base for themself. The conqueror now owns a new base.
There would be the government, 'morgan corp', which would own a few common bases, have the power to levy taxes (to be limited hopefully), and give bounties for various actions (exploration, probing techs, killing units, etc). Note that for us, defense is an EXPENSE, and as businesspeople, we try to avoid expenses. I wonder if we will be able to handle a determined attack without the extreme of the government seizing property.
As for how much influence each person has in policy making, some people will be more SKILLED (myself being among the lesser skilled) and involved than others. This would already be determined in private ownership somewhat. If more distinction is needed, we could have a group that decides certain (not all policy issues) based on:
Policy determined by how much each person owns, and votes will be proportional to that.
Policy determined by voting shares of 'voting stock'
Policy determined by 'campaign contributions' to the Morgan corp's treasury, just like in some industrialized nations.
This will be a different group from the one businessman - one vote board of directors.
I haven't typed in a while, so my grammar is bad.
Googlie
OK - let's try a little "kite flying":
MorganCorp has 2 classes of shares:
* Class "A" Preferred, voting shares, 1 to every shareholder (so 17 members in the team, 17 Class "A" Shares
* Class "B" shares - unlimited and non-voting (the mini-game shares). Every member starts with 100 "B" shares and those not wanting to play the minigame can gift some or all to other players, or just gift them to the Holding Company, MorganCorp
As a new member joins he or she is given 1 Class "A" share and offered the opportunity to play the minigame in which case 100 "B" shares are also given
Policy is determined by the "A" Shareholders, who, acting as a Board, set the strategy etc and appoint/remove the CEO. It is also empowered to remove a Base Manager who acts in a fashion contrary to Strategy or detrimental to MorganCorp as a whole
Game tactics and conduct is performed by the CEO in conjunction with Department Heads
Base management can be either by the CEO/Departmment Heads (the Core bases and any bases not managed by a Player) or by Base Managers - who partner with department Heads re builds, terraforming and unit movement, but who retain the final say in what that base does. (Base Managers act at the Board's pleasure)
This compromise would let those of us who want to try base management to do so, while in the context of overall faction strategy and direction. And misdemeanours can be punished by the Board taking action (remembering that the manager is also a Board member so has a voice in defense)
The actual valuation to be placed on MorganCorp, and on any individual base, can be worked out and agreed upon eventually, but meantime we need resolution as to how "democratic" or "corporate" our faction is to be
Googlie
Chaunk
Yep this I like. I think theres a good balance between making sure we have good gameplay, whilst also letting every player have fun with their base. Did someone say Morgan NerveGas ?
Impaler
Well if their is such strong support for Base ownership then lets by all means go for it. Infact we may want to go all out.
How about if the Board of Directors acts mearly to formulate the plans for bases but base owners make all the orders, then the CEO takes the Base owners plans and the Board of Directors plans into consideration and then has Cart-blanch to do as he pleases (but the Vote of no confidance will bite him if he over-rules too many base owners too often).
All bases would be owned by Morgan Industries initialy, they would be sold off in small portions as the game goes on (so everyone can own a bit without having to wait till the 12th base).
The 2 types of stock also sounds like a nice idea, but call the single share that everyone gets the "golden" share. The others are "standard" stocks. Thus we can use these for 2 differnent kinds of voting a "golden sharehold vote" (used for vote of no confidence) and "standard shareholder vote" used for other matters (possibly all other matters).
-- Fear is the Mind Killer
Chaunk
I think if we do go with base ownership (Which I hope we do btw), then the final say should indeed be with the CEO as you say impaler. I don't think the base owners should be in ultimate power though. I know, for example, that what I want to produce at a base might be a good choice, but it almost certainly won't be the best choice. Thats because its not taken in a large enough context, that of the entire faction.
For example, lets say I own Morgan NerveGas. It's the sixth base that we've made, and is currently building a CP (20/27). It's just gone to size 2, and has started to riot because I didn't notice it needed a doctor last turn. I've decided that my build order should to change the CP to RecCommons so as to prevent the need for micromanagement again, and no more drone riots. Moreover, I've asked the CEO to rush this, for 42 ec.
While that might seem like a good option for the base - no more drone riots til size 2or3 - a much better choice for the faction is to set a doctor, and rush the CP next turn. But if every base askes for a RC, then the CEO is going to need to override all those orders, which seems like madness.
To my mind, it's a much better option if the first vote of no confidence is likely to fall to base owner than the CEO. That takes some pressure of the CEO - particullarly if they have carte blanche, are we sure we want to give that much power to one man? - and also makes sure the base owners try and think faction first rather than base first. There should be some reward for a base that the CEO never disagrees with the build orders on, perhaps more shares or something, as that should be a good indication of a faction first base.
The CEO of course is also open to a vote of no confidence, but that vote should be started by the board in general, not by the individual base owner. If we're giving a large amount of power to the CEO (Which it sounds like we will be, whether they have carte blanche or not) then we should also give them a measure of job security. There needs to be a groundswell of opinion against the CEO before a vote of no confindence is considered.
Whoha
This situation parallels team melee in starcraft, I suggest building the core of bases, and securing defense before giving anyone a city. It can be highly efficient or a hideous disaster.
Impaler
I was just reading some informatin on a Economic Mini game conducted in a Cv 3 Democracy game.
A few key ideas they had were the ownership of land tiles and the creation of a "market maker" who in essence represents the Company itself. Also new players recived a low Interest loan from the market maker upon entering the game and after a period they need to start paying it back. For our puposes Googlie would be the market maker as he has volunteered to run and administer the mini game, he would sell Morgacorp stock, bases and any other valuables that belong to Morgan Industries to individual investors and also buy up any assets that people want to sell him (ofcorse he will not offer much). Much like being the Banker in a game of Monopoly. To compensate he could ofcorse recive pay or stock options.
Reply to : Impaler
I am also starting to lean away from the idea of having base owners control their bases individualy. Firstly with are ever growing member base it would take a LONG time for everyone to get a base (asuming everyone wanted one, but thats probly not the case). And considering the high level of inter-dependency between what each base is producing (if I build this here then it would be best for that to be built their) it will result in either A - all the owners simply bowing to the agreed upon Plans from the HomeLand/Manufacturing department. B - The CEO forcibly overiding counter productive base build orders. C - Everything being done in a hap hazard, uncordinated mannor. None of these sound that great to me, so I would propose that the inter-morgan-stock-game NOT give players expressed power to run the bases they own. Dose anyone else still want to see it done that way?
I liked the thought that I could manage, say, Morgan Terraforming Inc - building first, a defensive unit (from a civiliam muster) then a former or two, (and perhaps "leasing "the rights to another base to build a former while I built my Rec Commons and Rec tanks). Then I'd grow a Colony Pod and shuffle to the coast and build Morgan AquaFormers Inc, and do the same for the ocean. I'd be responsib;le for generating the cash to upgrade to fungiformers, then superfungiformers, armor them as needed, and trance too, if applicable. Then when the new super model (the rover chassis foremer) appeared, I'd churn them out. My base would be mineral rich, perhaps with a genejack factory, but certainly a borehole or two until the advent of clean formers.
Likewise someone would control Morgan Transport, and be responsible in a similar way for producing transports and crawlers/trawlers - maybe build probe cruisers to spec for the Government (and with a naval yard, perhaps the odd Aegis Cruiser or two)
Morgan Aerospace likewise would be the primary producer of the AirForce (perhaps with a Punishment Sphere for the Attack Noodles and missiles)
Morgan Armaments might have a skunkworks, and be responsibele for prototyping new armor and weapons.
Morgan Energy Inc might be the base that builds the solar farm (energy park) with, of course, an awful lot of help from Morgan Terraforming 9for the formers) and Morgan transpport (for the crawlers)
I saw it as giving a rich component to what is really an otherwise pretty dull game for 7 days of the 9 while the turn circulates - I foresee meetings between base managers haggling out what they need and when, reports to the CEO and Executive Committee, and to the Board as necessary.
In short, a totally different way to run the faction geared to the Corporate model instead of the political model
I'd see us having, maybe, 20 bases by 2175, enough for everyone to have a base to manage if they wanted.
It'd be fun for those that want to manage individual bases (and I sense only a handful would) but my idea of the first five bases being "core bases" was to ensure that faction-wide stuff did get done - the early SP's, the creation of a Super science City, etc
All, of course, would be produced in the context of the Strategic Plan (see my post in the Rollcall section)
But the point is, I wouldn't need overly concern myself with the research aspect, unless the Strategic Plan called for research centers and Fusion Labs in every base, in which case I'd then build them as soon as feasible and affordable.
So it wouldn't pit base vs. base, or result in a horribly inefficient faction (but the potential is there for it to be inefficient) provided the early spade work was done re: an initial strategic plan updated periodically from the Board and a vibrant, evolving tactical ploan enunciated by the CEO and the executive
To me is sounds like a lot of fun (as does the Sparta model, which is taking this concept even further and identifying specific units as being member controlled)
Googlie
Chaunk
How about then, we introduce votes of no confidence for base owners? Then if the board sees someone isn't doing whats best for the faction, then they can be potentially voted off, opt to change their build orders or successfully defend their build orders (or lack of them).
I think the CEO should be allowed some executive rights though, such as the right to rush builds where necessary, or deny rushes in other places. Also the right to change workers (Best use of resources, stopping riots etc). In extreme cases change builds altogether, but that should be seen as the last resort I feel.
arginine
I would like to see this faction as a bunch of 'companies' bound together as a single faction to make money. I would see units, cities, and land (I don't think this is feasible) being owned and run by individuals, and most business be contracts between individuals.
If this were taken to an extreme. A powerful individual, could decide that a nice, weakly defended gaian base would be nice to own, so he/she buys some military units from fellow morganites and conquer that base for themself. The conqueror now owns a new base.
There would be the government, 'morgan corp', which would own a few common bases, have the power to levy taxes (to be limited hopefully), and give bounties for various actions (exploration, probing techs, killing units, etc). Note that for us, defense is an EXPENSE, and as businesspeople, we try to avoid expenses. I wonder if we will be able to handle a determined attack without the extreme of the government seizing property.
As for how much influence each person has in policy making, some people will be more SKILLED (myself being among the lesser skilled) and involved than others. This would already be determined in private ownership somewhat. If more distinction is needed, we could have a group that decides certain (not all policy issues) based on:
Policy determined by how much each person owns, and votes will be proportional to that.
Policy determined by voting shares of 'voting stock'
Policy determined by 'campaign contributions' to the Morgan corp's treasury, just like in some industrialized nations.
This will be a different group from the one businessman - one vote board of directors.
I haven't typed in a while, so my grammar is bad.
Googlie
OK - let's try a little "kite flying":
MorganCorp has 2 classes of shares:
* Class "A" Preferred, voting shares, 1 to every shareholder (so 17 members in the team, 17 Class "A" Shares
* Class "B" shares - unlimited and non-voting (the mini-game shares). Every member starts with 100 "B" shares and those not wanting to play the minigame can gift some or all to other players, or just gift them to the Holding Company, MorganCorp
As a new member joins he or she is given 1 Class "A" share and offered the opportunity to play the minigame in which case 100 "B" shares are also given
Policy is determined by the "A" Shareholders, who, acting as a Board, set the strategy etc and appoint/remove the CEO. It is also empowered to remove a Base Manager who acts in a fashion contrary to Strategy or detrimental to MorganCorp as a whole
Game tactics and conduct is performed by the CEO in conjunction with Department Heads
Base management can be either by the CEO/Departmment Heads (the Core bases and any bases not managed by a Player) or by Base Managers - who partner with department Heads re builds, terraforming and unit movement, but who retain the final say in what that base does. (Base Managers act at the Board's pleasure)
This compromise would let those of us who want to try base management to do so, while in the context of overall faction strategy and direction. And misdemeanours can be punished by the Board taking action (remembering that the manager is also a Board member so has a voice in defense)
The actual valuation to be placed on MorganCorp, and on any individual base, can be worked out and agreed upon eventually, but meantime we need resolution as to how "democratic" or "corporate" our faction is to be
Googlie
Chaunk
Yep this I like. I think theres a good balance between making sure we have good gameplay, whilst also letting every player have fun with their base. Did someone say Morgan NerveGas ?
Impaler
Well if their is such strong support for Base ownership then lets by all means go for it. Infact we may want to go all out.
How about if the Board of Directors acts mearly to formulate the plans for bases but base owners make all the orders, then the CEO takes the Base owners plans and the Board of Directors plans into consideration and then has Cart-blanch to do as he pleases (but the Vote of no confidance will bite him if he over-rules too many base owners too often).
All bases would be owned by Morgan Industries initialy, they would be sold off in small portions as the game goes on (so everyone can own a bit without having to wait till the 12th base).
The 2 types of stock also sounds like a nice idea, but call the single share that everyone gets the "golden" share. The others are "standard" stocks. Thus we can use these for 2 differnent kinds of voting a "golden sharehold vote" (used for vote of no confidence) and "standard shareholder vote" used for other matters (possibly all other matters).
-- Fear is the Mind Killer
Chaunk
I think if we do go with base ownership (Which I hope we do btw), then the final say should indeed be with the CEO as you say impaler. I don't think the base owners should be in ultimate power though. I know, for example, that what I want to produce at a base might be a good choice, but it almost certainly won't be the best choice. Thats because its not taken in a large enough context, that of the entire faction.
For example, lets say I own Morgan NerveGas. It's the sixth base that we've made, and is currently building a CP (20/27). It's just gone to size 2, and has started to riot because I didn't notice it needed a doctor last turn. I've decided that my build order should to change the CP to RecCommons so as to prevent the need for micromanagement again, and no more drone riots. Moreover, I've asked the CEO to rush this, for 42 ec.
While that might seem like a good option for the base - no more drone riots til size 2or3 - a much better choice for the faction is to set a doctor, and rush the CP next turn. But if every base askes for a RC, then the CEO is going to need to override all those orders, which seems like madness.
To my mind, it's a much better option if the first vote of no confidence is likely to fall to base owner than the CEO. That takes some pressure of the CEO - particullarly if they have carte blanche, are we sure we want to give that much power to one man? - and also makes sure the base owners try and think faction first rather than base first. There should be some reward for a base that the CEO never disagrees with the build orders on, perhaps more shares or something, as that should be a good indication of a faction first base.
The CEO of course is also open to a vote of no confidence, but that vote should be started by the board in general, not by the individual base owner. If we're giving a large amount of power to the CEO (Which it sounds like we will be, whether they have carte blanche or not) then we should also give them a measure of job security. There needs to be a groundswell of opinion against the CEO before a vote of no confindence is considered.
Whoha
This situation parallels team melee in starcraft, I suggest building the core of bases, and securing defense before giving anyone a city. It can be highly efficient or a hideous disaster.
Impaler
I was just reading some informatin on a Economic Mini game conducted in a Cv 3 Democracy game.
A few key ideas they had were the ownership of land tiles and the creation of a "market maker" who in essence represents the Company itself. Also new players recived a low Interest loan from the market maker upon entering the game and after a period they need to start paying it back. For our puposes Googlie would be the market maker as he has volunteered to run and administer the mini game, he would sell Morgacorp stock, bases and any other valuables that belong to Morgan Industries to individual investors and also buy up any assets that people want to sell him (ofcorse he will not offer much). Much like being the Banker in a game of Monopoly. To compensate he could ofcorse recive pay or stock options.