Constitutional debate: Base Production and Industry & Energy

[AdamTG02]

How would people like to divide responsibilities up between these two Directorates?

One possibility is to have Industry and Energy responsible for setting the economy rate, and recommending energy- and mineral-increasing base facilities to Base Production. The rationale for this is that Base Production should be an impartial arbitrator between Departments, and since he alone will decide what base facilities to build he should not be directly responsible for either increasing production or paying for the base facilities he builds. It's also been discussed to require I&E to okay any expenditure of funds.

Another solution is to merge the two Directorates, and put the Economy rate as well as the Science rate in the hands of Social Engineering, who has little to do as it is. This might cause problems with the elections, as we have candidates for both positions, and the ACE supports two separate candidates for both positions -- Juliennew and Vlad Antlerkov. Nevertheless, it is my preferred solution because of its simplicity. I wouldn't push for it if ACE parties object, though.

A releated question is whether to give Base Production or possible I&E control of supply crawlers.

Feel free to post your thoughts.

[DeathByTheSword]

A small percentage of the commission has come too some new ideas in a chat which should make everthing a bit simpler:

every director can ask for buildings for his/hers office

D of Base production becomes D of Industry
D of Energy and industry becomes D of energy

D of I takes the entire base screen (except rushing)
D of E takes crawlers, funds and any buildings

D of SE takes entire SE screen with ADVICE from
D of science/ D of E/D of I

well people? feedback please?

[AdamTG02]

I'm the other part of the 1/4 Committee. To clarify, Energy would be responsible for recommending Robotic Assembly Plants and Energy Banks., and for making our treasury balance. He would have the power to okay any expenditure of funds, but the Commissioner or Foreign Affairs would be able to spend funds if another faction demanded them and the D of E wasn't available. (Do we also want, say, Base Production / Industry to do emergency hurrying, if we need a defender for a base and Energy isn't available?)\

[Maniac]

DBTS:

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hmm. The way I saw these two Departments working was similar to AdamTG02's ideas.

Director of Base Production would not have any area of speciality, as they are the Administrator for all build queues, with the possible exception of a military crisis. This Director would look at the various demands of the other Directors, particularly Military and E&I. The Director would also have to assess the larger issues and the peoples' will, creating possible build queues featuring the demands of the other Directors. These queues would be voted on and fixed. For those who follow the Civ3 game, this position is quite different to City Planner. Instead of this position deciding on their own what to build, they receive recommendations from the other Directors. In my mind this means a lot more consensus on any queues.

Director of Energy & Industry is in charge of maximising both Energy and Production of bases. To this end they recommend the various improvements, both buildings and terraforming. The building recommendations go to the Director of Base Production, and the terraforming ones to that Director of Terraforming and Expansion (can't remember exact title).

In short, I see the D of E&I as a lobbier. They come up with some plan and submit it. They are concerned with the growth of our faction economically and industrially. The Military Director is in the same role, but dealing with the military units. These two (and others) concentrate on their fields, hopefully making them pretty efficient. Their priorities go to the D of BP, who is the one who must look at the overall benefits, and must be prepared to poll on any controversial build. They would also need to determine the feeling for a general strategy ie to rapidly expand at the expense of development, to build adequate military at the expense of terraformers etc.

But then again, just my thoughts. Any specific questions on my ideas, post here and I will answer when I can.

[DeathByTheSword]

wel D of BP ( i will call it D of I (liking my own ideas here )) will still do what you said but will also manage everthin else in the base screen. and SE will do every thing in his screen. this way you make a simple line between different D`s but every other D has to lobby with the D of I for the buildings in that I support your idea. and the D of I may not begin building anything on his own. ofcourse there are execption on all this rules. but i think it is save to say that this is the general idea (like the one from me somewhere above) that will be precented to the people in the first draft from the committee, execpt if some other committee members are strongly against it. then we vote and make changes if needed!

[Pandemoniak]

Whats wring with :
Director of Base Procuction set building queues and harvet tiles.
Director of Energy and Indusrty sets nergy allocations and rush buildings.
Whats wrong with it ?

[Juliennew]

We should let the DIrector of BP with his current portfolio as it is a big power to decide on build queues.
The Director of Energy and Industry should manage the base screen (micromanagement) and rushing. He should also cooperate with the Director of Research and the Director of SE to decide of the energy allocation (lab-psych-EC)

[Pandemoniak]

So the BP director would have his production depending on which tiles are harvested, on the D Ei director ?

It sounds... nonsense to me

[Lemmy]

My thoughts:
DBP:
Set building queues, harvest tiles, and maybe control resourcers
DIE:
Control all funds (hurrying, probe missions, foreign loans/demands), lobby for production and energy improving facilities
I do think that the DIE can be overriden by at least one Director and the Commisioner incase of emergencies, for example in war, the military director and commisioner may decide to hurry combat units.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

DBP: Manages build queues, deciding what gets built in what order; manages worker placings; manages crawlers (or could this go under DIE?).

DIE: Manages funds; controls tax/sci/lux allocation, together with the SE Director and Science Director; orders rushing of facilities and such (can be overriden, though, by the Commish and the appropriate Director, in the case of an emergency); approves probe missions and foreign loans/energy demands (again, can be overriden in emergencies); is to recommend energy and production buildings/SPs (and probably supply crawlers) when he deems them necessary.

In effect, the DBP would be a Director of Industry, and the DIE would be a Director of Energy.

[DeathByTheSword]

why does everone wants to split up taxes. why not give this to one person and let the rest consentrat on there own thingies.

But Can I have a CLEAR YES or NO on the idea of the committee and if NO please explain why?!

(over emergency overrides there still debate)

[lucky22]

DBTS: A qualified "yes" to the commitee proposal. MWIA and Juliennew both agree with me about what the Director of Base Production should do. Responsibility-wise, if either director is going to place workers on resource squares then we should guarantee consensus on this so that individual oversights such as the odd farm on a rocky square can be avoided.

[DeathByTheSword]

the D of BP/I will be given NOT the power to make own buildingqueuers but make them with the requests from other Directors but besides that he will be given the power over the base screen. OR i am just thinken. ONLY give D of BP the buildingqueuers (not rushing) and give D of E the base screen and crawlers and funds? no that too much for D of E and too little for D of I but i dont like the idea of given AN indepented director (D of BP) anything else Except the entire base screen this is the simplest AND most logic idea give one the entire base screen give one the SE screen and give one the treasury and crawlers......If we want we could also give crawlers too D of TC and name it like something D of civilunits (name isnt an idea but an jobdisciption)

if i am rammbling it is because I am just thinking idea and typing them down so this is just a little piece of DBTS strange brain

[DeathByTheSword]

Lucky22: I THINK like what you are saying. so D of BP will do buildings D of EI will do base screen and funds and crawlers? if you do it like that i thin D of EI does to much but you cant give D of BP anymore because this way it is totally independent of anything. BUt DEI will have to much power. i think that funds be put elsewere or somthing like that

EDIT:

but i dont think you should split up one thing between different directors like workerplacement and tax rate. I think it is more logic to give these thing (seperate of eachother) to one director, and let that one be adviced by other directors what to do. so science and DEI will ADVICE SE on taxrates and the apropiatte Directors will ADVICE DEI/DI/DBP (one of those ) on workerplacement. what do you thing about this then?

[lucky22]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
......If we want we could also give crawlers too D of TC and name it like something D of civilunits (name isnt an idea but an jobdisciption)

A seperate director for crawlers, taxes and worker placement might be enough work for a single position. Is this third position what you mean by D of TC? I just scanned back and can't seem to find a reference to "TC".

Pan: A third position would give some check and balance to the BP/IE relationship for sure.

Would such a notion be OK with the constitutional commitee?

[AdamTG02]

He's referring to the Director of Terraforming and Colonization (or Colonization and Terraforming, can't seem to remeber which phrasing we're working with).

Adding still a third position would make things unecessarily complex.

But I'm not opposed to giving I&E control over workers necessarily. To me, simply deciding what to produce in every base is ample jurisdiction for one Director. Giving another person worker and crawler placement, as well as hurrying and the responsibility for the treasury seems reasonable to me. (After all, workers are just as tied to energy as they are to minerals -- perhaps more, since specialists cannot produce minerals.)

Just one more idea for the pot.

[lucky22]

As long as the popular will endorses what you propose, Adam, ok. Both Directorates are fairly job-like anyway... despotic psychosis in either position will just hurt us all and make the power-mad Director look like an incompetent jerk.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok so we will propose BP for buildings and IE (other name please, maybe domestic?) got the rest?

but what about giving SE the entire screen much simpler i think

[lucky22]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
Lucky22: I THINK like what you are saying. so D of BP

but i dont think you should split up one thing between different directors like workerplacement and tax rate. I think it is more logic to give these thing (seperate of eachother) to one director, and let that one be adviced by other directors what to do. so science and DEI will ADVICE SE on taxrates and the apropiatte Directors will ADVICE DEI/DI/DBP (one of those ) on workerplacement. what do you thing about this then?

There is a nice field for a little bit of democratic friction and dialog opened up by seperating worker placement and tax-rate. Autocratic thinking is pretty natural for an AC player in general, so such a split is a neat way of keeping things "realish".

[DeathByTheSword]

lucky: check the CC thread for the first article what ya think?