ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #25

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

I thought I was going to get thousands of responses asking me
to keep this digest (maybe I just wanted to massage my ego ;-))
But I received enough responses, so I'll keep the digest going.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Inman <nims@cris.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 15:28:45 -400
Subject: Times Too Large

>Has anybody but me found the Times to have grown too large?... I
>certainly do not have the time to read it on screen!

Agreed

>I think the Times needs to be split.  There needs to be one place for
>fiction / narrative stories and another for advertisements/public
>notices.

Perhaps the Times <faction> subject line could be changed to
Times <faction> <section> where section would be narrative,
game reports, want-ads, etc.  Then the times could be sorted
by <section>, <faction> instead of just <faction> like it is now.

>There have to be a lot of players who are not on the players list and
>find the Times too large - how do we reach them?

In the "Personals", or perhaps "Business Contact" or
"Military Contact" section.

>In order to discorage fluff postings I think the $50 silver reward
>should be eliminated [and a new mechanism found to place a small
>amount of cash into unclaimed each turn].

I think the reward is fine like it is.  To each his/her own, I will
occationally go to the times and read the better fiction, and it does
add considerably to the "entertainment value" of the game, but as you
said, there is too much to filter through and try to extract the
notices that affect your next orders.

Tbe Black Falcon
nims@cris.com

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:19:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: carioca@io.com
Subject: Re: Armours

I think that for level 5 you should be ablre to make mithril chain and
that the mithril chain should have a weight of 1 .  mithril chain should
be able to be used by assasins and should be 5/6 effective.

-carioca@io.com

On Wed, 17 May 1995, D.J. McGaw wrote:

> >> Level 1 - Chainmail, weighs 1 unit
> >> Level 2 - Stagnant
> >> Level 3 - Platemail, weighs 3 units
> >>
> >> Proposed additions (for leaders skills only, ie greater than 4)
> >>
> >> Level 4 - Helmet
> >> Level 5 - Sheild
> >
> > It seems to me that a shield would be the easiest thing of all to make.
> > And possibly shields should be made by carpenters (weren't most shields
> > mostly wood?).
> >
> >> These items do the following bonuses to life vs death situations, :
> >>
> >> Helmet +1/12, and weighs 1 unit
> >> Sheild +1/6, and weighs 1 units
> >
> > If a chainmail weighs 1 I wouldn't think a weight 1 helmet would make
> > sense.  Perhaps we could just drop the concept of helmets and have shields
> > manufacturable by carpenters?
> >
> >> Well basically, you can have a well armored man who can fight, or a tank
> that
> >> cannot (5 units of armour leaves nothing for a weapon).
> >>
> >> I also propose that such men cannot ride horses due to the weight factor!
> >
> > I don't think such a creature would make sense; historically didn't your
> > average joe with plate armor also wear a helmet, shield and carry a sword
> > and lance and ride a horse?  It ought to be possible to wear all the
> > appropriate armor and still wield a weapon and sit a horse.
> >
> >
>
>
> This is basically the whole point of a fantasy game - IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE
> ABSOLUTE SENSE!
>
> The carpenters are more than likely to make USABLE items, not armors and
> weapons!  Yes, most shields were a wood base coated in a gum or metal derivative,
> but by making them an armorer's skill, it adds a tad bit of incentive for the
> Armorer's to get their skills up!
>
> Shields, helmets and armours are specialties of armourers NOT carpenters!
>
> Yes shields are easy to make, but they would apply a greater bonus than
> helemts, so should take a greater skill level to produce a GOOD one. Not a basic
> wooden one that cracks after the first axe hit!
>
> What I am basically trying to say, it that the skills can be expanded to give
> leaders and incentive to study at a higher level.  This is basically an
> example but I would like to see it implemented!
>
> As for the knight's idea, full armor, a lance, a sword and God knows what
> else, YES they existed in the past, but in this game, having a tank march around
> is going to be a bit much! Give him an enchanted mithrel sword and all this
> armour, and he could probably wipe out a whole faction single handedly!!!!
>
> In having good equipment, you should impose restrictions!  Think along the
> lines that horses are wimps and can't hold much! The men are wimps and can only
> carry so much weight that they can't even raise their arms!
>
> Another point you made, was the chainmail and the helmet balance!
>
> Imagine a pile of iron plonked on your head! It will probably weigh more than
> the stripps of chain wrapped around your whole bod! Hence equal weighting!
>
> Any more ideas, mail me on this list, or Geoff who may implement such a great
> idea by myself!!!
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Schmidt" <schmi102@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Religion?
Date: Sat, 20 May 95 11:19:50 -0500

I think this is a great idea!  One has only to look to history to see that this
triad is the driving force of development and world balance.  Religion is the
current missing link.

. some content deleted ...

>    A new Religion faction would fill the third party role
> (called tertius gaudens by Simmel) well if it followed the
> following structure (though of course fine tuning is needed):
>
> 1) Religion factions would be limited to three or four mages,
> one producing hex, and one taxable hex.
>

Perhaps religion factions must be pure -- that is, only religion, not
religion/trade or religion/war, etc.  Most historic religions controlled and
influenced trade/war, but very few engaged in such things directly.  War _may_
be an exception, but even if religion is kept pure it would of course have
several war factions "under its thumb".

> Crusade or Jihad - The religion can declare a crusade against
> the forces of any enemy faction in any one specific hex.
> Participation by any allied faction is strictly voluntary,
> although non-crusading units in or within one hex of the battle
> site will join in as per usual. Allies of the religion can
> specify units to join in the crusade. These units will then
> essentially leave the owners control, advancing to the chosen
> hex as expeditiously as possible and there engaging in combat.
> During the crusade the crusading units will require no
> maintenance (being supported by alms from the devout). The
> crusade will end when a) all crusading troops are destroyed or
> b) the religion faction ends it by command or c) all enemy
> troops in the chosen hex are vanquished.  At that point, all
> crusading units will come immediately under their owner's
> control, and will once again require maintenance fees. Their
> factions then must bring them home (or wherever) as best they
> can.  A religion can only declare one crusade at a given time,
> and it might be advisable to have limits on how often it can be
> issued.
>

This is a powerful, but fitting power for religions.  I agree that it should be
limited in use, say only once per game year.  Most historic crusades were
drawn-out affairs that took a terrific committment and loss of manpower,
limiting thier occurance.

>
>    The benefits of the above system, besides adding colour,
> pageantry, activity, more freedom of action and pleasing the
> would-be religion factions would be:
>
>
>
>    The religion will serve as a weak third party between the
> trade and war factions - but a third party critical to the
> ascendance of one or the other. Thus the religion will be
> courted by both sides. In particular, the Excommunication and
> Anathema orders will make the religion very powerful as an
> arbiter within an alliance.
>
>    Some may argue that the religion faction will be too
> powerful. Maybe so. But the religions will also be vulnerable.
> If too many allied factions decide on Reformation, they can bolt
> the alliance and attack the religion, whih in military terms is
> quite weak. Individual factions can always switch alliances by
> converting to another faith.
>
>
>
>    Anyway, sorry if this is a dumb idea. But it seems like a
> good one to me. What does everyone think? What do the present
> religion factions think?
>
>
>
> 
> "You come from the docks of Greenpoint;
> you can go back to the docks of Greenpoint!"
>                                   -Budd Schulberg
>                                   "On The Waterfront"
> xuequin@unix.asb.com
>

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 13:15:37 -0600
From: "David R. Shook" <shook@ibg.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re:  Times Too Large

> From: Mike Inman <nims@cris.com>
>
> >Has anybody but me found the Times to have grown too large?...

Kinda...

> >I think the Times needs to be split.  There needs to be one place for
> >fiction / narrative stories and another for advertisements/public
> >notices.
>
> Perhaps the Times <faction> subject line could be changed to
> Times <faction> <section> where section would be narrative,
> game reports, want-ads, etc.  Then the times could be sorted
> by <section>, <faction> instead of just <faction> like it is now.
>
> >There have to be a lot of players who are not on the players list and
> >find the Times too large - how do we reach them?
>
> In the "Personals", or perhaps "Business Contact" or
> "Military Contact" section.

I think the idea of having "Region" specific groupings would be best;
About 90+% of the postings that are not already not region specific are simply
not worth reading if you're not in that region; this goes for the fictional
stuff too, though of course, I'm not a big poetry fan either.
(By "region", I refere to the areas around the exit citys).

> >In order to discorage fluff postings I think the $50 silver reward
> >should be eliminated [and a new mechanism found to place a small
> >amount of cash into unclaimed each turn].
>
> I think the reward is fine like it is.

Me too.  I can live with a bit of tripe, if there is some meat in there
somewhere.  I do favor the restriction of the $50 reward to things of
at least marginal "worth", liberally defined.

> Tbe Black Falcon
> nims@cris.com

Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 21 May 95 21:04:59 -0700

This is a weekly posting for the atl-design mailing list. This list
is meant for anyone interested in the rules and design of Atlantis
2.0. The moderator of the Atlantis 2.0 game is on this list, so your
ideas could actually become reality! To send a message to everyone
on the list, send email to:

atl-design@tango.rahul.net

To subscribe or un-subscribe to this list, mail to
atlantis@rahul.net. Make sure you specify exactly what you want me
to do, because a lot of mail goes to this address.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew S. Taylor" <matthew@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Advance & Move
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 13:12:50 -0400 (EDT)

I suggest this be changed such that MOVE orders happen before ADVANCE orders.

Think of it this way - units that simple pick up and move [think of it as
moving in loose order or in column] should be able to get going before
units advancing [in line abrest or in attack columns].  If a faction wants
a guaranteed opportunity to attack they should have to first catch the enemy
by entering the same area, then attack them, unless the enemy is choosing
to stand their ground and guard the area.

GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM writes:
>
>
> --Boundary-10487077-0-0
>
> In this case, there's no way to tell. Orders within a region are executed
> in the order that the units appear on a turn report, but the order in which
> regions are processed is unspecified. So, it depends on which MOVE gets
> off first.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> --Boundary-10487077-0-0
> X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
> Received: 22 May 1995 06:36:06                    Sent: 22 May 1995 06:35:52
> From:"Damian Penney " <owner-atl-players@tango.rahul.net>
> To: Atlantis,List,atl-players@tango.rahul.net
> Subject: Advance & Move
> Reply-to: owner-atl-players@tango.rahul.net
> X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
> X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
>  If a unit advances will hostile units have a chance to avoid battle
> by issuing a move command the same turn ? i.e Will they move out before
> battle ensues. The sequence of events is a little hazy as it states
>
> ADVANCE and MOVE orders are processed (including any combat resulting
> from these orders).
>
> Any ideas ?
>
> Cheers Damian Penney - MIBS(62)
>
>
>
> --Boundary-10487077-0-0--
>

--
Matthew Taylor

matthew@clark.net

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1995 14:32:30 -0700
From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Advance & Move

Reply to:   RE>>Advance & Move

I disagree.  Think of it rather as ADVANCE meaning a force march by combat
forces to catch guarding forces by surprise.  Advancing units only attack
units on guard, and if none are encountered, no combat occurs.  If you suspect
a possible ADVANCE and wish to avoid combat, use GUARD 0 to take your units
off guard and then use MOVE to leave the sector if desired.

I think that ADVANCE, GUARD, and MOVE work fine as they are, although I am all
for the ASSIST order discussed previously.

Comments?
Mike
--------------------------------
From: Matthew S. Taylor
I suggest this be changed such that MOVE orders happen before ADVANCE orders.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 17:37:30 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: The Times

Someone has mentioned that the Times is really getting
too large to read, and I quite agree.  My previous suggestion
of making article classifications was about as exciting as
a new Join order, and also generated zero response, so here's
a simple yes/no question to the folks on the design list:

Do you think it's a good idea to be able to switch off the
Times mailing with your turn reports?

Personally, I throw away my mail copy & skim through the copy
that Geoff posts to rec.games.pbm.  What do you think?

Mike Inman
NIMS@CRIS.COM

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 15:09:05 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: The Times

--Boundary-10500765-0-0

Uhh, sorry about never responding to JOIN. It's a good suggestion, and
would be pretty useful. At the same time, it would be a bit difficult
to use and to implement, so it's probably not going to get done. How
often do you have many units actually doing exactly the same thing?
Not _that_ often.

About the Times, it has gotten pretty darned huge. I probably at the
least should offer people the option of not getting it sent. Maybe
I should do something to split it up. This game seems to have gotten
pretty huge, and shows no signs of getting smaller.

Geoff

--Boundary-10500765-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 22 May 1995 14:42:41                    Sent: 22 May 1995 14:41:29
From:"Mike Inman" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: The Times
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: Errors-To:  mailer-daemon@cris.com
X-Orcl-Application: X-Sender:  nims@pop3.cris.com
X-Orcl-Application: Mime-Version:  1.0
X-Orcl-Application: Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Orcl-Application: X-Mailer:  <Windows Eudora Version 1.4.2b16>

Do you think it's a good idea to be able to switch off the
Times mailing with your turn reports?

Personally, I throw away my mail copy & skim through the copy
that Geoff posts to rec.games.pbm.  What do you think?

Mike Inman
NIMS@CRIS.COM

--Boundary-10500765-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 18:56:16 -0400
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Re: Advance & Move

>
>        Reply to:   RE>>Advance & Move
>
>I disagree.  Think of it rather as ADVANCE meaning a force march by combat
>forces to catch guarding forces by surprise.  Advancing units only attack
>units on guard, and if none are encountered, no combat occurs.  If you suspect
>a possible ADVANCE and wish to avoid combat, use GUARD 0 to take your units
>off guard and then use MOVE to leave the sector if desired.
>
>I think that ADVANCE, GUARD, and MOVE work fine as they are, although I am all
>for the ASSIST order discussed previously.
>
>Comments?

I disagree here.  They might be trying to catch guarding units by surprise,
but there are two problems.  First, a unit that is Moving, is not guarding,
and probably is just stepping out of the hex as teh others are comign in.
Also, like the original poster suggested, a unit that is advancing is
probably doing it in a more orderly fashion, and making sure that they don't
smiss anything by rushing by.  If they are attempting surprise this is even
more true because they must do it secretly, and not be noticed.

In Atlantis terms, the one unit is moving out as the first on is moving in,
and I don't see how you can have battle with a unit that is fleeing.

>Mike

--
This .sigfile is a thought virus. Its mission in life is to ensure
that it does not get read, thought about, or duplicated. So DO NOT
read this, do not think about it, and DEFINITELY do not duplicate it
in your own .sig, if you want it to complete its mission!
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1995 10:39:07 -0700
From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Advance & Move

Reply to:   RE>>Advance & Move

My main point was that advancing units *only* attack units on guard, unless
they have declared themselves HOSTILE to the target faction.

The moving unit is probably the one that is exploring as they go, carrying all
their possessions, taking their time, etc.  The advancing unit has one goal in
mind - attacking the enemy - and is carrying only what is absolutely
necessary.  There is quite a difference between wartime combat maneuvers and
peacetime repositioning.

From Geoff's description of how the code works, it sounds like there is an
even chance which command is executed first.  This sounds good to me, as it
could happen either way in "real" life as well.  Moving units might be delayed
by a number of factors, allowing advancing units to catch them, or the other
way around, allowing moving units to escape unharmed.

I like the way it works.

Comments?
Mike

--------------------------------------
Date: 5/22/95 4:35 PM
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu
<cut>
I disagree here.  They might be trying to catch guarding units by surprise,
but there are two problems.  First, a unit that is Moving, is not guarding,
and probably is just stepping out of the hex as teh others are comign in.
Also, like the original poster suggested, a unit that is advancing is
probably doing it in a more orderly fashion, and making sure that they don't
miss anything by rushing by.  If they are attempting surprise this is even
more true because they must do it secretly, and not be noticed.

In Atlantis terms, the one unit is moving out as the first on is moving in,
and I don't see how you can have battle with a unit that is fleeing.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 11:51:50 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: Orders submissions

Hi folks,

I'm working on a brand new system of order submissions for Atlantis,
for a number of reasons. Here's the new system:

1) There will be separate addresses for sending mail to me and
to send orders/times submissions.
2) Mail sent to the orders address will ignore the Subject: heading.
3) To submit orders, the message should include:

#ATLANTIS <faction number> <password>

#END

4) For times articles:

#TIMES <faction number> <password>

#END

5) These can be submitted in the same message, as long as you remember
the '#END' line.
6) Some new pound commands will be allowed within the #ATLANTIS section;
these will not be orders that are sent to the Atlantis turn runner, but
will instead be various administrative commands:

#PASSWORD <password> ; Change your password (or set it if you have none).
#ADDRESS <address>   ; Change your email address (this will replace the old
                     ; ADDRESS order)
#REPORT <turn number>; Resend your report, or with a turn number given,
                     ; resend an old report (if it's available)
#TIMES <turn number> ; Same thing, but for the Times
#RULES               ; Send a copy of the rules

7) The password will be optional, but will give a mechanism to prevent
your orders from being sabatoged by another player. (That has happened
in the playtest, though not intentionally).
8) Received messages will reply, saying that orders or times submissions
have been received. Eventually, an order checker will run on orders.
9) Player sign up will still be operated manually, to prevent players
from signing up for a bunch of factions without even talking to me. A
slight deterant, I know, but at least way they would have to feel
dishonest, and fool a dumb moderator, instead of a dumb computer.
10) I'll probably shift the lists over to some sort of automated list
processor, so that I don't have to take care of signups and drop outs
by hand.

I think this change makes a lot of sense. I'm sending this out to the
design list to get some feedback before I actually put it in, so if
you see anything wrong with this, or anything that should be added,
let me know.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 17:53:46 -0400
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: New format

I like the new format, but I just have one thing that I want ot be sure
about.

If you put orders and times submissions in teh same messgae, you will need
*two* #END's, right?

Thanks.

--
This .sigfile is a thought virus. Its mission in life is to ensure
that it does not get read, thought about, or duplicated. So DO NOT
read this, do not think about it, and DEFINITELY do not duplicate it
in your own .sig, if you want it to complete its mission!
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 15:28:34 PDT
From: pmurray@mindscape.com
Subject: PASSWORDS

There should be someway of getting your password in case it
          gets lost. Perhaps once a password is entered, then each
          posting of the player's turn can show the password.
                                   Paul Murray
                                   PMURRAY@MINDSCAPE.COM

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 18:53:43 -0400
From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Orders submissions

Hey, the new system sounds great! That's more how Phoenix does it
(Probably the best example of a email based game there is).

- Eventually, an order checker will run on orders.

I would be more than happy to contribute my order checker towards
that end if you like. I've done some work with procmail, and
have about 3 years experiance programming and administrating unix
machines, so if I can assist in any way, just let me know!

Glad to see Atlantis moving ahead towards more automation. It can only
leave you with more time to code, and get on with your real life. ;)