ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #34

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Fri, 14 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 15:01:23 +0200
From: "Michael O. Akinde" <strategy@kom.auc.dk>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Faction comments

> >> 5/ Make town and city guards tougher. Give them Obs levels (but allow
> >> them to be stolen from), Give them tactics levels, give them spells.
> >For what use? They`ll STILL get bashed, it would just take longer. And in
> >any case, it`s too late to implement that now.
> I, for one, would like to see defensible cities and towns. I agree
> that it is too predictable that all city guards will be defeated.
> Part of the problem is that factions in a town have little money
> resources and those outside have lots. As the game progresses the
> attackers grow stronger and the static town guards become
> proportionately less influential in any battle for the town.
> Any guard allies have to see the writing on the wall...
> I would suggest allowing allies of the guards faction (1) to
> give the guards things (but never men, for obvious reasons).
> A handful of magic factions could empower them to be a formidable
> force. War factions allied with the guards could then raid
> surrounding hexes, tax when they have the advantage, retreat
> behind the city walls when they don't...

I`m not quite sure, are you lobbying for change in this game, or in Atl 3?
If this is regarding Atl 3, then I agree, city guards should be much tougher,
but if this is regarding the game we are currently playing then I strongly
disagree.

So many cities and towns have already been `liberated` that to make the change
now is rather pointless.

Regards,

The Legate.
Dragon Legions (93)
----------------------------------------------------------
Preterea censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!
   			-Cato
Forum Romanum http://www.kom.auc.dk/~strategy/Atlantis.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 14:58:31 +0200
From: "Michael O. Akinde" <strategy@kom.auc.dk>
Subject: Re: Helping Trade Factions

> Simply put: Ally the peasants in a region with the Trade faction.
[...snip, Lots of interesting stuff...]

It`s a novel idea, but it won`t significantly increase the viability
of Trade factions. And it won`t make war factions buy more of a
Trade faction's produce, if they don`t want them to.

Regards,

The Legate.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 14:54:55 +0200
From: "Michael O. Akinde" <strategy@kom.auc.dk>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: The Faction Type System

> 1) The current system.

Is fine, except for Pure Trade factions, who aren`t really worth it.
As has already been mentioned, this could be helped by making more
items which trade factions could produce. Seems you are waiting till
Atl 3 with that, though. :-(

> 2) Something like the current system, but a little more flexible,
> You get 5 Faction Points. You can spend the points as follows:
[...snip...]

This system would be very good, as it would allow Trade factions to
claim 2 areas, as well as produce in 25 areas. However, I`m afraid
it would also make war factions claim 25 areas and produce in 2, once
again leaving the Trade factions out in the cold.

Nothing is easy... I don`t really think this is a solution.

At best, we`d see factions keep their current configurations. At worst,
we`d get the same sort of generic outlook as seen before. Besides, this
would mean a complete revamp in Factions - and what will happen if a
faction has learnt more than 10 skills?

> 4) "Screw it, I want it all." No limits, except a limit of
> 5 mages per faction. (This is the Atlantis 1 system).

NO, NO, NO, NO! What makes Atlantis fun is the Faction system, and being
FORCED to relate to one`s allies. If something like this was implemented,
I don`t think I`d bother to play = the game would simply degenerate into
one big free-for-all until one Alliance conquors the world.

> 5) OK, one last variation. This one's sorta like Olympia. No
> restrictions on trade or taxing. 5 mages per faction.

I don`t think I like this one either.

Regards,

The Legate.
Dragon Legions (93)
----------------------------------------------------------
Preterea censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!
   			-Cato
Forum Romanum http://www.kom.auc.dk/~strategy/Atlantis.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 09:20:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua Mosher (JE 1996)" <mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: The Faction Type System

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

> The question at hand is the faction type system. The directions
> we can go are:
>
> 1) The current system.
>
It's not bad, but it would be better to have more possibility of
variation. We have simply moved from Atl 1.1 where all successful
_factions_ look alike to all successful _alliances_ look largely alike.

> 2) Something like the current system, but a little more flexible,
> allowing factions to do more. What I had in mind was something
> like:
>
> You get 5 Faction Points. You can spend the points as follows:
>
> 1 point per mage.
>
> For trade or war, you get a number of regions according to the
> number of points you spend:
>
> points    regions
> ------    -------
> 1         2
> 2         5
> 3         10
> 4         25
> 5         100
>
Would you have to spend all your points at once? Could you trade them in?
If you had to lock yourself into a pattern from the very start, you might
find yourself stuck in a very limiting position.

> 3) Another, faction point for skills system. In this one, you
> get 10 faction points (or so). 1 faction point per mage. For
> all the rest of your units, you may learn skills at 1 skill
> per faction point.
>
This would really hurt mage development. If you had 5 mages, they would
only be able to learn one skill each--or do you mean to make it more
flexible for them.

Likewise, it would make mixed factions even more anemic than they are
now, and would give huge amounts of flexibility (comparatively) to the
pure trade and war factions.

Again, would it be possible to trade in faction points if you "forgot" a
skill? Sort of the equivalent of "Last Rites" in Olympia, for those who
are familiar with that game. If you could not, you would have to choose
from the start, when you are just exploring, whether you want to try a
lot of different things or become a specialist powerhouse. It doesn't
seem like an enjoyable choice, for a beginner.

> 4) "Screw it, I want it all." No limits, except a limit of
> 5 mages per faction. (This is the Atlantis 1 system).
>
No, please! This was not much fun.

> 5) OK, one last variation. This one's sorta like Olympia. No
> restrictions on trade or taxing. 5 mages per faction.
>
> However: leaders are no longer permitted to produce or tax
> (and possibly pay 0 maintenance?). Only regular units are
> allowed to do those. You are only allowed 10 regular units.
>
Sounds like regular units are the special ones. What do leaders do?

> At the same time, you can create a garrison, or a production
> unit. These do not count against your number of regular units.
> However, you don't have control over them; all they do is
> sit there and tax (or produce), and fight for you, if it comes
> to that.
>
This sounds intriguing. I find the Olympia model somewhat flawed but
enjoyable. One thing that would be nice though would be messenger types
that can't do anything but carry things from place to place--so that you
aren't wasting one of your precious nobles/regulars. Perhaps that is what
leaders are supposed to do in Geoff's version.

Josh Mosher
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 09:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua Mosher (JE 1996)" <mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: RE: ATLANTIS 2.0

On Fri, 14 Jul 1995, Mark Keen wrote:

> I think is important not to make Trade TOO independant.
>
> The current situation might seem imbalanced toward War, but the good
> War player realises that he needs Trade just as much as Trade needs
> him.
>
> In the scenario suggested above, Trade could develop it's own massive
> armies, feed them with crops, and have no need of War at all. In fact
> War might be out in the cold, having no-one to produce for them.
>
> Regards
> Mark
>

I don't think this would be true necessarily. First of all, food should
_not_ be as flexible as silver. For example you should not be able to use
it to pay for studying. Instead, it should be used purely to maintain
units. This is the big crisis of Trade factions, not how to create armies
to compete with War factions. Furthermore, I agree with Geoff that basic
trade goods should be worth far more in the cities than as food for your
units. 2 to 1 sounds good to me. This will allow Trade factions to have a
backup system, while still encouraging them to work with War factions for
silver, so that they can use their trade goods for a good profit.

Josh Mosher
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 09:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joshua Mosher (JE 1996)" <mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Atlantis: Food

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: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 03:17:49 +1200 (NZST)
From: banj0 <pfleming@otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: The Faction Type System

howdy,

Hows about, voting option 6) More weird, and specialized faction types
   				like what i proposed last week.

OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
     |			     banj0			   |
     |		     pfleming@eros.otago.ac.nz	           |
     OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 03:48:50 +1200 (NZST)
From: banj0 <pfleming@otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: proposed changes [ sort of]

Hi again,

This is also in regard to my proposals from last week.

Faction type Empire
Allows taxing unlimited area's
FULL    costs 50 silver to maintain a Leader
HALF    costs 100 silver to maintain a leader
PARTIAL costs 200 silver to maintain a leader

The concept behind this, is that leaders become so expensive, the Empire
faction must hire other factions leaders to get things done.
Also, the ruling nobles can be treated as a drain on the economy.

The numbers can be tweaked, and maybe Full War factions could have their
maximum number of taxable hexes reduced to 50 (depending on how many
hexes the largest War faction is taxing now - a stat i'd love to see

OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
     |			     banj0			   |
     |		     pfleming@eros.otago.ac.nz	           |
     OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 11:02:46 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

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: Fri, 14 Jul 95 11:26:00 PDT
From: kbrors@mindscape.com
Subject: Re[2]: ATLANTIS 2.0 - IMPROVEMENT

I work in the game industry (Strategic Simulations, Inc). This is so
     far different from Civilization that I can't even think of even one
     thing in common (for Copyright purposes). To infringe on a game takes
     a VERY close imitation which this is not.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: ATLANTIS 2.0 - IMPROVEMENT
Author:  tim.hruby@his.com at INTERNET
Date:    7/13/95 10:03 PM

> This is all starting to sound dangerously close to the computer game
> Civillization. It's a great game, but might not there be some breach of
> copyright? Just asking...

You can't copyright an idea, only its expression.  So as long as the Atlantis
rules are not derivative of Civilization's _mechanics_ (mechanics being the key
word, since the mechanics are the publisher's expression of the idea) there's
no copyright violation.  And with Civilization being a commercial piece of
software I don't imagine we can even find out what the mechanics are, since the
code is probably not available.

And anyway the idea of land reclamation dates back to the Ancient World, not
the publishers of Civilization (and since I've never actually played the
computer game, I can also say that I didn't steal the idea from them).  For
example, the massive irrigation works around the Nile allowed much of the
Egyptian desert to become fertile cropland, and made Egypt the rich and
powerful country in was in ancient times.  Or the fact that much of Medieval
England and the Netherlands was swampland (or actually underwater), and the
massive reclamation projects that took place in the Middle Ages laid the basis
for much of the economic growth that transpired in these lands.

So, in brief: No, I don't think there's a copyright problem.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 12:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Heinen <jeffh@ee.pdx.edu>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

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?

Well, I could see somepeople with a large alliance with no need (or desire)
to allow other through without a reason. They would be the only ones. But
the spreading out would be the same. What if everyone around a city made
it sould you could not leave the city, your would be stuck there.

That is one of the reasons I like the rotating exits, your could start
off in a (relativly) uninhabited area.

One thing I would like to see, one ocean exit in AC. That way, you could
build a boat and sail away, into other lands, or perhaps find a good port
city. I would like to see AC as a semi-real city. Perhaps make it a real
city, just make a few public use portals?

I guess it depends on your view of what AC should be. Me, its just a city
to learn at, I see no reason not to be able to go back.

> Geoff

-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
               _       __  __   _   _      _
              | | ___ / _|/ _| | | | | ___(_)_ __   ___ _ __
           _  | |/ _ \ |_| |_  | |_| |/ _ \ | '_ \ / _ \ '_ \
          | |_| |  __/  _|  _| |  _  |  __/ | | | |  __/ | | |
           \___/ \___|_| |_|   |_| |_|\___|_|_| |_|\___|_| |_|
                                        	 jeffh@ee.pdx.edu
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 14:43:20 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Atlantis 2.0: Yet another issue

>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.

The problem with this approach, if you could convince/force
players to allow it, is that travelling can be expensive.
If you can tax along the way then you may not actually lose
money, but you certainly put off building up your earning
ability.  In the meantime, those factions that are already
established _are_ building themselves up, so they end up
with an even greater advantage.

The only way I can see this working at all is if everyone
starts at the same time.  This may mean operating several
smaller games instead of one big one.  The above problem
still persists, however -- those factions that seek out the
edges of the world may find better-established factions
catching up to them before they are ready.

>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?

No doubt some would use it, but I don't think it would be
popular.  And I don't think it would do much for the
problem.  See below.

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

I think it has little to do with xenophobia, and a lot to do
with greed.  By blocking off access to regions beyond a gate
city, I reserve those areas for myself and my friends.  For
that reason, I don't think the different levels of guard
status would help the situation.

John Bollinger
Melvin's Marauders (105)
----------------------------------------------------------
From: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo)
Subject: Atlantis: Guarding
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 15:54:21 -0400 (EDT)

I'm not sure how feasible this would be to code, but how about changing
the GUARD status so that you would instead

GUARD 5

and no unit could enter the area unless it paid a toll of 5 silver per
man?  (Perhaps the amount a unit is willing to pay in tolls could be set
by a BRIBE command giving a value.)

The main reason, I think, people guard areas is because otherwise
people wander in and provide no benefit to you, and in fact could be
a liability (reducing your tax income by working, producing to interfere
with your craftsmen, or otherwise providing competition).  Charging a toll
would provide a real benefit to the person guarding, so might be something
war factions might actually be willing to do.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo)
Subject: Re: Atlantis: Food
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 16:02:21 -0400 (EDT)

> > 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.
> 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.

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I feel that a trade
faction's best market should be other factions, whereas you are arguing
that their market should be cities and towns.  I feel that it would make
a lot of sense for there to be certain items which the game encourages to
be sold at towns, but these should be luxury items, like furs, gems, wine.
Something basic like food should be practical and useful, and having food
provide less in maintenance than just having silver around in the first
place would make buying food impractical.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 13:43:53 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis: Guarding

--Boundary-11519044-0-0

I wouldn't worry too much about how hard something is to code;
instead think about how hard it would be to _play_. Anything
that is simple to play, should be pretty easy to program.

That being said, I'm not sure how easy it would be to play this
idea. Atlantis is not very good for negotiation; if your unit
decides it doesn't want to pay no move through the region, it
then does nothing at all.

From the other perspective (of the guarder), the ones most likely
to come up with the cash to move into your region are also the
ones most likely to be powerful war factions, with an eye on
expansion.

I guess it seems to me like the main issue here is that people
_don't_ want others to pass through their territory. Even without
the guard order, they would probably just attack anyone who
dared to move through there territory (see Atlantis 1 for an
effective demonstration of this).

Geoff

--Boundary-11519044-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 14 Jul 1995 13:18:27                    Sent: 14 Jul 1995 13:16:55
From:"Jay Luo" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Atlantis: Guarding
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  text
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Length:  716

I'm not sure how feasible this would be to code, but how about changing
the GUARD status so that you would instead

GUARD 5

and no unit could enter the area unless it paid a toll of 5 silver per
man?  (Perhaps the amount a unit is willing to pay in tolls could be set
by a BRIBE command giving a value.)

--Boundary-11519044-0-0--

rec.games.pbm

ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #34

Referenced By