ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #64

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Errors to csd@microplex.com
For more information on Atlantis, visit the Web site
http://www.rahul.net/atlantis, or email the gamemaster
at atlantis@rahul.net.
If you want previous digests, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Omotayo Akinde <strategy@iesd.auc.dk>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:46:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Issues

> As usual, I'll respond to the various issues that have come up
> weeks afterwards, when no one cares anymore:

Well - everyone has a RealLife (TM). :-)

> 1) Sharing for PRODUCE, STUDY, etc.
> I am against silver sharing, for STUDY, as then you have the
> increased possibility of starving your men to death by
> accident. As for other items, I could probably do something
> like that, though it seem to encourage a bit of sloppiness.
> Still, if you can live with that, I guess I can too- I'll
> see what I can do.

Don't really have an opinion on that - though anything that'll
make life easier for the players can't be bad. (Except from the
programmers viewpoint. :-)

> 2) Armor.
> I sort of like armor the way it is now, perhaps for some
> perverse enjoyment of complication, rather than fitting into
> the simple +/- of normal attack/defense skills. As for it's
> lack of use, well, swords and bows are definitely going to
> be more popular because they let you tax. If you want to
> make some sort of 'elite' troops, armor is a plus though.

But those elite troops will still die on Xbows. (Don't know about
fireballs, a bit hard to test that.) Why bother to build platemailed
elite Level 5 troops when a Level 1 trained xbowman has a 40% chance
of killing him in one shot?

Armour has it's advantages - but my gripe with it is that it will never
become something one fells like producing when one can get a bonus
both to attack and defence just by producing a sword.

> 3) Tactics.
> Probably makes sense to give some sort of sliding scale,
> based on tactics difference. I'll see what I can do.

That should remedy at least one problem. :-)

> 4) Region trained troops.
> This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
> you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
> I'm against this one.

I can't exactly see the justification for this one either, but it
would add an extra touch to the game.

Regards,

The Legate
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 04 Dec 95 11:41:32 -0800
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Issues

As usual, I'll respond to the various issues that have come up
weeks afterwards, when no one cares anymore:

1) Sharing for PRODUCE, STUDY, etc.

I am against silver sharing, for STUDY, as then you have the
increased possibility of starving your men to death by
accident. As for other items, I could probably do something
like that, though it seem to encourage a bit of sloppiness.
Still, if you can live with that, I guess I can too- I'll
see what I can do.

2) Armor.

I sort of like armor the way it is now, perhaps for some
perverse enjoyment of complication, rather than fitting into
the simple +/- of normal attack/defense skills. As for it's
lack of use, well, swords and bows are definitely going to
be more popular because they let you tax. If you want to
make some sort of 'elite' troops, armor is a plus though.

3) Tactics.

Probably makes sense to give some sort of sliding scale,
based on tactics difference. I'll see what I can do.

4) Region trained troops.

This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
I'm against this one.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Schmidt" <hent0020@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design -- Terrain
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:24:16 -0600

> 4) Region trained troops.
>
> This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
> you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
> I'm against this one.

If I were to implement region training, any amount of mixing that dilutes a unit
more than 25% would result in the unit become terrain-neutral.  Example: 100
Forest troops and 10 Mountain troops would combine to become 110 Forest troops,
but 100 Forest troops and 50 Mountain troops would become neutral (unaligned to
any terrain).

Granted, if simplicity is the arbiter, why not give native races a slight bonus?
Wood elves fight better in forests, hill dwarves in mountains, etc.  Leaders
would be disadvantaged in this (though I think the ability to attain COM 5 and
RID 2 far outweighs any setback here).  There isn't much to combat as it stands,
just have lots of well-trained troops, a good TAC, and magical artillery, and
the bigger / more magical army wins.  I'd just like to see a little more ability
for consideration on the player's parts in choosing where to attack and with
what forces.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:58:04 +1100 (EST)
From: David Henley <rhenley@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design -- Terrain

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Jeff Schmidt wrote:

> > 4) Region trained troops.
> >
> > This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
> > you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
> > I'm against this one.
>
> If I were to implement region training, any amount of mixing that dilutes a unit
> more than 25% would result in the unit become terrain-neutral.  Example: 100
> Forest troops and 10 Mountain troops would combine to become 110 Forest troops,
> but 100 Forest troops and 50 Mountain troops would become neutral (unaligned to
> any terrain).

This might make it possible for small but highly skilled army to fight
larger less skilled in region .this backed by examples where local
knowledge of terrain has provided turning points in battle.this also
means tactics and planing of battle achives more importance and not jst
buy 200 troops train them for 3 months get tac leader and invade the
world ,use of regional troops become more important,so army raised in
desert would be at disadvantaged in forrest to begin with,i like the idea
of region knowledge giving small increase in combat skill so 25% of armry
is able to suprise the oppposing desert trained army for example,this i
belive would make game much ore interesting.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:00:41 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design -- Terrain

>> 4) Region trained troops.
>>
>> This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
>> you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
>> I'm against this one.
>
>Granted, if simplicity is the arbiter, why not give native races a slight
>bonus?  Wood elves fight better in forests, hill dwarves in mountains, etc.
>Leaders would be disadvantaged in this (though I think the ability to
>attain COM 5 and RID 2 far outweighs any setback here).  There isn't much
>to combat as it stands, just have lots of well-trained troops, a good TAC,
>and magical artillery, and the bigger / more magical army wins.  I'd just
>like to see a little more ability for consideration on the player's parts
>in choosing where to attack and with what forces.

I like this idea.  There would be no need to keep track of any extra variable;
the combat probabilities would just be calculated slightly differently.  It
would mean that there would be an actual significance to having an army of
hill dwarves instead of an army of tribal elves or eskimos.  Vikings might
really be the terror of the seas.  Darkmen could be a force to be feared in
the underworld.  Eskimos would be clueless in a jungle.

I also agree with the previous suggestion that a good way to achieve the kind
of bonuses we're talking about is to modify the 50% probability of getting
a chance to land a blow.  One could apply such bonuses both offensively and
defensively to add a little more color.

John Bollinger
jobollin@indiana.edu

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave "Mack" McGaw <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design -- Terrain
Date: Tue,  5 Dec 1995 18:11:22 +0000 (GMT)

>>> 4) Region trained troops.
>>>
>>> This seems to be an extra complication. What happens when
>>> you mix troops trained in different regions types? etc. So,
>>> I'm against this one.
>>
> I like this idea.  There would be no need to keep track of any extra variable;
> the combat probabilities would just be calculated slightly differently.  It
> would mean that there would be an actual significance to having an army of
> hill dwarves instead of an army of tribal elves or eskimos.  Vikings might
> really be the terror of the seas.  Darkmen could be a force to be feared in
> the underworld.  Eskimos would be clueless in a jungle.
>
> I also agree with the previous suggestion that a good way to achieve the
kind
> of bonuses we're talking about is to modify the 50% probability of getting
> a chance to land a blow.  One could apply such bonuses both offensively and
> defensively to add a little more color.
>

But surely this would diffuse the freak oppotunity of finding a "strange race
in a strange land" type of thing.

Although it sounds reasonable on the combat side of things, what if a trader
wanted to make other objects?  The only populous available would be restricted
to the region type with no real chance for expansion on differing fronts.

Also, towns and cities require items that are not readily available in that
region, what do you do in this case!???

I basically don't like the idea - although it's a little more realistic on
thecombat front, the complications of having to get a trade faction started is a
royal pain!

Mack !

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:00:06 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design -- Terrain

The idea under discussion has been deleted somewhere along the way.  In a
nutshell, it is that races native to a particular region type would get a
slight combat edge in that region type.]

[I wrote:]
>> I like this idea.  There would be no need to keep track of any extra variable;
>> the combat probabilities would just be calculated slightly differently.  It
>> would mean that there would be an actual significance to having an army of
>> hill dwarves instead of an army of tribal elves or eskimos.  Vikings might
>> really be the terror of the seas.  Darkmen could be a force to be feared in
>> the underworld.  Eskimos would be clueless in a jungle.

>> I also agree with the previous suggestion that a good way to achieve the
>> kind of bonuses we're talking about is to modify the 50% probability of
>> getting a chance to land a blow.  One could apply such bonuses both
>> offensively and defensively to add a little more color.

[Mack responded:]
>But surely this would diffuse the freak oppotunity of finding a "strange race
>in a strange land" type of thing.

This comment has me totally lost.  I have no idea what you're talking about,
and I don't understand how it is related to the design suggestion.

>Although it sounds reasonable on the combat side of things, what if a trader
>wanted to make other objects?  The only populous available would be restricted
>to the region type with no real chance for expansion on differing fronts.

If a trader wants to find a race which specializes in a particular skill then
he must look around to find a population of that race.  The proposal under
discussion does not affect that in the slightest.

As far as expansion goes, I don't see your point.

>Also, towns and cities require items that are not readily available in that
>region, what do you do in this case!???

Again, I don't understand.  You do the same thing you do now: move the stuff
from where you make it to where you sell it, then carry the silver to where
you need it.

>I basically don't like the idea - although it's a little more realistic on
>thecombat front, the complications of having to get a trade faction started is
>a royal pain!

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any of the problems that you seem, Mack.
It does not seem to me that a modification of the type suggested would cause
any problems with trade, unless it were an indirect effect such as an
increase in banditry.  Is there something I'm missing?

John Bollinger
jobollin@indiana.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 15:23:52 -0500
From: Josh_Higham@nmh.northfield.ma.us (Josh Higham)
Subject: Designs

First, my ideas about Terrain Benefits.

Have Terrain be a skill that can be learned, just like any other.  The only
difference would be that you can only practice in skill in a certain terrain,
the one you are trying to learn.

Native units would get an automatic level 1 skill.

Skill reports would read:

Level 1:  a +1 bonus to attackers in this terrain, a +2 advantage to defenders
(the numbers might be different)
Level 3:  units only require half of their normal upkeep (it is assumed that
they can find some food)
Level 5:  a +1 to obs and stealth

These are just ideas for skill reports.  I like the ideas, but I don't know
about the levels presented.  I think that a unit should have some military
advantage, and it should also, at some time have an upkeep advantage. (I think
maybe these two should be switched, finding food might be easy - while
learning to fight is tougher).  There is also the issue of places where it
would be really hard to find food, even if you knew how (artic).  I really
think that people who train all the way should get the obs/stl advantage, if
you've spent that much time in the terrain, you know a lot about how to sneak
around.

I have another item that should definately be put in Atlantis 3.0, if not in
2.0.

You should be able to put a #VACATION line instead of a #ATLANTIS line.   This
would store that set of orders, for if you go on vacation.  I have tried to
get friends to send in orders for me, but they always screw up...

Then the turn checker could see who hasn't supplied orders, and fill in with
the vacation set if none were sent in.

I would like to see it in 2.0, with a time frame, so you could specify how
long you would be gone.  This way you wouldn't lose your game over the summer,
but it would be known that you were coming back.

However, it should definately be in 3.0 because a person that is playing would
like to know that they can easily continue through the summer, otherwise it is
not worth paying for.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     Sent from Northfield Mount Hermon School via ExpressNet/First Class
                   firstname_lastname@nmh.northfield.ma.us
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:05:29 +1100 (EST)
From: David Henley <rhenley@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Subject: terain

these long topics do tend to get confusing :(
however
i feel that terain as skil could be interesting addition to the
game.while you may have to go further for particular race isn't this more
realistic ,after all army of wood elves in desert would be use to using
trees to hide ,and involves different tactics to nomad/barbariens living
in the desert use to using there terrain,for both combat and finding food.
this would meanwood elves in army wuld have greater degree of defeating nomad
army in desert.
this i don't feel would be all that difficult to find a race needed as
you find a region you discover the races that live in that type region,so
in swamp you find tribesmen,tribal elves,in mountains hill dwarves,ect

i feel reduced upkeep should be level 1 after ll everone would be more
likely to know how to find food if there peasants,while warriors know how
to fight in that terrain (level 3 or whatever)

H   H EEEE  NN    N  L     EEEE Y   Y  *********************************
  H   H E     N N   N  L     E     Y Y   * Address all email to          *
  HHHHH EEEE  N  N  N  L     EEEE   Y    *                               *
  H   H E     N   N N  L     E      Y    * David Henley at               *
  H   H EEEE  N    NN  LLLLL EEEE   Y    * rhenley@st.nepean.uws.edu.au  *
                                         *********************************

if your loooking for the solution then your part of the problem

if one cannot command attention by one's admirable qualites at least one can
be a nuisance