Re: Olympia Question From: srt@sun-dimas.aero.org (Scott Turner) Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0000 >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. I think a lot of people have problems with the whole concept of a "safe haven". It might be interesting in G2 if Rich eliminates the whole idea of a safe haven and just drops new nobles randomly into any existing city -- maybe preferentially into empty cities. >b) Faery is fine the way it is _if_ it really was a dangerous place. The problem with Faery is that too many faery stones are available. >c) Bad idea 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. Oh, I disagree! Mt. Olympus is the most interesting situation in Oly. Building a castle there was a big gamble. Trying to stop someone from building would have been a big gamble as well (why set yourself back stopping someone else so early in the game?). Keeping the castle while placed adjacent to a safe zone is a great and interesting challenge. >d) Limitations on beastmasters. I think there is general agreement on this problem. Beastmasters need to either have their stack size limited (the option I prefer), or have to pay maintenance on their beasts. >Yes, such a career track at least initially could be boring (and at >2.50 a week might not be worth it)... It might be interesting if Rich would credit new players with 1 free week of play for each 5 weeks a game had been in progress, or some such. That might compensate new players for the disadvantage of joining a game in progress. -- Scott T. Up