Suggestion: Alliance Government Mechanics

[Kosta]

Contention: Alliance mechanics are way too simplistic in their current form and do not accommodate any form of sophisticated government. 

Arguments:

• Coup mechanic: The coup mechanic in its current form legit ruins any chance of most governments forming. The people that occupy the two top ranks legit hold all the cards. I agree that a coup mechanic should be there, however there has to be some form of checks and balances. A vote perhaps? Something! If people wish to have rotating presidents and prime ministers, as soon as they reach power they can legit kick everyone out and ruin the alliance. The coup mechanic doesn't allow nuance in power structures. Alliances are very much operating like irl countries and the fact that one person (at the top) can come in a destroy the alliance in turmoil is imo stupid. 
• Branches: There should be government mechanics such as executives, legislatives and perhaps a judicial branch that can be turned on and off depending on what the alliance requires. Not everything is straight hierarchy, and branches are needed. Each branch should have customizable powers according to the alliances needs. Eg. executive could remove people from positions, but cannot kick. Legislative can touch taxes etc. Judicial can kick players from the alliance. And so on. And if an alliance wants an absolute power executive that can be accommodated too. 
• Dual control systems: In Accounting this is a common practise, its called: Dual control systems. This is where one person prepares and initiates the transaction, while a second person reviews the details and approves or authorizes it. This could really help in preventing bank robbers. Alliances can appoint EAs and allow them to interact with the bank, but also have that check and balance of a second person to approve of transactions. This could also apply to other systems within the alliance. 
• Locked permissions: Our current government hierarchy has locked permissions for some reason. Four of the nine positions in the Control panel have locked permissions that cannot be changed. Two of the ranks at the bottom don't even display on the front page and are pretty much useless. Please fix. 
• More permissions and information: With these new branches and positions, comes the demand for more permissions and information needed to decision makers. Alliance embargoes right now are useless. Anyone can opt out of their own free will. Sure, choice matters, but the government should at the very least know who has opted out. An expansion on tax revenues would be good, along with simple laws etc. 

 

Conclusion: The alliance mechanics, if expanded, will bring about more nuanced and sophisticated government structures and hierarchies. In its current form government are fairly limited ingame. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Kosta
Added section

[Copira]

Yeah but this kills some of the fun you can have abstractly. The whole point is that the top apportion their power if they want to, this is just a useless change to put burden on the devs. 

And plus coups are not that common. We already have checks and balances for many alliances, it's just not built into the game. Which is fine. 

[Kosta]

1 hour ago, Copira said:

Yeah but this kills some of the fun you can have abstractly. The whole point is that the top apportion their power if they want to, this is just a useless change to put burden on the devs.

How is it putting burden on the devs? Its legit their job. If they deem this an improvement then it just improves the dynamic of governments. If you want to have absolute power go for it, I want way more democratic stuff in an alliance. 
 

1 hour ago, Copira said:

And plus coups are not that common. We already have checks and balances for many alliances, it's just not built into the game. Which is fine. 

We don't have checks and balances. We have people hogging the top positions of alliances just so coups do not happen. There is a difference.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Kosta

[Village]

9 hours ago, Kosta said:

• Locked permissions: Our current government hierarchy has locked permissions for some reason. Four of the nine positions in the Control panel have locked permissions that cannot be changed. Two of the ranks at the bottom don't even display on the front page and are pretty much useless. Please fix. 

That's intentional, the four ranks are the default base ranks you can't edit beyond the name, and anything below position level 3 is a member rank and doesn't show on the nation page.

 

I'll put this on the list as something to maybe consider in the future, but I think a lot of it is still mostly just flavor on top of an already existing system, alliances aren't presently meant to be giant democratic entities, they're meant as basic hierarchical structures that the playerbase can then fill in on their own. The dual control system is interesting for sure though, and probably would help things. That might end up getting done separately I'm not sure.

[Jacob Knox]

2 hours ago, Copira said:

And plus coups are not that common.

This right here tells me you don't know what you're talking about lol.

 

I agree with Kosta that it would be nice to have more complicated alliance dynamics and controls.

[Copira]

2 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

This right here tells me you don't know what you're talking about lol.

 

I agree with Kosta that it would be nice to have more complicated alliance dynamics and controls.

...Are they though?

[Malakai]

13 hours ago, Kosta said:

• Dual control systems: In Accounting this is a common practise, its called: Dual control systems. This is where one person prepares and initiates the transaction, while a second person reviews the details and approves or authorizes it. This could really help in preventing bank robbers. Alliances can appoint EAs and allow them to interact with the bank, but also have that check and balance of a second person to approve of transactions. This could also apply to other systems within the alliance. 

I'm torn on this one; I do agree it provides a wonderful prevention of theft, but I also see it presenting a problem with alliances trying to offshore in wartime; now it only requires on nation to offshore to a new bank and can be done quickly. Alliances that have a diverse membership spanning multiple time zones could be faced with the issue of not having two Econ level gov members present at the same time to finish the transaction. 

I would love to see this idea expanded; definitely worthy of consideration. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Malakai