ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #24 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000 ----IMPORTANT-------- I'm thinking of discotinuing this service.Does anyone read this, or am I just generating these digests to a ghost audience ? ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Lewis Haddow <9235367@arran.sms.ed.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 10:12:38 +0000 Subject: ATLANTIS: various comments on recent mail Dear Atl-player/designers, I don't really have any new ideas here, but I want to give my yeas and nays to recent suggestions... If allied factions automatically share maintenance, then a unit could move, penniless, into a hex, effectively steal another unit's money, and then move out next turn. In reply to someone else's point, it is NOT possible to give single recruits into other players' units, only whole units. And yes, pillaging should be a month-long order. I think it is unreasonable that taxing is not month-long, too. A unit issuing TAX should lose about half of its movement points/ working time/ study days for that turn. It seems a bit distorted to have all races except two specialised in combat. Maybe it's too late to change it, but this leans the game towards a war game considerably. Is the maximum carrying allowance 5 or 10? And of course armoured men should ride horses. Have you never seen a Clydesdale? I don't see what's wrong with the attitudes at present. The current rules demand a certain amount of trust. But some sort of change in the rules concerning assistance in battle would be good (eg an "assist" flag). I like the idea of a SPY order to tell what other units are up to. Also, the production of seige engines and magic potions at higher skill levels is good. Lewis Haddow faction 83 ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "D.J. McGaw" <u3djm@csc.liv.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Armours Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:23:02 +0100 (BST) >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 May 95 08:27:29 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: Joint Attacks --Boundary-10406945-0-0 It will try to group attackers together (so if two factions attack one unit, there should just be one battle). This appears to be a bit buggy right now (maybe just in the advance case?), but should be fixed soon. Geoff --Boundary-10406945-0-0 X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: 16 May 1995 19:24:48 Sent: 16 May 1995 19:24:34 From:"Anson Winsor " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net> To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net Subject: Joint Attacks Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net By Geoff: >One other point that was raised was that perhaps allies should >automatically support their allies in attacking, as well as >defending. This does take away some flexibility, as you couldn't >hold your men out of an attack. Consider this case: > >Faction A and B are allied. >Regions 1 and 2 are adjacent. > >Faction A has 1000 men in region 1, and 1 man in region 2. >Faction B has 1 man in region 1, and 1000 men in region 2. > >Faction A issues an attack in region 1, and faction B issues an >attack in region 2. Say the attack in region 1 gets run first. >Faction B gets pulled in, and if any casualties are sustained, >the attack in region 2 will not get run. > > >It would simplify things a bit though; what do you guys think? > >Geoff For some reason, I thought you did join allies in attacks. I haven't been in a battle and didn't find this out. If you currently want to do a large scale attack with all of your allies, do you currently have to give all the units involved to one faction for them to be in the same battle? Or can you all issue separate attack orders and all will attack at once? Or when you issue separate attack orders, do each take turns attacking? Please let me know about this, Geoff. It makes all the different in plans for large scale attacks somewhere. Anson Winsor --Boundary-10406945-0-0-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 May 95 08:30:30 PDT From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: See the competition --Boundary-10406994-0-0 Something like this isn't too hard to put in. I don't mind doing it because it isn't a major game change or anything. Whereas putting in something like prisoners would be a lot of work, and would affect game play greatly. Geoff --Boundary-10406994-0-0 X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: 16 May 1995 19:11:01 Sent: 16 May 1995 19:10:31 From:"Anson Winsor " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net> To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net Subject: See the competition Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net Geoff writes: >Atlantis, that I've played, has never given messages for production. Of >course, taxing and entertainment are a bit different, because you can't >see the results on the turn report (since you can't see other faction's >money). However, it would be quite a bit more information on your turn >report, and those things are already pretty long. > >I'm not sure what I think; on the one hand, the information is usually >extraneous. On the other hand, there's no reason why you shouldn't be >able to see a taxing unit, or an entertaining unit. For taxing, since >you can prevent others from taxing, I'd probably say there's no need for >this. Not sure about entertainment yet. If I were to add this to reports, >you would need to be able to see the unit to see it entertain. I think you should be able to see who produces in the hex you are in if you are a Trade or trade combination for sure. You need to check out the competition and know who they are. You do not need to know just how much they produce. Taxing should be seen by the guards in the hex. Only if you have units on guard do you get the report. They will be interested in anybody that is trying to tax citizens. Only if you have Entertainers, should you be interested in just who is entertaining in your hex. Others may watch them and give them a bit of money, but you are interested in your competation and try to find out who they are. Of course, this should only apply if your faction in the hex has the observation to actually see the units in question. You will need observation higher than the competing units have. Geoff, could this be implemented? It all seems reasonable things for the game, but how hard to implement is it? Anson Winsor --Boundary-10406994-0-0-- ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 May 1995 12:23:53 -0700 From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com> Subject: Re: See the competition Reply to: RE>>See the competition My feeling is that this should be based on the Observation skill. It would seem to fit in well at level 3, as several other skills have new abilities at level three. A leader with Observation 3 should be able to tell which non-stealthy units are taxing, producing, and entertaining. Comments? Mike ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 20:10:13 -0400 From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96)) Subject: Re: See the competition > > Reply to: RE>>See the competition > >My feeling is that this should be based on the Observation skill. It would >seem to fit in well at level 3, as several other skills have new abilities at >level three. A leader with Observation 3 should be able to tell which >non-stealthy units are taxing, producing, and entertaining. I think that perhaps for producing you would need to be observant to notice, but for the rest of these I don't think that is a good way of managing things. A person who taxes or entertains must become noticeable, so I think that anyone should see this. You might make it cost a little extra to "spy" on a specific faction, to indicate the time that it takes to follow that person. Also, Could someone tell me if a unit can be stealthy (hidden) and still entertain. If this can happen, it should be changed. > >Comments? >Mike > > > -- GCS d(?) H s: g+(?) p? au0 a-- w+ v(-) C++++ U[whatever]>++++ !P L (!)3 E N++(*) K- !W M+(++) !V po--@ Y+(++) t(+) !5 j+ R G tv+ b+++ D++ B- e@ u** h* f+ !r !n !y+ ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "Matthew S. Taylor" <matthew@clark.net> Subject: Atl2 - Times Length Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 00:16:59 -0400 (EDT) Has anybody but me found the Times to have grown too large? Using an 8 point font and no margins it still ran 40 pages this week - I did not bother to print it as that is entirley too long. I certainly do not have the time to read it on screen! I think the Times needs to be split. There needs to be one place for fiction / narrative stories and another for advertisements/public notices. 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 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]. Comments? -- Matthew Taylor matthew@clark.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: See the competition Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 20:25:32 -0700 From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU> Since this is a game, then we need incentive and concessions for game purposes. Having observation three to scout out the competition does make sense. Now suppose you have observation 4 or 5: then you might be able to see the direction units take when they leave your hex. Maybe only if you issue a spy order for the unit. At any rate, you should be able to see the competition somehow. Knowing what is happening in your hex is very important somethimes. Anson ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:47:24 -0400 From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96)) Subject: Re: Combat Arena?/Re: Trolls >The duel command could be coded to give a reward to the winning person(s). >Maybe 20 silver for every round the combat lasted (assuming that they >survived...). Also don't forget that winners get 50% of their opponents stuff :) I think that it would be better to require an entrance fee. Then (perhaps) require each unit that wishes to view the battle pay a small fee (very small or people won't do it). Then the winner gets the pot. In this manner, I think that the units shouldn't "die" but instead just lose the fight (get knocked out, what have you). Betting could probably also be incorporated into the code, so that a person who doesn't view the game can't bet. (There would be loopholes, of course). Have a person do BET UNIT 666 35 (sil). Take all the bets and make a pot, then at the end of the battle, the people each get a prize based on how much they bet. The winner should probably get a bit of the pot. > >Betting is a game/roleplay risk, and I think it should be left out of any >coding and organised by player entreprenneurs or people who can spell that word >:-) > >Jon. > >Email Address : u3jph@csc.liv.ac.uk >World Wide Web : http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/users/u3jph/index.html >Atlantis WWW : http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/users/u3jph/Atlantis/index.html > > > > > > -- GCS d(?) H s: g+(?) p? au0 a-- w+ v(-) C++++ U[whatever]>++++ !P L (!)3 E N++(*) K- !W M+(++) !V po--@ Y+(++) t(+) !5 j+ R G tv+ b+++ D++ B- e@ u** h* f+ !r !n !y+ ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:25:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joshua Mosher (JE 1996)" <mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu> Subject: Re: See the competition On Wed, 17 May 1995, Joshua Higham wrote: > Also, Could someone tell me if a unit can be stealthy (hidden) and still > entertain. If this can happen, it should be changed. I have seen this argument several times, but I a not convinced. Why shouldn't you be able to entertain and be stealthy? Entertainment is a broad category that would include a variety of illiciit activities such as drug dealing or prostitution. Naturally, these sorts of entertainers would not want to be seen. Josh Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 00:15:45 -0400 From: xuequin@unix.asb.com (Mark Reid) Subject: Religion? I am still thinking about the disparity in power between the war and trade factions, mentioned by several postings. Along the way I happened to notice that some factions take on the trappings of religions. (See factions 72, 215, 238, 251, 255, 346, 379, 408, 620, 651 for names suggesting religion in one degree or another.) So I wish to propose a major overhaul in faction alignment for Atlantis 3. Oh no! you cry. Not another boring clerical role with tedious magic spells that merely mirror magecraft but are supposed to be in the form of prayers! I can't stand it!!! But hold on. That's not what I mean at all. After considering things for a while, I came to the conclusion that what the faction system would most benefit from is triadism. This is a notion cleverly examined by the Czech sociologist Georg Simmel around the turn of the century, but people understood it instinctively long before that - just look at the U.S. system of government, for example. Triadic relationships express enormous dynamism. But, you say, we already have a third faction type, the magic factions. But I disagree. In the tension between war and trade, magic factions play a poor third, because their power to support the trade factions against the war factions is too limited. Both are helpless before an army. 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. 2) The unique units of a Religion faction would be clerics. All clerics must have LVL 1 Healing in order to collect clerical monies in any hex. These monies, maybe called donations, would be similar to the entertainment fund available to entertainers now - each hex would have a certain demand, etc., and only clerics could collect. 3) Once a church (a tower or larger structure) is built by a religion ( or owned by one) that faith has exclusive power to tap donation money in the hex. Only if a church is destroyed can another religion take over. The first church built remains the only church in hex until destroyed (no matter what structures others may build.) 4) Clerics must heal all wounded units of allied factions in a hex to the maximum extent that they are able by skill and herb supply. This heal action should be automated at the start of each turn, preempting all other orders. This would encourage Religion factions to rely on Trade factions for herbs. The failure to stock enough herbs might well make allied War factions displeased. I would suggest that clerics should heal both winners and losers, but it probably works either way. 5) No religion can set ally with any other religion. 6) Religion factions have the following orders unique to them: Sanctuary - religions can set sanctuary for any unit of any faction they wish. Once a unit is protected by sanctuary, any attack on it (or flag-initiated combat) by any faction allied with the religion will fail. This may help alleviate hex blocking, and should definitely increase the War faction's respect for their Religion faction ally, if they don't want their blockades ruptured. Excommunication - once a unit is excommunicated, no faction allied with the excommunicating religion can be allied with it. All the factions allied with the religion will have their attitudes set to neutral as regards the excommunicant, and any attempt to reset the ally flag will fail unless the religion is discontinued as an ally first. Anathema - Once a faction is anathematized, any attack by any unit of any faction whatever upon it will be joined by any units allied to the religion that are in the same hex or any adjoining hex. 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. 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: Fri, 19 May 1995 02:26:25 -0600 From: "David R. Shook" <shook@ibg.colorado.edu> Subject: Tricks about the avoid flag and supporting attacks > 1) ABOUT THE AVOID FLAG > > There was one thing I didn't understand up to now and > allows much flexibility (I was for an HOLD flag, but no more now) : > > If you have a unit with its faction revealed, it will automatically join any > combat in its own hex, but avoid joining those in other hexes. So if you have a bunch of units in a hex, all of which are avoiding, and an opponent attacks them individually, then if they are not revealing, several individaul battles will take place, whereas if they are revealing, they will support each other in one big battle, but still not travel to other hexes? Ah ha! That *is* good to know if it's true. Is this indeed correct, Geoff? Of course, now we're confusing whether a unit is showing it's colors with whether it is willing to assist other units in it's own faction, but perhaps it is not so unreasonable for those two things to be tied together. The only problem is, how do you tell if a unit is still revealing, from three turns ago? You can't tell from your own report. This is a big problem... > 2) ABOUT AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORTING ATTACKING ALLIES > > I rather suggest this : if two allies issue an ATTACK order against the same > units, there are considered together for one combat, rather than two separate > combats. > > The advantage is that you can make your support automatic or not at your will: > >* If the attack was issued via an ATTACK order, you just make an agreement with > your ally to attack together. How is this any different than the way things are (supposed to be) currently? (except that you don't have to be allies...) Allies do not currently support attacks, unless they both issue an Attack order, in which case they (are supposed to) attack together. This sometimes does not happen, which is a bug. In fact *any* two factions are supposed to attack together if they both order an attack on a given faction in the same hex. The advantage of allies supporting each other automatically is that you could pull them in from other hexes, but I'm against that, since combat is already lopsided in favor of offense. >* If the attack was due to an ADVANCE movement, and the two allies are on guard > with the same unfriendly attitude against the intruder, they automatically > join, but not in an other case. In this case, it is a matter of co-defense, not co-attack; I definitely want to be able to assit my allies in defending my territory, while still being able to trade with potential invaders. The guys doing the guarding can't trade, but why should assisting the guarders and trading be a mutally exclusive activity for an entire alliance? Then again, I happen to think that the ability to trade with someone should not be tied to attitude; I think it should be possible for a given faction to trade with someone that they are still preventing from invading their territory. What good is a War/Trade faction otherwise? Tying trade to attitude like this makes trust a precondition of trade, which hampers trade, even further diminishing the power of trade factions. > -- > Eric Dedieu (Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr) David Shook ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr> Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 11:14:09 +0200 Subject: Re: Tricks about the avoid flag and supporting attacks "David R. Shook" writes : >So if you have a bunch of units in a hex, all of which are avoiding, >and an opponent attacks them individually, then if they are not revealing, >several individaul battles will take place, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think they will make one big battle, provided the attacker explicitely named them in his attack order. I only understand they will not join automatically if their faction isn't known. >The only problem is, how do you tell if a unit is still revealing, >from three turns ago? You can't tell from your own report. This >is a big problem... I keep track of that in my order files, but it would be nice to get it from the report. >> 2) ABOUT AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORTING ATTACKING ALLIES > >How is this any different than the way things are (supposed to be) currently? >(except that you don't have to be allies...) My apologies. I had seen some mails suggesting that allies should automatically support in attack as well as in defense, and I was against that. However I didn't understand that currently units attacking together actually joined, I thought they made individual battles. >In this case, it is a matter of co-defense, not co-attack Right. My point was irrelevant. -- 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: Fri, 19 May 1995 10:49:45 -0400 From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96)) Subject: Duel I think that duels should either be no death at all, or else have that as an option. This way a unit can duel just to regain honour, but not to the death. I think you will have more duels this way, because people will like to see how they stack up to other people, without dying. -- GCS d(?) H s: g+(?) p? au0 a-- w+ v(-) C++++ U[whatever]>++++ !P L (!)3 E N++(*) K- !W M+(++) !V po--@ Y+(++) t(+) !5 j+ R G tv+ b+++ D++ B- e@ u** h* f+ !r !n !y+ ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 17:37:54 -0400 From: lam@diamond.eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris) Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0: Attitudes > > One other point that was raised was that perhaps allies should > > automatically support their allies in attacking, as well as > > defending. This does take away some flexibility, as you couldn't > > hold your men out of an attack. > > I would in fact like it to be easier for allies to support offensive > operations. I think the suggestion someone else posted, that an > 'assist' flag indicating that units are willing to support attacks, > would be ideal. I assume we'll still need "tripwire" units in regions adjacent to our main force, in order to see combat and assist in those regions. Possible unintended consequence: ASSIST would be a great alliance betrayal "feature": DECLARE poor-sucker UNFRIENDLY; ATTACK poor-sucker and the whole alliance gangs up on their hapless friend. The ASSIST status could also be thought of as a DECLARE level beyond ALLY. DECLARE xx ALLY and you come to his defense; DECLARE xx BONDED or such, and you help in any of his attacks as well. I'm also still in favor of using the GUARD flag to mean "stay at home" as well as "prevent others taxation". Thus, units on GUARD don't fly around to adjacent regions wreaking random havoc, they got *work* to do. Speaking of which.. ;-} -Larry Morris Crimson Robes. Up