How long does a turn takes

[Pedrunn]

A question from a DG newbie

How long does a turn takes to end?

Should we finish a turn every week or we should have it finish in less time?

Or shouldnt there be a chronological time for the turn to end. If not, so when should it end?

- Thanks in advance

[Maquiladora]

Not sure what you mean, but i think we should just play turns when we've decided on it. As mentioned in another thread, about 20 turns at the beginning and then maybe 5 later, with each session.

[Locutus]

As Maq said, it's been discussed in the government thread. But that was rather off-topic, so I'll repost the relevant part here, so it can be discussed further if needed:

Me:

Well, here's one thing I'm curious about but isn't really clear to me based on what I've read so far: how long does the President play? I assume the President gathers all the info he needs from his ministers and other advisors, then plays for a while and then goes back to the forum to report what has happened and ask for feedback on how to proceed. How long does he play? One turn at a time? A fixed number of turns? Until something important happens? Until the advise he was given expires? How does this work in C3DG (and/or other DGs, if people know about them)?

adaMada:

In the C3DG, the President normally plays five turns at a time, and the ministers publically post five turns worth of orders. The President also often goes into an IRC chat room, and we all meet there to help him play, play along, and enjoy the game in general.

TKG:

quite similar to our method. usually what we do is make our polls, and then give our orders in an order thread. then we meet in IRC on a given time (we have a regular time though) and guide him through.

example: commissioner says "what do we build next in $Basename?" the director whose job it was to poll that gives him the answer and he puts the plan into action.

we normally play for about an hour, not a given set or turns, though that method might be better, since we have in the past run out of orders, and we need to hold quickpolls amongst the cabinet.

if you want to tag along to see how we do it, you're welcome to

also, i recently made a FAQ thread as a sleasy recruitment scheme. it didn't take, but it might be helpful

Darkness'Edge:

In our game (ACDG), the Commissioner just plays as long as the orders last.

I also think it could be a good idea to start with having several ministerial positions - then if you have trouble filling them, to cut them down. I like Lemmy's idea for ministers.

It might help create a bit of interest in the beginning.

DE (founder of the ACDG, among other things)

Me again:

Thanks for your explanations on the turns, adaMada & TKG, that clarifies a few things... I think the best solution would be to play for a certain number of turns, but have the exact number depend on the in-game situation. In the early game it's probably easily possible to play 20 in one stretch without having too much exciting stuff happening, later on in the game a lot of things can happen in just five turns...

This last suggestion by me is of course just that, a suggestion. Feel free to discuss this matter further here. Very little is set in stone in Democracy Games. I've studied 3 different games on Apolyton, 2 of CFC and 1 or 2 of other sites: they all have their own rules. The only thing they have in common is the presence of a leader who actually plays the game, a constitution which lays down the rules of conduct and 3 branches of government that divide the power to avoid abuse (although the older games sometimes don't have an explicit judicial branch). Those elements form the basis of any democracy, so we should copy those as well. Anything else is up to us.

[J Bytheway]

I would say that striking the balance between getting the game finished in fewer than several years and giving the President sufficientinformation to work with will almost certainly require a variable number of turns per play - but we shouldn't get too hung up on variation by year, but by situation too (e.g. whether we're at war). I would recommend starting at 20 (or thereabouts), but with provision for change at the recommendation of any minister who thinks he can't plan sufficiently far ahead (or possibly citizen who can't decide what to vote for) (and pending a poll, obviously).

And once things calm down, we shouldn't forget the possibility of increasing the number of turns again.

Further, it would probably be a good idea to allow the President to stop without finishing the allocated time period in the event of a major unforseen occurrance (like our capital being revolted by soothsaying enemy clerics, etc.).

[Turambar]

I agree that we should play 20 turns at the start and lengths should be flexible too to allow for special circumstances etc.

[Locutus]

I agree, we should be flexible and allow for special circumstances. I would suggest that we leave it at the disgression of the cabinet to determine the number of turns that will be played at a time. However, the number that the President plans to play (unexpected circumstances can of course always force him to stop playing prematurely to consult the people) should be known in advance so everyone can take that into account when preparing orders and creating laws and motions and stuff...

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Locutus
I agree, we should be flexible and allow for special circumstances. I would suggest that we leave it at the disgression of the cabinet to determine the number of turns that will be played at a time. However, the number that the President plans to play (unexpected circumstances can of course always force him to stop playing prematurely to consult the people) should be known in advance so everyone can take that into account when preparing orders and creating laws and motions and stuff...

A lot can happen in 20 turns, so yes the "President" will have to stop and address the "cabinet" if for example he meets a new civ, so that the best diplomatic approach can be decided and/or we can decide to crush them. This goes for many other things as well, such as dealing with foreign slavers, piracy, tresspassing etc.

[Wise Ass]

I think this is one of those cross that bridge when you get there sort of things, this isn't Civ 2, 3 or AC so it is hard to base our decisions on their games.

[J Bytheway]

A more important question is "how many turns should be played ain one term?". Does the president get to play the game only once in a term, do we repeat until we reach a certain number of turns, or until we run out of time? (Assuming the terms are defined by real-world time, like a month)

[Pedrunn]

What about:

Week = 5 turns. (The first 5 weeks we play 10 turns per week)

Term = 2 weeks

the second week has the ellection and the third is already played by the new president/ministers.
We make the the decisions related to the turns to come in the week and the president play it during the weekend.
He plays it and publishs the saved games. So that we can make discussion for the new game to come.

All official polls and ellections would expire on friday. (note i havent given expire dates in the polls yet because i thought we shoul discuss his first)

[Turambar]

I don't think a 2 week turn will work well as I don't think constantly changing the ministers that oftern would benefit the game.

I'd say do it like the Civ3 game and make terms a month long to give Ministers time to make a difference in a game and to not constantly hold elections.

[Pedrunn]

I was thinking in a Sucession game like time. Wich the governors have 10 turns of play.

[Wise Ass]

10 turns is kinda brief, however I think that that is how it should be done, by game time no life time.

Put it into context:

"Each leader will rule a minimum of 25 turns, but their term in office must exceed one month."

Thus, we have each leader having time to make a difference, yet we don't have an election everytime we log on.

This should be in the constitution also, I haven't read it yet, saving that one for when I have more time.

[Pedrunn]

This should be in the constitution also, I haven't read it yet, saving that one for when I have more time.

We dont have one yet. Just some unfinished pieces for the Court and Polls rules.

Each leader will rule a minimum of 25 turns, but their term in office must exceed one month."

Maybe 10 turns may be too few time but dont you think we should have the turns tied to a chronogical time like i said
1 weeks = 5 turns.

[Locutus]

Making a term last a certain number of gameturns leads to very erratic term-length in calendar time. In some cases it will takes less than 2 weeks to play 25 turns (or whatever number is used), in other cases it could take over 2 months. This has 2 disadvantages:

1) It can lead to a situation where we end up having elections every 2 weeks for a while. This is, as Turambar pointed out, not a good idea. It can also lead to a situation where there are no elections for over 2 months, making it impossible for enthousastic new (or old) citizens to join in on the action as government official. Not a good idea either.

2) If I know I have an important exam or am going on vacation in late January and I don't know how long I'll remain in power if I take up an office, I won't be able to run for any kind of position between early November and early February or so, almost 3 months. If terms last 1 month, I won't be able to run between late December and early Februari, about half that time...

So I for one am all in favour for copying the term lengths of most other DGs: 1 month.

We know from the Succession Games that it's entirely possible to play 20 turns in 1 session in the very early game, but in the very late game 5 turns may turn out to be a lot. And at any point in the game, unexpected events can force a President to stop playing. With a term of 1 month, I think most Presidents will be able to play 20-30 turns, but in peaceful times it might be possible to play 50+ turns. I wouldn't mind too much to put a maximum turn limit on a President's term (to prevent any President from getting too much influence on the game), but first and foremost we should IMHO have a (calendar) time limit.

(Due to server mess-ups this is the third time I'm writing this I hope I didn't forget anything and this still makes sense...)

[Frozzy]

Can I ask a question? Why does this Democracy game be like the others? Instead of ministers, we should elect x number member parliament. The president then elects the ministers from that parliament.

The remaining members will have a more influential say than commoners, and will campaign for the commoners, but will not be as influential as the ministers

[H Tower]

I think the civ2 style of doing turns works best. the ministers all poll on what should be done, and the pres plays until he needs more instructions or something unexpected happens (like the AI launches a spaceship)

[Pedrunn]

we should elect x number member parliament. The president then elects the ministers from that parliament.

As far as the constitution is evolving, No. And i dont like this way since the parliament itself should be the size of the community itself if you give some thought. The voting miniters are much better. Thats my oppinion though.
The government position are being decide here by the way:
Democracy Game: government positions

I think the civ2 style of doing turns works best. the ministers all poll on what should be done, and the pres plays until he needs more instructions or something unexpected happens (like the AI launches a spaceship)

I still like my idea of polling and deciding during the week; and have defined days of the week to play a certain amount of turns to practice what has been decided. If the president needs further help it halt the game and poll about. Pretty much similar to what you said.

[Pedrunn]

I think the civ2 style of doing turns works best. the ministers all poll on what should be done, and the pres plays until he needs more instructions or something unexpected happens (like the AI launches a spaceship)

Yet could you be more specific?
The CIV2DG Constitution was the only one i could not find.

[H Tower]

the pres doesn't play a set number of turns each week, it is up to his discretion on whether he should play another turn or two. Basically the Pres plays until a situation arises that he does not have instructions for from the ministers. I.E. the science minister only tells him to research one tech, and techs arive every 3 turns, the Pres needs to stop. But if all of the ministers give detailed and long range reports to the president, he can play longer. We're pretty loose in the civ2 game, and it has led to a few problems with power hungry presidents and/or stupid ministers, but at least the game keeps moving along

[Gilgamensch]

In the beginning it is fairly simple as everything except exploration takes ages anyway, but later in the game might become a problem.

I still haven't seen any discussion/information about how we want to handle the orders......
I am thinking of that each job will have it's own threat were the orders to the Grand Apolyton will be posted and nothing else. If somebody (citizen) doesn't like he/she can post a poll (Y/N/A).

For later in the game it might become a problem as things can change quickly, but for the beginning I don't see any problem.

[H Tower]

the ministers should make their orders based on the results of the poll and pm or email them to the president, IMO anyways

[adaMada]

First thing first, let me apologize for staying away from this forum for so long. Things have gotten a tad bit hectic .

Secondly, let me give you one word of warning. Without updated knowledge of your government structure, I can't say anything for sure, but under our (Civ3) system, it takes something on the scale of four hours or more to play the five turns we do. Today, a chat started at 3 PM EST, and ended something around 7 PM EST, and we only played three or four turns. At the beginning of the game, Chats clearly do not take that long, but as the game progresses, they do begin to take quite a bit of time. Following orders is much harder than just playing the game (though it may not seem so), and debates/decisions by ministers in chat slow things down a lot. Of course, if you move away from orders, or even have orders without the chat itself, things will speed up quite a bit, so I really need to read more threads before commenting more, but under our system, we could not play ten turns at a time -- even if we wanted to .

Just a general statment; I may be able to come up with something more constructive tomorrow after reading the other threads.

-- adaMada