ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #20

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Fri, 05 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.
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re:  Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:04:19 -0700
From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU>

The added defense against assassination attempts makes sense for
buildings. And John Bollinger's comments about it not making sense
for burglaries is true.

Perhaps you could have a chance to successfully enter the building.
Each type of a building would give a base value and add the highest
level of observation in the building to get a percentage of being
seen while trying to enter.

A fort with base 1 containing unit with observation 2 would see
the attempt 30% of the time.
If you are seen, of course, then your attempt failed.
Perhaps need a max percentage to enable a chance to break in
even in the largest building with Observation 5 in it.

Anson Winsor   apwinsor@cs.unlv.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:34:51 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design: More on Atlantis 3.0

>OK, I didn't respond to this for awhile. First, he's some stuff about the
>Magic system.
>
>]> 1) Magic System: I think the current magic system is a bit too broad.
There
>]> are too many foundations, which leaves too much studying to do, and I
can't
>]> fill it all up with spells. I'm going to cut down to 4 foundations, which
>]> will allow more spells per skill level. Also, with 4 foundations, I will
be
>]> able to provide areas for each combination of foundations.
>]
>]This is one of the reasons I liked Atlantis' system.  A good mage won't have
>]time to generalize that much.  He should concentrate on one or two
foundations
>]and just accept the fact he WON'T be good at everything.
>
>It is nice to have so many foundations that mages are very different. However,
>my problem with this is the desire to have multi-foundation areas. With the
>current system of 7 foundations, I just can't fill in many of the
combinations:

How about requiring study for the multi-foundation skills?

Example, four foundations: Earth, Air, Water, Fire

Study Earth 6 turns to achieve level 3.
Study Air 6 turns to achieve level 3.
Now, Study Earth-Air 6 turns to level 3.

>There are just too many combinations to fill in. If your mage studies three
>foundations, I'm sure he would like to be able to use them together, without
>having to read my mind about which three to study.

Research in the Earth area might hint about possible Earth-Air spells, etc.

>One foundation combos: 7
>Two foundation combos: 28
>Three coundation combos: a bunch

In the 4 foundation system:
One   foundation combos: 4
Two   foundation combos: 6
Three foundation combos: 4
Four  foundation combos: 1
Total studyable foundations: 15, roughly twice the current study commitment for
a "total capability" mage.

Tie this to my suggestion about accelerated learning in private structures, and
it sort of balances out - Study in a private building (tower, fort,
whatever) confers
a +1 bonus, so independant study proceeds twice as fast, tutored study
proceeds at
3 times as fast as independant study outside.  This would provide (small)
incentive for
the "Universities" to build structures in Atlantis City, and big incentive
for Mages
to contract for towers to be constructed in other cities, under protection
of the
city guard.

>]2. I would suggest that the 1st level spells would increase in effect
>]for each foundation skill-level. So that for example the bless forest
>]spell would increase wood production by 10 per foundation level of
>]caster, or by 10 for one month per foundation level of caster.
>] The second level spells would then double in efficiency at level 4.
>] If this is already implemented, I apologize (spelling?).
>
>Good idea! It hasn't been implemented, but I'll probably do it in future
>versions.

I agree, just like the PRODUCE skills, a level 1 spell to summon a forest
monster should summon 5 forest monsters for the level 5 mage (unless there
happens to be a shortage of forest monsters in the region :)

TBF

Mike Inman
NIMS@CRIS.COM

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:46:22 -0400
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Re:  Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal

>
>The added defense against assassination attempts makes sense for
>buildings. And John Bollinger's comments about it not making sense
>for burglaries is true.
>
>Perhaps you could have a chance to successfully enter the building.
>Each type of a building would give a base value and add the highest
>level of observation in the building to get a percentage of being
>seen while trying to enter.
>
>A fort with base 1 containing unit with observation 2 would see
>the attempt 30% of the time.
>If you are seen, of course, then your attempt failed.
>Perhaps need a max percentage to enable a chance to break in
>even in the largest building with Observation 5 in it.

I agree with most of what is being said, but I disagree with the theory that
a larger building means a higher observation.  The chance that a person in a
building notices when another player enters, is based on the number of
people entering.  In fact, in a large building, there is probably a greater
chance of being able to sneak in (via sewers, or sneaking in w/ crowd) and
remaining hidden due to the size of the building.

I think that the observation should be based on the number of people in the
building.

Thanks.
>
>Anson Winsor   apwinsor@cs.unlv.edu
>
>

--
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: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 18:41:15 -1812
From: bartlett@amanda.dorsai.org (Chris Bartlett)
Subject: NPC economy.

Here is my suggestion for NPC economics that would make trying to make a
living as a pure trade faction more doable.  Prices offered and asked for
goods sold in village, city and town markets should fluctuate with demand.
It could work something like this.

Buying.  Each market would produce an amount of a given resource, dependent
on the town population, and the availability of the resource in adjacent
hexes.  Let's take wood for example.  Let us say that a town bbegins the
game by producing 4 wood per turn, and begins the game with a surplus stock
pile of 30 wood.  At first, they ask 60/wood, with a total of 30 wood to
sell.  Let us say that demand for wood at that price is 10 wood, leaving 20
wood unsold, plus the 4 that the town produces given current population and
wood availability limits.  It's stock is now lessened to 80% of former
levels, so the worthy townspeople decide to raise the price charged by some
factor.  The easiest way might be to have the new price = old price*old
stock/new stock.  In my example, new price = 60*30/24, = 75, the next turn.
If they were anything like right in Economics 101, eventually, the prices
would find an equilibrium.  If this is too set, then add a random fudge
factor to account for assorted market forces not covered in this very
elementary model.

Selling materials would work in a similar fashion, with demand for products
increasing each turn it's not met, again with the demand rate determined by
population.  AGain, prices would fluctuate depending on what percentage of
the demand was met on the previous turn.

Another alternative is not to carry supply and demand over turns, but to
have each market supply and demand each month based on population and
resource availability.  This might be simpler, and has the advantage that
one couldn't build up a huge demand by simply refusing to sell to a given
town until the price rose out of sight.  Another idea would be to impose a
drag on the actual price fluctuations by introducing a constant less than 1
as a coefficient in the price equations.

ais wold be to create an environment where merchants could buy in one place
and sell in another, thus making trade fleets and caravans more viable, and
to provide a way for magic factions to earn money other than by relying on
the largesse of allies to support them through the cost of training their
mages.

This is a rough sketch, but something like this should be implemented to
make NPC trading a more integral part of the game.

Chris

Chris Bartlett
     bartlett@amanda.dorsai.org

----------------------------------------------------------
From: William Robinson <bvsnbthd@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 95 16:58:12 CDT

please subscribe me to the mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:12:34 -1812
From: bartlett@amanda.dorsai.org (Chris Bartlett)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal

I think you should go with the first idea, i.e don't let units outside the
building rob or assassinate units inside the building.  The only problem is
that a thief or assassin must be in the building for two months then, one
to enter it, and two to rob or kill, then leave.  Even if they are
sufficiently stealthy, wouldn't they show up on the unit report, or if
stealth > observation they don't show up at all?

Chris Bartlett
     bartlett@amanda.dorsai.org

----------------------------------------------------------
From: David Makin <makind@firststate.com.au>
Subject: Atlantis 3 suggestions/comments
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:45:42 +1000 (EST)

Forwarded message:
> From MAILER-DAEMON@connect.com.au Mon May  1 12:11:04 1995
> Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 10:13:29 +1000
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@connect.com.au>
> Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
> Message-Id: <199505010013.KAA10874@warrane.connect.com.au>
> To: makind@firststate.com.au
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="KAA10874.799287209/warrane.connect.com.au"
>
> This is a MIME-encapsulated message
>
> --KAA10874.799287209/warrane.connect.com.au
>
> The original message was received at Mon, 1 May 1995 10:13:03 +1000
> from uucp@localhost
>
>    ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
> atl-design@rahul.net  (unrecoverable error)
>
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to bolero.rahul.net.:
> >>> RCPT To:<atl-design@rahul.net>
> <<< 550 <atl-design@rahul.net>... User unknown
> 550 atl-design@rahul.net... User unknown
>
>    ----- Original message follows -----
>
> --KAA10874.799287209/warrane.connect.com.au
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
> Return-Path: <firststate.com.au!makind>
> Received: (from uucp@localhost) by warrane.connect.com.au with UUCP id KAA10869
>   (8.6.11/IDA-1.6 for atl-design@rahul.net); Mon, 1 May 1995 10:13:03 +1000
> Received: by osa04.firststate.com.au id AA08360
>   (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for atl-design@rahul.net); Mon, 1 May 1995 09:51:48 +1000
> From: David Makin <makind@firststate.com.au>
> Message-Id: <199504302351.AA08360@osa04.firststate.com.au>
> Subject: Altantis 3 design
> To: atl-design@rahul.net
> Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 09:51:47 +1000 (EST)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 2802
>
> My suggestions/comments on Atlantis 3
>
> 1) Magic System: I like the 4 foundation idea "earth, air, water and fire".
>    Material components for spells: Produced in specific areas?
>
> 2) Production: A location for production. Yeah fine. Have a few NPC ones
> and a few abandonded ones (possibly in inner locations?).
>
> 3) New trade items: So long as you can make money out of trade OK.
>
> 4) New policy for Cities, Towns, and Villages: You could also have inner
> regions in them. Eg Castle, University, Wizard tower, *Market*.
>
> 5) New economy: Suggestion: All areas that do not have units on Guard (1)
> (player or NPC) become wilderness and are pillaged by monsters.
> Thus the game will start with some areas occupied by NPC units on guard
> and a lot of Wilderness. To clear an area you must defeat the monster(s)
> that are pillaging the region. You then place a unit on Guard and the
> area will not revert unless unguarded or Guard 0'd. When a area ceases
> to be wilderness the unit on guard faction may NAME REGION <name>.
> Also after clearing of monsters the area will recover its production/
> taxation base. Thus a *part* of the game will be pushing back the
> wilderness and opening new trade routs between cities.
>
> 6) Roads, rivers, and lakes may also be added.
>
> 7) A more extensive Underworld. It's not very interesting right now, but I
> would like to develop it into a whole underground world.
>
> 8) Make monsters stay away from civilized areas: see 5 above, no guards
> means monsters move in.
>
> 9) The faction type vs. faction point system: Faction point system is
> my vote.
>
> 10) The leader/normal unit system: I like it, keep it.
>
> 11) Help from other regions combat: Have Guard 1 units unavailable for this
> because they are to busy protecting the region they are in.
>
>
> In regard to 5 above you would get reports like the below.
>
> Geoffry (10,10), Plains, 300 peasants (Nomads), $1000
>
> Wages: $12
> Wanted: Spices
> For sale: 30 nomads at $60 , 6 leaders at $120
> Entertainmet: $120
> Products: 20 Horses
>
> Exits:
> 	North : Geoffry (10,9), Plain
> 	Northeast : Rosa(134) (11,9), Forest
> 	Southeast : Wilderness (11,10), Forest
> 	South : Wilderness (10,11), Ocean {always wilderness}
> 	Southwest : Keepout(666) (9,10), Swamp
> 	Northwest : Wilderness (9,9), Swamp
>
> Geoffville : City, open to player units
>
> -Town Guard (25), on guard, 20 leaders, 20 swords
>
>
> (11,9) is a region that is controlled by faction 134, it having
> cleared the monster/NPC/other player out and named the region
> Rosa (strange his factions name is "la Rosa").
> (9,10) is a region that is controlled by faction 666, it having
> cleared the monster/NPC/other player out and named the region
> Keepout (A message in there perhaps?).
>
>
> I hope this will be of some help.
>
> David
> la Rosa (134)
>
> makind@firststate.com.au
>
> all flames should be sent to waste@basket.desk
>
>
> --KAA10874.799287209/warrane.connect.com.au--
>

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 95 21:50:54 -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: Tue, 2 May 1995 16:04:24 -0400
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Market?

I don't know how much access you have, but you might want to set up a market
list, so that people with things to sell/buy can send them to everyone that
might be interested.

--
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, 2 May 95 13:32:14 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Market?

--Boundary-8525523-0-0

I may try to get a real list server going on my machine, in which case
I will probably split up the list somewhat.

Geoff

--Boundary-8525523-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 02 May 1995 13:23:39                    Sent: 02 May 1995 13:21:24
From:"Joshua Higham (NMH96" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Market?
Reply-to: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu

I don't know how much access you have, but you might want to set up a market
list, so that people with things to sell/buy can send them to everyone that
might be interested.

--
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+

--Boundary-8525523-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 20:33:02 -0600
From: "David R. Shook" <shook@ibg.colorado.edu>
Subject: Atlantis Design

> 1) Magic System: I think the current magic system is a bit too broad. There
> are too many foundations, which leaves too much studying to do, and I can't
> fill it all up with spells. I'm going to cut down to 4 foundations, which
> will allow more spells per skill level. Also, with 4 foundations, I will be
> able to provide areas for each combination of foundations.

I sort of like having lots of different areas, but combinations sound
good.

> 2) Production: I think I'm going to change the production of items to require
> a location to be built for them. So, to produce iron, you would have to first
> build a mine. For some items, this doesn't make sense (furs and fish).

So how do you tell if the ground contains Iron?  Will there be a new
Geologist skill?  ;)

> 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.

That sounds good; right now trading is not very effective; about the
only thing worth trading with another faction is Wood for Iron;

It seems like there should be a market for everything in every town and
city, with the price that the town will pay varying with the distance
from the nearest natural source.  And of course, towns should sell whatever
can be produced locally fairly cheaply.  Then there would be more incentive for
trade carvans, and a whole new social sytem would evolve around that.

> 4) New policy for Cities, Towns, and Villages: They will be inner locations
> instead of full regions.

Good idea.

> 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.

Sounds great!  I think the market aspect of this game could and should be
expanded considerably.

> 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.

That seems a little odd; why shouldn't a War faction be able to buy
swords and armor, or a magic faction be able to buy whatever resources
it needs to cast it's spells?

> 6) Roads, rivers, and lakes may also be added.

You should make the players build the roads, not to mention bridges
over the rivers (you could make crossing a river cost an extra movement
point, unless there is a natural ford (rare).  And there would have
to be a bridge over the river for a road bonus to count.

There are allready some lakes, or do you mean small bodies of water
*within* hexes?  I suppose you could fish in the lakes and rivers,
as well as boat on some of them.

> 7) A more extensive Underworld. It's not very interesting right now, but I
> would like to develop it into a whole underground world.

Yes!  One big dungeon with cool monsters and treasures.

8) Make monsters stay away from civilized areas.

That seems reasonable; it would also be cool if there were some more
elaborate NPCs, like traders, or mages, or friendly monsters, that you could
buy and sell info and goods with, or just outright hire (for a somewhat
higher upkeep; you don't pay them, they leave).

> 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).

I like being foreced to interact; I think some kind of restrictions are
a good idea, though a bit more flexability and balance than the present
system might be nice

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

It's not bad.  Maybe elaborate it a bit, I'm not sure just how.
Maybe make the max skill level for non-specialties be 1 instead of 2;
make Orcs 0 for all but combat.  You could make specialized leaders too.

> 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 think it's very useful, but I think the avoid command should be split
up into two different commands, one concerning a units reaction to things
in an adjacent hex, the other refering to the hex it's in.

> So, I think these changes will make things better and more interesting for
> trade factions and for magic factions. War factions are war factions; I
> can't see any changes that change that too much. The actual code to do most
> of this stuff is written, it's just a matter of implementing it.

Yes, right now war factions are too powerful; if someone starts building
up troops at the start of the game, they rule the world.  This alone
makes things boring for the mages and traders; they just have no infulence,
unless they want to be the lowly vassal of some warlord.

Anyway, this is a great game, I hope it brings you lots of money some
day.

> Geoff

Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
From: SARIKAKIS ANDREAS <andrew@ergasya.tuc.gr>
Subject: Re: atlantis: horse assassins?
Date: Thu, 4 May 95 10:33:45 WETDST

>
>
>  Does an assassinating unit get a bonus for riding
>  a horse (and with the skill)? I know they do not
>  get an armor bonus, but I don't think the manual
>  mentions anything about having a horse.
>
>            - Cilion Highdale
>
   If this was allowed it would be a bug in the rules.If you can't sneak
   around wearing armor obviously you can't sneak in with a horse.

The working faction 181 		andrew@hra.ergasya.tuc.gr
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 08:57:29 -0400
From: nims@cris.com (Mike Inman)
Subject: Re: Atlantis Design

>> 1) Magic System: I think the current magic system is a bit too broad. There
>> are too many foundations, which leaves too much studying to do, and I can't
>> fill it all up with spells. I'm going to cut down to 4 foundations, which
>> will allow more spells per skill level. Also, with 4 foundations, I will be
>> able to provide areas for each combination of foundations.
>
>I sort of like having lots of different areas, but combinations sound
>good.

Again, I think that by reducing the number of foundations to four, but
requiring study for the cross-foundations you can have the best of both.
Single mages will take a looong time to learn everything, but the system
is simpler, and by studying two of the basic foundations, you will gain
insight into 5 of the 6 cross-foundation skills, giving a mage more insight
into what to study next.

>> 2) Production: I think I'm going to change the production of items to require
>> a location to be built for them. So, to produce iron, you would have to first
>> build a mine. For some items, this doesn't make sense (furs and fish).
>
>So how do you tell if the ground contains Iron?  Will there be a new
>Geologist skill?  ;)

I like this too, perhaps carpenters and shipbuilders could construct a
sawmill to process wood, and the bigger the sawmill, the more wood it
can process per turn.  Weaponsmiths might need a blacksmithery to make
swords, etc. etc.  Other than Iron, most things produced directly from
the land don't seem to need structures to process them.

>> 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.
>
>That sounds good; right now trading is not very effective; about the
>only thing worth trading with another faction is Wood for Iron;
>
>It seems like there should be a market for everything in every town and
>city, with the price that the town will pay varying with the distance
>from the nearest natural source.  And of course, towns should sell whatever
>can be produced locally fairly cheaply.  Then there would be more incentive for
>trade carvans, and a whole new social sytem would evolve around that.

I agree completely.  Monzon has a market for herbs, which are available
right outside, but no market for furs.  Even if they fetch a ridiculously
low price (1 SIL, or 0 SIL if there is a big surplus for sale), all
comodities should be tradeable with the townspeople.  The price could be
set according to:

1. The population, more citizens means higher demand means higher prices
2. The economy, if the citizens have more silver, they can pay more silver
3. Supply of the item, as an item's supply exceeds its "ideal" level for
   the town, the price drops, perhaps to 0 when the supply is double
   or perhaps triple the "ideal" level.  "Ideal" level could be different
   for each town.  A coastal town might want 2 units of fish per person,
   whereas an interior town might only want 1/10 unit of fish per person.
   Also, the town should "consume" a certian quantity of each commodity
   over time (perhaps 1/12 of the "ideal" supply level), creating new
   demand.  Like the supply cap, there should be a price cap, when supply
   falls to 0, the price might fix at 2x or maybe 3x the price at "ideal"
   levels of supply.  A linear transition on the price would seem to make
   sense, and reduce wild price fluctuations.

>> 4) New policy for Cities, Towns, and Villages: They will be inner locations
>> instead of full regions.
>
>Good idea.

Concur.

>> 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.
>
>Sounds great!  I think the market aspect of this game could and should be
>expanded considerably.

I agree, tying this in with the "market" ideas above.  Perhaps in the
"wilderness", "ideal" supply levels for most items would be 0 units per
peasant, creating 0 demand, thus 0 price, and no need to report it on the
area economic report.  Villages would increase demand for more items, and by
the time it becomes a city, there will be at least nominal demand for all
items in the game (perhaps 1 unit per 500 peasants, but still some demand).

>> 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.
>
>That seems a little odd; why shouldn't a War faction be able to buy
>swords and armor, or a magic faction be able to buy whatever resources
>it needs to cast it's spells?

I agree, this does seem odd.  Perhaps the War/Trade/Magic classifications
should be re-phrased War/Production/Magic, where War can Tax, Production
can Produce, and Magic can Cast Spells.  Let everyone buy and sell and
kill and die.  After all, what good are the spoils of war if you can't
trade them for something you like?

>> 6) Roads, rivers, and lakes may also be added.
>
>You should make the players build the roads, not to mention bridges
>over the rivers (you could make crossing a river cost an extra movement
>point, unless there is a natural ford (rare).  And there would have
>to be a bridge over the river for a road bonus to count.
>
>There are allready some lakes, or do you mean small bodies of water
>*within* hexes?  I suppose you could fish in the lakes and rivers,
>as well as boat on some of them.

Sounds interesting, but hard on the map-makers.

>> 7) A more extensive Underworld. It's not very interesting right now, but I
>> would like to develop it into a whole underground world.
>
>Yes!  One big dungeon with cool monsters and treasures.

Agreed, but limited interaction with the Overworld.  If players in the
Overworld can't just jump into the Underworld, the reverse should also
be true.  Perhaps players could build (at great expense) gateways between.

>>8) Make monsters stay away from civilized areas.
>
>That seems reasonable; it would also be cool if there were some more
>elaborate NPCs, like traders, or mages, or friendly monsters, that you could
>buy and sell info and goods with, or just outright hire (for a somewhat
>higher upkeep; you don't pay them, they leave).

Concur.

>> 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).
>
>I like being foreced to interact; I think some kind of restrictions are
>a good idea, though a bit more flexability and balance than the present
>system might be nice

I also believe the forced interaction is good.  However, War factions
seem to control the game right now, both from a Combat and an Economic
perspective.  I beleive that the different faction types should be more
equal in both arenas, making a new War faction sit up and respect an
established Trade or Magic faction, and not just because they have big
powerful War faction allies.

>> 10) Do people like the leader/normal unit system? I can scrap it, change
>> the skill level maxes, or whatever.
>
>It's not bad.  Maybe elaborate it a bit, I'm not sure just how.
>Maybe make the max skill level for non-specialties be 1 instead of 2;
>make Orcs 0 for all but combat.  You could make specialized leaders too.

I like the system also, but it is somewhat annoying that normal units can
only learn one skill.  If the unit lives that long, it should be able to
be trained to the best of its ability in many areas.  As has been pointed
out before, cannon fodder is important in winning battles, but I don't
think that all normal units should be restricted to being cannon fodder.
Especially for Trade and Magic Factions, being able to train your workers
in Combat/Riding/Bowmanship/Whatever during their spare time would seem
to reduce their vulnerability to random attack, especially by wandering
monsters and single warriors.

Perhaps create a full-skill map for all the races, restricting most
skills to L1, giving 3 or 4 skills L2 ability, and allowing one skill
to go to L3, so each "race" could be the best at one thing.  This would
encourage more recruiting expeditions, but still allow work to progress
on anything in any area with L1 units.

Being able to pick up leaders anywhere is convenient, but I believe it
would be more realistic if they were scarcer.  As valuable as they are,
I don't think you would find them in every swamp and desert hole.
Perhaps you should need OBS skill to find them among the common people.
OBS skill 0 might see 1 of 32 possible leaders, 1 will see 1 of 16,
2 1/8, 3 1/4, 4 1/2, 5 will see all of them.  If you can't see a leader,
obviously, you can't recruit them.  I think it would be more interesting
if the leaders carried a race also.  Perhaps this could be put to use in
teaching (+1 bonus for teaching, +2 bonus for teaching one's own race).
New players could be assigned a leader of a bastard race that is not
found outside Atlantis City.

>> 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 think it's very useful, but I think the avoid command should be split
>up into two different commands, one concerning a units reaction to things
>in an adjacent hex, the other refering to the hex it's in.

I think help from other regions adds to strategy and deceit.  Even units
without Stealth skill can hide themselves by staying in the next region.

>> So, I think these changes will make things better and more interesting for
>> trade factions and for magic factions. War factions are war factions; I
>> can't see any changes that change that too much. The actual code to do most
>> of this stuff is written, it's just a matter of implementing it.
>
>Yes, right now war factions are too powerful; if someone starts building
>up troops at the start of the game, they rule the world.  This alone
>makes things boring for the mages and traders; they just have no infulence,
>unless they want to be the lowly vassal of some warlord.

I agree.  One thought I had about War factions was that they might be
required to go up a "learning curve" like everyone else.  Combat L1 Taxers
might only earn 20 Sil for Taxing, they could still work to earn more, or
they can study to L2 and earn 40 Sil.  L3 earns 60, L4 80, and so on in a
linear fashion.  A badass on a horse with a sword might earn 180 Sil per
turn through intimidation, and still have the month left over to do other
things.  It is the "zero time" aspect of Taxing that makes it such a
big advantage for the War factions.  They can make money while on the move,
or while studying to further their skills.  Perhaps if they invest some
time in their troops, they won't be so quick to use them in battle or
beating up on the (also heavily studied and trained) mages and production
units.

>Anyway, this is a great game, I hope it brings you lots of money some
>day.

Concur.

>> Geoff
>
>Dave

Mike

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:41:16 -0400
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Changes

I didn't want to comment on most of Geoff's ideas, except to say that I
concur with the rest of the opinions, with some extra food for thought.

First, about the dominance of War factions.  In real life, trade factions
could survive because nations needed trade to survive.  If you made if so
that somehow the amount you can work is limited.  There is only so much
money that is available in an area, and I find it strange that any number of
people can make money from that area.  If you linked it, so that people
working "produced" items for the city (i.e. they are available for sale the
next turn) and then make a maximum amount of item that a city can use.  Then
let trade factions move these items, making room for more to be produced.

Also, cities should decrease in size, or die off if they don't interact with
traders.  Both of these ideas may be fairly difficult to implement, but the
thoughts should be considered when thinking about how to even it out.

Also, about having normal people learn more than one skill.  I liked the
idea of a chart of  abilities for each race, and wanted to add this:

I think that normal people should first have a maximum amount of skill
levels.  Then if they study a skill, then stop and go on to another skill,
they can't increase their level in the first skill (or can a much greater
cost.)

I also like the game, I'm just waiting for a price estimate (can anyone give
me any quotes from other games, for a ballpark figure?) so I can decide if
I'm able to play.

Thanks.
--
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: Fri, 5 May 1995 02:09:35 -0400
From: BlackFlash@aol.com
Subject: Atl-profundities on buildities

:)  Sorry for the Subject, its late and I couldn't help myself.

Regarding penalties for Steal and Assasinate orders against units in
buildings, I think it would be best to keep the procedure as simple as
possible, with a Stealth penalty of one or two.

Tearing Down Buildings.  Besides general mayhem, it is my understanding that
this was popular in the Middle Ages for the purpose of recovering valuable
building material (i.e., rocks) for use in new buildings.  Perhaps an
Atlantis order that would recover the stone invested in a building for free
use and transport?  Requiring the permission of the building's owner, via
flag or monthly order.  Not being as straightforward as torching the place
(Destroy order), it might require one man-month of unskilled work for each
unit of stone so recovered.  Maybe an extra unit of stone recovered for each
level of the Building skill.  Maybe requiring the building skill at all, for
game balance, but it doesn't seem an overly complex task.