Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)

From: bfw@icpsr.umich.edu (Ben Wu)

Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Hello Rich:

Following are my comments on the proposed g2 rules changes.
I like much of the new rules changes (especially the intent) that
seek to address much that imbalanced g1.  However, I believed with
the new beastmastery rules, the new stack rules and the quest command,
you've simply eliminated a very important aspect of Olympia.  And that
is "War".

And War, while unwanted by one-half of the players, is an important
reason why many of us play Olympia.  Also, for us diplomacy players,
War is a necessary element as a threat for successful diplomacy.

The rules changes separately in theory are good.  But the rules on
Beastmastery, Quest and stack limits in combination needs much
adjustment and testing.  Otherwise you will find the Olympia will be a
very bogged down and constipated game that won't be nearly as popular
as g1 by turn 20 (after the initial curiosity wears off).  You need to
re-think how some of these rules will affect the games in combination.

Here are my comments specifically.

On Beastmastery:

It is my belief that the changes to the Beastmastery is extremely
drastic and unbalanced.  It is agreed that the former Beastmastery
rules accounted for the majority of the imbalance in g1.  However
you are:

1)  Limiting Beastmasters by the 1 NP cost.  A very high cost
given that NPs are non-transferable.

2). Then you've decreased the number of beasts "captured" to 0-2.
which it in itself makes exploration and beast-hunting (a favorite
pass time of many times) unprofitable given the high numbers of human
troops that is needed to fight these beasts (and thus maintenance costs
that add up through months of travel AND questing).

3). Then you've increased breeding times.  Which I agree was
necessary.  If cyclops and giants can be bred, you will find that the
dragons of g1 will simply be replaced by cyclops and giant armies.
But that shouldn't be much of a problem given their relatively low
combat values (lower than elite guards).

4). Then you've increased breeding mortality rates.  This coupled with
low numbers of beasts captured in the first place essentially makes
breeding extremely unprofitable.

5). Then you've added that each beast has a 1% chance of dying at the
end of each turn.  Which is harsh given the other conditions already
in place to limit Beastmastery.  Perhaps if you made added another
structure such as "Breeding Grounds" that can be built through
combination of work, stone and wood and that within the breeding
grounds, the 1% doesn't exist and only if beyond the "grounds" (ie
enroute for battle) will the 1% chance occur.  I think it would be
more realistic this way.

Any 2 or 3 of the beastmastery changes together can solve the previous
imbalance.  All added together and you have eliminated Beastmastery as
a viable and playable option.

On Stack limits and movement costs.

In my opinion, a ridiculous rule given the maximum cap.  If you have a
maximum cap, then why bother having the rule.  1 noble with 1000
troops moves just as fast as a 1 noble with 20 troops or 2 nobles and
500 troops.

Also, consider the near impossible (difficult) accumulation of beasts,
most wars will be fought by men (thus moving at walking speed).  It
would take 2 turns just to walk 4 provinces to attack.  At the cost of
$2.50 a turn, you've basically eliminated the "war aspect" of olympia
which many of us enjoy and which I believe is necessary in order for
diplomacy to work.

Also, consider the Quest commands, one nobles essentially needs 20-30
troops just to ensure victory while exploring.  You've essentially
slowed the game down to a snail's pace.  To explore one province two
away from my homebase, I'll need to spend nearly 1 month to travel to.
Spend another month questing and fight and 1 month to return.  Not to
mention the risk of dying.

I think this rule change should be removed.

On Hades and Faery.

I gather by making Hades and Faery the same size as the rest of
Olympia, you wanted it to be more difficult to travel across Olympia
via Hades and Faery?  If so, this rule as it stands does not solve the
situation.  I believe that unless you add "impassable" areas in Hades
and Faery that would limit access from one area to another, it may
always be simpler to walk across Hades and Faery and bypass the
Olympia oceans and etc.

On some Beast's weights.

You have man down at 100 and beasts such as hounds and rats at 65 and
50.  While it makes sense for hounds to be at 65, are you sure you
wants 2 rats to have the same weight as a single man.  There must be
some advantages of having rats?  There is no need to have any offenses
against realism with respect to rats here.  So you might want to
re-evaluate some of weights.

And finally a rules clarification.

Essentially you've eliminated NP transfer, which is good.  My question
is example.  If I had 1 NP free and I capture a 1 NP contract noble
and proceed to bribe said noble to my side, I lose my 1 NP correct?
And does the original owner gain 1 NP back?

Thanks for listening.

Benjamin Wu (ninth wave - g1)

References

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
jeremy@insignia.com (Jeremy Maiden)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
jeremy@insignia.com (Jeremy Maiden)
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
skrenta@rt.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000