The Glory of War

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb



Phase 2 would be assigning one city to each of these members, or having the members divide into subgroups (Saxons, Angles, Normans, etc) and give one city to each subgroup and rotating new cities to the members until each of the original members gets a city.

I call Saxon!

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by donegeal


A spy is among us! Lets be wary!

Pfft! There are people from every team reading all of the other teams' threads right now

That will remain the case until there are private forums.

For now, it's constructive. I've honestly been trying to provide some ideas to 2-3 of the other teams... I want to see all of the teams be strong... as, let us not forget, this IS a test of how Apolyton might compete in a later multi-site demo game... a multi-site demogame we ALL want to win on behalf of the glory of Apolyton

[Spiffor]

BTW, don't you warmongers have a team logo ?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


I call Saxon!

Saxon and Norman? I thought you guys wanted to play the Celts, not the English

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, don't you warmongers have a team logo ?

Not yet, I can't get anything that small to look decent as I don't have a decent graphics editor. Aro is working it, perhaps Ghengis too.

Saxon and Norman? I thought you guys wanted to play the Celts, not the English

Ghengis was just making an example, and I was only showing a little family pride.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by korn469
i'm in complete agreement with the following things

*regular votes on emperors and high kings (or whatever we will call them) with the possibility of early no confidence votes
*each person get 1 vote any votes using tiles, population, or whatever for the minigame will be unfair compared to everyone having one vote
*no forceful taking of each other's holdings

donegeal



i still think we should spread power around as much as possible so more people will have a chance to get involved, really what is the harm in stealing a few powers from what the emperor has if it allows another person to get involved?



i disagree for strategic reasons, it is much better to have two workers on one tile than it is to have one worker on two tiles, because you get the benefits sooner



i don't think that we need forceful resolutions to minigame problems, it should be a matter of diplomacy, and again i'm fearful of a meaningless minigame hurting our overall strategy



i don't think the emperor should ever have the ability to override the build of a city except when a state of emergency has been declared by the high council, this will encourage more discussion and diplomacy, plus lead to fewer arbitrary decisions by any one person, and i still think someone (the emperor seems like the best candidate) should look our civ as a whole by trying to make sure we built what we needed

What you are suggesting is in essence the SP DG that is being played. Everything you mentioned is politically correct and does a great job of spreading the power and forming a cohesive mind. However, I will quote a movie to agrue why the Emperor/High King/Ruler should have more power for a warmonger team:

From a Navel Captian to his First Officer
We are here to defend Democracy, not to practice it.

We are in this team to fight and War with others. We are a Warmonger team and State. War and Military require a defined rank structure in order to operate. I see our Ruler as the General of our Army. The High/Vice/whatever Kings as a Full Bird Cornel, our Kings as Captians and Lords as Lieutenants (yes I am in the Military). I think we should leave the treasury in the hands of our ruler, so he can directed us as the Army that we are to victory over all others.

Now Making a Minister/High/Vice King of Internal affairs is probably a good thing (the two workers are better than one arguement cannot be contested), but remember that this takes power away from the King's of the cities, not the ruler. If we do have a whogeewhatsit of Internal Affairs, and we give the build Queues to the Ruler, then the City-King's have no power. It will eliminate the $mini-game as a factor and participation by all members of the team (except for the ruler and whogeewhatsit ministers). Again, look at the SP DG, this was the case with My Piña Colada thread. I was selected to be a Regional Administrator and I proceeded to put down my orders for the cities I controled and was subsequentialy told to go blow myself on each account. What I did stoped making a difference. I made less and less atempts to do anything until I have come to the point where I am now. The game hardly interests me any more.

Let the City-Kings control their cities builds and queues so they feel like they are doing something constructive in the game. Leave the Ruler the power to override these builds so he can guide the Empire to Victory.

[Donegeal]

If we work the $mini-game (on a city system, not individual tiles) and Feudal tile fighting scheme inconjuction with one another, we will end up with each King wanting to both Improve his Cities infrastructure (ie: Markets increase the amount of gold produced, Courthouses decrease the amount of Corruption and waste, and we can even work sci beakers into the $mini-game to make Libraries desired in cities) and to maintain a strong military. I think kings will want their cities to be balanced, and it will be the Rulers responability to guide the Empire by telling a King that "I'm sorry, but I need you to build a settler for the good of the Empire.". This will piss people off (as getting told what to do usually does), but then I saw someone's signature that read "being responsable means pissing people off" This is a good example of that.

Now having a set amount of time for the Ruler sounds perfectly reasonable, but I don't see why we would need to implement one if we have the No-Con rule. You think the current ruler is doing fine, but you think you could do better, call a No-Con vote and explain why. Calling a No-Con vote does not have to mean that you think someone is doing poorly or that you really don't have confidence in him, it just means that you want a change.

[Donegeal]

MarkG has said that he wants a list of the leaders (not player lists) of the Official teams. We have not voted on who is going to be our first Ruler. While I do not claim to be the leader of this team, I was wondering if you minded me telling him I was as I am the founder. (besides, Rulers change, I will always be the Founder )

I hope I'm not being to presumptious and that this does not upset any of you. I will not tell him so until we all make a desicion.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Been working on the icon a bit this is what I have...

best I can tell they mean(from left to right):

1. constant military fortitude
2. the Trials of bringing the royal majesty to the masses through military might(or something like that...design = trials, colors are royal majesy and military might)
3. Constant (military) strength through deathless courage. (that is supposed to be a lion...)
4. Truth through Strengh and Courage (again, supposed to be a lion...)

[Donegeal]

Aro told me he was working on an eagle with outstretched talons and open beak, but might not get done until the 11th. If thats to late, I like the Black with red Lion.

[korn469]

We are in this team to fight and War with others. We are a Warmonger team and State. War and Military require a defined rank structure in order to operate. I see our Ruler as the General of our Army. The High/Vice/whatever Kings as a Full Bird Cornel, our Kings as Captians and Lords as Lieutenants (yes I am in the Military). I think we should leave the treasury in the hands of our ruler, so he can directed us as the Army that we are to victory over all others.

i agree in principle, especially that we need to focus our resources and use them wisely, chaos is the one controlable factor that can hurt us the most, but unlike the military we are all equally qualifed to give an opinion on our team's overall strategy, additionally even if the emperor didn't have any direct powers except to play the game and appoint the ministers that would still be quite a bit of power

also as far as the military analogy goes, in all healthy democracies the military is under civilian control, and in the American military the chain of command is something like this President --> Secretary of Defense --> Secretary of the Army iirc --> Then actual generals

we need to spread power around as much as we possibly can, while balancing control with participation

too much participation which results in chaos and poor game performance for our team is one bad outcome
the other would be a good game performance but too much control in one person's hands which result in too little participation

If we do have a whogeewhatsit of Internal Affairs, and we give the build Queues to the Ruler, then the City-King's have no power.

read my proposal again, i did not take the build queues away from the city-kings, i said the Emperor should propose a build queue, and i should have specified more, but this proposal should be completely non-binding and the emperor should never be able to over ride a city king's choice except if the city king was derelect in their duties and they did not submit orders to the emperor, proposing a build order is kinda like when the president proposes legislation, it might get passed or not, but it sums up their governing vision

also here is an idea...we should reserve both the capital, this city is never sold to any one city king, whoever is the emperor gets to exercise control of the capital

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Ghengis was just making an example, and I was only showing a little family pride.

Family pride? I can understand that, as I happen to be almost exclusively from Saxon and Norman ancestors myself If you guys played the English (despite them being mildly lousy civ in Civ3 ), I would be tempted to play with you (ok, not really... but hey)

[Ennet]

donegal i agree to what you say about the $mini-game, it would be more profitable for the Empire if the $mini-game was about improving your cities not taking tiles etc.
Also i think King/prince/lord should decide what they want to build. And the Empiror/highking/ruler should be able to override production when the Empire is at war. (maby not in pease times tho.) And I still think we should vote for the empiror at regular times, but maby just a vote if he may continue yes/no.
And can someone please write down curren Code of Laws? The
one on page 4 seems a little out dated. thanks

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Here's a make-shift attempt at an icon (it sure is hard to make something that looks like anything that small).

It was supposed to be a banner with a crown, I'll try something else...........

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Korn
...and the emperor should never be able to over ride a city king's choice...

You obviously feel strongly about this. Why do you think this? I think a High King/Emperor can make a King do whatever he wants. Afterall, a City-King is a subornate in our game and should be able to be told what to do. He can act on his own until the High King tells him what to do.

Originally posted by Ennet
the Empiror/highking/ruler should be able to override production when the Empire is at war. (maby not in pease times tho.)

Reasonable except that the High King will need to act before we actually go to war to make sure we are properly prepared.

Thoughs and comments are greatly appreciated.

Oh, yeah, I still haven't heard anything about the MarkG leader deal, any thoughts?

Hey, GF, could you draw up a $mini-game proposal based on cities instead of tiles and post it so we can discuss it? Try to include Sci beakers as a tradeable resource as well.