Re: Olympia Question

From: morrow@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)

Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold) writes:
>I believe that the game dynamics would have improved for the better
>in oly commerical version 1 if Rich had selected 20 cities, made
>them _each_ safe havens, and then dropped nobles randomy into them.
>This would have accomplished at least    things

I disagree.  The benefit, in my opinion, of having one starting city
is that the game has frontiers.  In Oly I, one would wander off in a
direction to only find that other players are already there because
they started out at a city that was in that direction.  I'd much prefer
that the population density decrease as one moves away from one
location (or maybe 2 to 4 if they are, say, clustered around a
continent or spaced around the equator).

>a)  It would have made the diplomacy of the game much more
>contingent on game dynamics and not on past experiences/history and
>player reputation.  Clearly the AOO alliance in the best example
>(but their are others) in which a group of players with past history
>decided to cooperate with each other - a task that was made easier
>because they were all plopped down in IC at the same time.  Spread
>them out across the known world and the probability of that kind of
>cooperation becomes much harder....While the meta faction may try to
>operate the dynamics of being isolated in a far off world force more
>compromises (and latter backstabing).  Not meant to be an attack on
>the AOO - I benefited myself from that situation with our alliance
>being set up weeks before the start.

I disagree.  The cooperation will happen if the players are close or
far and there is little you can do about it short of outlawwing
e-mail.  What spreading them out will do is increase their ability to
quickly map the entire world and figure out where everyone is.

OK.  Powergamer question for members of the big alliances.  Which
would be better for you (with respect to efficiency and power) in G2,
to all be started in one spot or to be spread out?  Please explain the
benefits and problems you see with both approaches.  Be honest now --
how would you play each option??? :-)

>b) Faery is fine the way it is _if_ it really was a dangerous place
>Rich's message in vol. 45 of the times gives hope of that.  Castles
>should not have been allowed their and the Feary hunt should really
>be able to wipe out an army moving across the land.  THat would
>balance the game in a much more interesting way....yes you could
>move a large army anywhere using Faery for military advantage but
>you would risk losing it to the elves who didn't like you doing it.
>Better balance and more interesting development

I still don't think that Faery and Hades should have exits
*everywhere* (as they seem to).  Something certainly needs to be done
about Faery.  But the Faery Hunts I've seen are no match for the
armies I've seen in there so I don't think that they are the solution
unless they get much more numerous and agressive.

>c)  Bad idea (sorry carl) to place a mountain due north of the
>starting safe haven.  All turn one players are hereby raked over the
>coals for allowing a castle to be completed, much less standing, on
>Mount Olympia.  One way around this would be to extend the safe
>haven (or limit movement) so that newbies have enough space to
>gather resources/strength to prepare to enter the world and that it
>is difficult for a faction to take them out before they do so.

It might help if the "Safe Haven" in G2 was, say 25 squares with 2 or
3 cities inside.  Perhaps something like:

pppFf
Ppfff
pfFff
~~~~~
~~~~~

This yields 9 possible exits from the safe haven by sea and 11
possible exits by land (harder to ambush new players when the leave).
The nearest mountain *should* probably be at least 5 locations from
the starting city and rocky hills should only yield 10 or maybe 20
stone per month.  I'd also like to see new players set so that they
can use resources within the safe haven zones (wood, magic, etc.) for
their first three to five turns.

Another 5X5 alternative:

ffFff
~fff~
~~M~~
~ppp~
ppPpp

This gives 14 possible land exits and 6 possible sea exits.  The
mountain is in the middle, making it hard to use the stone, even if
new players are allowed to cut it.  Unless building is possible in
safe havens, no iron (etc.) could be mined.  But it would justify
iron for sale in the starting city (at high prices).

[I agree with most of the rest of your points]

John Morrow

References

Olympia Question
CTSO17@email.mot.com (Mark Common)
Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
morrow@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Fri, 05 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 08 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)
Wed, 10 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia Question
CTSO17@email.mot.com (Mark Common)
Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
morrow@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Fri, 05 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 08 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia Question
wbruvold@weber.ucsd.edu (William Bruvold)
Wed, 10 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000