ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #37 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Fri, 21 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------- From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:28:48 Subject: Atl: Guarding 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 14:40:22 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) First, there have been many very good, and very interesting ideas thrown out. Just because I choose to use or not use an idea doesn't have any bearing on how good it was. A number of the ideas would make for a very interesting game, but I would rather not use them, because they represent a rather drastic change from the current version. Also, one of my main beliefs about Atlantis is that it should be a framework for the players to fill in. So, such things as defining certain actions to be "good" or "evil", or making interesting NPC factions, are best left for single player computer games. After all, the role-playing and game-playing against actual humans should be much more interesting than anything I can program. That being said, here are my (current and very changeable) thoughts: Faction types: Looks like most people support something like the current faction type system, though some modifications are needed. How's this: You get 5 "faction points". Each of these can be spent on War, Trade, or Magic, and also "unspent" freely. For each mage in your faction, you must have one point spent on Magic. The points in War and Trade give you a number of taxable/produceable regions: points regions ------ ------- 1 5 2 12 3 20 4 30 5 50 Note: Under this system, there is less reward for specialization. This will hopefully get rid of the alliance strategy of having one war, one trade, and a zillion magic factions. If the members of the alliance wish to have a number of well rounded factions, that could work too. This may lead to factions being closer to the "cookie-cutter" factions that appeared in Atlantis 1 (meaning they all look the same), but there is still room for specialization. I liked some of the other ideas, like "superleaders", etc, but think they might be a bit complex, and difficult to balance without more play-testing. Trade System: Not much more to say on this; my mind is pretty clear on what I want to do, as outlined in the last post I had on the subject. As for the food/money issue, my plan is for grain/fish/livestock to be about twice as valuable as a trade good compared to the food value. I understand the reasoning behind making these _more_ valuable as food than as trade, but I prefer it this way. It makes my system of cities growing and declining based on food supplies work a bit better. Magic System: OK, I still working out what the 4 basic foundations should be, as my Elemental system either a) doesn't cover everything or b) has certain elements not representing what they should. (i.e. Air magic == Mind magic) But, there will be 4 foundations, that much I know. :) As for the physical components, I think it is a good idea, but only for the higher level spells. I don't want to starve out the newbie mages. They will either be produced using the PRODUCE order, but not counting towards the Trade quota of a faction, or maybe a new COLLECT order. They will be common, but in small quantities. Also, they will decay over time, to prevent anyone from building up huge stockpiles of components. Starting Factions: A thought I had was that it should be much easier for a new faction to build a boat and hit the seas. Here's a new (suggested) system for AC: Atlantis city has many basic items for sale in infinite quantities: wood, iron, a few types of men, leaders. However, the guards will be indestructable, and utterly prevent theft, assassination. Also, no entertainment or work wages will be available. So it does no good to stay in AC, but it is much easier to prepare your faction for the "real world" before leaving. The six entry cities will also have indestructable guards, though in other respects they will be regular cities. So, they cannot be taken over by factions, but they will fit into the world around them. Also, they will all be coastal, so a player can set up his faction in the AC, and then, if he desires, build a ship in the entry city and set sail. Another possibility would be to give players unclaimed wood or the ability to build one free longboat. As usual, all of this is subject to change at any time without notice. Comments and Questions welcome. Geoff ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:45:52 -0400 From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy) Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) If you want 4 areas for sure, how about using Physical / Mental / Spiritual / (something else) Instead of the elementals. This gives you a good way to mix the pure physical things, like gloves of strength, with spiritual (summon Treefolk, binding spirits to physical wood), and so on... Just an idea. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:45:32 -0700 (MST) From: "Michael W. Lamb" <LAMBM@chemistry.byu.edu> Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) I wholeheartedly support the one free longboat per faction allowance, or the unclaimed wood. It is a necessity for proper travel, and let me be the first to say that it is almost impossible to escape from the exit cities and establish a base long enough to produce wood and longboats, having attempted something like that myself! This new system would allow the large alliances to claim their vast territories, satisfying them, and also allow the newbies their chance to explore. As for the point system, it seems fundamentally sound but could probably use a bit more fine-tuning. Perhaps instead of Trade regions we could have products available (i.e. 1 point=three possible products produced, etc.) This would perhaps revert to the super- leader system, which really isn't that bad. One point could go to one powerful leader, who could be a mage, a master trader (potentially) or a general . . . and instead of hex limits, you would have leader limits. (Your leaders then could be WAR, MAGIC, or TRADE, or hybrid, and THEY could be the ones delimiting your hex or production limits.) These people could be our principal characters (if eliminated, your faction folds) and the role-playing would become more involved. (Assassins would have more of a purpose in existing, too.) As for magic - well, to be blunt, who really cares what you call the foundations? Yin and yang, four elements, seasons, the cardinal directions, whatever. Perhaps a better approach would be to draw up a list of spells that we would like to see and then try to classify them into four general categories, with of course some falling on the border. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:48:26 -0500 From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) Along the lines of Jonathan Roy's suggestions for four magic areas, how about: Elements / Mind / Spirit / Energy I suppose one might argue that Mind and Spirit are too similar. What do you all think? John Bollinger Melvin's Marauders (105) ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 17:48:44 -0700 From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU> Then if you really want 4 areas/foundatins how about: Nature / Energy / Mental / Etheral(Spiritual) ------- Forwarded Message Received: from tango.rahul.net by JIMI.CS.UNLV.EDU id aa08522; 18 Jul 95 16:08 PDT Received: by tango.rahul.net id AA18427 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for real-atl-design); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 15:50:35 -0700 Received: from triton.eckerd.edu by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA18417 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net>); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 15:50:32 -0700 Received: from acasun.eckerd.edu by triton.eckerd.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05689; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:45:31 -0400 Received: by acasun.eckerd.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA15572; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:45:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 18:45:52 -0400 From: Jonathan Roy <roy@acasun.eckerd.edu> Message-Id: <9507182245.AA15572@acasun.eckerd.edu> To: GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com, atl-design@tango.rahul.net Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) Content-Length: 306 If you want 4 areas for sure, how about using Physical / Mental / Spiritual / (something else) Instead of the elementals. This gives you a good way to mix the pure physical things, like gloves of strength, with spiritual (summon Treefolk, binding spirits to physical wood), and so on... Just an idea. ------- End of Forwarded Message ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 21:07:03 -0400 From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher) Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Various issues (long) At 6:48 PM 18.07.95, John Bollinger wrote: >Along the lines of Jonathan Roy's suggestions for four magic areas, >how about: > >Elements / Mind / Spirit / Energy > >I suppose one might argue that Mind and Spirit are too similar. What >do you all think? > Not if you take Jon's original concept of Spirit meaning control of Spirits/Beings. Then it becomes a rather handy category. Joshua Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 20:34:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Lazarus <llong@io.com> Subject: TIMES (fwd) I found this in the Times and was not amused. This is neither friendly or role playing. This is a direct slur against possible fellow players. Not their faction, not their role playing, but them themselvess Many times Geoff has told us this is not part of the game. It is in the rules and it has been retold through the players list. It does not sound like this faction is trying to perserve freedom at all. Sounds like a call to hatred that goes beyond the game. Beyond too far! LL --------------------------- IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THESE ARROGANT AMERICANS. ANYONE WISHING AN ALLIANCE FOR FREEDOM OR TO MOVE TO BETTER GROUND CONTACT ME AT RJMCKINNON@ACSLINK.NET.AU (Australia) Ross. ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net> Subject: Re: TIMES (fwd) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 22:01:09 -0700 Sending a message to the design list (and player list for that matter) is _not_ the way to deal with an article you find outside the boundaries of good role- playing. A discrete message to me is a much better way to deal with this. Thanks, Geoff ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> Subject: Food and Trade Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:04:54 +0100 (BST) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> Subject: New System Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 13:55:54 +0100 (BST) 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) ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:13:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joshua Mosher (JE 1996)" <mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu> Subject: Re: New System On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, D.J. McGaw wrote: > 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!) > For future discussion, can we all please try to limit our comments to one major concept per message. I am going to have to edit this enormously just to respond to one part. > 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? > I think something like this will be essential. Otherwise restarting will be the only option for those who make mistakes. > 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)? > As a side comment, I think _the_ major cause of greed in Atlantis is the 100 hex limit. How can you possibly reach this limit if you don't keep other factions out of huge swaths of land? > 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. > No, no, no! This will make things much too easy for older factions. They will start to run away with the game. To expand the limits, one should have to do something very difficult and costly (perhaps you have to erect a huge magical monument or something like that). Then factions would have to choose between maintaining their current strength and spending that strength for future gain. I agree that forbidding more more sounds good. > 5) The all out system (Atlantis v1) is an interesting notion, throw it open > ona vote! > Boring and no fun. > > Spells! > This change of topic should have been a new message. Anyway, any more comments on the details of faction limits? Joshua Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:03:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> 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 95 09:51:34 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: Food and Trade --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 --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-- ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> Subject: Re: New System Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:04:25 +0100 (BST) I put forward a few points on the new faction system. (whether to be playtested here, or just enforced in the next incarnation of Atlantis is unsure). Josh Mosher, a contributer since day one if memory serves, had a few comments. Have a look and mail me your ideas. > For future discussion, can we all please try to limit our comments to one > major concept per message. I am going to have to edit this enormously > just to respond to one part. > To this I apologise. I simply thought that one concise bundle would be easier on the mailbox, and easier to take your time over and formulate your own opinions on. I will endeavour to split my questions up and spamm the design crew with them. >> 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? >> > I think something like this will be essential. Otherwise restarting will > be the only option for those who make mistakes. Ditto. >> 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)? >> > As a side comment, I think _the_ major cause of greed in Atlantis is the > 100 hex limit. How can you possibly reach this limit if you don't keep > other factions out of huge swaths of land? That's my point. >> 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. >> > No, no, no! This will make things much too easy for older factions. They > will start to run away with the game. To expand the limits, one should > have to do something very difficult and costly (perhaps you have to erect > a huge magical monument or something like that). Then factions would have > to choose between maintaining their current strength and spending that > strength for future gain. I agree that forbidding more more sounds good. This isn't a discussion point for THIS game, but for the next incarnation, which is what we are discussing. The game we are playing now is the playtest version (although it is treated as a game) so the older factions can try this out to make sure it works. Hence, Play Test! > >> 5) The all out system (Atlantis v1) is an interesting notion, throw it open >> ona vote! >> > Boring and no fun. This is my view, but I needed some sort of response to this one to check the ballot boxes. >> >> Spells! >> > This change of topic should have been a new message. > > Anyway, any more comments on the details of faction limits? > > Joshua Mosher > I read ya! I'll think about it a bit more and get back to the list. Regards as ever Dave Up