Should assassinations of political characters be allowed? My opinion,yes!
What happens to the positions assets after the event?
My suggestion:Personal stellar amount reduced by a certain percentage,say 10-20%.
We can't have the assets of assassinated politicals lost completely as players would get discouraged and drop out,but a reasonable lose of stellars should be acceptable.
Is there a way to lower the chance of,or prevent assassinations?
Yes,if located at a base or ship under your control the political can allocate a part of the locations security levels to personal security.New political order needed.
Some basics to be going on with there.What do you think?
The players responsible for the hit on the GTT must have used a few SAs to accomplise the task and well done to them,but they must be feeling very down at the result not having changed a thing in game.
Imagine the impact on the people of a high up political getting whacked almost right next door!!!
Pete
The problem is balancing what "should" happen, and making the penalties such a major blow that political assassination becomes the only effective method of waging war. I'm definately in favour of there being something but we need to make sure it isn't unbalancingly draconian
Dan
Why lose anything else?Keep it simple.
The new character takes over(beneficery)(sp)the assets continue to operate normally.
A political controls assets,but doesn't really do all the book keeping,that's all done behind the scenes by the employees.
The lose of stellars could be the inheritence tax levied by the EEM,and/or the cost of being executer of the will!!
Should there be a limit on the amount of times a players politicals can be hit?
A player could be wiped out financially by multiple hits per week.
Darren
Say a 20-25% drop, so every ship basically has to return for maintenance. Which could be handy if you're being attacked - assasinate your enemy political, and buy yourself a breather while his ships and positions are thrown in disruption.
we dont all of a sudden have a larger debt or lose money, nothing asset wise would change
a few old dears would shed a few tears and some of us may even cheer buts thats about it
1) All Aff Owned Assets being administered by that political should return immediately to Aff control.
2) All Player Owned Assets should have to be paid from their OWN reserves of stellars for 1 week (same as a player without a political has to do) as the finances get sorted out.
3) Loss of all Political Rank and Reports associated with that political. This may not seem a huge loss - but if there is only one polical in the Aff, then who is going to vote them back to the player...?
In that case, the Aff should go GM run until a suitable amount of time (say 12 weeks) has passed to determine who is legitimately more qualified to run the Aff.Those affs that have set up a LEGITIMATE, IN GAME chain of command and a hierarchy of sucession will not notice much in the way of political assassinations - Despotic Tyrannies will be toppled.
Just my 2p as an observer of events
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
for 1. who pays for the player's starbases? I for one wouldn't appreciate suddenly being dumped with the costs!
for 2. the positions don't have reserves once a political is created
3. is not a problem except for the very small affs - I'd prefer to see something proportionate to the share of votes the assassinated political had (eg. aff wide loss of up to x% efficiency - say 10% for it being the sole political but prorata for larger affs). Still has an effect on smaller affs more than larger but is not crippling
Dan
| QUOTE |
| for 1. who pays for the player's starbases? I for one wouldn't appreciate suddenly being dumped with the costs! |
Starbases are outposted and employee wages come from Aff funds until they are reassigned.
| QUOTE |
| for 2. the positions don't have reserves once a political is created |
Then either a way is found to get the stellars to the crews/starbases, or they go without pay for a week until the finances are sorted (after a political is recreated). This provides an incentive to keep assets Aff owned... This further fits with existing rules about players without politicals.
| QUOTE |
| 3. is not a problem except for the very small affs - I'd prefer to see |
Then very small Affs need to be VERY careful about who they p*$$ off...
Mica has said time and again that losing a political would be EXTREMELY BAD - so far I don't think anyone has seen that. There may be repurcussions going on behind the scenes that people are not aware of, so I'm suspending judgement - but I would be interested in knowing. Quite frankly, the "reward" for assassinating a political should be commeasurate with the risks involved in performing the deed. Consider this:
1) Already, a Political is the HIGHEST security item in the game.
2) Any DECENT level of security at a Starbase makes it that much harder to perform the hit.
3) Assassins cost as much (if not more) in wages AS A BATTLESHIP EVERY WEEK. They should be at least as damaging/effective in their use in the long term...
4) The ONLY way to increase the abilities of an Operative is to SUCESSFULLY perform missions of that type (which involves the risk of compromise/capture/loss - and which I have not personally seen yet despite the fleet of Ops I run) or be equipped with special kit (which requires extensive research outlay).
5) Performing Operative missions costs stellars, lots of them. The higher the Risks associated with the mission, the higher the cost, IRREGARDLESS of whether the mission was a success or failure. It probably cost 50k to assassinate the GTT Political - I'm sure the player performing the hit would appreciate something a little more significant happen to the GTT than a simple slap on the wrist and a minor inconvenience...
The point that Gandolph makes is still valid, though not in the way he thinks:
Sure, if Tony Blair (or "W") were assassinated then their seconds would come up to bat and there would be little disruption...
However, if Kim Il Sung were killed, where do you think North Korea would be? How about Muammar Gaddafi in Libya? Both are examples of closely held dictatorships - which would be reflected in Phoenix as an Aff with but a single Political player. The turmoil associated within an Aff from losing a political should be more significant the fewer there are within the Aff as the rank and file are deprived of their sole source of direction...
Further, my suggestion allows for other "interesting" scenarios to develop:
As a purely fictional and hypothetical instance - If Chris and I decided that we wanted to replace Blair, but knew we couldn't curry enough votes from the other CIA Politicals to do so, then putting some foxglove in his nightcap and "retiring" poor Sam would eliminate his votes from the equation and put either one of us in line for the DCI spot... >:D
[hmmm, I hear boots coming from down the hall already... better wrap this up.]
This also sets up yet another "marketable" aspect within the game - hey Gandolph, how far from "Regent" is Imperial Patrol Commissioner?
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
It is much harder if you are in an aff with two or three members, some which may not be happy with you. Loss of rank would mean 1 vote maybe, whereas a VPD would have more. He could essentially take over ... and if the HQ of the affiliation happens to be affailiation owned ....
I am for loss of rank if anything. Loss of stellars doesnt make sense as heirs take over ... and maybe 10-20% loss of stellars ... them going to the affiliation fund.
Loss of rank opens the posibility of a coup, and gives disgruntled players a way of getting rid of a useless PD, other than voting him out.
| QUOTE |
| This also sets up yet another "marketable" aspect within the game - hey Gandolph, how far from "Regent" is Imperial Patrol Commissioner? |
ssshhhh, im already working on it
i accept dictatorships may have a different effect, but the GTT isnt, just because an affiliation is run by 1 or 2 players doesnt make it a dictatorship. a dictatorship is a ruler over its peoples with oppression etc etc, just because there isnt anyone else in the affiliation, shouldnt automatically mean it collapses on Death (or is it worth me taking control of GTT being the patrol commissioner until a suitable replacment isfound
) just asking.......Scrimm talks a bit of sense, (what am i saying) some effects should be taken into account but these should be relevant to the affiliation and the way its run, not generic or across the board.
Effect should be comensurate with the politicals position in his affiliation. Rank for the replacement starts at zero and the voting politicals must vote him back in (if they want him). Since in one man affiliations the only political is PD by default this would not affect them unduly.
Positions go to the affiliation if affiliation owned? The affiliation has no positions as they are an attribute of the players. Voting politicals could re-assign them but KJC is not going to be delerious about the loss of starbase RW revenue whilst this gets sorted out.
Geoff
| QUOTE (HPSimms @ Feb 24 2004, 04:37 PM) |
| Loss of stellars makes no sense, the political keeps his funds in an electronic account, not under his bed where all that blood can stain it if he has his throat cut in his sleep. Effect should be comensurate with the politicals position in his affiliation. |
Stellar loss reflects the immediate crisis situation and the stellar costs of bringing it under control, not theft. As the loss is 10% the wealth of the politician this is generally commensurate with the political rank of the victim.
Joe Player is the sole member of the BANanna republic and his political, El Presidente(000) is the PD of the Aff.
The freedom and democracy loving CIA ganks El Presidente(000) because he offended the Pope in some drunken revelry.
Joe Player decides to promote a new character, General Ubiquito(001), to political now.
Before we had the following:
El Presidente(000) - 8 Votes - 8 Total Aff Votes
After CIA intervention, there is no-one with ANY political authority to promote General Ubiquito(001) to PD. How does Joe Player promote his new political up the political ladder? It SHOULD be the same way as everyone else - by being voted up the ranks, but as there is no-one to vote him up the ranks...
I think everyone can see where this can get VERY problematic for one-man-affs...
Does the fact that there are no total Aff votes any more mean that the first person to raise their hand gets the job?
Just trying to figure out how this works...
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
Dan
but yes if that was the case, then in theory its open to any member to install them selves as ruler if they so wish, which brings into the game the element in an in house fight for the right.
when Simms pegs it (whoops i mean if
) i suppose all the other members could attempt to go for ruler, if no majority could be given and things couldnt be sorted out "round the table" then its down to the trusty photon gun to decide.Klingon type rules then move forward until 1 side has majority
Why couldn't the new person just take over? I mean the first PD just got the rank no-one voted him up the ladder.
With an Aff with no other player characters (sorry old school RPGer) who's going to stop them. In fact who else would want the job. Everyone else in the Aff is a lowly worker perhaps kept under control from the top so as long as there is money in the bank to pay the Goons they do as they are told.
But.... Why couldn't player A the PD of Aff AAA (a one person Aff with no other player members) be hit by player B who then (using SA's) attempts to take over the Aff and all its holding by paying bigger wages and showing more force. Player A can attempt to create a new Pol but if the Usurper does it well player A has no Aff to become a PD of and will need to try the same tactic or employ some big boys to come kick some!!!!
Just an idea to throw in the pot...
Pete
Some would vote in a new leader, some would automatically assend to the next level of leadership, in some affs it would/could cause civil war to sort the next "strongest" leader from the rest....
And you can lead the Wimble Nation it you have the best looking cow
It should all be delt with IC, with possibly the exception of the PD's character assasination. He gets to promote the new PD character (wether his or someone elses) but it would have to be done via SAs and vetoed by Mica to stop stupid things happening.
Eg, the FELini tyrant dies, and the PD (sorry Dan) decides that very conveniently that the dead-tyrants daughter will take over. The PD does the SA to promote the new leader to the position of tyrant, but Mica blocks the final transition for one of two reasons. The general population gets a sudden dislike for that line of leadership (burning those kittens was NOT a good political move!) and begin a nice riot, OR another FELini player sticks in an SA to contest leadership and away you go!! (appologies for picking on the FEL)
Either way, things get interesting, but there is no need for a specific (and rigid) game mechanic. Let's not turn the game into a mechanic-only game (I have a pile of PC games for that) and try and keep the Role-Playing side alive. All races and affs are not the same, so don't force us to deal with problems in the same way as everyone else.
And breath......
Assassins, as an Item of Kit within the game, need to have a DEFINED PURPOSE AND EFFECT.
Although it's all very well and good to say that the evil, bad, blackhearted assassin was able to kill my political, but a fully formed clone is able to spring from the gaping hole in his head, grasp a hold-out blaster from under the table and kill the blackguard - this sets a bad precedent for every other item of kit within the game.
Factories have Defined effects. Photon Guns have Defined effects. Shields have Defined effects. So do Cryobays, Targetting Computers, Jump Drives, ISR Engines, Principles, Techniques and Blueprints - so also, should Assassins. Further, as Assassins are common tech throughout the peripheries, those effects SHOULD be known to everyone.
If the Effects that an Assassin generates is dependent solely upon SA Results AND can be countered with the merest use of a SA, then Assassins should be a restricted Tech item and their results better be DAMN worth the RL cost associated with their use.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
Basically any action or game mechanic that costs RL money should have a special or worthy effect otherwise why spend an extra real resource on it!!!
Pete
I'm talking about how to deal with the death of a RANKing political, and how a replacement (internal and NOTHING to do with the assasination!) is found/promoted/crowned.
I'm not trying to say the "photon gun" should need an SA to fire it, or to determin the damage. I AM saying that each aff will deal with the damage from the photon gun differently. The assasination follows mechanics and the political dies loosing 10% of their $$ and whatever else is decided, but the IC inter-aff political nightmare that MAY follow an assasination should not be ruled by mechanics.
There was a poll taken awhile back concerning this topic.
What is happening?
I know David and Mica are busy sorting out infrastructure,but can we please have some updates on other areas of the game such as this.
Cheers
So that would mean in a 1 player aff, that they dont have to talk to mica each time they are killed off, so to become PD again, in a aff with perhaps 3 players they have each 1 vote, so now they can actually vote about who is the new leader
But i think being killed should only mean loss of votes, rights and reports, because thats always big hit, if you are used to running it all
Also, it should be possible to run an aff as a dictatorship; not everything has to be a democracy!