@DontBanTheMan, alright, including my IC questions, how exactly does creating subordinate assets to other assets work? In my example, such as creating courts under a state or province, would that be added weight for the manager of that asset, or not unless they supervise it directly? Also who has the power to do that, the minister of law (me?), the Dictator (since they run the state / province etc.)?
(( Think of Assets as anything you directly oversee. If it isn't your asset, you cannot directly control it, and actions have a chance of being misrepresented. The higher down the chain of subordinates it is, the less under your direct supervision it is. For example: say you have a president (commander in chief), general, and various commanders until you arrive at last at the individual level. Though the president is technically in command of every individual soldier, he does not deal with them. He also doesn't deal with tactics; he directs strategy. That's really the difference between subordinates and assets; subordinates are so you can direct an overall strategy, while assets are managed tactically. The president wouldn't micromanage the barracks layout of each individual unit; that's what his subordinates are for.
Assets are like that, but on a broader level. So though Taricus is directly overseeing six units, he still doesn't deal with every individual soldier. He is, however, capable of overseeing every aspect of their training, equipment, etc. If he had a subordinate dealing with them, he'd tell the subordinate generally what he wanted (ex.: Imperial Unit), and then the subordinate would deal with the training, equipment, etc. as he saw fit.
Now for the situation you asked about. Let's say there's ten provinces, each with three courts. If each court is considered an asset, if you directly oversaw all thirty courts that would be thirty assets. If you put one person in charge of each province's courts, that'd be ZERO assets you'd manage, three assets each manager would manage, and TEN subordinates that you would manage (too many). If you then got three "area" managers to manage 3-3-4 managers each, that would leave you with three subordinates and zero assets, each area manager with 3-3-4 subordinates, and each manager with three assets. However, your direct control over the courts would be much less than if you directly oversaw them - though you could direct policy and the like with your control over the area managers, you wouldn't be able to direct individual courtrooms or individual cases. This could be alleviated by the appeals courts you mentioned; if you added appeals courts, it would depend on who managed which. Say each province had an appeals court, each area had one, and the nation had one. This would give each manager, area manager, and yourself an extra asset to manage. This has the upside of filtering all the very important cases directly to you without overloading your assets. Though you still wouldn't have much control over every single case, that doesn't really matter too much as you'd be directing policy and the like with your appeals court and your picks for area managers.
Now, would each court be an asset? Eh. Depends on how large they are. Assets are generally decided by how much you can personally deal with. The most skilled bureaucrat in the world doesn't have the time or attention to deal with everything all at once. The more cases there are, the more overloaded each individual asset would get. Agencies that are too large will eventually need to split into multiple assets, as they become too large to manage effectively. Assets can never be too small, but the maximum size is variable (largely dependent on the number of employees, number of clients, and amount of work required to maintain them). ))
Author
Topic: Birth of the Bureaucracy (6/∞), Turn 6 (Read 15299 times)