City Governors

[Zeevico]

This a suggestion for city governors:
First type: Inefficient governors
Green governors run everything at low efficiency. Anything they build takes another shield row (in ancient times this would mean about 10 shields) for the next 10-15 (is that too much?) turns, after which they become efficient governors. This type of governor also increases corruption and waste by 10%in your city.
Second Type: Efficient governors
Everything runs as normal. No bonuses and no penalties are incurred. To receive an efficient city governor when you first build a city incurs a 10 gold fee times 2% of your coffers, however this rises as your coffers get larger. By medieval times the fee would be 25g times 2% of your coffers. By industrial times, the fee would rise to 50g times 4% of your coffers. By modern times, the fee would rise to 100g times 6% of your coffers. If anything reaches a decimal point, then the computer rounds up. After 40-60 turns (randomly calculated) (too much?), the governor becomes proficient.
Third Type: Proficient governors
This type of governor is popular with the people and is a good administrator. Your city would receive a -10% corruption bonus, and an extra happy citizen when it has this type of governor. It is impossible to receive this governor when you first build a city.

Efficient and Inefficent governors are prone to scandals. A scandal creates one extra unhappy citizen (which can be 'swallowed' by your luxuries) in your city and increases corruption in the city by 10% for the next 3-5 turns. Inefficient governors have a 20% chance of creating a scandal. Efficient governors have only a 5% chance of creating a scandal.

Maybe too hard for the lower levels of the game, however. Possibly you could place it in the King, Emperor and Deity difficulties? If so, the AI should automatically receive an efficient governor for free when starting a city in Deity, and does not have any scandals.

This would be great against ICS-ing, too. Although 10% does seem a bit low, imagine it on a grand scale. The ICS-er would build his 20 cities, and has to pay cash for all of them to be efficient. So while your 10 cities are flourishing, he is near broke, having his temples sold to cover the costs of the empire.

[Ilkuul]

I like this idea in principle, but elsewhere there are suggestions about provincial and regional "governors" (see posts towards the end of "The citizens of Sparta admire the prosperity of New York") which, if accepted, might mean a change in terminology. How about the traditional Civ title 'mayor'?

I'm not sure I like the idea of 'buying' efficiency, though. I can see your point about there being a cost attached that would help inhibit ICS, but I'd prefer a system whereby if you keep building improvements in your city - or if you put it on 'auto', in effect allowing your mayor to do it - you would progressively improve his efficiency and acceptance in the city, thereby gaining the benefits of increased happiness & production, and reduced corruption. And as your mayor is perceived as more efficient by his citizens, so he can demand a higher salary - which brings in the costs you mentioned.

On the other hand, this would be a built-in deterrent to warmongers who like to channel all their cities' resources to building military units; and to ICS-ers who only build the minimum of free or cheap improvements: because there could be a corresponding penalty that if many turns go by and few (or no) city improvements are built, the mayor would increasingly be perceived as inefficient (so his salary wouldn't increase - a temporary bonus!), resulting in the penalties you mentioned, including increased unhappiness, scandals (I like that idea!), and the probability of civil disorder.

I'd also like to suggest that civil disorder becomes a much more serious matter: the mayor fleeing in panic means a new one has to be elected/appointed, and you can't just put matters right by reassigning a few workers! You'd have to pay a higher salary for a more efficient mayor, and also rushbuild at least one improvement to satisfy the citizens. As you say, this kind of complication might better be left to the higher difficulty levels...

But I do like the general idea.


[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Zeevico]

Revised the Idea
Mayors:
---Inefficient Mayors---
-Anything this type of mayor decides to build has to have a 10% shield penalty (represnting his just starting to administer).
-If the city is smaller than 12 population, an inefficient mayor's salary costs 1% of your net (after costs) income for the whole country. If it is larger than 12, it costs 2%.
-A mayor's efficiency depends on what he builds. An inefficient mayor can only build 2 military units for the town as defence. No offensive units are allowed, otherwise the town dislikes him (see general rules). Afterwards, to get on the good side of the people, he must build city improvements/worker (the guy that makes improvements to the countryside). He can only build one worker and 1 settler during his term. Otherwise, he can either be disliked (see general rules) by the people or fired (see the notes at the end).
---Efficient Mayors---
Once a mayor becomes efficient, he builds everything at no penalty, but receives no bonuses either.
- Efficient mayors cost 2% of your net (after costs) country income in below size 12 cities and 3% in above size 12 cities.
- He can build an additional 3 military units while being efficient, of which two can be offensive. If he builds any more he is disliked (again, see the rules). After this he must build either city improvements or (maximum of 2) settler/workers otherwise he is disliked (see the rules).
- After 20-30 turns of being an efficient mayor, he becomes proficient.
---Proficient Mayors---
A proficient mayor is loved by his people and is a good administrator.
- A -10% corruption bonus is given when a proficient mayor governs the city. Also, an extra happy citizen is created (this citizen cannot be 'swallowed' by units being outside a city unhappiness).
- He is allowed to build a maximum of 3 military and 3 civil (worker/settler) units per 15 turns. If he breaks this rule too many times YOU are disliked (they realize the mayor is forced and don't hold it against him. They may revolt if the amount of 'unit quota' violations is more than 5 in 100 turns.
- This mayor cost 3% of your net national income and this cost remains the same whether it is a large or small city.
General Rules
- When a mayor is disliked, his city acts like it has an inefficient mayor who permanently has the 10% penalty runs it shield penalty incurred.
- Proficient mayors revolting become minor civ's.
- Mayors will automatically protest if you instruct them to go above the unit quota. If you overrule the mayor, he likes you less. If you get to a certain point (10 violations in 100 turns) , the mayor dislikes you. Once he reaches proficiency, he has a 40% chance of revolting immediately after the first violation unless his town is too low on defence or under siege.
There, finished.

[SerapisIV]

Firaxis has had enough trouble making 1 good AI for running cities (SMAC was an improvement, but not that good yet) I'd rather they get one good governer AI and then have your society choices at the national level and what city improvements are present decide how well my cities are run. Adding another AI drone to struggle with and in my own civ of all places is not something I want to do. That and I'd rather not have efficiency decide my production. Improvements deciding what units I can build is one idea, governor/mayor corruption limiting my ability to build units is another and one I hope is not included in Civ III

[Lord_Davinator]

I think firaxis should implement some of the ideas in these forums or else we can expect CTP3 with a new brand name.... CIV3 has to be better practically the BEST if it wants to live up to its name.

[Stuff2]

Actually this is what the corruption and waste in civ2 was about.
Why not simply connect 'scandals' to corruption level (and eliminate the non-corruption level for democracies, we all know that corruption exists even in our own governments). Also, let the corruptionlevel fluctuate a bit. I don't like the building-penalty. It's enough with the waste and corruption even if it ofcourse could be a bit higher. I suggest this occurs as a random event. Every once in a while a city/province/whatever
doubles or triples it's corruption-level. If the level reach a certain point (let's say 50%) than the scandal is a fact. I like the scandal factor. It would give spice to the game.

[jglidewell]

It would be neat if the City Govenors had names and personalties that you could swap with other cities. Give them a voice where they report to your advisors.

[Maccabee2]

Kewl! We could have a graphics means to show the mayor's face, and could import our favorite faces to be our mayors (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dubya, Guliani, Hillary, Tony Blair, Genghis Khan, Willie Brown, Jesse Jackson, Howard Stern, you name it!) Ok, it's a silly idea, but it would be fun!
It's midnight, and the only serious bone in my body is the one that's going to drag me to bed. (yawn!) G'night, guys. Gotta muster in the a.m. for another exciting day of duty.

[Mister Pleasant]

Gee, can I use Ralph Nader's picture as my mayor?

[RyanR]

Ralph Nader as your mayor.heh. Then you would not be able to make many improvements, such as nuclear power plant, etc

[Ecthy]

ah, I always thought we only have Republicans in the OT...

well, athe governor idea is nice, although I'm a big fan of micromanagement myself.. I never used any building lists in CTP or the governors in SMAC.