Military Commanders

[Kuciwalker]

These aren't really important, it's that they could really ease the strain on the Minister of War and the President, in addition to being fun.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes... in a few months.

And another thing. Is there anything the ministers actually decide? If I want to pick my nose while playing, should I start a poll?

[Kuciwalker]

For certain things, such as unit movement, worker allocation, pop allocation, what EXACTLY to offer and/or accept during negotiations, etc., it isn't feasible to post a poll on them, so the minister of that particular subject puts up a discussion thread, and then advises the President on what exactly to do. This gives these ministers (science isn't one of them, as what to research is easily determined through polls) actual policy-making capacity, meaning that they are elected for their policy ideas, while the others are judged on how good their polls are etc.

[atawa]

Polls in gameplay are only meant to advise the president and his ministers, although a minister doesnt HAVE to follow them, he might get a nasty surprise when reelection time comes around if he doesnt

[Kuciwalker]

If you don't follow polls, we'll impeach you.

[Inverse Icarus]

i see no need for this early on. as the game progresses, yes this could be useful AND fun

you could even divide up into specific teams, for example "imperialistic defense", "mainland defense",etc

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I was thinking of theater commanders, not role commanders. Actually, we could even use this in the early game. If we are in a war (if?) we appoint someone, quite possibly the runner-up for defense minister, to concentrate on the war only while the Minister of War would just be a sort of an overall leader-thingy-whatsis. We could model it after the US system: the Minister of War (Secretary of Defense) is a civilian who pushes for more funding and such while the actual flag officers handle military planning.

[Kuciwalker]

Gramphos or whoever is running this (ANARCHY), are the results of this poll official, i.e. are we actually going to implement Military Commanders?

[Moral Hazard]

I'm not running this but I consider all expired polls official. But this poll is rather vague on alot of points. So all it would do is suggest that regional commanders be set up when the time comes.

Edit: If a poll does not expire or the starter doesn't specify a time when the votes would be taken. It never becomes official and is nothing more than an opinion gathering mechanism

[civman2000]

just like governors...maybe later, for now it will clutter stuff up and be pointless, I vote no; if we seem to ahve a need later poll again.

[Kuciwalker]

This could be, even more than an actual Game fuction, a fun role-playing thing, like the Reporter. We could have "word from the front," etc. The more I think about it, the better it seems.

[beno]

I am hoping this is going to be a game where I am looking forward to hearing about my voting options in the same way as I enjoy a chapter of a book. I want to be absorbed enough to make my own opinions about (fr'instance); where we deploy our bombers if we were fighting on two fronts etc.
The more ludicrous government positions we create - the less of an influence the citizens will have.

I vote no.

[Kuciwalker]

Vote in the official poll, which I am too lazy to make a link to

[HazieDaVampire]

i vote yes, and i think all future Militery ministers must have been a General or whatever! But this would be once we have quite a few Generals, the early runners for the posistion as Militery minister can use it as a 'i was a general and i won the war with my militery experties, and this is why i should get the job' kinda thing!

[Kuciwalker]

Please vote yes in the other poll. We need 4 more yes votes. This poll is unofficial, the other one is official.