ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #36

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Tue, 18 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: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Sun, 16 Jul 1995 12:48:34 +0000
Subject:       The Times and Unclaimed Funds

In my view, the current Times is getting unmanageable. I think this
could be easily solved by:

(a) Not paying any silver for people's contriutions.
(b) Automatically giving every faction $50 unclaimed funds each turn.

I believe this would result in a shortning of the Times, an increase
in it's use for role-playing, and an increase in quality.

MK
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 09:01:34 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: Trade vs. War

Tim made some good points about the growth potential of War and Trade,
in an open area where both have all the space they need to grow. I am
currently attempting to build ships to attempt to get to such a place
on Atlantis, and am deciding that it would have been much easier to
study magic and Shadow jump.

When the land is full, as it is in every area I have seen, Trade factions
can produce much more silver per hex than War factions (wood can turn into
120 silver per each at most forest cities, most forest hexes produce about
20-30 wood, therefore can produce about 3000 silver per turn per hex, with
only 20 trained men doing the work, and a couple more running the product
to market.  This is considerably better than the usual 800 silver available
for TAX income in a forest region.)

The problem is getting the 20 highly trained men in-place without taxing,
which is currently impossible without the "protection" of a war faction.

Ideally, factions would cooperate and extract all the trade and all the
tax income, and magic factions would come along and help out with spells
to make things more productive.  Then all this silver from the "home front"
would support defending and/or conquering armies.

My problem is that I haven't been able to establish a home front area, so
am left scrabbling in the dirt for pennies.

Mike Inman
nims@cris.com

Tim Ruby's quote follows...

Except for the question of where the money comes from to create these armies,
and War will always have a significant advantage over Trade in this regard.  A
War soldier costs about $80 on the starting turn (~60 + 10 to train + 10
maintenance) and then makes a profit of $50+ each turn thereafter, assuming an
adequate tax base and working.  That's better than a 60% return on the
investment, allowing the War faction to double his forces every two turns and
still pocket some spare cash.  A Trade soldier would cost the same $80, makes
no money, not even his support, for his faction (though he could work and
defray his maintenance).  Considering that that money could instead have
trained someone to produce something of value, that's a big waste of money, and
certainly makes no down-the-road contribution to the faction's resources, since
he can't tax and his only income source is working.  If he eats grain, that's
even more of a productive drain, since that grain [1] required an investment in
a additional producer unit, and [2] could have been sold at a profit.

I just don't see Trade factions creating fighting forces in numbers anywhere
near War factions -- it's just nowhere near as efficient as what War factions
can do, and thus they'll get trounced by serious War opposition.

There is also the fact that crops weigh something, while silver doesn't, thus
making transport an issue for marauding armies.

On the whole, I think that allowing food for maintenance isn't going to do much
except make life _a little_ easier for Trade factions and boats at sea.  Trade
factions will prefer to use silver for maintenance, since the food will be
worth more if sold at a market.  But in emergencies and other special
circumstances (including lack of player time to organize all the market trips),
one _can_ eat the grain or fish and survive.  It only makes sense that you
should be able to eat such things, after all.  But Geoff has indicated that it
will be more profitable to sell them and live off the proceeds, so there isn't
a great incentive to live off actual product if you can do better.
Mike Inman
NIMS@CRIS.COM

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 11:28:55 PDT
From: kbrors@mindscape.com
Subject: Re[2]: Trade routes

If Atlantis was changed to a limited orders per turn system it would
     no longer be Atlantis.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Trade routes
Author:  banj0 <pfleming@otago.ac.nz> at INTERNET
Date:    7/15/95 6:29 PM

>
> Here's a suggestion to help out trade factions... some sort
> of trade route. ie:
>
> route
> buy something | produce something
> move someplace
> sell something | give something
> move back to start
> end
>

This idea could be used to implement a script system, which would be
useful, if the limited number of orders option was used.
ie. A repeating multi-turn order set similar in syntax to Form
 Auto
     <several turns worth of orders>
 End

Then each faction could be limited to (say) 10 orders per turn, and still
have complex activities in the background.  Some things will need to
change...
 All a factions units in an area will need to share silver to
   avoid starvation.
 It might be a good idea for a leader to be able to Stack units
    for movement purposes
 Give should be more fault tolerant, to ease timing problems, if
  the unit isn't there, the give just fails (with no side effects) if it
  is there, the give only gives enough to not stop the unit from moving
 Maybe implement a Get order, wherein the receiving units starts
  the transaction.

If using the FULL/HALF/PARTIAL faction rules, there could be another
(more possiblities = more niches) Faction type ...Busy
Busy Faction
  FULL is allowed 30 orders per turn
  HALF is allowed 20 orders per turn
  PARTIAL is allowed 15 orders per turn

OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
     |        banj0      |
     |       pfleming@eros.otago.ac.nz            |
     OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 11:41:00 PDT
From: kbrors@mindscape.com
Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE

I agree I don't like have a random element like that in a game like
     this (both for taxing and magic). Like he says one bad die roll and a
     faction could be destroyed. Also this just makes good players better
     as they can calculate the odds and really won't stop them. I would
     prefer to see help for trade not destruction of WAR and MAGIC.

If you make magic require components it will discourage the
     individual mage faction (you could run one of these now) and encourage
     the 1 WAR, 1 TRADE, n MAGIC alliance as the WAR and TRADE can get the
     goods for the MAGIC factions where as the 1 MAGIC faction will have no
     way of getting the goods needed.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Fwd: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE
Author:  Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk> at INTERNET
Date:    7/16/95 4:39 AM

I'm against any random element. While one War faction might be wiped
out by one of these 'revolts' another faction might be lucky enough
to never have a revolt against them. Where is the fun in knowing
that you are just more lucky than someone else - and that your
tactics are less important?

Also, if revolts occur against small forces more often than large
ones, how on earth is anyone ever going to grow? And the one's that
have been LUCKY enough, will just get more and more powerful.

I'm not even going to comment on 'randomly' exploding mages :)

> I was thinking that implementing some sort of revolt rule might make WAR
> factions less powerful.  A backlash rule for MAGIC might make people
> less willing to invest huge amounts of time in something as touch and go
> as magic.
>
> For revolt, I would say that a simple rule would be that the taxing unit
> can set the tax rate anywhere up to maximum, but the smaller the force
> doing the taxing, the more likely the revolt.  If the pesants revolt you
> just make them enemies (you'd need to make peasants NPC units).
>
> For magic, every research into a new spell carries a chance that a demon
> will be summoned/an explosion occurs/etc.  I think magic needs to be
> dangerous, or else everyone welcomes magic in their lands.  However, if
> there was a chance that an entire hex would be consumed in a tower of
> magical flame, I think other factions might encourage you to study
> *elsewhere*.
>
> Also, a single player might not be able to afford to constantly be
> recruiting new mages if they keep blowing up/disappearing/losing
> spells/etc.
>
> If you do this, then suddenly trade becomes a very beautiful thing.
> It's peaceful and profitable, whereby war is hostile and runs a risk,
> and magic is dangerous and costly.
>
> (I would have posted this to the design list, but my mail server is
> bonkers.  Feel free to forward.)
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Boundary-10230791-0-0--
>

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 14:27:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
Subject: Guarding

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I've been reading some of concers about the xenophobic guarding of
hexes.  Some of the suggested solutions are really innovative and really
go a long way towards increasing strategy elements of guarding.

Well, here's some of my thoughts.

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

1)  You cannot guard entry into a hex.  You cannot attack anything that
    enters a hex on the turn it enters.

Let's face it, a hex is a huge area.  If somebody wanted to get through
the lines, it would be impossible for a dozen units to protect that
border.  Instead, you completely remove the ability to guard entry.  And
if enemy units move into your area, you have to attack them the next turn
either manually or by setting your hatred atrribut high enough.  however,
it should be set up so that people who are moving on the next turn cannot
be attacked.  This allows people moving though to move thorough without
being molested.

Basically:  	Movement occurs before combat
		A group can neither attack nor be attacked the turn it moves.

2)  Guard individual items

Now, if a person wants to protect their interests, they can set the guard
command to individual items.  Such as:
	GUARD PRODUCTION WOOD
	GUARD PEASANTS
	GUARD BUILDING 1
	GUARD TAX

With these examples, guards prevent people from using those things.  From
producing wood or taxing, in the examples.  If a person wants to try to
bypass the guards, they can execute an attack command.  If they win, then
subsequent units can then produce, buy or tax that no-longer-protected
item.

3)  Guard Units Can't Work
If I understand, currently a guard unit can work.  That shouldn't be the
case.  Guarding should be a full-turn action.  This requires a second
source of maintanence for them, thus limiting their overall effectivness
(in theory).

4)  Guard Units can't aid combat
A unit that is guarding should not be able to help a hex that is being
attacked that is next door to their current location.  You don't leave
your post.

Just some thoughts.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 1.0

iQCVAwUBMAloAjokqlyVGmCFAQGLlAQAhdsOCZ+zhXPxFLUZS9Zf23+lKRqSJY+8
98DFiVYO+yzsbPjKuOHkEDMKWgWEIPGx1U09DhcSyDEBe/9OJ4ry0f91v8rJ56B9
bpABON7Fzb+gUGtBkeSDoOuluCPva4fi530XkrW5FpuFXTICXJ7AUzb7iyo0lWIB
9SvV2/GTYhQ=
=gK2A
-----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: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 15:54:03 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE

>I'm against any random element. While one War faction might be wiped
>out by one of these 'revolts' another faction might be lucky enough
>to never have a revolt against them. Where is the fun in knowing
>that you are just more lucky than someone else - and that your
>tactics are less important?

But it's a realistic risk.  The chance of revolt should be determined by a)
the harshness of the tax, and b) the size of the taxing units.  You should
need to manage that risk, otherwise your "tactics" aren't tactics at all.
I don't see the skill needed to say "take all this tax, just like everybody
else can."

If you want to tax heavily, you need the manpower to enforce that tax.

>Also, if revolts occur against small forces more often than large
>ones, how on earth is anyone ever going to grow? And the one's that
>have been LUCKY enough, will just get more and more powerful.

I guess if you're equating luck with intellegence, then I concur.  However,
my point was that it's totally bogus for 5 guys WITHOUT SWORDS to move into
a region of 200 peasants, x hill dwarves and y leaders and successfully
start sucking off all this tax revenue.  What's the incentive for the
locals to hand over this money?

>I'm not even going to comment on 'randomly' exploding mages :)

Again, it's a risk that has to be managed.  The more you play with fire,
the greater your chance to get burned.

Bruce

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.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 22:41:58 -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.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:27:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

Some good thoughts here! (most agree with my own :))

On Sat, 15 Jul 1995, Bruce Onder wrote:

> Lazarus <llong@io.com> writes:
> >One way to lessen the impact of guards is to let the person
> >in a hex know which exits were guarded last turn.
>
> This implies that you should only be able to guard a certain hex face:
>
> GUARD NE
>
> which requires that you spend move resources guarding a huge hex.
>
> Which I like.
Even if it takes only one person to guard that hex face, it would be
better than one person being able to guard all hex faces.

Now, 1 person guarding probably could turn back 1, 2 ,3 or even 4 other
people, But without even a sword, larger groups could slip past.
Maybe that is what the ADVANCE orders are for. But then you should be
able to see that there is a guard, how many, and decide to ADVANCE.

Of course, the guard could call in troops from elsewhere in the hex
to help repell the invaders, but you did have a feel for the possible
strength.

This means that it would take 6 guards to guard all 6 hex faces.
Good, give them something to do.
Nothing wrong with them being able to tax while they do it. A lot
of bourder guards collect taxes.
But they are only one place, they cannot protect some one else from
collecting taxes. Their main function is to repell invaders.

>
> >A better way, though much harder way to take care of the problem,
> >is to not actually guard hexes at all.
> >Let the guard only guard "things" in the hex.
> >Guard the Taxes.
> >Guard the Iron mine.
> >Guard the woodmill.
> >Guard this building, that building.
> >Guard wood production.
> >Guard Horse roundups.
> >Guard the road that is there.
>
> I like those, too.
>
> >Comments?
>
> Very good ideas!
>
> 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: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:29:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Xenophobia:  Not the answer

On Sun, 16 Jul 1995, Mark Keen wrote:

> > I think that the answer may lie in some sort of formula that says whether
> > the guarding unit is effective or not.  10 guys shouldn't be able to guard
> > an entire region from commerce -- you're right.  But they could reasonably
> > hold off individual comers until word gets around.  The guarding faction
> > then needs to either move on, or scale up the protection in the area before
> > help (or competition!) arrives for the explorers.
>
> I think it would be sufficient to see how many troops were actually
> guarding a hex from an a adjacent one. In this way you could decide
> as to whether to make an ADVANCE. This would make people think before
> guarding with very small numbers.
I don't know if it is sufficient, but it should be the minimum.

>
>
> > I've suggested to Geoff that taxing have some sort of revolt risk that
> > varies in proportion to the harshness of the tax.  If you tax 25% of the
> > available base, then there is a 25% chance of revolt from the peasants.
>
> Once again no random factors please! What's the point in developing a
> sophisticated game, if in the end, it's all gonna come down to the
> role of a dice???
No dice please. I want to use my mind, not my lousy luck!

>
> You could of course argue that combat is already Random, but the
> number of rolls in this case is so large that it is only likely to
> deviate within acceptable boundaries.
>
> MK
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:45:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Guarding

I think some of us are coming up with ways to let people pass through
and not make guarding with one single person do so much.

Perhaps Geoff will respond and let us know if our thoughts and efforts
are all wasted or if they have a chance of actually being done?

On Sun, 16 Jul 1995, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I've been reading some of concers about the xenophobic guarding of
> hexes.  Some of the suggested solutions are really innovative and really
> go a long way towards increasing strategy elements of guarding.
>
> Well, here's some of my thoughts.
>
> - ----------------
>
> 1)  You cannot guard entry into a hex.  You cannot attack anything that
>     enters a hex on the turn it enters.
>
> Let's face it, a hex is a huge area.  If somebody wanted to get through
> the lines, it would be impossible for a dozen units to protect that
> border.  Instead, you completely remove the ability to guard entry.  And
> if enemy units move into your area, you have to attack them the next turn
> either manually or by setting your hatred atrribut high enough.  however,
> it should be set up so that people who are moving on the next turn cannot
> be attacked.  This allows people moving though to move thorough without
> being molested.
>
> Basically:  	Movement occurs before combat
> 		A group can neither attack nor be attacked the turn it moves.
I would agree except for the exception if your units were guarding the
hex directions that entrance/exit was being attempted to do.

Otherwise, movement would happen before combat. Or at least half of
the time the movers manage to leave before they are stopped.

>
> 2)  Guard individual items
>
> Now, if a person wants to protect their interests, they can set the guard
> command to individual items.  Such as:
> 	GUARD PRODUCTION WOOD
> 	GUARD PEASANTS
> 	GUARD BUILDING 1
> 	GUARD TAX
>
> With these examples, guards prevent people from using those things.  From
> producing wood or taxing, in the examples.  If a person wants to try to
> bypass the guards, they can execute an attack command.  If they win, then
> subsequent units can then produce, buy or tax that no-longer-protected
> item.
This is what guarding should split out. Individual things being guarded.
(I dont't know purpose of guarding peasants.)
Say what the guard is guarding. Takes six to guard the whole hex from
all sides.

More guards to guard things in the hex. All guards should be able to
tax though. Taxes SHOULD be a function of how many armed troops are in
the hex.

Some people wanted to have peasants rebell. Perhaps give capability of
overtaxing. Different levels of what they will stand for. Go for too much
and you run the risk of peasants rebelling. And if there should happen
to be factions allied with the peasants, then a real battle happens.

>
> 3)  Guard Units Can't Work
> If I understand, currently a guard unit can work.  That shouldn't be the
> case.  Guarding should be a full-turn action.  This requires a second
> source of maintanence for them, thus limiting their overall effectivness
> (in theory).
It is nice, mainly for war, that guards can work.
I think they should not be able to work if they are taxing or guarding.
Guarding and taxing at the same time is ok, but not working too.

>
> 4)  Guard Units can't aid combat
> A unit that is guarding should not be able to help a hex that is being
> attacked that is next door to their current location.  You don't leave
> your post.
Well, I will have to disagree here.
Guarding units do leave their posts for battles.
It is only some very restricted guards that will stay behind.
We probably dont have those sorts of secret projects here in Atlantis.

Now, with guards guarding specific things in the hex,
if they do get killed in battle, they will not be there
after the battle to guard that thing anymore.
So, other troops would have to take over or risk losing what was
being guarded.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:45:19 +0000
Subject:       Re: Fwd: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE

> >I'm against any random element. While one War faction might be wiped
> >out by one of these 'revolts' another faction might be lucky enough
> >to never have a revolt against them. Where is the fun in knowing
> >that you are just more lucky than someone else - and that your
> >tactics are less important?
>
> But it's a realistic risk.  The chance of revolt should be determined by a)
> the harshness of the tax, and b) the size of the taxing units.  You should
> need to manage that risk, otherwise your "tactics" aren't tactics at all.
> I don't see the skill needed to say "take all this tax, just like everybody
> else can."

No the skill is not in Taxing an area, the skill is in building up,
in negotiating with others, with organising effective defence, in
eliminating your enemies. These are the things that make the game fun
for a War faction.

If I was newbie War/Trade faction with only 10 combat units, I set
them to Tax, and they get wiped out. That's not much fun, especially
when I can see that the guy next door did the same thing and is ok.
To be able to 'manage' risk you have to be a big organization to
start with. You don't get many insurance companies offering a policy
to only one person. No, they spread it over a wide area. Just how do
you think a newbie faction can do this?

> >Also, if revolts occur against small forces more often than large
> >ones, how on earth is anyone ever going to grow? And the one's that
> >have been LUCKY enough, will just get more and more powerful.
>
> I guess if you're equating luck with intellegence, then I concur.  However,
> my point was that it's totally bogus for 5 guys WITHOUT SWORDS to move into
> a region of 200 peasants, x hill dwarves and y leaders and successfully
> start sucking off all this tax revenue.  What's the incentive for the
> locals to hand over this money?

Yes, but we not talking realism, we're talking about using a workable
system to have fun.

> >I'm not even going to comment on 'randomly' exploding mages :)
>
> Again, it's a risk that has to be managed.  The more you play with fire,
> the greater your chance to get burned.

Again, how can I manage this risk by only having 5 mages? Give me 100
or so, and I'll easily allow for a percentage of accidents, but not
with 5. Probability only works 'fairly' when dealing with a large
number of cases.

MK
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:28:58 -0400
From: lam@diamond.eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Magic Improvements

>
> 4 foundations, based on the elements. Fire, which will encompass
> all sorts of energy type skills. Earth, dealing with physical
> strength and construction. Water, controlling life and nature.
> And Air, the foundation of thought and mind control.

This is good, as these elements have a well-understood history in the
occult. Beyond these two, however, I'd incorporate the polar magic
theme: Good and Evil (or Light and Darkness, etc.) This supports
concepts of protector-mage, necromancer, etc. as well as "coloring"
the elements. Perhaps some level of knowledge in all elements is
required before researching Good or Evil foundations.

>
> Also, I'm considering the idea of requiring physical components
> for spells. Like, Fire spells need gemstones, Earth need, I don't
> know, bloodstone, or something, etc. These would be pretty
> common around the world, but in small quantities, thus making
> magic factions need to compete for resources as well.
>

Excellent plan, it adds a lot of flavor. While we're on the topic,
how about artifacts? Generally, of course, in the possession of
large ugly beasts or powerful NPC's...

And on the subject of trade goods, I'd be cautious about over-
detailing the basics, your level of abstraction may suffer. If it
doesn't create an interesting interaction between players, why
have it? Who *really* wants to join a fantasy game to be a fish
farmer? IMHO, those players currently moaning and groaning about
"how hard it is to make money" have simply missed the point of the
game. If I moan, it'll be about "how hard it is to find a really
good adventure..."

In conclusion: Fantasy gaming <> accounting. Fantasy gaming = interactive
fiction.

-Larry
Crimson Robes (60)
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Missed the point
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:44:03 -0700
From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU>

This guy missed the point of being a Trade Faction.

What is it you think Trade Factions DO in the game?

And I DID join the game to FISH, among other things!

------- Forwarded Message

Received: from tango.rahul.net by JIMI.CS.UNLV.EDU id aa18586;
          17 Jul 95 7:46 PDT
Received: by tango.rahul.net id AA27833
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for real-atl-design); Mon, 17 Jul 1995 07:34:14 -0700
Received: from gate.tridom.com by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA27825
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net>); Mon, 17 Jul 1995 07:34:10 -0700
Received: from daemon@localhost by gate.tridom.com
	for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net> via smapdV1.3
	id KAA03482; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:34:04 -0400
Received: from pixie.tridom.com by gate.tridom.com
	for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net> via SMTP (smap V1.3)
	id sma003475; Mon Jul 17 10:32:36 1995
Received: from diamond.eng.tridom.com [148.62.2.16] by pixie.tridom.com
	for <atl-design@tango.rahul.net> via SMTP
	id KAA29273; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:30:01 -0400
Received: from caspar.tridom.com by eng.tridom.com (4.1/AT&T Tridom Eng 2.0)
	id AA03966; Mon, 17 Jul 95 10:30:16 EDT
Received: by caspar.tridom.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA02325; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:28:58 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:28:58 -0400
From: Larry Morris <lam@diamond.eng.tridom.com>
Message-Id: <9507171428.AA02325@caspar.tridom.com>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Magic Improvements
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII

Excellent plan, it adds a lot of flavor. While we're on the topic,
how about artifacts? Generally, of course, in the possession of
large ugly beasts or powerful NPC's...

In conclusion: Fantasy gaming <> accounting. Fantasy gaming = interactive
fiction.

- -Larry
Crimson Robes (60)

------- End of Forwarded Message

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 15:28:05 -0700
From: ward@jeeves.ucsd.edu
Subject: Atlantis: trade factions

I am one of the pure trade factions and I have a few suggestions for the
current game and Atl 3.0 that might help trade factions be less at a
disadvantage (compared to war factions).  Trade factions start more slowly
because PRODUCE is a month long order.  While war factions can (tax and
study) or (tax and move) etc. in the same turn, trade factions can produce
OR study.  The PRODUCE order for trade is really the equivalent of TAX for
a war faction - it is the main income generating order.  So why not make
either TAX a month long order or make PRODUCE an instant order?   In Atl 1
this was solved by increasing the skill level of a unit that produced (and
I know why that is undesirable).
  The other suggestion concerns supply/demand in towns and cities.  One
problem I am facing is that now that I can fully exploit the resources of
several hexes surrounding a town, the demand for a certain product in that
city has decreased from 90 to 34 because I have sold so much.  Of course it
is more realistic that it should decrease, but I am screwed because I
depend on that income.  It helps to have as much income as possible not
dependent on other factions since generally the value of basic products
(wood, furs, herbs, horses etc.) is minimal to war factions.  So I think
the demand of products in cities should not decrease or should depend on
the population (like tax income does).
  I am not on the design list so if you respond please send me a copy.
John Ward
P.S. PRODUCE BEER (requires 1 unit of grain and 1 unit of herbs).
Possession of beer adds +2 to the entertainment skill level.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 Design: Statistics
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 13:07:33 -0700

Here are the statistics for the last turn, with maximums
added:

Geoff

GM report:

Faction type: Generic
  Number: 268
  Mages * 100/Faction: 29 (Max: 1)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 16 (Max: 2)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 12 (Max: 2)

Faction type: War/Trade
  Number: 65
  Mages * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 178 (Max: 5)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 93 (Max: 5)

Faction type: War/Magic
  Number: 39
  Mages * 100/Faction: 146 (Max: 2)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 151 (Max: 5)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)

Faction type: Trade/Magic
  Number: 30
  Mages * 100/Faction: 166 (Max: 2)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 36 (Max: 2)

Faction type: War
  Number: 43
  Mages * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 1067 (Max: 52)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)

Faction type: Trade
  Number: 21
  Mages * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 347 (Max: 13)

Faction type: Magic
  Number: 83
  Mages * 100/Faction: 381 (Max: 5)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)

Faction type: NPC
  Number: 2
  Mages * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Tax Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)
  Trade Regions * 100/Faction: 0 (Max: 0)