ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #39

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000

This is kept by me (csd@microplex.com)
If there are any problems, please tell me 'cause I normally
don't have enough time to read them.
If you want previous versions, they are available via WWW at
http://www.microplex.com/~csd/atlantisv2/
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:06:30 PDT
From: Eric_Remy.XRCC@xerox.com
Subject: Notes from a newbie (long)

Apologies in advance if these are previously covered topics, but I've only been
able to read the last 3-4 atl-design digests.  I have a whole pile of comments-
the first three are comments on stuff I've seen in previous notes, the latter
are ideas that I haven't seen before.

Overall, Atlantis 2.0 is pretty well designed.  However, it seems to have a
strong built in bias towards war factions.

1) Why are  factions allowed to have units TAX + GUARD + WORK all in the same
turn? Trade factions really lose out here- they need seperate people to guard a
hex, plus they can't get work income.  Alternately, the unit can study during
the month, thus allowing a much less costly advance to <skill> 3 than a trade
faction.  I like the idea in Atlantis 1.0 to have production count towards
skill increase.

2) The jump from 5-100 hexes for mixed faction- pure war is far too high.  You
almost have to specialize to have a chance.  The scaled system given in
previous comments would work much better.

3) GUARDing a hex is too easy.  Switching to a system where you have to define
what you're guarding (Production, tax, hexside), would work much better.  In
addition, guarding something should be a full turn order, with bonuses to COM
skill in the same fashion as production gives to trade skills.

4) As someone who started late, I've had a lot of trouble finding a spot not
already claimed by either a huge war faction or 10,000 other screaming newbies.
Perhaps leave an exit in Atlantis City that drops you in a random place _every
time it's used_, in addition to the standard exits.  This would allow newbies
to potentially find a home quickly, while not allowing the huge war factions to
drive killer forces through all the time.  (You could take a big combat unit,
but not any mages with it.)  The only disadvantage is that your allies couldn't
join you.

5) A SCOUT unit would also be helpful.  Scout training would allow higher
movement, plus the ability to pass through guarded hexes.  (Corresponding to
the lvl.  I.e., SCOUT 1 allows passage through Unfriendly areas, SCT 2 allows
Hostile passage.)  In addition, they would give terrain/economic data on every
hex they passed through.  Upkeep costs would be zero. (They live off the land)
They would not have the ability to tax, steal, or assassinate, nor have any
combat power.  This would allow newbies to find decent areas with fewer
problems, while not causing the problems that many people (Rightfully) have
with high stealth units.

6) As a role playing thing, add quests to the mix.  There could be several
temples strewn across Atlantis, which will grant a quest if asked.  Possible
quests would have to differ based on faction type, but could include killing
some horrible monster, building some very difficult item with hard to find
components, or casting some very difficult spell.  Successful completion could
result in a large cash award, several hexes agreeing to join your empire and
providing trained troops, or some very powerful magic item.  Have the
completion of a quest be announced with great fanfare in the Times.  (Probably
should place at least one temple in AC, so everyone can get at least one
quest.)

7) A SUPPLY order would be nice.  This order executes every turn until turned
off.  A producing unit can transfer people/money/resources to another unit
automatically.  This will make order writing for large trade factions much
easier.

8) Ability to build towns/cities would also be nice.  This should obviously be
_very_ expensive in both people and resources, but once built, could pay off
handsomely.  Allow a portion of the money spent in the town (recruitment,
buy/sell commodity) to flow into a player's unclaimed money pile.  The player
that creates a town is responsible to pay for the guards, and towns can be
captured just as with any other unit.  Perhaps each town built should cost a
point from the War/Trade/Magic faction points?

9) Allow the building of roads as well.  A road would double movement and allow
easy passage through difficult terrain.

Ok, hope I haven't rambled too long.  Any comments?

CEO BoB (tm)  G.O.O.D. Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 12:11:44 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Re : Guarding Units

--Boundary-11796669-0-0

Hi,

Sorry I've been so silent lately; things are a bit busy here at
work.

Regarding the guarding issue: while I agree that it is somewhat
silly that 1 man can guard an entire region, I can't really see
the benefit of having a bunch of complex rules detailing
guarding. Being on guard is a simple concept, and I can't see
need for changing that.

As far as I can tell, just making it so that you need 20 combat
trained men to guard a region would probably make sense, but
nothing more.

One thing I am intrigued by is having riding play more of a
role in guarding/attacking. A possible implementation would
be that you would need an equal or greater Riding skill to
attack or forbid someone, if you were mounted. If you were
on a horse, you max effective skill would be 2, if you were
on a flying mount, max effective skill == 5.

This could get a bit complicated when dealing with riding
and non-riding units attacking and defending. Who gets to
be involved in the battle?

Also, the way I see it, once the unit is _in_ the battle, his
riding skill is then just used for the normal bonus; he is
no longer immune to attacks from non-riding units or anything
like that. (If this wasn't the case, a riding army would
_always_ defeat a non-riding army; this seems very silly).

Geoff

--Boundary-11796669-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 26 Jul 1995 12:03:01                    Sent: 26 Jul 1995 11:59:58
From:"D.J. McGaw" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: Atlantis,Design,Team,atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re : Guarding Units
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  Aide de Camp Mail System [Version 0.9]

Hello friends,

I noticed a few mails (two in fact) on the issue of guarding, which it seems
has now been dropped.

Time to bring to the surface a bit of dead wood, me thinks.

The idea went something like this :

"A region is TOO big for a one man, or even 10 men, unit to guard and prevent
people coming in to it, so why not change the guarding rules to this effect?"

OK, I think I'll put an idea forward to propose change.

Let's say that a single guarding man can stop 3 people (sticks his arms out) from entering a
region, so ten men can stop up to 30 men.

Any excesses can enter the region.

This is a simple model that could easily be entered using a simple If..Then
statement.

I propose a more detailed approach, involving the skill levels of Combat and
Bow.

Currently these skills are only useful in combat. I am not proposing more tax
income depending on skill level, just restrictions on unit prevention.

OK! Let's take the skill levels as read, level 1 allows a man to stop 3 men.
From here is is a matter of a design issue as to how many men each level of combat can prevent
from entering.

Table time :

Combat/Longbow/Crossbow Level		Prevents x Men

1				3
		2				5
		3				7
		4				10
		5				15

This is how I see a decent guarding limit. A single man cannot stop a hoard
ofpeople diving into his region, just like a tonne of men can stop twice, even
three times as many men from coming in.

The point made about the skill levels, is taken from the idea that a swift
combatant can easier stop many more men than a slow one :

Combat 1 "Hey come back here you!"
Combat 3 "Where do you think you're going?"
Combat 5 I don't think so!"

One other point, is that you may decide to restrict the amount of men a
singletrained guard can stop. Maybe a limit of 5 or 7 men. The table would then
looklike :

Skill Level	Prevents x Men
	1		3
	2		4
	3		5
	4		6
	5		7

Skill Level	Prevents x Men
	1		3
	2		4
	3		5
	4		5
	5		5

Comments are again welcome, as is criticism, but try and keep it to the
designlist. I only mailed a few points to the players list because I was asked to
byplayers not on the design list, not because it is something I am planning on making a habit
of.

Regards as ever

Dave

--Boundary-11796669-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:27:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Re : Guarding Units

I see all this about guards.

One thing to remember: If the units are not aggressive then they
will be detured by a single guard. If they are aggressive, then they will
advance and try to take out the guards.

The talk about scouts and only so many guards able to forbid access
to so many troops--that is what STEALTH is for.
If a guard cannot stop friendly troops, then what use is it to guard
at all?

But I still think it would be best to guard things in the hexes.
You could have buildings, city, taxes, producing things.
If you need to forbid access, then only do it on the exact
exit/entrance that it is needed. This allows the other exits
to be passed through with noany trouble

On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

>
> --Boundary-11796669-0-0
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I've been so silent lately; things are a bit busy here at
> work.
>
> Regarding the guarding issue: while I agree that it is somewhat
> silly that 1 man can guard an entire region, I can't really see
> the benefit of having a bunch of complex rules detailing
> guarding. Being on guard is a simple concept, and I can't see
> need for changing that.
>
> As far as I can tell, just making it so that you need 20 combat
> trained men to guard a region would probably make sense, but
> nothing more.
>
> One thing I am intrigued by is having riding play more of a
> role in guarding/attacking. A possible implementation would
> be that you would need an equal or greater Riding skill to
> attack or forbid someone, if you were mounted. If you were
> on a horse, you max effective skill would be 2, if you were
> on a flying mount, max effective skill == 5.
>
> This could get a bit complicated when dealing with riding
> and non-riding units attacking and defending. Who gets to
> be involved in the battle?
>
> Also, the way I see it, once the unit is _in_ the battle, his
> riding skill is then just used for the normal bonus; he is
> no longer immune to attacks from non-riding units or anything
> like that. (If this wasn't the case, a riding army would
> _always_ defeat a non-riding army; this seems very silly).
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> --Boundary-11796669-0-0
> X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
> Received: 26 Jul 1995 12:03:01                    Sent: 26 Jul 1995 11:59:58
> From:"D.J. McGaw" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
> To: Atlantis,Design,Team,atl-design@tango.rahul.net
> Subject: Re : Guarding Units
> Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
> X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  Aide de Camp Mail System [Version 0.9]
>
>
> Hello friends,
>
> I noticed a few mails (two in fact) on the issue of guarding, which it seems
> has now been dropped.
>
> Time to bring to the surface a bit of dead wood, me thinks.
>
> The idea went something like this :
>
> "A region is TOO big for a one man, or even 10 men, unit to guard and prevent
> people coming in to it, so why not change the guarding rules to this effect?"
>
>
> OK, I think I'll put an idea forward to propose change.
>
> Let's say that a single guarding man can stop 3 people (sticks his arms out) from entering a
> region, so ten men can stop up to 30 men.
>
> Any excesses can enter the region.
>
> This is a simple model that could easily be entered using a simple If..Then
> statement.
>
> I propose a more detailed approach, involving the skill levels of Combat and
> Bow.
>
>
> Currently these skills are only useful in combat. I am not proposing more tax
> income depending on skill level, just restrictions on unit prevention.
>
> OK! Let's take the skill levels as read, level 1 allows a man to stop 3 men.
> >From here is is a matter of a design issue as to how many men each level of combat can prevent
> from entering.
>
> Table time :
>
> Combat/Longbow/Crossbow Level		Prevents x Men
>
> 		1				3
> 		2				5
> 		3				7
> 		4				10
> 		5				15
>
> This is how I see a decent guarding limit. A single man cannot stop a hoard
> ofpeople diving into his region, just like a tonne of men can stop twice, even
> three times as many men from coming in.
>
> The point made about the skill levels, is taken from the idea that a swift
> combatant can easier stop many more men than a slow one :
>
> Combat 1 "Hey come back here you!"
> Combat 3 "Where do you think you're going?"
> Combat 5 I don't think so!"
>
> One other point, is that you may decide to restrict the amount of men a
> singletrained guard can stop. Maybe a limit of 5 or 7 men. The table would then
> looklike :
>
> Skill Level	Prevents x Men
> 	1		3
> 	2		4
> 	3		5
> 	4		6
> 	5		7
>
> OR
>
> Skill Level	Prevents x Men
> 	1		3
> 	2		4
> 	3		5
> 	4		5
> 	5		5
>
>
> Comments are again welcome, as is criticism, but try and keep it to the
> designlist. I only mailed a few points to the players list because I was asked to
> byplayers not on the design list, not because it is something I am planning on making a habit
> of.
>
> Regards as ever
>
> Dave
>
>
> --Boundary-11796669-0-0--
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:18:11 -0400
From: lam@diamond.eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re : Guarding Units

Goeff writes:
> One thing I am intrigued by is having riding play more of a
> role in guarding/attacking. A possible implementation would
> be that you would need an equal or greater Riding skill to
> attack or forbid someone, if you were mounted. If you were
> on a horse, you max effective skill would be 2, if you were
> on a flying mount, max effective skill == 5.
>
> This could get a bit complicated when dealing with riding
> and non-riding units attacking and defending. Who gets to
> be involved in the battle?

Crimson Robes (Larry) here.

Here's a proposal for blocking admission to a hex:
DEFENDER->  Flying    Riding   Walking
INVADER
   V
 Flying     may blk   no blk   no blk

Riding     may blk   may blk  no blk

Walking    may blk   may blk  may blk

New attack rank determined for combat (was FRONT/BEHIND):
  AIR     - airborne (flying) units.
  CAVALRY - mounted, in front units (w/riding skill?)
  INFANTRY- non-mounted, in front units.
  BEHIND  - the usual cowards.

Now, valid targets for hand-to-hand combat:
DEFENDER HAS:   AIR        CAVALRY       INFANTRY      BEHIND
ATTACKER:
   V
 Flying         Must        May          May           May
                engage      engage       engage        engage

Riding         May not     Must         May           May
                engage      engage       engage        engage

Walking        May not     Must         Must          May
                engage      engage       engage        engage

Bows and spells, as usual, select targets randomly in the whole enemy
populace (perhaps flying provides a +1 defense against arrows?)

"Must engage" restricts your possible targets to just those folks,
until they're all dead. "May engage" allows targeting in the absence
of any "Must engage" rules.

An alternate interpretation allows overwhelming a smaller rank. Right
now (& with these rules) a single front-line guy can take all the heat
to defend the back ranks. If you can pair up troops 1-to-1, you could
make these rules "individual" rules rather than group. Example: attacker
has 120 mounted attackers vs. defenders 50 cavalry. The first 50 attackers
must engage cavalry; the remaining 70 may engage infantry/behind troops.
A possibly-simpler-to-model alternative: give attacker a % chance to bypass
based on relative size of ranks. (i.e. 120 attacking 50 --> each has a
[50/120=42%] chance of being forced to target cavalry.

This complicates combat (and player simulations thereof, which may be a
Good Thing, warlords *ought* to sweat a bit ;-) but improves realism a
great deal, and requires diversity in armies. Note that a ground-based
army without bows/spells is utterly vulnerable to "air forces", as it
should be.

See whatcha think!

Crimson Robes (60)
Larry Morris (lam@eng.tridom.com)
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re : Guarding Units
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 13:23:00 +0100 (BST)

Interesting concept Bruce,

But surely guarding units MAY want to prevent access. They already stop
taxingfrom unfriendly/neutral/hostile units anyway, and anyone who is declared
friendly or ally has access to the tax income anyway. Guarding units ARE NOT only
guarding the Tax base, even though they seem to, they are also region entry
blockers.

I suggested the guarding concept due to a past mail mentioning limitations on
guarding OUT other people.

The "stop 3" idea seems more of a feasible idea on the guading front. Tax
baseincome is already safeguarded (unless you declare a friendly/ally, which is
stupid if you want the tax to yourself). Where is the Beef?

Regards as ever

Dave

>
> Maybe all we really need to say is that if a unit is taxing, it is guarding
> explicitly the tax revenue.
>

What about blocking access?

> Taxing units automatically attack anyone else who tries to issue the TAX
> command in the same region.
>

No they don't!

> To beef up security, you either train your existing guards in COMBAT or
> recruit more guards and set them to TAXing the region.  You don't get more
> income, you just get more guarding power.

Not really, only better fighting forces. This is why I suggested the "stop 3"
model.

>
> These units will not respond to cries for help outside the region they are
in.

Yes, they will (unless the Avoid 1 flag, or the Hold 1 flag, is up. But as
Guard 1 cancels Avoid 1, then unless they HOLD, they are going to assist.)

>
> Bruce Onder                      | We write and design computer games.
> Digital Arcana                   | Ask about our interactive underpants.
> 310.519.5993                     |
> 310.837.8533 fax                 | Or don't.
>

I still luv the underpants idea.

Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Notes from a newbie (long)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:03:17 +0100 (BST)

> Overall, Atlantis 2.0 is pretty well designed.  However, it seems to have a
> strong built in bias towards war factions.
>

Yep - it seems war is the way to go!

> 1) Why are  factions allowed to have units TAX + GUARD + WORK all in the
same
> turn? Trade factions really lose out here- they need seperate people to
guard a
> hex, plus they can't get work income.  Alternately, the unit can study
during
> the month, thus allowing a much less costly advance to <skill> 3 than a
trade
> faction.  I like the idea in Atlantis 1.0 to have production count towards
> skill increase.

Guard is simply a flag and not an order, but Tax+Work is a good point.
Although Tax is easily collected (like a milkman's round) the Trade factions should
be given a similar method of generating simple revenue without resorting to
buying and selling constantly for maintenance.

(Like a Bargaining skill that allows for Haggling/Bartering in regions to
generate income similar to Tax.)

>
> 2) The jump from 5-100 hexes for mixed faction- pure war is far too high.
 You
> almost have to specialize to have a chance.  The scaled system given in
> previous comments would work much better.

I totally agree (even though it was myself, Geoff and Vince who managed to
getnoticed on this point).

>
> 3) GUARDing a hex is too easy.  Switching to a system where you have to
define
> what you're guarding (Production, tax, hexside), would work much better.  In
> addition, guarding something should be a full turn order, with bonuses to
COM
> skill in the same fashion as production gives to trade skills.

No, this is where I lose you. Guarding units are protecting the WHOLE region,
especially from pillaging, but also from neutral/unfriendly/hostile units
taxing.
Guarding, as mentioned, is just a flag and should be kept as such. It is
basically a region safeguard, and a blocking tactic.

I put forward another note on guarding restrictions, so look at that as well
please and mail me your comments.

>
> 4) As someone who started late, I've had a lot of trouble finding a spot not
> already claimed by either a huge war faction or 10,000 other screaming
newbies.
> Perhaps leave an exit in Atlantis City that drops you in a random place
_every
> time it's used_, in addition to the standard exits.  This would allow
newbies
> to potentially find a home quickly, while not allowing the huge war
factionsto
> drive killer forces through all the time.  (You could take a big combat
unit,
> but not any mages with it.)  The only disadvantage is that your allies
couldn't
> join you.
>

The rotating exits is a better system, but should have really be thrown into
the play at month 8 year 1 of game time. This allows the starting factions to
form alliances, while the newbies get to move out and set up themselves.

If it is random spitting out you want, try the Shadow Jump spell.

> 5) A SCOUT unit would also be helpful.  Scout training would allow higher
> movement, plus the ability to pass through guarded hexes.  (Corresponding to
> the lvl.  I.e., SCOUT 1 allows passage through Unfriendly areas, SCT 2
allows
> Hostile passage.)  In addition, they would give terrain/economic data on
every
> hex they passed through.  Upkeep costs would be zero. (They live off the
land)
> They would not have the ability to tax, steal, or assassinate, nor have any
> combat power.  This would allow newbies to find decent areas with fewer
> problems, while not causing the problems that many people (Rightfully) have
> with high stealth units.

This is an interesting point, but with a decent system already in place, ie
Stealth vs Obs, then this is not really a valid idea. Scouting is done by High
lv Stealth units, who can steal to keep maintenance. Units not visible cannot
be attacked (per se) so they can avoid passage difficulties.

The terain and economy idea is a long one that's been going on since the
firstmovements of the game, "If I pass through a jungle, surely I'd notice" idea.

Take this up with Geoff again. I'm behind you on this point.

As for the SCOUT skill? Try high obs and stealth combo.

>
> 6) As a role playing thing, add quests to the mix.  There could be several
> temples strewn across Atlantis, which will grant a quest if asked.  Possible
> quests would have to differ based on faction type, but could include killing
> some horrible monster, building some very difficult item with hard to find
> components, or casting some very difficult spell.  Successful completion
could
> result in a large cash award, several hexes agreeing to join your empire and
> providing trained troops, or some very powerful magic item.  Have the
> completion of a quest be announced with great fanfare in the Times.
 (Probably
> should place at least one temple in AC, so everyone can get at least one
> quest.)
>

Interesting point, but wouldn't it comlicate the game a tad. World Conquest
isa big enough task as it is!

> 7) A SUPPLY order would be nice.  This order executes every turn until
turned
> off.  A producing unit can transfer people/money/resources to another unit
> automatically.  This will make order writing for large trade factions much
> easier.

Yes it would, but wouldn't you lose tabs on the goods, and who is getting
what? A simple solution is a personal orders template (not the one at the end of
the report, but) one that has all the details and orders on it, that you
simplyamend before you send.

That is what I do, and a few other people here ate Liverpool do the same. Use
comment lines to distinguish what it is you are doing to add clarity.

>
> 8) Ability to build towns/cities would also be nice.  This should obviously
be
> _very_ expensive in both people and resources, but once built, could pay off
> handsomely.  Allow a portion of the money spent in the town (recruitment,
> buy/sell commodity) to flow into a player's unclaimed money pile.  The
player
> that creates a town is responsible to pay for the guards, and towns can be
> captured just as with any other unit.  Perhaps each town built should cost a
> point from the War/Trade/Magic faction points?
>

Interesting concept. Bring it up with more detail at a later date.

> 9) Allow the building of roads as well.  A road would double movement and
allow
> easy passage through difficult terrain.

Roads have been discussed and thrown out. As with a lot of ideas, make a
solidclear point and let the designers peruse your suggestions.

>
> Ok, hope I haven't rambled too long.  Any comments?
>

Not yet, and here's my two-penneth!

Regards

Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Re : Guarding Units
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:11:56 +0100 (BST)

> I see all this about guards.
>
> One thing to remember: If the units are not aggressive then they
> will be detured by a single guard. If they are aggressive, then they will
> advance and try to take out the guards.

Eh>?

What are you saying here? It is a faction declaration point?
GUARDING units wanting to prevent access should set their default to
Unfriendly.
GUARDING units wanting to allow passage but no taxing should set their
defaultto Neutral.

Anyone wanting to enter a region that is blocked will have to ADVANCE and cause a Barney.

It's that simple.

>
> The talk about scouts and only so many guards able to forbid access
> to so many troops--that is what STEALTH is for.
> If a guard cannot stop friendly troops, then what use is it to guard
> at all?

Don't declare them friendly then!
High stealth units can evade guarding men, as long as there is not a high obs
unit present. This is why many regions employ an Observer, and discharge a
guarding unit. The working together of these two units acts as an effective
block.

>
> But I still think it would be best to guard things in the hexes.
> You could have buildings, city, taxes, producing things.
> If you need to forbid access, then only do it on the exact
> exit/entrance that it is needed. This allows the other exits
> to be passed through with noany trouble

You mean like, GUARD NE ???

I personally don't like this idea!

Regards

Dave

Tick : "My God! He's gonna swamp the City in Souffle!"
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 07:48:27 PDT
From: Eric_Remy.XRCC@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Notes from a newbie (long)

I apologize for the bad quoting used here- my mailer is braindead.

RE: Guarding.  We fundamentally disagree here.  Guarding to me is not "Just a
flag".  To actively prevent people from entering/taxing/stealing production
from  a huge area like a hex is going to take a lot of people running constant
patrols.  You can't just put up stickers that say "This hex guarded by Ricky's
Rangers, go away!" and then go back to the town to study swordmanship.
However, since there seems to be an active debate on the nature of guarding
going on among people who have played longer than I, I'll defer any further
comments.

Re: Random exit point.  You write:
The rotating exits is a better system, but should have really be thrown into
the play at month 8 year 1 of game time. This allows the starting factions to
form alliances, while the newbies get to move out and set up themselves.

If it is random spitting out you want, try the Shadow Jump spell.

I reply>  I'm not so sure I agree.
Rotating exits drops you off with many other people all competing for space.
Witness Cremona for an example of how disasterous this can be.  Dropping me
somewhere random means I at least have a chance to claim a hex or two without
being immediatly attacked by everyone just for the act of placing a claim on
it.

Having no mages, I can't use the Shadow Jump.  (Since I know nothing of the
magic system when I join, I don't even know of it's existance.)  Assuming I
join up with other newbies, I probably won't know about it.  (Many of the magic
factions object to giving out spell info, rightfully so IMHO.)

Re: Scout unit.  You write>This is an interesting point, but with a decent
system already in place, ie Stealth vs Obs, then this is not really a valid
idea. Scouting is done by High
lv Stealth units, who can steal to keep maintenance. Units not visible cannot
be attacked (per se) so they can avoid passage difficulties.

I reply>  But high Stealth units are disliked for obvious reasons.   Training a
unit to Stealth lvl3+ means that it's stuck in AC for a long time- as a newbie,
I need to find a home quickly, since I'm falling further behind every turn.  A
scout is both cheap and harmless.

Re: Quests.  Sure they'd complicate the game.  That's a good thing!  Some
people are less interesting in owning the world.  (Personally, I'm trying to
get the funds to open a college.)  This will give people who may not care about
military conquest a difficult goal to reach, plus increase the role playing
aspect.  If you're more interested in the wargame aspect, both bother.

Thanks for the comments.

Eric

CEO BoB (tm), G.O.O.D. Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:24:43 +0000
Subject:       Re: Notes from a newbie (long)

Hi!

> RE: Guarding.  We fundamentally disagree here.  Guarding to me is not "Just a
> flag".  To actively prevent people from entering/taxing/stealing production
> from  a huge area like a hex is going to take a lot of people running constant
> patrols.  You can't just put up stickers that say "This hex guarded by Ricky's
> Rangers, go away!" and then go back to the town to study swordmanship.
> However, since there seems to be an active debate on the nature of guarding
> going on among people who have played longer than I, I'll defer any further
> comments.

As a War faction with a lot to lose, I would AGREE with the above.
IMO guarding is a full-time job.

> I reply>  I'm not so sure I agree.
> Rotating exits drops you off with many other people all competing for space.
> Witness Cremona for an example of how disasterous this can be.  Dropping me
> somewhere random means I at least have a chance to claim a hex or two without
> being immediatly attacked by everyone just for the act of placing a claim on
> it.

I like rotating exits. The competition, the mad rush for land, the
necessity of having to negotiate and form alliances adds fun to the
game for me. What fun is there in being the only faction in a 20
hex radius?

> I reply>  But high Stealth units are disliked for obvious reasons.   Training a
> unit to Stealth lvl3+ means that it's stuck in AC for a long time- as a newbie,
> I need to find a home quickly, since I'm falling further behind every turn.  A
> scout is both cheap and harmless.

What makes you think that even if your scouts find land, that the
faction controlling the hexes you have to pass through to get there
haven't already got there eye on that land? I know I would have, and
in fact I wouldn't let any scouts through - I'd kill them.

> Re: Quests.  Sure they'd complicate the game.  That's a good thing!  Some
> people are less interesting in owning the world.  (Personally, I'm trying to
> get the funds to open a college.)  This will give people who may not care about
> military conquest a difficult goal to reach, plus increase the role playing
> aspect.  If you're more interested in the wargame aspect, both bother.

IMHO I don't think that quests are right for Atlantis. I think
Atlantis is a game of PLAYER interaction, not about solving some
puzzle that Geoff has set.

Regards
Mark
Ershwin's Troop (399)
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "ROB PETERS" <RPeters@Defender.Defenders.org>
Date:          Fri, 28 Jul 1995 13:26:46 EST
Subject:       Re: Notes from a newbie (long)

A brief comment on the question of whether rotating gates to disperse
people randomly is necessary.  The current shadow jump gives someone
the option of random dispersal -- as a beginning generic faction
it takes 3 turns to train a mage in the necessary foundations &
research, then jump, claim your silver, & set up shop.

> Received: from SpoolDir by DEFENDER (Mercury 1.20); 28 Jul 95 11:49:33 -0600
> Return-path: <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
> Received: from tango.rahul.net by Defenders.org (Mercury 1.20);
>     28 Jul 95 11:49:29 -0600
> Received: by tango.rahul.net id AA27180
>   (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for real-atl-design); Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:49:06 -0700
> Received: from disperse.demon.co.uk by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA27172
>   (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net>); Fri, 28 Jul 1995 08:49:00 -0700
> Received: from post.demon.co.uk by disperse.demon.co.uk id ab26343;
>           28 Jul 95 16:41 +0100
> Received: from keen.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id aa26041;
>           28 Jul 95 16:41 +0100
> From: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
> Organization:  Myorganisation
> To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
> Date:          Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:24:43 +0000
> Subject:       Re: Notes from a newbie (long)
> Priority: normal
> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.0-WB4)
> Message-Id:  <9507281641.aa26041@post.demon.co.uk>
> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
>
> Hi!
>
> > RE: Guarding.  We fundamentally disagree here.  Guarding to me is not "Just a
> > flag".  To actively prevent people from entering/taxing/stealing production
> > from  a huge area like a hex is going to take a lot of people running constant
> > patrols.  You can't just put up stickers that say "This hex guarded by Ricky's
> > Rangers, go away!" and then go back to the town to study swordmanship.
> > However, since there seems to be an active debate on the nature of guarding
> > going on among people who have played longer than I, I'll defer any further
> > comments.
>
> As a War faction with a lot to lose, I would AGREE with the above.
> IMO guarding is a full-time job.
>
>
> > I reply>  I'm not so sure I agree.
> > Rotating exits drops you off with many other people all competing for space.
> > Witness Cremona for an example of how disasterous this can be.  Dropping me
> > somewhere random means I at least have a chance to claim a hex or two without
> > being immediatly attacked by everyone just for the act of placing a claim on
> > it.
>
> I like rotating exits. The competition, the mad rush for land, the
> necessity of having to negotiate and form alliances adds fun to the
> game for me. What fun is there in being the only faction in a 20
> hex radius?
>
>
> > I reply>  But high Stealth units are disliked for obvious reasons.   Training a
> > unit to Stealth lvl3+ means that it's stuck in AC for a long time- as a newbie,
> > I need to find a home quickly, since I'm falling further behind every turn.  A
> > scout is both cheap and harmless.
>
> What makes you think that even if your scouts find land, that the
> faction controlling the hexes you have to pass through to get there
> haven't already got there eye on that land? I know I would have, and
> in fact I wouldn't let any scouts through - I'd kill them.
>
> > Re: Quests.  Sure they'd complicate the game.  That's a good thing!  Some
> > people are less interesting in owning the world.  (Personally, I'm trying to
> > get the funds to open a college.)  This will give people who may not care about
> > military conquest a difficult goal to reach, plus increase the role playing
> > aspect.  If you're more interested in the wargame aspect, both bother.
>
> IMHO I don't think that quests are right for Atlantis. I think
> Atlantis is a game of PLAYER interaction, not about solving some
> puzzle that Geoff has set.
>
>
> Regards
> Mark
> Ershwin's Troop (399)
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 13:31:31 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: Ideas...

On the faction - point system, I have a proposal for another table:

Points Regions Mages
------ ------- -----
   1      1      1
   2      6      2
   3     18      3
   4     40      4
   5     75      4 (Yes, max out mages at 4, since there are 4 foundations)

For the sickos in the crowd the regions formula is (n^2 + n^3) / 2, I thought
n^2 didn't go quite high enough, whereas n^3 went too far, so....

Merits of this system include:
- Allowing a decent sized WAR(6)/TRADE(6) faction to still have one mage.
- Players who prefer WAR/MAGIC or TRADE/MAGIC blends can have 6 regions
  and 3 mages, a nice mix, and it opens some neat possibilities for a
  compact faction to TAX or PRODUCE in a ring of six hexes, with the
  mages in the center, available to any of the surrounding lands, etc. etc.
- Rewarding the highly specialized factions with BIG land allowances, a
  big WAR(40) faction could still have one region in which to produce
  weapons, although it would be much easier to have 18 WAR regions supplied
  by 6 production regions, but if you want to go for the gusto...
- Limiting the number of mages to 4, and thus providing the "pure" magic
  factions with one region in which they can TAX or PRODUCE.  Also, help
  to curb the armies of mages problem.
- Does anyone really want to generate an orders set for more than 75
  regions?  If so, the upper limit could be raised further, possibly to
  unlimited, although this would allow one faction to eventually dominate
  the world, not good for an open-ended game.

Disadvantages:
- Still makes the 1 War 1 Trade Zillions of Magic alliances attractive,
  although the magic factions can now have some other interests too, and
  they might be more tempted to go for 3 mages to get the extra 5 regions
  to tax or produce in.
- Mage hounds won't like having only four, but again, I think this is
  a good thing.
- Others?????

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On the problem of getting around with hostile factions blocking the way:

I think that GUARDing a region should be made far more challenging, using
the ideas put forth about guards having to have better mobility than the
persons they are trying to block.  Perhaps a scale could be set up, so
the further down the list you appear, the more "mobile" you are, and
guards can only stop persons who are of equal or less mobility.

Walkers carrying weight  (weight carried could play into all of these)
Emptyhanded Walkers
Riders
Riders w/riding skill
Flyers
..

So, if the guards are all gussied up with plate mail and swords, some
people on foot should be able to slip by, riders should obviously be
able to get by guys on foot, and Flyers should be able to get by almost
anyone, except other flyers.

Now, archers (guards, not trespassers) should get a bonus, perhaps an
archer on foot should be able to stop a rider, but not a skilled rider?
Also, TACtics might come into play, whereby units with equal mobility
might be decided by who has the best TACtics.  This is sort of like
non-contact combat.  All of this calls for some kind of (simple) point
system.

Thus, if you really want to block passage through a region, you'll need
a unit of bowmen on flying carpets, otherwise, you won't be able to
stop everyone who might try to pass.

If Atlantis continues to have gateway cities, there has to be a way for
new players to get out and into free space.  I intended to build ships
near Monzon, then provide the service of delivering new factions to new
lands, but two things stopped this (1) the Monzon gateway closed up, and
(2) the lands are too crowded (and hostile) to allow me to produce ships.
Under the new system, Mages might set up shop in gateway cities, selling
magic carpets, or just selling rides to new lands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the inability of Trade to survive in the face of War:

I still think that the non-agressives in this game deserve some
degree of protection from the agressives.  If I want to set up
shop building ships, I shouldn't have to get the permission of
whatever War faction happens to have (prematurely) claimed the
region.

If the traders were given protection by the peasants, it would
make it more difficult (but not impossible) for the war factions
to order them around.  I proposed this before, with the bit about
using Charisma to decide who the peasants side with, and giving
points for building stuff, while taking away points for taxing and
pillaging.  I don't think the traders should have immunity, but
since their breadwinners don't have any combat skills, I think they
should be given some kind of defensive bonus, and I think having
the peasants ally with them is a good way to do it.

------------------------------------------------------------------

On Magic:

I like having four foundations.  I agree that Earth, Air, Water, Fire
might be a bit difficult to apply as foundation skills, but when
Geoff said four foundations, that was the first thing that sprang to
mind...

I like the idea of Light and Dark magic.  Perhaps within each area of
magic, mages might study either the light or the dark side, or both.
The spells could be made mostly similar, with interesting exceptions,
of course.  They might start to tie into the races somewhat, with
light spells having one effect on Elves and plainsmen and another on
Orcs and darkmen, and the same thing in reverse for dark magic.

So, a light magic spell of healing might work 2/3 on elves, but 1/3 on
orcs, while a dark magic spell of restoration might work 2/3 on orcs
but 1/3 on elves.

Similarly, a light magic spell of fighting power might make Elves attack
3 times per turn, while it only increases orcs to 2 times per turn, and
the corresponding dark magic spell of combat fierceness would have the
reverse effect.

I don't see any problem with mixing the light and dark magic.  There might
be spells of neutralization (Air Foundation, Level 5, Dark Spell: dampen
light magic, causes all light magic spells cast to be reduced to 1/2
effectiveness...)

If the idea of Charisma goes over, mages who use (as opposed to knowing)
light magic in the presence of elves might get a charisma boost, while
dark magic might lower the elves opinion of the mage, and the reverse
could be true for orcs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, the ideas presented look good.  The only thing I don't like
is the idea that the open-ended Atlantis might turn into a fancy expand
and conquer war game (like Stellar Crisis, Empire, etc. etc.)

Mike Inman (The Black Falcon)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:53:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "Michael W. Lamb" <LAMBM@chemistry.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Notes from a newbie (long)

An even briefer comment on the random dispersal gate, which I believe
I was one of the first to suggest/endorse.

The whole purpose of a "Shadow Gate" as I called it, was to offer
random dispersal to ALL new factions, not just ones that wanted to
commit themselves and their resources to become Magic or
Hybrid/Magic factions.  An earlier comment on this list was equally
correct:  NEW FACTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY AWARE OF THE SHADOW JUMP
OPTION!  Why should they be forced to study magic in order to have a
chance at a decent location in the game?

The Phoenix Emperor
An Apotheosis in Progress
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 95 12:42:39 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Notes from a newbie (long)

--Boundary-11825879-0-0

I don't like the 'random exits' thing, because it eliminates
any concept of a frontier. If new factions can be put any
where, there is no unexplored territory that you can move
out into.

My plan for Atlantis 3 is to have 6 fixed exit cities, all
coastal, and all sell infinite wood (and maybe some other
stuff). So, new factions can easily build a boat and sail
away.

Geoff

--Boundary-11825879-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 28 Jul 1995 10:55:43                    Sent: 28 Jul 1995 10:55:25
From:"Michael W. Lamb" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Notes from a newbie (long)
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: Organization:  Brigham Young University
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  Pegasus Mail v3.22
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7BIT
X-Orcl-Application: Priority:  normal

An even briefer comment on the random dispersal gate, which I believe
I was one of the first to suggest/endorse.

The Phoenix Emperor
An Apotheosis in Progress

--Boundary-11825879-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:04:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Re : Guarding Units

One big point here.

Guarding units do guard the tax base.
If two units from nonalled or nonfriendly factions are on guard,
then neither one can tax in the hex.

This has happened to me.

On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, D.J. McGaw wrote:

> Interesting concept Bruce,
>
> But surely guarding units MAY want to prevent access. They already stop
> taxingfrom unfriendly/neutral/hostile units anyway, and anyone who is declared
> friendly or ally has access to the tax income anyway. Guarding units ARE NOT only
> guarding the Tax base, even though they seem to, they are also region entry
> blockers.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:13:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Re : Guarding Units

I was referring to the people wanting entrance to the hex.

Troops not wanting to go to war with the guard will be detured by a
single guard saying "Stop, you cannot enter!"
They might fret and fume about being denied access, but will not trespass
unless they are willing to fight the guards. So they will stop.

If the troops don't want to stop, there will be a scuffle, the guards will
call in other guards, and regular troops if needed.

So one guard WILL stop all units not wanting to ADVANCE through the hex!

One guard is not enough to stop an ADVANCE though. You will need enough
troops to back up the blocking as needed.

On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, D.J. McGaw wrote:

> > I see all this about guards.
> >
> > One thing to remember: If the units are not aggressive then they
> > will be detured by a single guard. If they are aggressive, then they will
> > advance and try to take out the guards.
>
> Eh>?
>
> What are you saying here? It is a faction declaration point?
> GUARDING units wanting to prevent access should set their default to
> Unfriendly.
> GUARDING units wanting to allow passage but no taxing should set their
> defaultto Neutral.
>
> Anyone wanting to enter a region that is blocked will have to ADVANCE and cause a Barney.
>
> It's that simple.
>
> >
> > The talk about scouts and only so many guards able to forbid access
> > to so many troops--that is what STEALTH is for.
> > If a guard cannot stop friendly troops, then what use is it to guard
> > at all?
>
> Don't declare them friendly then!
> High stealth units can evade guarding men, as long as there is not a high obs
> unit present. This is why many regions employ an Observer, and discharge a
> guarding unit. The working together of these two units acts as an effective
> block.
>
> >
> > But I still think it would be best to guard things in the hexes.
> > You could have buildings, city, taxes, producing things.
> > If you need to forbid access, then only do it on the exact
> > exit/entrance that it is needed. This allows the other exits
> > to be passed through with noany trouble
>
> You mean like, GUARD NE ???
>
> I personally don't like this idea!
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> Tick : "My God! He's gonna swamp the City in Souffle!"
>