Military Commanders

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 15:59

I had an idea of how we could sort of extend the governor concept. If we were in a big and/or multi-front war, we could have temporary "Military Commanders" or something like that, who would be assigned to focus on a specific area of conflict. We could either elect them or have them appointed by the President or Minister of War. As soon as it is judged that we don't need a certain commander anymore, that post ceases to exist. In the late game, we could actually make them permanent posts, so that we would have things like CinCLant, EurCom, etc. who would be ready in case war broke out in their theater. We could name certain areas after real oceans, continents etc. Please note that that last idea (permanent posts) is just a suggestion for if we actually decide to institute military commanders; don't vote this down based on it.

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 16:22

Yes. I think this could be fun and possibly helpful in the later game, but I think we should be careful not to create too many posts. If we do the govt would become extremely inefficient.

I am correct in thinking that this poll is survey and not a decision forming vote (for the time being)?

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 16:23

It's both.

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 16:26

Dp

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 16:26

Who would establish these posts. The president, Military minister, or a vote. Meaning the creation of the position, not the person it.

Nikolai · June 11, 2002, 16:32

I think this can be an exelent idea, if used right!

When it comes to the question of who that should appoint them, I think the Military minister should do so, but the president should be informed, and have a veto(after all, he has to have power!

).

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 16:34

If that's the case I'd vote against right now.

Nikolai · June 11, 2002, 16:38

Huh?

What do you not like? It was only a suggestion.

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 16:41

I don't want to make rules for the late game at this date. Is all.

Spiffor · June 11, 2002, 16:45

I like it, as I like the idea of province governors.
It's likely there will be a ton of micromanagement in the late game, and only one person won't be able to be efficient for everything.

I think administrative provinces and military provinces should overlap, and be decided by the minister of Imperial Expansion (say, he dicides that Province A encompasses Tokyo, Edo, Yokohama and is called Kanto; ans Province B encompasses Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe and is called Kansai).
Civilian governors and military governors shouldn't be the same people though. And I like the idea the minister of war decide's who's a local commander.

Nikolai · June 11, 2002, 16:48

Oh! I thought you didn't like my suggestion!

Gramphos · June 11, 2002, 16:50

It sounds good, but I think that the final desicion on it has to be made later on, when we really need this post. Then will it also be easier to specify exactly what tasks the commanders should have. But i vote yes.

atawa · June 11, 2002, 16:55

It sounds ok for late in the game but no need to set rules now, lets decide when we feel we have the need for it.

I voted no.....for now

Spiffor · June 11, 2002, 17:17

I think the very beginning of the game is time to set up such posts (local commanders and governors)... They sure have minimal importance in the early game, but it helps tinkering with them, and set rules which will be followed in the late game.
That's why I think we need them, and we need them now

Jon Shafer · June 11, 2002, 17:18

Let's not make rules for 1600 AD before we even know when the game will start...

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 17:30

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 · June 11, 2002, 17:40

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 · June 11, 2002, 17:47

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 · June 11, 2002, 17:55

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 · June 11, 2002, 17:56

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

Inverse Icarus · June 11, 2002, 18:10

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 · June 11, 2002, 18:16

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 · June 12, 2002, 18:41

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 · June 12, 2002, 18:54

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 · June 12, 2002, 18:56

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 · June 12, 2002, 18:58

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 · June 13, 2002, 09:59

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 · June 13, 2002, 15:56

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

HazieDaVampire · June 13, 2002, 17:45

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 · June 13, 2002, 17:47

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