ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #54

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Errors to csd@microplex.com
Now there should be a digest whenever (a) there are 10 emails
or (b) whenever there is an email waiting for more than 48 hours
for a digest to be completed.
So don't get worried if the digest has only 1 or 2 emails, that
just means the list has been slow.
(I hope it works)
If you want previous versions, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:00:23 -0700
From: ward@jeeves.ucsd.edu
Subject: Atl: Trade suggestions

to have generated some support and also criticisms.  First of all, I
think the main effect would be to make it a bit easier for trade
factions to expand and continue production (which I see as somewhat
limited now).  I am in favor of some restrictions.  For example it
could require level 5 banker skill and a trade faction could be
restricted to having only two bankers.  That would make those units
(and banking ability) vulnerable.
  I think that it would also generate more interaction between trade
and war factions.  War factions would have more of an interest in taking
a trade representative along on explorations.  Trade factions could
charge a percentage for transferred funds and that would improve income.
It would make trade factions more valuable allies (and also raise the
specter of white collar crime :).
  In comparison with portal use, it is a much weaker mechanism for war
factions to use in expansion because silver can be used to recruit
untrained and vulnerable troops while portals can transfer trained
troops with weapons and magic items.  Also, it would not be
instantaneous as it could require 2 turns to transfer silver from a
war faction to banker and then back to the war faction in another
location.
  So I think it would benefit the game by increasing interaction
and improving the status of trade factions.

Ward - Severe Trade (164)

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Adrian Smith <fon@iinet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Atl: Trade suggestions
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:44:57 +0800 (WST)

I like the idea of banker units for trade factions, and I think they
would work quite well with a few limitations.

1) Generic factions have 1 banker, mixed trade 2 bankers, pure trade 5.

2) A banker unit can transfer n x $1000 silver to or from unclaimed,
   as a month-long order, where n is the banker's skill level.

3) Each transfer would involve a loss of some fraction of the transfer,
   perhaps 1/(n+1) of it.

What do you think?

Mutant Black Robes (44)
fon@iinet.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:21:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Atl: Trade suggestions

This idea is getting even better and more workable.

Require a banker for each action.

Limit the number of bankers Trade can have.
More than two though or it is too limited.

War then will want a banker along to help keep silver save and
available to other units with a banker (for a suitable fee).

Why would war object to this?

Probable because they right now have a deadlock on all the silver in the
game (or nearly so) No one else in the game can get silver so easily and
have access to it each month so easily.

It is like they "produce" silver, a thing that they do not want Trade to
be able to do with the possabilty of silver mines.
What is different about War taxing and Trade producing silver?

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 ward@jeeves.ucsd.edu wrote:

>
>   My original proposal to allow pure trade factions to UNCLAIM seems
>
> to have generated some support and also criticisms.  First of all, I
> think the main effect would be to make it a bit easier for trade
> factions to expand and continue production (which I see as somewhat
> limited now).  I am in favor of some restrictions.  For example it
> could require level 5 banker skill and a trade faction could be
> restricted to having only two bankers.  That would make those units
> (and banking ability) vulnerable.
>   I think that it would also generate more interaction between trade
> and war factions.  War factions would have more of an interest in taking
> a trade representative along on explorations.  Trade factions could
> charge a percentage for transferred funds and that would improve income.
> It would make trade factions more valuable allies (and also raise the
> specter of white collar crime :).
>   In comparison with portal use, it is a much weaker mechanism for war
> factions to use in expansion because silver can be used to recruit
> untrained and vulnerable troops while portals can transfer trained
> troops with weapons and magic items.  Also, it would not be
> instantaneous as it could require 2 turns to transfer silver from a
> war faction to banker and then back to the war faction in another
> location.
>   So I think it would benefit the game by increasing interaction
> and improving the status of trade factions.
>
> Ward - Severe Trade (164)
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:24:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Atl: Trade suggestions

This is on the right track.

Base the amount transferrable on the bankers skill.

On Sat, 14 Oct 1995, Adrian Smith wrote:

> I like the idea of banker units for trade factions, and I think they
> would work quite well with a few limitations.
>
> 1) Generic factions have 1 banker, mixed trade 2 bankers, pure trade 5.
This might be too limiting. More bankers needed.

>
> 2) A banker unit can transfer n x $1000 silver to or from unclaimed,
>    as a month-long order, where n is the banker's skill level.

good idea here!

>
> 3) Each transfer would involve a loss of some fraction of the transfer,
>    perhaps 1/(n+1) of it.

Sure, should be a cost for the banker to transfer the silver.
But perhaps only to UNCLAIM it.

LL
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 21:11:27 -0700
Subject: Bankers
From: Bruce Onder <bonder@earthlink.net>

Even though I'm a trade faction, I don't much like the idea of bankers
being able to magically move funds through the special bank account.

The purpose of that account is to keep newbies from being slaughtered for
their starting cash.

Bruce Onder        | Game writers, designers, and producers
Digital Arcana     |
310.519.5993       | Witness our ruthless plan to rule the world:
213.644.4913 fax   | hhtp://www.earthlink.net/~jas/DigitalArcana.html

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 18:09:39 -0700
From: ward@jeeves.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Atl: Trade suggestions

These are great suggestions, but I think a couple of the limitations
are too severe.

>1) Generic factions have 1 banker, mixed trade 2 bankers, pure trade 5.

>2) A banker unit can transfer n x $1000 silver to or from unclaimed,
>   as a month-long order, where n is the banker's skill level.

I think that only UNCLAIM should require banking skill and the
CLAIM order should work as usual.  I think UNCLAIM should be an
instantaneous order following CLAIM (so a transfer could not be
accomplished in the same turn).  I like the n x $1000 limit.

>
>3) Each transfer would involve a loss of some fraction of the transfer,
>   perhaps 1/(n+1) of it.

I don't think a penalty should be imposed by the game.  Of course,
trade factions could charge others for this service.

Ward - Severe Trade (164)