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

From: jeremy@insignia.co.uk (Jeremy Maiden)

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Rich says:

> I am less resolved about the movement delay, but as I said, if it
> proves to be a major problem, I can ease up on it or remove it
> altogether.

This is rather worrying. It means that if players base their plans for
the crucial early turns on the land movement rules being broken,
they'll
be penalised later when the rules change to favour people who
incorrectly
invested in land forces. Whether the rules actually _are_ broken isn't
the point, it seems bad to rely on being able fix things by punishing
players retroactively for being right.

and ScottT says:

> Take auraculum notification.  No doubt the players who auraculated
> later in the game complained that notification put them at an unfair
> advantage.  Strictly speaking, that's of course true.  But doesn't
> that add some spice and interest to the game, knowing that if you do
> this thing you'll be challenging a power structure?  Doesn't it make
> it interesting to rush to be the first to auraculate?

No, the rush to be first to auraculate isn't at all interesting for
most players in an open-ended game, as they started playing after the
first auraculation was complete. I don't think it would be good to
choose Oly features by how well they'd work in a short closed game.

Jeremy

References

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
bfw@icpsr.umich.edu (Ben Wu)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia proposed G2 changes, for review (long)
bfw@icpsr.umich.edu (Ben Wu)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0000