ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #21

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000

This file was automatically generated by csd@microplex.com
If you notice anything unusual, please e-tell me.
You better not kill Faction 9 or this service may be discontinued.:-)
Contributions in Silver will be gladly accepted.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 15:27:07 -0400
From: BlackFlash@aol.com
Subject: Atlantis conjecture

> 3) New trade items: I'm going to add more items for trade. I think the
> list will look something like this:
>
> Item           Skill            Required Location
> ----           -----            -----------------
> Fish           Fishing          A ship in the sea
> Furs           Hunting          wilderness
> Grain          Farming          Farm
> Livestock      Ranching         Ranch
>
> Then, there will some advanced items, like spices, jewelry, etc.

Do spices and jewels require production as an advanced item, like swords, or
a heavy investment of effort to look for them in a region?  Perhaps there
would be room in the game for highly skilled craftsmen to produce works of
art of various kinds, that would turn a good profit after a suitable
commitment of time in skill study and production.

> 5) New economy: This is the cool part. There will only be a few cities in
> the initial world. To build up civilization, players will be able to
> build villages. A village will initially have demand for a couple of the
> basic trade items. If these items are sold to the village, the population
> will grow. When the population passes a certain threshold, the village
> will become a town, and eventually a city. A town will have demand for
> more items, and also for wood, iron, and stone. A town will also produce
> items like swords and bows.
>
> A city will have demand for advanced items, and will also produce these
> items. These will be high priced items, that can be traded for high
> profit (probably over a long distance).
>
> Assuming that the faction type system remains in effect, I will probably
> limit selling common items to trade factions, and limit buying and
> selling advanced items to pure trade factions.

Maybe I missed your point, but this last sounds _really_ limiting when
compared to the current game.  If I'm a War faction, I'm going to want to be
able to buy swords, horses and armor.  I may need to sell some, and I don't
see why I can't sell high if I can find a buyer, or why I would need a Trade
faction to handle most of my transactions.

> 9) The faction type vs. faction point system has yet to be decided. I
> like faction types, but if no one wants them, I can switch to faction
> points, or even remove all restrictions (I don't like this, but the
> players are the ones who count).

Now, given everything I've read on Atlantian economics and the rather large
changes I'm going to suggest from my nice comfy armchair, I'd say go with a
faction point system.  My tentative ideas for Atlantis:
1)  Count mages per foundation skill-level, as Kristian suggested.  A few
points and any faction can support a hedge-wizard.
2)  With sufficient opportunities for both pursuits, consider splitting Trade
and Production faction points.  Merchants and craftsmen/laborers/unions are
often of entirely different classes, and these can be considered two
seperate, though related, tyes of enterprises.
3)  Give the local yokel population in each area some general feelings about
taxing, pillaging, fighting, recruiting, trade, entertainment.  Add Politics
Faction points that could make recruitment and taxing more efficient or take
advantage of the people's attitudes to rouse a mob against unpopular
factions, or even for popular factions.
4)  If faction points are used, maybe start with a base faction or
combination of base factions, and calculate faction point cost on that basis.
 This gives factions incentive to find partners, but doesn't screw them if
they can't.

>10) Do people like the leader/normal unit system? I can scrap it, change
>the skill level maxes, or whatever.

I like it as it is.

>11) Also, I could get rid of the "help from other regions" combat, if it's
>more of a pain in the butt than a help.

I like it.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: vjg@cbnea.att.com
Original-From: v.guinto
Date:  5 May 1995  16:41 EDT
Subject: re: Atlantis conjecture

>> 3) New trade items: I'm going to add more items for trade. I think the
>> list will look something like this:
>>
>> Item           Skill            Required Location
>> ----           -----            -----------------
>> Fish           Fishing          A ship in the sea
>> Furs           Hunting          wilderness
>> Grain          Farming          Farm
>> Livestock      Ranching         Ranch
>>
>> Then, there will some advanced items, like spices, jewelry, etc.
>
>Do spices and jewels require production as an advanced item, like swords, or
>a heavy investment of effort to look for them in a region?  Perhaps there
>would be room in the game for highly skilled craftsmen to produce works of
>art of various kinds, that would turn a good profit after a suitable
>commitment of time in skill study and production.

Maybe the items like spices and gems would be a sort of "advanced
natural resource" that would be produced without raw materials. They
could be producable (or even findable) by higher-level units only.
Example: units with level-3 Herbalism skill would be able to detect
the presence of spices in a region and harvest them; gems might require
3rd-level mining, and so on. That would give an additional incentive
to train up units with production skills, and to find the races that
allow the higher skill levels - in turn possibly providing a labor
exchange market.

Personally, I like the "roll your own faction" idea of allowing a
faction to study a limited number of skills, say 15 per faction.
Make taxing cost, say, 5 skill slots. Then each faction could
decide what was most important. I find that limiting faction types
by restricting the number of regions in which they can tax or
produce to be VERY frustrating; I'd much rather pick a couple
skills in which I can specialize, but be able to use those skills
everywhere (the world's best longbowmen! or woodcutters, or
shipbuilders, etc.). But I haven't seen any support for this sort
of plan.

-Vince Guinto
 vjg@cbnea.att.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 May 1995 22:15:20 -0400
From: xuequin@unix.asb.com (Mark Reid)
Subject: add me to list

Geoff,
   Could you please add me to the design mailing list? Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 May 1995 22:33:03 -0400
From: xuequin@unix.asb.com (Mark Reid)
Subject: atlantis 3

I haven't been play-testing the game long enough to make suggestions from
experience, and I haven't seen whatever has been discussed before, so
forgive me if this is all old hat or stupid. But I noticed from reading the
comments on economics from Chris Bartlett and on the War v. Trade balance
from David R. Shook, that there seems to be what some might consider a
problem here.
   It occurs to me, without disparaging the value of a more detailed
economic model, that Atlantis is mostly a political game in its elements.
Since I think of trade factions as the bourgeousie, it occurs to me that for
there
to be greater balance between the Trade and War factions it might be better
for the game to simulate conditions from a slightly later period in world
history, when the bourgeouisie was closer to success over feudal militarism.
   What I propose is this. First, taking a page from the players
mail-listers who suggested a lottery, why not allow units based in
municipailities (hereinafter "polis") to make overseas trade investments.
Some money could
be invested every turn. The payoff would be a gamble. Let's say a roll 0f
10 type of thing. Outcomes could be:
1-total loss of investment
2-total loss of investment
3-50% loss
4-break even
5-break even
6-50% gain
7-50% gain
8-50% gain
9-100% gain
10-2500% gain
These amounts could be scaled smaller for towns (ex: 10-500% gain)
Only Trade and perhaps Trade/Magic factions could "invest".
This would give a source of "free" revenue to non-War factions comparable to
tax, and provide an incentive to Traders to reside near cities.
Suggestion 2 forthcoming.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 May 1995 22:52:52 -0400
From: xuequin@unix.asb.com (Mark Reid)
Subject: Atlantis 3

To continue on the issue of Trade v War imbalance, in addition to the
investment lottery previously mentioned, I suggest:
   A new class of player, the guildsmen. The guildsman is an urban dweller,
who is presumed to already have a productive personal skill (ex.: barber,
undertaker, tailor, retailer, locally employed carpenter or stonemason). The
specific skill need never be spelled out, as his faction can never avail
itself of it to produce items. Guildsmen require no maintenance, pay to a
leader unit in the polis where they reside dues of 70 silver one month out
of the year, and can be trained to combat 1. They may use a sword, but no armor.
They cannot leave the polis where they reside, attempts to do so result in
loss of the unit. Factions are limited to 100 Guildsmen per city and 50 per
town. But when a faction attains 90% of the maximum number of guildsmen in a
polis, it gains the option of designating a leader unit resident in that
polis a "patriarch" of the polis. A faction with a patriarch will in effect
have the polis guardsmen as allies. The guardsman will fight to prevent any
hostile or unfriendly units (to the patriarch's faction) from entering the
polis. Also, all units belonging to hostile or unfriendly factions already
in the city or entering it later (as by stealth) will undergo a 50% loyalty
check at the appointment of a patriarch. If they fail, they merely desert
and become ordinary, unrecruited units.
   (I know you don't like loyalty checks and I agree, but I think in this
case it might be worth it. It also reflects the historical reality of serfs
and vassals who became "freemen" on entering a city.)
   This would provide a strong shelter for Trade units and might also
increase the risks for War factions setting negative flags in rural areas.
The guildsmen would provide cannon fodder and a source of auxiliary revenue,
and could be militarily significant, since they would always fight from
behind city walls in conjunction with the city guard. I suggest that they
should cost halfway between ordinary people and leaders.
   Hope this has been constructive.
                                          Mark M. Reid

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 07 May 95 21:28:12 -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.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 11:17:45 EST
From: francis@nemesis.iic.uam.es
Subject: Re: Atlantis 3

>
>    A new class of player, the guildsmen. The guildsman is an urban dweller,
> who is presumed to already have a productive personal skill (ex.: barber,
> undertaker, tailor, retailer, locally employed carpenter or stonemason). The
> specific skill need never be spelled out...
>

it's sounds very good for me. Why entertainment is the only good income in a
city? Where are the specialized workers?

Hasta pronto...........................Francis   O O
                                                      L
                                                     ~-~
                                                     `"'

----------------------------------------------------------
From: SARIKAKIS ANDREAS <andrew@ergasya.tuc.gr>
Subject: Guards
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 17:01:35 WETDST

If city guards are killed are they replaced?
   If this is true then wouldn't a huge force kill them each month and earn
   abou 50 swords each week?

Also if they are replaced they can't be on guard as a faction that loses in
   battle can't be on guard on the same turn.
   Anyway if they are killed can a city be taxed then?
   Faction 181
   andrew@hra.ergasya.tuc.gr
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 09:06:28 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Guards

--Boundary-10261024-0-0

If the city guards are defeated in battle, they will go off guard
(same as any unit who loses a battle). They will go on guard in the
next turn (when GUARD 1 orders are processed).

If city guards are killed, they will be replaced, gradually, and
only if no one else is on guard in the city.

Geoff

--Boundary-10261024-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 11 May 1995 07:10:41                    Sent: 11 May 1995 07:10:26
From:"SARIKAKIS ANDREAS " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Guards
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: Mailer:  Elm [revision: 66.25]

If city guards are killed are they replaced?
   If this is true then wouldn't a huge force kill them each month and earn
   abou 50 swords each week?

--Boundary-10261024-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
From: tim.hruby@his.com
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 12:07:39
Subject: GUARDS

My understanding, based on how I read the rules:
>    If city guards are killed are they replaced?
Yes, unless the victor places his units on guard.

> If this is true then wouldn't a huge force kill them each month and earn
abou 50 swords each week?
Yes.  Unless you'd rather tax.

> Also if they are replaced they can't be on guard as a faction that
> loses in battle can't be on guard on the same turn.
Note that some guards can be killed, and they still could win the battle, and
so remain on guard.

> Anyway if they are killed can a city be taxed then?
Yes.

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 20:28:33 -0700

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: yaj@cc.gatech.edu (Jay Luo)
Subject: Atl: Some suggestions
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 16:25:56 -0400 (EDT)

Just some things I was thinking would be nice:

* It should announce to everyone in the hex, or at least to units who
   are on guard in a hex, who is taxing in that hex; likewise, it should
   announce what units are entertaining.  The ENTERTAIN command could
   possibly take a descriptive argument for this purpose, e.g.,

ENTERTAIN "juggles colored balls"

results in

Clown (123) juggles colored balls for the entertainment of the populace.

Announcing who is taxing and entertaining can allow factions, guilds,
   or whatever to enforce controls on who taxes and entertains in an area.

* It would be nice if there were a stronger attitude than Allied, say,
   Cooperating; and you can only tax on land if the guards there are
   Cooperating with you.  Either that, or a weaker attitude than
   Friendly, say, Trading, where you can receive items from a faction
   which is Trading with you, but they cannot tax.  This is because
   there are lots of factions which I am Friendly to because we are
   giving each other things but whom I would rather not start taxing on my
   land.

* (Possibly complex.)  During a battle, at the start of any round where
   one side has only units which are Behind, that side should "surrender"
   and all remaining units are "captured".  (Possibly during the "rout"
   combat round, if the force is entirely eliminated they should be
   captured instead as well.)  Captured units become units under the
   control of the faction which won the battle, but retain a "prisoner"
   flag and remembers the faction whom they were captured from.  The winning
   faction can subsequently issue orders for prisoner units, but prisoner
   units may only be ordered to move, work, describe, or give.  A prisoner
   unit which is given to another faction remains a prisoner unit, unless
   given to the faction which formerly owned it (or maybe an allied faction),
   in which case it becomes a free unit of its original faction.  The faction
   controlling the prisoners must pay maintenance for them as normal.
   A combat ready unit of the faction controlling the prisoners may "execute"
   the prisoners (destroying the unit), although this action is seen by all
   units in the area.  If after the combat phase, a prisoner unit is
   ever in a hex where no combat-ready unit of the faction they are prisoners
   of are present, the prisoners automatically "escape," returning to their
   original faction.

(Possibly more complex) A unit with Stealth may attempt to "rescue"
   a prisoner unit; if its stealth skill exceeds the observation skill
   of the units of the capturing faction and its allies, it rescues one
   person of the prisoner unit (forming a new unit if necessary).

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Bean <ATLANTIS@bluebean.demon.co.uk>
Date:          Mon, 15 May 1995 22:15:44 +0000
Subject:       Re: Atl: Some suggestions - Prisoners

Prisoners....
>    flag and remembers the faction whom they were captured from.  The winning
>    faction can subsequently issue orders for prisoner units, but prisoner
>    units may only be ordered to move, work, describe, or give.....

>    in which case it becomes a free unit of its original faction.  The faction
>    controlling the prisoners must pay maintenance for them as normal....
Since prisoners are never well fed their maintenance should be 50%.
Work output should also be less due to sickness/sabotage etc.
Movement should also be slower.

What about extra maintenance fees for guards - maybe 1 guard with
combat >= 1 for every ten prisoners, otherwise they escape?

Or: let the captor decide on maintenance fees for prisoners (i.e. how
well he wishes to treat them) and set return for work accordingly.

This would add up to make prisoners as much a potential problem than
benefit - how it should be. Otherwise this change may skew the
balance of power so much in favour of successful combatants that no
one would ever catch up.

Maybe I'm being over sensitive, sitting here in UK where we've just
celebrated end of WWII, but I find the idea of labour camps and
summary execution a bit distasteful. I guess it depends how
'realistic' Geoff wants Atl to be.

----
Bean. Email atlantis@bluebean.demon.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 14:46:46 +0200
Subject: ATLANTIS. Maintenance of allies ?

I tried to rescue an ally unit by moving to its location with money, hoping
that I would automatically share it with my starving allies as I would do with my own units. It didn't work.

I suggest to make this automatic. Imagine for example a war faction A
maintening an ally trade faction B : should A fail once to give money to B's
units (because of an error in the orders), they will die. It is hard.

So it would be a second difference between ally and friendly : you
automatically rescue ally factions for maintenance as well as for battle.

--
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: Tue, 16 May 1995 08:55:08 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Prisoners

I do not think that prisoners are a good idea.

First, the implementation of prisoner units would require wide-reaching
changes to both the rules and the code, making both more complex.
Prisoners would have to be handled differently from anything else.  For
instance, the original poster suggested that prisoners be allowed to
GIVE.  But the poster overlooks the fact that the unit must be forbidden
from giving men, lest the men of the prisoner unit be transformed into
regular troops for the captors.  Yes, such a restriction could be coded.
My point is, it would be a great deal of work for little or no improvement
to the game.  [see below]

Second, I don't think that prisoner units would improve the game.
The victor in a battle is already handsomely rewarded both materially
and tactically, and giving him a bigger advantage is unwarranted.  The
potential for the vanquished to eventually recover some of his men is
faint, at best, for the struggling factions that could actually benefit
much from it.

John Bollinger
Melvin's Marauders (105)