ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #38 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Wed, 26 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: Fri, 21 Jul 95 12:49:05 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: Food and Trade --Boundary-10361972-0-0 ]I have units in the new(ish) Cremona area, and the town and city do not have ]ademand for wood and herbs, even though they are the only items producable in ]this region. The items they do want are furs and iron. Nowhere in sight! Hmmph. Well, at least the prices for wood and herbs should be higher than in regions where they are readily available. Geoff --Boundary-10361972-0-0 X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: 21 Jul 1995 11:20:42 Sent: 21 Jul 1995 11:18:06 From:"D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> To: GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com Subject: Re: Food and Trade Reply-to: u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk X-Orcl-Application: In-Reply-To: <9507211651.AA07676@prodpyr2.us.oracle.com> X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer: Aide de Camp Mail System [Version 0.9] > > --Boundary-11655819-0-0 > > ]The problem with the selling idea, is that the towns and cities DON'T want > ]thegoods you can provide, only the goods you CAN'T. > ] > ]You must know what I'm talking about. Iron areas want wood products, wood > ]areas want iron products, herb areas want furs, etc etc etc. > > For food goods, cities/towns/villages will have a demand for _all_ > of them, so making a profit shouldn't be a problem. I'll try to > set it up so that the demand in the world will actually be > higher than the supply. > > Other items, like wood, herbs, etc, will have less demand, but > correspondingly higher prices. > > Sound good? > > Geoff > Yep. Sounds good. I just thought I'd point out the strange fact of wanting goods that are nowhere near as a reference from my own experiences. I have units in the new(ish) Cremona area, and the town and city do not have ademand for wood and herbs, even though they are the only items producable in this region. The items they do want are furs and iron. Nowhere in sight! The food issue is not of relevance here, and the proposed scheme sounds great to me. (Just thought I'd bring your attention to the trading problems) Thanks Dave --Boundary-11655819-0-0 > X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 > > Received: 21 Jul 1995 06:13:25 Sent: 21 Jul 1995 06:12:49 > From:"D.J. McGaw" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net> > To: Atlantis,Design,Team,atl-design@tango.rahul.net > Subject: Food and Trade > Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net > X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer: Aide de Camp Mail System [Version 0.9] > > > Hello, > > Me again (sorry) > > As I'm getting vocal, time to hit the Food idea. I have long been a > campaignerfor the food items (fish, furs, herbs even) being able to be consumed rather > than sold. > > The problem with the selling idea, is that the towns and cities DON'T want > thegoods you can provide, only the goods you CAN'T. > > You must know what I'm talking about. Iron areas want wood products, wood > areas want iron products, herb areas want furs, etc etc etc. > > How can a Trade faction survive without using the food it can make? > > I think Geoff nailed it when he mentioned the sale value being more than the > consume value. This sounds cool. > > Say a fish. Value $10 so a men can eat it for maintenance. But he can sell it > at $20 (or preferably more) so he can use the money instead, IF he can find a > place to sell it. > > Any more ideas on this? > > Regards as ever > > Dave > > > --Boundary-11655819-0-0-- > --Boundary-10361972-0-0-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 12:41:40 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: New System --Boundary-11662262-0-0 ]3) The points system sounds like a more realistic idea, but what happens if ]you spend all your points (5 wasn't it?) and then realise you want to drop one ]point and use it for something else. This is an adventure all by itself. How ]about two orders to USE a point, and one to DISCARD a point (which would put ]it ]back on your total to be used for something else)] ] ]Example time : ] ]Total of 5 points, USE 3 on War and 2 on Trade ]You then chance your mind, you want a mage and 1 point less on War ]DISCARD 1 WAR ]USE 1 MAGIC ] ]How does this sound? Yes, this will definitely be changeable. It will be a lot like the current faction system, just a bit more flexible. ]4) The points to regions table Geoff originally sent out seems a bit Too ]much.How about this system : ] ] ]points regions ]------ ------- ]1 5 (minimum is now 5 so every faction can get a decent start) ]2 10 ]3 15 ]4 20 ]5 25 Well, so far I've seen people suggest one system (here) where the region/point curve is totally flat, and another person suggest one that is _more_ scaled than mine (in Vince's post, which I meant to respond to, but seem to have thrown away. Sorry Vince; I read and listened to it.) Does this mean I've found a happy middle ground? But seriously, here are the systems: point Regions(Geoff) Regions(Dave) Regions(Vince) -------------------------------------------------------- 1 5 5 3 2 12 10 8 3 20 15 15 (?) 4 30 20 25(?) 5 50 25 50 My thinking was that specialization should be encouraged, but not necessary, based on comments by some players who wished they had the ability to "do it all". Also, it might put a damper on the 1 war/1 trade/buncha magic alliances that some find distasteful. In my system, generic and hybrid factions are a realistic option. Vince's suggestion is closer to what we have now, while allowing more flexibility. Whereas Dave's system makes specialization no better than anything else. ]How many factions out there control over 25 hexes? How many control close to ]100? (The current system is a bit of a jump - from 5 to 100)? Well, the idea behind the 100 rule was that a specialized faction could control as much land as he wanted. There actually is plenty of land out there in Atlantis 2.0, it's just kinda hard to get to. ]The reason I say this is that we know how powerful the mages are already, so ]afaction having an army of mages is virtually indestructable (especially if ]they have troops to back them up, look how the major cities have fallen in one ]combat round) Hopefully adding material components will make it more difficult to assemble a huge army of mages. ]5) The all out system (Atlantis v1) is an interesting notion, throw it open ]ona vote! Actually, I think the all out system of Atlantis 1 would make for a potentially very fun _war_ game. It doesn't work as an open-ended game though, in my opinion. In fact, I might be persuaded to run war games of Atlantis at some point in the future, if there is interest. In fact, anyone could do it with the Atlantis 1 code, with a few choice modifications. Geoff --Boundary-11662262-0-0 X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: 21 Jul 1995 06:13:27 Sent: 21 Jul 1995 06:12:59 From:"D.J. McGaw" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net> To: Atlantis,Design,Team,atl-design@tango.rahul.net Subject: New System Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer: Aide de Camp Mail System [Version 0.9] Well, I've spent a couple of days sifting through the mail and ideas that havebeen bouncing around, and it's time I put forward a voice of my own (not that I've been using anyone else's!) Geoff, I hope you're still on this list. First off, the main question is the faction type point. How to run it? 1) The system in force now is good, but the region limits are a bit off the wall. 100 regions for War or Trade, but only 5 for War/Trade or other combo. Notnice. 2) Trimming the number of regions sounds good to me. Maximum of 50 of either is about right, and have the scaling similar to those Geoff mentioned in the points system idea. 3) The points system sounds like a more realistic idea, but what happens if you spend all your points (5 wasn't it?) and then realise you want to drop one point and use it for something else. This is an adventure all by itself. How about two orders to USE a point, and one to DISCARD a point (which would put it back on your total to be used for something else) Example time : Total of 5 points, USE 3 on War and 2 on Trade You then chance your mind, you want a mage and 1 point less on War DISCARD 1 WAR USE 1 MAGIC How does this sound? 4) The points to regions table Geoff originally sent out seems a bit Too much.How about this system : points regions ------ ------- 1 5 (minimum is now 5 so every faction can get a decent start) 2 10 3 15 4 20 5 25 I know it's a bit simplistic, but I think it's actually rather much more fair.This could actually encourage minor skirmishes over areas. More to the point, having 5 as the minimum, and 25 as the maximum, seems a fairer way to encourage the flow of the game (taxing and producing working in hand in close knit communities). How many factions out there control over 25 hexes? How many control close to 100? (The current system is a bit of a jump - from 5 to 100)? Why not employ this system, and as soon as a faction EARNS more money than a certain limit (say $50,000) they gain a faction point, that they can increase the amount of regions they can tax/trade. NOT MAGIC! Set a limit to 5 mages andkeep to that, forcing the magic factions to employ other areas of pursuit other than magic. The reason I say this is that we know how powerful the mages are already, so afaction having an army of mages is virtually indestructable (especially if they have troops to back them up, look how the major cities have fallen in one combat round) 5) The all out system (Atlantis v1) is an interesting notion, throw it open ona vote! Spells! It has been said that only 4 foundations are going to exist. Fine! Sounds a little better but also a bit restricted. I know that a friend has almost all of the first level spells, which is quite a feat considering we are 25 months in,and he has all the foundations and almost all the single and multiple foundation spells at level 1 already. However, that is entirely the point. It has taken him over two years of study,and has only just got the first level spells. Four sounds fine! But what should they be? 1) Air, Fire, Earth, Water??? The basic elementals! But how would you try and put them together? What results would you EXPECT to get, and what would you ACTUALLY get? Mixing Fire and Water should yield absolutely nothing and they are opposing forces. (Read up on it!) Earth and Air? How can you put your feet on the ground and still reach the stars? In all respects, it is a good idea, noble and ancient, but it could never workpractically in yielding a good range of spells. DODO! 2) Light, Dark / Good, Evil??? WHAT? To abstract! What IS Good? What IS Evil? Check out the chinese idea of the Yin Yang. In evrything good there is a pieceof evil, and vice versa. This whole concept is a bit outside mortal thought. Let me know what you lot discover in the other side. 3) Elementals, Spirits, etc Again, these are great ideas, but you should really be thinking about application to the other fields. This playtest is a testament to that. Elements may give great spells, likewise with the other ideas, but how would they combine to give a GOOD solid basis for a range of spells? 4) My ideas! (Slag me at your peril! I'll flame and spamm anyone if they go over the top at me) At the moment Construct enables you to world with material goods, especially when combined with another foundation. Maybe we should be looking backwards to the current play. Similarly, Mind and Body foundations are important basic structures that can combine well, usually with outside forces, and yeild a good crop. (Even though the current Mind spells are rather feeble) The ideas of a spirital element are good. Similar to the current Ethereal. Butcould be classed under the Mind category. Nature, Life and Body could be classed together under a suitable heading as well. This leaves Energy! It is a powerful foundation (just look at the level 1 and 3 spells for Fire. Fireflash (used by all) Fireball (used by the few) ) Energy runs through everything, from the minute vibrations in the desk, to thewholesome electricity of lightning. We can't go without this one. I know Geoff mentioned he was running only 4 schools of thought, but wouldn't 5 be better? (Gives a 5 mage faction something to get their teeth into). I propose the following (I don't mind criticism, but don't over-do it like last time, please, folks. If you don't like the names, propose something different instead of dismissing the ideas) : Harmony encompasses the flow from Nature, Life and Body Being would take the higher plane aspects, Mind and Ethereal Chi/Energy from the Chinese, takes the Energy aspects, and also some Life ideas. Form would be the basic elements of Construct, but also the same characteristics of some Nature spells. (Shape Shifting can come to play here). I know it's not ideal, but at least it works a few bugs out, don't you think. I'll keep in touch on this list, so keep the design ideas flowing through here(rather than the players list) Regards as ever to all Dave u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk PS Don't use REPLY to this, please mail me direct with a new message. I hate reading my own stuff twice.(...and three times, ...and four times) --Boundary-11662262-0-0-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:53:49 -0700 (MST) From: "Michael W. Lamb" <LAMBM@chemistry.byu.edu> Subject: Re: Point Systems I agree again! Aren't I affable? This is an excellent idea; its impact on role-playing (which is where the real fun is) could be far- reaching and wholly for the better. Of course, if you invest massive numbers of points into some powerful leaders, you should get them back if they then die, and there are a few other things that would need to be hammered out (like at what level of a Master-Skill you would start to have to expend points) etc. Date sent: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:03:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> To: Atlantis Design List <atl-design@tango.rahul.net> Subject: Point Systems -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There's been some concepts of a points based system tossed around in here and I really wanted to comment further one of them. I don't remember the exact numbers or who suggested it, but one of the proposals was that your leaders have to study specific skills in order to increase the number of hexes you can produce or tax in. For example, if you have a leader with a Leadership skill of 1, you can tax 4 hexes, raise that skill to 2 and you can tax 10, etc etc etc. I really think that this is a great idea and should be implemented, because what you end up with is a select few people that hold all the cards for your empire, meaning that you have to put as much effort as possible into protecting them from war and assassination. This seriously increases the strategic elements of the game, which I think is a good thing. Just a rambling... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2 iQCVAwUBMA+zlzokqlyVGmCFAQGBVgQAny8f25g26FNs8f6sPWy4Kj39+PoDJt/A KEnQBsK/4go4qM0xAJddA+RXe0+DYC1TVYiItU+vDzreLUouz3A5PMnCXYT8vTao OeDT4TZByu3Vzl978UyHB8Iz/P1LsRK+y0rxjchwNpEltqwid0ViGwuVMteWxMLz DP9aDx9FSzE= =Ir1J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> Cthulhu Matata \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> http://att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:14:19 -0400 From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy) Subject: Re: Point Systems I like the idea of leaders impacting how much you can do/control or whatever. I've played, only a little, in some PBeM fantay games where you have certain "main" units that get experiance, go on quests, and so on. Quests are cool too. ;) But anyways, I don't have much to suggest except that I like systems where you have specific/unique men, and everyone isn't jst the same with different (reproducable) skills. :) ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:36:45 -0700 From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder) Subject: Plenty of land, hard to get to Geoff writes: >Well, the idea behind the 100 rule was that a specialized >faction could control as much land as he wanted. There >actually is plenty of land out there in Atlantis 2.0, it's >just kinda hard to get to. Hopefully, this would be addressed in A3 as well as faction types. Maybe in addition to the gateway cities (which should change), there should be some sort of way to teleport to a random hex. It doesn't guarantee you won't end up in the midst of the bad guys, but it'd be a chance. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 19:47:11 -0500 (CDT) From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> Subject: Re: Plenty of land, hard to get to -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Bruce Onder wrote: > Hopefully, this would be addressed in A3 as well as faction types. Maybe > in addition to the gateway cities (which should change), there should be > some sort of way to teleport to a random hex. It doesn't guarantee you > won't end up in the midst of the bad guys, but it'd be a chance. And that is teleport EVERBODY you own, not just one unit. Maybe as a free spell any magician can cast that takes three turns to cast? If you have a wizard, you need to hire one. "That's right, sir. For $1000 Merlin the magnificant will teleport you and your entire family out of this sesspool that is Atlantis city". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2 iQCVAwUBMBAuPjokqlyVGmCFAQF7mQP/f0DQ+IjKcjCJit0x2s+oW0UfaRbayUJE PEDzxK+P+0DARY6MkfeNPOLXIUinZHz1truac4GhtjqlVWh45TbuYFigZekoUR4+ zT5x2pe6cPVXmqDCK7zJDFpVrzWlUjwGZL8zWMR4uzrWQ+dINfmf3ddzGGp2CKRN 6JQIjvDzQMQ= =3I/b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> Cthulhu Matata \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden ---------------------------------------------------------- From: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo) Subject: Plenty of land, hard to get to Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:58:28 -0400 (EDT) I'd like to suggest that established players be able to 'invite' players from Atlantis City to move directly to their area. This way a new faction at least can try to move to someplace they are wanted rather than into a morass of other factions in a city ringed by hostile factions. I'm opposed to dropping the maximum number of areas taxable from 100 down to 50. I don't see what purpose this would serve; it wouldn't solve any of the existing problems (since, how many factions currently tax over 50 regions? zero.) and would just make a successful war faction run into a blank wall after a certain point. I don't think controlling a 10x10 area or other combination adding up to 100 regions is that excessive; with a 96x96 map, it would take a lot of these war factions to cover the whole map. I was the one who suggested that units riding horses shouldn't be blockable or attackable by infantry (or, for that matter, by cavalry with lower riding skill). This has several advantages, in my opinion; a newbie faction could buy horses in Atlantis City to evade guards and find somewhere to settle down. Few war factions initially will be able to establish cavalry guards. Also, it makes riding have a real use and cavalry raiding and screening viable, increasing the interestingness of the game. I don't think it should be _too_ difficult to implement; the characteristics of riding would be very similar to those of stealth. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Thayer <thayer@uis.edu> Subject: Re: Plenty of land, hard to get to Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:51:56 -0700 (CDT) > > > I'd like to suggest that established players be able to 'invite' players > from Atlantis City to move directly to their area. This way a new faction > at least can try to move to someplace they are wanted rather than > into a morass of other factions in a city ringed by hostile factions. > Possibly this could be a spell learned by mages. The spell could either take a list of factions as an argument or simply change one of the exits from A.C. to point to the mages current location (must be a city?). The motivation for mages to spread out and "open" new cities, apart from lonelyness, could be a combination of "mana" (limited spell-casting on a per-region basis) and a need for many factions to cooperate to build up a city. Doug Monzon Wood Exchange (289) thayer@uis.edu ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROB PETERS" <RPeters@Defender.Defenders.org> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 15:59:09 EST Subject: Re: Atl: Guarding I'm new to the design list, so please forgive me if this idea has already been substantially chewed. Here are my thoughts on guarding & the concomitant difficulty new players have in getting established. What bothers me is not the guarding per se, but the fact that by guarding, the first factions into an area can lock it all up, so that new players don't have much chance to get established. I actually like guarding, because it gives players a strategic goal to shoot for, and by guarding their perimeter, they can protect their interior territory -- guarding the frontier just like in real life. Therefore, I'd approach the problem not by necessarily trying to make guarding more expensive, but by slowing down the rate at which the first people into an area can lock it up. As long as the gates keep switching randomly, there will always be new areas available, as long as the first factions can't lock up the land right away. So what you want to do is find a mechanism to slow down the rate at which hexes can be successfully guarded. A simple-minded solution would be to require more than some number of men to guard, e.g. 10 or 15 -- the exact number could be adjusted to ensure that factions couldn't guard for at least several turns. However, here's a more elegant option with historical versimilitude. In real-life coloniziations, there have almost always been prior inhabitants who resent & resist the colonization. I suggest that hostile natives be present in all regions (not all hexes). These natives would wander at random through hexes at some distance from their home hex (e.g. within 4 hexes of home), at some times settling for a few turns. Their responses to colonists could vary at random -- a) they could attack, b) they could prevent taxing, c) they could prevent units from going on guard. Whenever such units are present in a hex, no one could guard -- this means that new arrivals could pass through (with some risk of attack by the natives). In order for a faction/alliance to secure an area, they would have to exterminate (or possibly bribe/buy) the hostile natives. The native home hex could continue to produce and send out new war parties until it is pacified. This would mirror the real-life situation, in which there would be substantial risk to the first colonists in an area, risk that would drop over time as the natives are pacified. This means that the first colonists, far from setting up impenetrable barriers, would be busy fighting natives, and newbies would presumably be able to join them as allies, pass through into additional new territory, or could even displace the first comers, who could be battered by their battles with the natives. I like this idea because it not only tips the balance somewhat against the first people into an area, but it also ads an element of fear & caution into exploration. This would be very different from the current landrush mentality. (I know there are wandering monsters in the present game, but I've never seen one, nor has anyone else I know, and they certainly aren't common enough to affect your strategy.) > Received: from SpoolDir by DEFENDER (Mercury 1.20); 18 Jul 95 16:52:24 -0600 > Return-path: <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net> > Received: from tango.rahul.net by Defenders.org (Mercury 1.20); > 18 Jul 95 16:52:11 -0600 > Received: by tango.rahul.net id AA04865 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for real-atl-design); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:39:34 -0700 > Received: from mail.his.com by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA04861 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net>); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:39:32 -0700 > Received: from clone.UUCP (clone@localhost) by mail.his.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with UUCP id QAA20857 for atl-design@tango.rahul.net; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:39:24 -0400 > Received: by clone.his.com (Fred/1.9q) > id AA03332; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:38:09 > From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby) > Reply-To: tim.hruby@his.com > Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:28:48 > Message-Id: <806110689.AA03332@clone.his.com> > Subject: Atl: Guarding > To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net > X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 > > To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net, atlantis@rahul.net > > Here are my comments on the "guard" issue, FWTW. > > I agree with what seems to be the majority opinion, which is that > xenophobia and blocking by established factions is where the smart money > is. Summarizing all the prior posts, there are a number of advantages to > blocking exits, most of which center around decreasing competition and > allowing you to implicitly claim space for future growth. The cost is > low: one combat trained unit. And there are no advantages to letting > unallied factions through, and the social disadvantage of angering people > is all but ineffectual. Big pluses, low cost, and no real minuses -- we > can all do the math. > > So, assuming that this is a problem, which Geoff appears to assume, from > the tone of his post, the fix lies in changing the weighting in the > equation, so that the issue is more balanced. > > Most of the suggestions have focused on the cost of guarding, by coming > up with ways to increase the cost: guarding limited to hexsides, to > structures, or to production/income; intelligence about the strength of > the guards; eliminating some income guards currently enjoy, etc. The one > I think is the best was mentioned a few weeks ago on the design list, > before this topic came up, and had to do with the use of horses and the > riding skill. I don't remember the mechanics offered, but it was based > around the idea that foot units couldn't block mounted units, and better > riders couldn't be blocked by worse riders. These rules had the > advantage of introducing cavalry into the game, since currently mounted > troops are little more than faster moving foot soldiers. Perhaps > whoever suggested it could repost? > > A number of the rest of these have some merit in my eyes, but I don't > think they are the only answer, so I'll also talk some about the other > variables in the equation. > > (BTW, I'm opposed to the "not being able to attack moving units" > suggestion. This would allow an opponent to move a regiment deep into > your territory, and you couldn't stop it, simply because it is ordered to > move further into your unprotected heartland.) > > On the advantages-of-blocking side, I'm hard pressed to come up with ways > of reducing these advantages. The two main advantages are [1] reducing > future competition (I don't see any way to get around this one), and [2] > implictly claiming unoccupied land for you to grow into, since War > faction have so much room to grow before they'll near hitting that 100 > hex limit. The only way to reduce that is to reduce faction sizes, but I > don't see that as being popular, or really all that effective, given the > continued incentive to reduce future competition. > > That leaves the disadvantages to blocking. Currently there are none, > except for possibly angering other factions. One idea for to help out > that I have is to create some _advantages_ for having multiple factions > in a single hex, and then the blockers would be missing out on those > advantages. For example, at the risk of sounding PC, you could adopt the > view that cultural diversity increases economic development, through the > sharing of differing ideas, viewpoints, technology, etc. (I'm sure we've > al heard the screed on why diversity is good.), so that there are > economic development benefits from having multiple factions in a hex > (like maybe each faction above one adds one free food sold to the local > village/town/city, for the purposes of growth). Then the mean old War > faction would want to have people pass through his hexes, to spur > development. > > I recognize that this idea is open to some abuses, and needs further > development, but I think it has some potential as part of the solution. > You can't solve the "problem" by just making it harder to guard; you have > to give some incentive for not guarding as well. > ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net> Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 14:25:30 -0700 This is a weekly posting for the atl-design mailing list. This list is meant for anyone interested in the rules and design of Atlantis 2.0. The moderator of the Atlantis 2.0 game is on this list, so your ideas could actually become reality! To send a message to everyone on the list, send email to: atl-design@tango.rahul.net To subscribe or un-subscribe to this list, mail to atlantis@rahul.net. Make sure you specify exactly what you want me to do, because a lot of mail goes to this address. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Niclas Olofsson <m93nol@student.tdb.uu.se> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 17:14:26 +0200 Subject: Re: Question about flying units On Monday Jul 24 I wrote Geoff asking if a flying unit could avoid combat with units on the ground. The reply was negative: > As it stands now, flying/riding has no effect on combat, > except ion conjunction with the Riding skill. > > Geoff > I think it is logical that a flying unit should be able to avoid units on the ground. Therefore I suggest that change. What do you think? Niclas Olofsson ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 1995 11:26:15 -0700 From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com> Subject: Re: Question about flying u Reply to: RE>>Question about flying units >I think it is logical that a flying unit should be able to >avoid units on the ground. Therefore I suggest that change. >What do you think? I disagree. Flying units have to land to rest sometime. Even with good weather in plains terrain, a unit will take somewhere around 5 days to cross a sector, ample time to be caught on the ground somewhere. Mike ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kristian M. Pettersen" <FE6@stud.hibo.no> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 19:02:59 MEZ-1MDZ Subject: Re: New System > > point Regions(Geoff) Regions(Dave) Regions(Vince) > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 1 5 5 3 > > 2 12 10 8 > > 3 20 15 15 (?) > > 4 30 20 25(?) > > 5 50 25 50 > > > > My thinking was that specialization should be encouraged, > > but not necessary, based on comments by some players who > > wished they had the ability to "do it all". Also, it might > > put a damper on the 1 war/1 trade/buncha magic alliances > > that some find distasteful. In my system, generic and > > hybrid factions are a realistic option. > > > > Vince's suggestion is closer to what we have now, while > > allowing more flexibility. Whereas Dave's system makes > > specialization no better than anything else. > > > > > Good point. Making the bridge in your ideas seems a lot better. 5,12,20 ... > I vote on your suggestion.! It seems a logical bridge. Comments anyone..??? I like this too, but could we have something like it for mages as well? Something like: Point: Mages: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 7 It's just a suggestion, and probably the rest of you will find a better way, but I really think that magic-factions should be rewarded for specialisation as much as anyone else. Kristian M. Pettersen (FE6@stud.hibo.no) ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> Subject: Re : Guarding Units Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:12:36 +0100 (BST) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:36:39 -0700 From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder) Subject: Re : Guarding Units At 6:12 PM 7/26/95, D.J. McGaw wrote: [guarding ideas deleted] Maybe all we really need to say is that if a unit is taxing, it is guarding explicitly the tax revenue. Taxing units automatically attack anyone else who tries to issue the TAX command in the same region. 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. These units will not respond to cries for help outside the region they are in. 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. Up