ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #35

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Sun, 16 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, 14 Jul 1995 16:22:42 -0700 (MST)
From: "Michael W. Lamb" <LAMBM@chemistry.byu.edu>
Subject: Xenophobia:  Not the answer

You really can't get rid of xenophobia in Atlantis.  There really is
no reason for any large alliance to let other littler factions
through!  It's unsporting, domineering, and oppressive (and if this
offends anyone, that's OK) but it's also a logical way to discourage
competition - starve out the newbies before they can be a threat!  Or
imprision them in Atlantis City or the portal cities until they tire
of the game and quit.  It certainly gratifies the ego of the
alliances that are strangling expansion, because they grow big and
powerful, and can pressure/entice others into joining their alliance,
but it's not very fun.  And when you consider that a War faction can
expand up to 100 hexes, blocking all possible other explorers is an
easy way to eventually claim all that territory for yourself!

I think it's illogical that someone should be able to set a guard
command with a small number of people and somehow forbid access over
an entire hex.  Think about it - since when would ten or fifty or for
that matter one hundred guardsmen be able to stop all possible travel
from six possible entrances to what I consider a fairly large area?
I think the ability to forbid entry should be abolished.  Guarding
units may be able to stop others from taxing, or attack them once
they are there, but I don't think they should be able to stop your
entry.  (Of course, then the big alliances can simply declare default
hostile and accomplish the same strangulation effect by killing
anyone who trespasses.)

One other modification might help this.  What if the maintenance
costs of visiting (i.e. non-taxing) units were somehow plowed back
into the area's economy?  Obviously, those units are spending food
for basic necessities, and purchasing this from the locals.  This
adds prosperity to the hex and added taxing capacity.  STUDY
and RESEARCH orders also, perhaps - someone is paying a tutor somehow
or purchasing arcane herbs and gems or hiring people to practice
against, which will also strengthen the local economy.  And of course
units that WORK are doing constructive things with a further positive
impact on the hex.

There are a few other possibilities for being able to peacefully
bypass xenophobic alliances.  One possibility would be to allow
factions to form or join pilgrim groups.  (Don't laugh, I'm
serious!)  Such factions give up all ability to issue ATTACK, STEAL,
or ASSASSINATE orders, carry weapons, etc.  However, the same orders
cannot be used against them, either!  (Or they can, but the populace
will rise up against their oppressors!)  The maintenance costs for
these groups could be provided for by the populace (i.e. maintenance
cost of zero or near zero).

Another interesting penalty for attacking a pilgrim group would be to
incur the wrath of the gods.  Geoff could design any number of
horrific things that would befall factions that infringed on these
protected groups - sicknesses that reduce skill levels of leaders,
random deaths due to plague, reduced taxing capacity (due to popular
resentment) from 50 to 40 or 30 silver per taxer, elevated prices
(infringing factions purchase all things at 110% of market cost, and
maintenance costs are 10% higher), chances of complete spell failure
(the gods that control the elements may refuse the mage's petitions),
extremely elevated occurrance of the nastier types of random monster
encounters, unseasonal bad weather . . . I suppose the possibilities
go on, and I'm sure Geoff can dream up things MUCH nastier than these.
This could be extended so that any faction which is friendly or ally
to the offender will receive the same penalties, so the oppressive
alliances will either not offend or they will have to declare the
offender unfriendly to escape the wraths that follow.

Now, declaring yourself a pilgrim (or pioneer maybe would be a
better word) faction would have certain implications - it shouldn't
be an easy out.  After all, you can't change back to an empire-
building faction until six game months later, or perhaps you have to
perform some heroic deed or make an offering or something.  (Maybe
you have to journey to some remote place . . . .)  But having a
protected faction type is maybe the best way to stop xenophobia from
ruining the game.  Which, in my humble opinion, it is currently.

Opinions?
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 21:42:34 -0500
From: Doug Thayer <thayer@uis.edu>
Subject: AT2: Factions, trade

Lots of things to cover.  Before I unburden myself, let me just say
I've enjoyed the game *very* much, and may even play in atlantis 3.0
if it is cheap enough :)

As to faction-types in Atlantis 3.0, I don't like the current faction
system at all and don't think it should be continued.  The current
system still favors a particular solution (namely, alliances with
1 war 1 trade and several magic factions).  Atlantis 2.0 has simply
not run long enough to make that completely obvious, IMO.

Since there seems to be an emphasis on city-building in the next
version, I suggest city building be made difficult enough to require
the cooperation of several factions.  Money should be fairly tight to
start with, this will require factions to work together immediately.
Alliances could be built around building up particular cities instead
of around circumventing rule-imposed limitations.

As for limits on mages, perhaps magic should rely on a resource somewhat
scarcer than silver.  If there were a limited amount of "mana" in a
region, the concentration of mages could be limited without using a
per-faction limit.

I've been a pure trade faction ever since I was a generic faction :)
Recently I made the switch to war/trade, even though I didn't have any
regions to tax, because I wasn't producing in more than 5 regions
anyway.

It's very frustrating to be a trade faction.  The whole idea of a
trade faction sparks the imagination; caravans crossing the desert;
ships sailing the high seas in search of new lands; negotiations, and
profits.  Unfortunately, that is simply not the case.  Caravans aren't
worth it; ships are out of the question until you have a lot of money;
negotiations amount to kissing war faction ass, and profits, while
adequate, are certainly no better than for other types of factions.
Basically all you can do is PRODUCE.  BUILDing is futile; fortresses
are pretty worthless and a piddly little longboat is more than a
starting faction is worth.

A lot of trade factions seem to want to build ships; however ships
are *expensive*.  A simple longboat requires 50 wood.  Why does a
longboat require *50 times* as much wood as a wagon?  Maybe there
should be a more minimum ship -- maybe you could build a coracle
with 5 furs?  Or maybe a two-man canoe.  With these new ship types,
maybe a trade faction could float *something* before they're 30 turns
into the game.

Doug
Monzon Wood Exchange (289)
thayer@uis.edu

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 22:15:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis: Food

This is good. This helps get Trade out of the starvation trap and allows
them to produce things for silver to be able to expand.

Ok, not require anyone to have food to survive.
Maybe make it available and say the 1 food can feed 5 of 10 someting
people.

But what can make it of real interest in the game is when the food
is delivered to the villages, towns  and cities.
With food coming in, then the city will grow larger.
The tax base with go up.
Entertainment will pay better as money is freeded by cheaper food.
Wages might increase.
Other items in the city are produced and start being demanded more.

It is food that makes the city capable of growing, not horses,
wood, or iron.

So put food into the game.
Not a requirement, silver will do, but to give the game a chance
to grow. (and trade producing food shall not be starving)
LL

On Fri, 14 Jul 1995, Joshua Mosher (JE 1996) wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Jay Luo wrote:
>
> > I'd like to argue in favor of food's sale value being less than the amount
> > of silver worth of maintenance the food can provide.  In my opinion buying
> > food and using it for maintenance should be more efficient than just using
> > silver; if not, what benefit is there for say, a War faction, to buy food?
> > Not much.  But, if I have an army with 100 soldiers in it burning 1000
> > silver in maintenance every turn, it might be worth shipping in food if it
> > saves the War faction money.
> >
> > Since everyone needs maintenance, I think there would be sufficient player
> > interest in acquiring food to make it a worthwhile commodity to produce.
> >
> The problem with this is that there is not enough trade going on as it
> is, and trade goods were originally introduced to fix that. We should not
> eliminate their whole purpose to solve another problem.
>
> Foodstuffs will be worth producing because they will earn a fair amount
> of money and because they will have a major long-term benefit on the
> economy, which War factions will need to tax more and grow. Thus the
> relationship will be more symbiotic than now.
>
> Josh Mosher
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 22:28:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Lazarus <llong@io.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

One way to lessen the impact of guards is to let the person
in a hex know which exits were guarded last turn.
Surely, you can see the guards before you get bounced by them.

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.

In other words, treat each hex like a grouping of buildings
or things. Passage way is free between things (unless walls or
moats or such are build) but guard access to particular things
within the hex.

Then passage through the hex is always allowed or
can be restricted in various guard ways.
Might require so many troops to guard the hex. Or so many to
guard an exit/entrance. Have fewer than required, then some units
can slip through some of the times.

This will solve some of the problems of how to get through a guarded
hex to the lands beyond.
And will also give some protection in the form of guards for things
you are doing and other factions are already in the hex with you.

Stealth units can slip through the exit/entrances easier then they can
get into buildings you are guarding.
This allows walls to be built around buildings. Guards screen visitors
that want to come through the gate/door.

Comments?

On Fri, 14 Jul 1995, GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

>
> This one deals with faction startup.
>
> It was always my hope that new factions could come out of
> Atlantis City, look around, realize that things were
> crowded, and "head for the hills", so to speak. Build a
> ship and sail for the far corners of Atlantis, or whatever.
> However, apparently, this is not an option, and the exit
> cities need to be rotated around. To me, this is not ideal,
> as the idea of a "frontier" is somewhat defeated; imagine
> a faction heading off into the distance, only to have an
> exit city appear right in front of their eyes.
>
> So, I'm wondering a few things. Mainly, if it would be
> possible to have fixed exit points. Even after the area
> around these became settled, factions could move through
> to less settled areas.
>
> One of the main issues here is the "on guard" status, which
> doesn't allow units through. Would it make a difference to
> have a couple of levels to the "on guard" status? For
> instance, one level that wouldn't admit combat-trained or
> armed troops, and another that wouldn't allow anyone. The
> real question is, would anyone actually use the first?
>
> Or, maybe Atlantis is just so xenophobic that nothing I
> can too would get this sort of thing to happen.
>
> Comments?
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 12:17:43 +0200
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

"GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" writes :
>
>This one deals with faction startup.
>...
>So, I'm wondering a few things. Mainly, if it would be
>possible to have fixed exit points. Even after the area
>around these became settled, factions could move through
>to less settled areas.

I suggest that there are several levels of wilderness, e.g. :

* civilized areas (around the entry points) :

You can't be on guard there, nor tax. Guards everywhere, with tacticians and
  archery (maybe just "implicit" units, not to overflow the reports ?), even
  out` of cities.

So, taxing factions have to let at least an area where trade factions can
  prosper. (It seems that many factions don't enjoy exploring. I was very
  surprised when month after month there were very few factions that left the
  cities to explore, even when nobody blocked them. So, having a large, rich
  and strongly policed civilized region could make many players happy just to
  make trade there).

* frontier areas :

In these regions you can guard, but it is dangerous. The inhabitants are war
  tribes, that can rebel and be very strong if people act agressively. Guarding
  and being unfriendly as default would be very irritating. Taxing the full tax
  income, too. And attacking units in that region could randomly bring armies
  as allies to the defender. Think of indians, for example, that would be
  numerous, strong, willing to trade, but wouldn't like someone claiming their
  land. They would attack large armies, e.g. those coming from wild areas
  (where thay have grown strong) to conquer land.

You could also have treasons : suppose you buy 50 tribesmen to establish your
  claim and be strong : they could revolt and turn against you if you become
  too oppressive on the "peasants" their brothers.

In those areas, taxing factions could grow strong, but could not really claim
  possession, or block movements or production.

Ciies and town would be strongly guarded, though not so much as in civilized
  areas.

* wild areas :

Pretty much like it is now. There are wandering monsters, and there can be
  hostiles tribes, too, but as there is much room it would not be so dangerous
  to grow king as in frontier areas.

--
Eric Dedieu  (Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr)
LIFIA - 46 av. Felix Viallet, 38031 Grenoble Cedex, France
Tel: 76 57 48 13  - Fax: 76 57 46 02  - Dom: 76 49 78 80
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 10:51:18 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Trade routes

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

Or something along those lines. ie: A way to automate the
production and transport of some goods. If a trade faction
were to get up to 100 sectors to produce in, managing all of it
by hand could be rather rough. Also, for produce orders, etc,
maybe they could appear (possibly commmented out) in the turn
template at the bottom of the sheet? That way if you have 10-20 units
of produce-only people, you'd be able to easily
spot them, and just uncomment the produce orders each turn so they
could keep working... or something. :)

Just an idea. :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 13:18:08 PDT
From: kbrors@mindscape.com
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

Having more levels of guarding would help. Also the exits zones should
     cover several hexes (with guards) to make the exit 'fronts' larger.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue
Author:  "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> at INTERNET
Date:    7/14/95 11:02 AM

This one deals with faction startup.

It was always my hope that new factions could come out of
Atlantis City, look around, realize that things were
crowded, and "head for the hills", so to speak. Build a
ship and sail for the far corners of Atlantis, or whatever.
However, apparently, this is not an option, and the exit
cities need to be rotated around. To me, this is not ideal,
as the idea of a "frontier" is somewhat defeated; imagine
a faction heading off into the distance, only to have an
exit city appear right in front of their eyes.

So, I'm wondering a few things. Mainly, if it would be
possible to have fixed exit points. Even after the area
around these became settled, factions could move through
to less settled areas.

One of the main issues here is the "on guard" status, which
doesn't allow units through. Would it make a difference to
have a couple of levels to the "on guard" status? For
instance, one level that wouldn't admit combat-trained or
armed troops, and another that wouldn't allow anyone. The
real question is, would anyone actually use the first?

Or, maybe Atlantis is just so xenophobic that nothing I
can too would get this sort of thing to happen.

Comments?

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 15:33:44 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Fwd: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE

--Boundary-10230791-0-0

Forwarded:

Geoff

--Boundary-10230791-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 14 Jul 1995 19:50:57                    Sent: 14 Jul 1995 19:50:46
From:"Bruce Onder " <bonder@earthlink.net>
To: GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com
Subject: Atlantis: WAR v TRADE
Reply-to: bonder@earthlink.net
X-Orcl-Application: Organization:  Digital Arcana
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: References:  <3u43i3$t4l@wolfe.wimsey.com>
X-Orcl-Application: X-Url:  news:3u43i3$t4l@wolfe.wimsey.com
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi Geoff,

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 13:36:39 +1200 (NZST)
From: banj0 <pfleming@otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Trade routes

>
> 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: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 22:40:33 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

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.

>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!

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 22:40:18 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Xenophobia:  Not the answer

>You really can't get rid of xenophobia in Atlantis.  There really is
>no reason for any large alliance to let other littler factions
>through!  It's unsporting, domineering, and oppressive (and if this
>offends anyone, that's OK) but it's also a logical way to discourage
>competition - starve out the newbies before they can be a threat!  Or

I agree completely, and I *am* one of those little newbies!  Actually, it
has been surprisingly easy to move about.  Granted, I'm moving slowly, but
I'm doing just what Geoff has wanted -- heading for the hills!

>I think the ability to forbid entry should be abolished.  Guarding
>units may be able to stop others from taxing, or attack them once
>they are there, but I don't think they should be able to stop your
>entry.  (Of course, then the big alliances can simply declare default
>hostile and accomplish the same strangulation effect by killing
>anyone who trespasses.)

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.

>One other modification might help this.  What if the maintenance
>costs of visiting (i.e. non-taxing) units were somehow plowed back
>into the area's economy?  Obviously, those units are spending food
>for basic necessities, and purchasing this from the locals.  This
>adds prosperity to the hex and added taxing capacity.

But in Atlantis, food=silver.  If you are taking all the tax money, I view
it as really taking all the tax "food."

>There are a few other possibilities for being able to peacefully
>bypass xenophobic alliances.  One possibility would be to allow
>factions to form or join pilgrim groups.  (Don't laugh, I'm
>serious!)  Such factions give up all ability to issue ATTACK, STEAL,
>or ASSASSINATE orders, carry weapons, etc.  However, the same orders
>cannot be used against them, either!  (Or they can, but the populace
>will rise up against their oppressors!)  The maintenance costs for
>these groups could be provided for by the populace (i.e. maintenance
>cost of zero or near zero).

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.

>Opinions?

I am not sure if I like the idea of the pilgrim status.  :)

Bruce

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 22:40:27 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: AT2: Factions, trade

Doug Thayer <thayer@uis.edu> writes:
>Lots of things to cover.  Before I unburden myself, let me just say
>I've enjoyed the game *very* much, and may even play in atlantis 3.0
>if it is cheap enough :)

Me too!

>As to faction-types in Atlantis 3.0, I don't like the current faction
>system at all and don't think it should be continued.  The current

I agree with this.

>Since there seems to be an emphasis on city-building in the next
>version, I suggest city building be made difficult enough to require
>the cooperation of several factions.  Money should be fairly tight to
>start with, this will require factions to work together immediately.
>Alliances could be built around building up particular cities instead
>of around circumventing rule-imposed limitations.

Yes.  If cities become "collections of buildings" instead of region types,
then I can see how this could be implemented over time.  There would be a
natural evolution of a hex from wilderness to village to town to city.
That might take place with no planning on the part of an alliance.

>As for limits on mages, perhaps magic should rely on a resource somewhat
>scarcer than silver.  If there were a limited amount of "mana" in a
>region, the concentration of mages could be limited without using a
>per-faction limit.

I've mentioned this to Geoff.  I was thinking that mana could have types --
earth, wind, fire, air -- or whatever else system he dreams up.  Mana would
have ratings, like skills, and a hex would only support a spell up to that
rating (spells being rated 1 to 5 as well).

This way, seaside hexes would be rated high in water mana, and you wouldn't
see many powerful earth mages there.  :)

However: you could also have a magic jewel of some sort that is also rated
in mana from 1 to 5.  So you could be a fire mage casting level 5 spells in
a fire mana-1 hex if you had a jewel to boost your mana.

Mana ratings could be used up over time, just as any other resource.  And
you could find that rare hex that has high ratings in all mana types -- and
watch the mages flock to it!

I capped this proposal off with a risk for magic research blunders and
spell casting backfires that would make magic just dangerous enough so that
1) you might not spend so much on magic and 2) others might not want you
around if you could end up blowing up the entire region, or turning all the
silver to dirt!

>I've been a pure trade faction ever since I was a generic faction :)
>Recently I made the switch to war/trade, even though I didn't have any
>regions to tax, because I wasn't producing in more than 5 regions
>anyway.

I've also suggested that taxing should come at some risk of revolt.  Revolt
that started in one hex might spread to all of your hexes over time, if you
don't put it down soon.  Of course, when you're beating down your own
people, that makes it easier for others to invade, pillage, or support the
uprising.  :)

If it's not quite as certain what the outcome will be, then a faction needs
to have a production system in place (or access to one) that he can fall
back on if revolt spreads through the regions.

>Caravans aren't
>worth it; ships are out of the question until you have a lot of money;
>negotiations amount to kissing war faction ass, and profits, while
>adequate, are certainly no better than for other types of factions.

I think the ways to address these are as follows:

1.  If warrior behavior is given the appropriate risk, then warriors will
need to create or buy into trade as a means of support.  That means they
don't negotiate from some inflated position of power.

2.  Caravans would be useful if Geoff implements roads; existing ones as
well as new ones.

3.  Ships should be produced by seaside villages and sold to players.

>A lot of trade factions seem to want to build ships; however ships
>are *expensive*.  A simple longboat requires 50 wood.  Why does a
>longboat require *50 times* as much wood as a wagon?  Maybe there
>should be a more minimum ship -- maybe you could build a coracle
>with 5 furs?  Or maybe a two-man canoe.  With these new ship types,
>maybe a trade faction could float *something* before they're 30 turns
>into the game.

I think that there needs to be a wider array of ships that can be built.  A
simple raft that could move along a seacoast or river (yeah! rivers!) would
be welcome.

Bruce

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 22:40:41 -0700
From: bonder@earthlink.net (Bruce Onder)
Subject: Re: Trade routes

>Here's a suggestion to help out trade factions... some sort
>of trade route. ie:

I was thinking about this, too.  I was envisioning a default script that a
unit would perform endlessly unless specific orders were issued (and then
the script would be erased).

>by hand could be rather rough. Also, for produce orders, etc,
>maybe they could appear (possibly commmented out) in the turn
>template at the bottom of the sheet? That way if you have 10-20 units
>of produce-only people, you'd be able to easily
>spot them, and just uncomment the produce orders each turn so they
>could keep working... or something. :)

That would work too.  Or the template could tell you in a comment what the
script is.

>Just an idea. :)

Good one!

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Sun, 16 Jul 1995 12:30:40 +0000
Subject:       Re: Xenophobia:  Not the answer

> 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'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???

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
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Keen <mark@keen.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Sun, 16 Jul 1995 12:06:41 +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?

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--
>