[Planning thread for a new Succession Game] Metropolis, or City by Committee

[stiiknafuulia]

Any particular reason for such a huge central area? Imo it could be a little bigger than the central 'caldera', but not so huge as to take up half of the map.

Also, imo the northern and eastern districts are awkwardly shaped and very lacking in good (flat) real estate, in contrast to the southern and western ones. I'd prefer if we let the rocky wastes fall into the common territory and divided all the flat lands amongst the players. (Of course if someone prefers to isolate himself in the mountains, that should be their prerogative.)

For role-play purposes, as well as to keep the game interesting, we could just claim fairly small territories where each player wants them, then expand them as the game rolls along. So you might've just posted a screenshot with your 'reserved' area on it (maybe half the size of that area to start with), then someone else could edit the pic and add their area, until all 6 starting districts (or however many players we'll have) will have been dealt out. If conflicts arise in this initial phase, well, I'm sure they can be resolved in a gentlemanly manner. If not, we can always throw lots about who gets the area.

I tried playing on the map without any trees on it (just for a quick test), and imo it looks bare and unnatural without them. If you can stomach the task, maybe you could put some regular trees on the map (palms on the beaches, other trees in the mountain areas)? It doesn't need to be a bang-up job; just clots of trees in circular formations here and there is enough. I might do it myself if no one else wants to do this, as it's the very definition of a tedious and thankless task (the total lack of trees is very noticeable, but no matter how well they're planted, very few players will pay much attention to the trees once they are actually on the map).

 

[PepsiPride]

I fixed road and rail connections, and here is a suggestion of the personal districts/villages/kingdoms:

Spoiler

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=19126925308656271598

Can you upload this to the workshop?

 

[ItalianGuy]

The central area is big because the main city needs the sea and it will be the heart of the game.
The personal districts have various natures and we can choose the ones we like most. I wrote reserved in that one because I like it and I hope that if someone wants it, he/she can find a good alternative. If not, I will change.
If you want, you can add trees (vanilla ones), and reload the map. But don't add too many because of the limit.

I didn't upload it on workshop because I didn't create this map, I just added some connections and fixed rail tracks.

 

[PepsiPride]

I didn't upload it on workshop because I didn't create this map, I just added some connections and fixed rail tracks.

Right. I read this that you made the map and you just made some adjustments to it, not downloaded it and made some adjustments.

 

[ItalianGuy]

I did use the legacy version; thanks for letting me know of the updated one. The creator also says that he's upgraded the mod to work with all Traffic++ roads; that may have been the culprit in the issue that I had. I guess I'll make a back-up of my save and try out the new version; one must be cautious about it though because it might ruin our game permanently if the issue suddenly reoccurs.

Did you test the no-collision mode? I use the mod but I never need the no-collision active.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Did you test the no-collision mode? I use the mod but I never need the no-collision active.

I didn't test the new mod yet; I might do it tonight if I have the time (playing our SG will take priority; I'm pretty sure I can finish my turn tonight).

http://imgur.com/a/B6ZpJ

Here are some quick brainstorms about the size and shape of the central district (I totally missed the whole harbor access issue). I like the first option the best, as it seems to flow naturally with the terrain, requiring only a slight modification in the form of a flattened mountain range.

EDIT: I will add some trees on the map when I have the time. I will disable all my custom tree assets to make sure that no illicit greenery will tarnish the pristine landscape.

I also made a tentative reservation for my own district. If anyone has any issues with it, let's hear them (and you can start reserving your districts as well, as it seems that this is indeed the map that we'll use ).

 

[ItalianGuy]

What I suggested is your second choice, but the area has natural confines.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

What I suggested is your second choice, but the area has natural confines.

Ah. I didn't even notice that, as the map is angled differently in your pic. While it does look more natural, the area is simply too big imo. FWIW, I might always add an extra river to serve as a natural boundary to the central area. Still, I prefer option #1.

--Are there any opinions from our other (potential) players? (Re: players: I've found at least two potential recruits from various Reddit threads. While priority lies with the players from our current game, if enough people fail to materialize, then I might contact these guys and ask if they're interested. One of them has a way with words, while the other really seems to know how to build a logical, well-flowing city, in terms of both traffic and aesthetics.)

 

[ItalianGuy]

Are they registered here? Tell them to post something in this thread.

For the map, the first option is removing a mountain, the second is adding a river. I agree with the first option. Experiment a bit and check if connections can be enhanced with this new area available.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Are they registered here? Tell them to post something in this thread.

I'm not sure, but I doubt it. I haven't talked to them yet, as I want to be sure that we'll actually have a slot in the game for them before I do that. Ofc it might also be that they're too busy to participate, prefer single-player, etc. But it's something to keep in mind in case we need more players. I will try and find a few more people that would fit into the game with regards to their character / abilities. Then we'll have the required amount of players (or close to it) once we decide to actually start.

FWIW, I've pondered a bit and come up with a sort-of-workable election / decision-making system. I'll elaborate on it next week if/when I'll have more time for it (work has been killing me lately).

For the map, the first option is removing a mountain, the second is adding a river. I agree with the first option. Experiment a bit and check if connections can be enhanced with this new area available.

Ok. I will plant the trees on the map and remove the mountain; it might take a while though, since I'll have to write my turn report, etc.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

So, about the system that I've devised for the 'grand coordination' of the city:


-- To keep it simple, we won't have any 'official posts' for people (Road Planner etc), with one exception (I'll get there in a moment)

-- Instead, in the beginning of each turn-set, people will gather to post their plans and negotiate as to the direction that the city should take during that turn-set (or beyond)

-- Traffic plans will naturally take priority in these discussions (let's call them 'council meetings', for roleplay purposes), as traffic is such a crucial part of the game;
but you may discuss any part of the simulation, like e.g. zoning (on a grand scale; people may always build small 'corner shops' at their own discretion), police, parks, etc.

-- Some plans will be binding and others mere suggestions or recommendations. Which will be which will be decided by the Metropolitan Mayor, who will be the only elected official in the game

-- In addition to being the final arbiter on which plans will be chosen for implementation, and in which form (mandatory or voluntary), the MM will be responsible for monitoring their
progress, raising questions if some area seems to be oddly developed; he may also propose further modifications to the plans as the turn-set rolls along (his suggestions will be
non-binding at this point; only in the beginning of the turn-set may he declare some plan to be mandatorily followed)

-- The mayoral elections will take place in the beginning of each turn-set, directly before the council meetings

-- You may not vote for yourself (duh) nor abstain from voting, although if you're absent for too long, your vote will be considered null and void for that turn-set (technically you could
abstain by pretending not to be present, but please don't )

-- The idea ofc is that by being a good mayor you will be voted into office again, while being a bad one may preclude you from any future terms, leading to (hopefully) the best
player for the task attending to the post of mayor

-- Needless to say, all of this applies only in the Central, common district; within the personal zones the mouse-hand of each player will be law, period.

-- However, this doesn't stop the MM, or anyone else, from making *suggestions* as to the development of other players' personal zones ('if you'll build a Police Station so that it also
covers this corner of my district, I'll let you use my water pumps', etc). Remember that good suggestions have greater power than any law or order, in-game as irl

-- As to how long the council meetings and elections should last, that is to be decided. I'd think that maybe two days for the election (so as not to stall the game, as we're waiting for
a 'non-turn event' to take place), and three days for the council meeting would be ok. The MM could also decide when the council meeting is over; however, there must be some automatic terminal point in case the MM is absent. If all three days pass without the MM being present, then all suggested plans would be voluntary; I suspect though, given the nature of the game and the players, that a gentlemanly agreement would be reached regardless in all but the most extreme of cases.


How does this sound to people? There's still room for modifications, but I think this might well be the ideal system: it doesn't bog down the game with too many, ultimately unnecessary elections, and the one elected official has just enough powers and tasks to do that the position seems worth vying for. Furthermore, since we all want to build the best possible city, and it's pretty clear who the traffic gurus amongst us are, most of the time the plans of the most competent players would be followed, whether they're voted mayor or not.

A potential problem that I see is that if you're a good enough planner, you could be Metropolitan Mayor all-game-long; some other players might not even have a chance to show their mayoral teeth, so to speak. To keep the game interesting, we could always have a term-limit of two consecutive terms (or even one if people prefer).

------

An unrelated note: I've been playing on Hard Mode on the Tarawe map for quite a while now, and I'm having a hard time breaking even a $2k profit (I'm now at 6,000 residents).
Imo it's clear that for this game, Hard mode should not be used. Even if I am a terrible builder (which may well be the case ), the amount of cash will be far too little to enable the
extensive district play which we will be implementing, meaning that players will get bored long before we'll get there. So it's best to keep it on Normal difficulty imo.

 

[ItalianGuy]

I agree with all, except the no abstention vote and the term limit. I think abstentions must be possible and count as a vote to everyone but self; and there must be no term limit. After all, prior to elections someone can candidate so we can have a 'newbie term'.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I agree with all, except the no abstention vote and the term limit. I think abstentions must be possible and count as a vote to everyone but self

Oh, yes. I didn't think of that possibility; this way it's not possible to abuse the abstention, because to abstain would work directly against your own interest. With this rule abstaining can be included.

and there must be no term limit. After all, prior to elections someone can candidate so we can have a 'newbie term'.

Perhaps you misunderstood me; I meant a limit for *consecutive* terms -- meaning that you can have two terms in a row, then a break of one term, then again two terms in a row, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'candidate' and 'newbie term'? Do you mean that everyone would get to have one term as a mayor automatically, before we start the actual elections? While this would showcase each player's skills, the process will ultimately last so long that the game might be over / interest might have waned before we'll get to have any actual elections. Imo a limit for consecutive terms works well for ensuring that some new blood gets introduced into the mayoral pool, so to speak.

EDIT: I forgot to mention this, but the votes would be by a secret ballot (pms to the previous mayor, or whoever will count the votes), so as not to let other players' votes affect yours. (Note, however, that there is no way to monitor players' 'personal mail' between each other, so all kinds of shenanigans are possible here!)

Also, in the event of a tie in the number of votes, the previous mayor could decide who gets the post -- unless he is one of the tied candidates, ofc. In that case, or in the case where the MM is absent when it comes the time to decide, virtual lots* might be thrown for who gets the position.

*Having no social life to speak of (nor plans to get any), and no interest in manipulating the game to my benefit (I can't fathom a reason to 'cheat' in a game like this), imo I'm the best candidate for throwing lots and the like, if/when it's needed. I'll be going for a two-week biking trip to Norway sometime in late July (after the 20th most likely), but once I'll return, I'll try and get this show on the road.

 

[ItalianGuy]

Candidate: someone who tells everyone that he/she would like to be elected and asks for votes.
Newbie term: the first term of someone who was never elected before.
There must be another way to vote, I'll think about it.
Anyway, the consecutive terms rule is not good. Every election must be open to everyone, always.

 

[Myquandro]

I've created two options for the location of the districts and the main area:
http://imgur.com/a/yyjTs

As for the new rules I agree with all of them except for the voting system. I think voting should be done as follows:
- Everyone can vote on anyone (but himself) without any limit on the amount of votes (but only one vote per target). This means that if there are 5 candidates I can vote up to one vote for each of them (so 5 votes in total).
- All votes get combined and the player with the most votes becomes MM.
- If two or more candidates get the same amount of votes then new elections take place with only the top candidates participating.

This gives a better voting system with small groups like this.

 

[ItalianGuy]

I like option A.
And the voting system is interesting, it adds flexibility. I still need to think about how to vote without influencing others and without giving cheating opportunities.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I've created two options for the location of the districts and the main area:
http://imgur.com/a/yyjTs

As for the new rules I agree with all of them except for the voting system. I think voting should be done as follows:
- Everyone can vote on anyone (but himself) without any limit on the amount of votes (but only one vote per target). This means that if there are 5 candidates I can vote up to one vote for each of them (so 5 votes in total).
- All votes get combined and the player with the most votes becomes MM.
- If two or more candidates get the same amount of votes then new elections take place with only the top candidates participating.

This gives a better voting system with small groups like this.

Imo, it will bog down the game too much to hold new elections in case of ties. Also, it will add one more power to the mayor, so I think it'd be cool to let the previous mayor decide in this case. If he's not present though, maybe we could then hold a re-election, instead of throwing lots for the position.

As to voting for multiple people, I guess that's workable. This way you can have more flexibility; in case you want either of two players to be mayor, but not anyone else, you can vote for both of them.

@ItalianGuy: Since you cannot monitor private messages on these forums, there's really no way to prevent voting collusion. Imo if anything it'd add flavor to the game in the form of political intrigue; however if many players oppose such shenanigans, we could ban this practice in principle. I'm sure that most players would abide by that rule, as this is a casual, non-competitive game.

Re: Candidate & newbie mayor: Ah yes; campaining will of course be a natural part of the game. If you can convince others as to why you should be mayor, you'll naturally have a much better change of getting elected. However, I still think there should be a limit for consecutive terms, to ensure that someone doesn't keep hogging the position of mayor all-game-long. It's done irl (many countries have a presidential system where the president can only serve one, two, or three consecutive terms), so I don't see a problem from a realism pov -- if anything it would add realism. Or do you have some other objection to this? Think about how long the terms would be -- in our current game, which has been going on for what, three months now?, we've barely managed to play three rounds so far. While ideally the pace would be faster in this new SG, the elections and council meetings will further slow down the game. So two consecutive terms as mayor is already more than enough imo. And you'll still have a good chance of getting elected again after someone else has had their turn as mayor, as people will remember the good job that you did as mayor during your terms (assuming ofc that you *were* a good mayor).

EDIT: @Myquandro: Am I missing something? In both examples, your own area is huge and centrally located. If anything, you should switch the name tags of your own area and the central area; that'd make the main area to be centrally located and cut your area to the same size as mine and ItalianGuy's (at least in first option). --Or is the idea that since you're a good traffic planner, you'd prefer your area to be in the center, so as to facilitate good traffic connections between the districts? Imo it'd be better to mandate you being mayor for this (or just making suggestions that the current mayor can't refuse), as it'd be too easy otherwise. And let's face it, if the common area is *not* centrally located, it would just get neglected in favor of the personal districts. The way I see it, the only reasons to develop it are a) to make money in the beginning (we'll have to do this, as the districts will not yet be viable); and b) to connect the personal districts with highways, metro, etc. Cutting out reason b) with a non-central location means the death-knell of the common area after the initial few turns, imo.

EDIT2: The harbor(s) could always be located in your district; I'm sure the traffic arrangements could be orchestrated to their benefit in this way also -- perhaps even better than the other way around (the harbor being in the common area and the connections in your area).

 

[Myquandro]

EDIT: @Myquandro: Am I missing something? In both examples, your own area is huge and centrally located. If anything, you should switch the name tags of your own area and the central area; that'd make the main area to be centrally located and cut your area to the same size as mine and ItalianGuy's (at least in first option). --Or is the idea that since you're a good traffic planner, you'd prefer your area to be in the center, so as to facilitate good traffic connections between the districts? Imo it'd be better to mandate you being mayor for this (or just making suggestions that the current mayor can't refuse), as it'd be too easy otherwise. And let's face it, if the common area is *not* centrally located, it would just get neglected in favor of the personal districts. The way I see it, the only reasons to develop it are a) to make money in the beginning (we'll have to do this, as the districts will not yet be viable); and b) to connect the personal districts with highways, metro, etc. Cutting out reason b) with a non-central location means the death-knell of the common area after the initial few turns, imo.

EDIT2: The harbor(s) could always be located in your district; I'm sure the traffic arrangements could be orchestrated to their benefit in this way also -- perhaps even better than the other way around (the harbor being in the common area and the connections in your area).

The reason for me to put the Main Area not in the center is to build it on a shoreline so it can get the possibility to build a harbor. A second reason for building it in that location is to give it efficient building space which isn't limited by rivers, mountains, slopes, etc. too much. I don't think that the Main Area needs to be in the center. We start building it anyway in the beginning and a lot of big cities have the city center at or near to the coast and the suburbans spreading land inwards.

As to the size of my district, it's (supposed to be) exactly the same in both pictures, the difference being that in Option B I've left out the water. Even if it's a little bigger then other districts I don't think its unfair as most highway connections run through that district which takes up a lot of space.

The other option of having the harbor in someone's district seems fine to me, but it doesn't fit my ideas to what I want to build in my personal district. So, if we do that then we might have to find someone else to do that which can work out these harbor connections.

 

[ItalianGuy]

Elections: first of all, a suggestion for voting. To vote, we send a PM to the current MM and we send the list of people we vote for and a secret word. When everyone votes, the MM posts these words and votes, so everyone can check if the vote they gave is correct and they must post a 'check'. ALL must vote and ALL must check, then the election is done. (The secret words are for secrecy and must change every election)
Terms&realism: there is no sense in imitating real politics rules. They exist to avoid giving a lot of power to a single person for more than 10ish years, when there are millions of possible alternatives. We will be only six, and even if it's sure that no one will seize power and never leave it, I personally don't see a problem with that because we decide by vote.
Thank you for attention.
And remember to vote for me.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The reason for me to put the Main Area not in the center is to build it on a shoreline so it can get the possibility to build a harbor. A second reason for building it in that location is to give it efficient building space which isn't limited by rivers, mountains, slopes, etc. too much. I don't think that the Main Area needs to be in the center. We start building it anyway in the beginning and a lot of big cities have the city center at or near to the coast and the suburbans spreading land inwards.

I forgot that we might always make it mandatory for each player to also develop the common area; and/or the mayor might make it mandatory in one of his decisions in the beginning of the turn-set. I still think it's more natural to simply make it to be the central area. Also, imo the territory in the central valley on this map is clearly the most varied and interesting, while still being flattish, so if it's not to be the common area, then I will want it for myself (as will many other players, I'd imagine). By making it the common area, no one could hog it for himself and the question would resolve itself.

As to the size of my district, it's (supposed to be) exactly the same in both pictures, the difference being that in Option B I've left out the water. Even if it's a little bigger then other districts I don't think its unfair as most highway connections run through that district which takes up a lot of space.

You call twice as big 'a little bigger'? Did you lie about being Dutch and are actually from Texas? Remove the harbor area (beyond the mountains, to the East) from your area and it starts to look ok-ish in with regards to its size (as compared with the other districts). I didn't notice that the area is identical in both shots; it only appears smaller in the second shot because the main area is a lot bigger there.

The other option of having the harbor in someone's district seems fine to me, but it doesn't fit my ideas to what I want to build in my personal district. So, if we do that then we might have to find someone else to do that which can work out these harbor connections.

I'm sure we can figure it out. After all, that's what the council meetings are for! Remember that the current chaos that reigns in Heavenly Falls is due to us having no coordinated (traffic) plans at all. With fairly meticulous planning, an ability to map out the roads in advance (via the 'Some Roads' mod's mock-up roads), and an inability to divert from certain plans (in the common area, mind you), the traffic and zone layout is bound to be miles better in this new Metropolis. (It also helps that we won't have to climb up and down cliffs all the time like Spiderman!)

Elections: first of all, a suggestion for voting. To vote, we send a PM to the current MM and we send the list of people we vote for and a secret word. When everyone votes, the MM posts these words and votes, so everyone can check if the vote they gave is correct and they must post a 'check'. ALL must vote and ALL must check, then the election is done. (The secret words are for secrecy and must change every election)

This will bog down the game like no tomorrow. Have you not seen in our current game how people can be absent for weeks at a time? Waiting for 'checks' won't work when it's already slow to have the elections in the first place. If you're not there to vote in time, having your vote count for everyone is a far superior option to waiting, as per Myquandro's idea.

As for voter collusion, we will simply have to actually *trust* people not to do it (a scary concept, I know). That is, if it is to be disallowed. I'm for allowing it actually, as it adds spice to the game. You will simply make fraud a part of your campaign in this case, neatly simulating real world politics. It's ok with me if we want to ban this avenue of influence, though; the main thing should remain the building of the city, and this kind of intrigue might spark too much conflict down the line, when the city is big and the mayor has a lot of sway over the direction of development.

Terms&realism: there is no sense in imitating real politics rules. They exist to avoid giving a lot of power to a single person for more than 10ish years, when there are millions of possible alternatives. We will be only six, and even if it's sure that no one will seize power and never leave it, I personally don't see a problem with that because we decide by vote.
Thank you for attention.
And remember to vote for me.

Think about it this way: what harm is there in having term limits? None whatsoever, unless you can somehow count on being mayor for three or more times in a row. Imo, the situation where the term limit is actually needed is unlikely to occur: most people will be curious to see how someone else will do as the MM, and will not vote for the same person even two, let alone three times in a row. But it doesn't hurt to have it, so, why not have it in place in case such a freak scenario *does* occur? Remember that it takes weeks or even a month to get through a single election cycle (albeit we have had some bad luck in our current SG, or perhaps the game has run its course and people are simply losing interest). Imo two terms as a mayor in a row should be enough for anyone. If not, well, frankly such usurpers should be unwelcome in our game. Have a nice day, Citizen.