1893 Session - Vice President's Report.

[cavebear]

Perhaps the problem is that polls have become routine and simplistic, and that Ministers are not providing as much useful information as they could.

I have noticed that even I do not have as much interest in the polls lately. They used to be better. Proposed military campaigns were presented graphically with considerable detail, trade routes were detailed turn by turn to deliver, etc.

Partly, that's because as the situation became more advanced, it became difficult to post polls that applied to all areas, and as an A/C SS game, there were not many details to discuss; the path to the SS does not have many options.

I think that in a new militarily-oriented game, there will be many more things encouraging widespread discussion.

In addition, perhaps we need to become more stingent about "the same faces" running for office. We fell into that situation because too few new people were willing to announce for positions. But maybe instead of allowing multiple terms to experienced Ministers, we should just adopt a "2 terms and 1 out rule" keeping vacancies open for a week to recruit new Ministers.

I was surprised that, having gotten a group of players with Ministerial experience (10-15?) in the past 2 games, there are not routinely-contested elections each month. I have tossed my hat into the ring a couple of times when I preferred to take a month off, just to see some competition for jobs and to generate a little excitement.

And if there are people who want the details of the game so much, why are they not interesting in holding office in order to get them? It seems like a reasonable exchange to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

now I know why you've been spamming.

You could rephrase that to arguing with Trip.

I may win my bet afterall.

Back on topic. MWIA, you have been offered a position as minister of foreign affairs, and have chosen not to take this position for whatever reason.

One of the reasons we get the same old faces is that no one new steps up.

I will be stepping down at the end of this session, as I respect the limits of 3 terms and out specified by earlier precedent.

[cavebear]

And in support of that idea, I will not be running for office at the start of the next game.

Let the next one start with some new leaders stepping up.

[atawa]

I'll run for office again in the new game

[H Tower]

The three terms only limit gets thrown out the window if there are not enough candidates.

[cavebear]

But maybe that's where the error is. Maybe the solution is to leave the vacancies and go hunting for volunteers instead of just accepting the regular players who are comfortable with being Minister.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Back on topic. MWIA, you have been offered a position as minister of foreign affairs, and have chosen not to take this position for whatever reason.

Well we just have to agree to disagree here on something. You, and as it seems most others who post here, believe that getting the position of Minister is enough to entitle you to the save, whereas I see getting the save as the stimulus I need for wanting to become a Minister, not the prize for doing so.

I long to be involved again, and as it is I cannot see what is happening beyond the most simple of facts. The reports posted no doubt would be highly informative given the backdrop of information available in the save, but as it is I feel it is like I am reading the lcoal news of a small foreign town - what connects me to it all? I would love to know what is happening so I can help out, rather than asking to help out without knowing if I was able to do the task. You don't tend to apply for a job if you don't know what you are gettting into, and that is my point. Until I know more about things here (through either massive info-dump that I am sure no-one has the time nor patience to do or through having the save) I don't know what I would be committing to, and that is never a good thing.

One of the reasons we get the same old faces is that no one new steps up.

I can't claim to be a majority. In fact I am probably a minority of one here. BUT I am saying that if I knew what to expect, then I would help wherever I could. Maybe I would feel I couldn't do FAM, but maybe I would see that I could do another of the jobs missing in the game at the moment or for next term. In essence, I am almost promising that I will run for something if I knew what I was able to successfully do. Thus I am a potential Ministerial volunteer, but don't sign me up 'till I get the info.

I will be stepping down at the end of this session, as I respect the limits of 3 terms and out specified by earlier precedent.

It is good to see that the will to get more people involved is still strong. Now just push that will a little further and you've got at least one more volunteer....

[Zedd]

WOW discussions are much heated over this save file issue. It's been a while since i came arround and I wanted to check in, BAM debate time

Well first off, Looking at the past few posts by the pres/VP it looks as if playing a defensive position while rushing our space ship would be wise. Fortify some key areas like coastal cities and front lines, then conduct some "raids" to weaken the enemy's front line position. We would need a few spies to keep tabs on things for us and to sneek troops thru enemy ranks but it would trow off the AI from a direct attack to a "*** for tat" conflict on our fortified position, and I think we have the upper hand there.

Second (and off topic) the reason i took a long time to become a citizen, much less become a minister (city planner ) was the complexity of the level of play. We newby's have trouble following the tactics and logic of you more advanced players and when we see you with a plan that streatches over several terms of office we don't want to screw up. So maybe we would get more members if we HAD the term limits but also liimited the "long term planning" to a single election term.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Zedd,

Don't worry about being a newbie. IMO, playing a complex game and seeing what better players do, is the best way to learn. That's the philosophy behind most of the succession games in Civ2-General, and I would say it should apply to democracy games as well.

Besides... there is not very much potential to 'mess up' a democracy game. There are 3 or 4 other ministers and a president. Making a bad call on caravan strategy or city improvements is not fatal.

And another 'besides'... it's expected that people will take different approaches to the game. I am not nearly as interested in micromanagement as some. SCG and I took very different approaches to trade... but it's still going to work out in the end.