ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #19

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 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.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:25:32
Subject: Re: Atl2 Design- Winter Mov

> I agree with Mike Hughes -- the best wording would be:
>
> The weather was clear; it will be winter next month.
>
> Perhaps the confusion comes because the reports are dated the first of
> the month.  That is, I get a report dated October 1, Year 1.  If it says
> " the weather is clear; it will be winter next month," then I could
> interpret it to mean that winter will start on November 1, when it
> actually means that winter starts NOW.  Perhaps it would help if the
> reports were dated the last day of the month.
>
> John Bollinger

This is a good summary of why I thought the original wording was unclear.  The
combination of the present tense and the date on results leads to this
confusion.  The "is" is easily misunderstood to apply to the orders one is
about to send in.

Like the others, I'd recommend that you change to wording to the above, and
change the date, too.  Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to alert
those who have taken themselves of the mailing lists, so I'd put an
explanation in the Times to ward off a slew of complaints come Monday's
results.

Tim
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Atl2 Design: Winter Moves
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 09:44:34 -0800

So, if I order my units to move on foot in Kashmari mountains in my
current orders (ie before April 2nd), will they succeed?

nope.

Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:07:30 +0200
Subject: ATLANTIS avoiding

I just read in the rules that avoiding units don't move to combat only if
their faction can't be spotted. If their faction is seen by the attacker, they
join the battle.

I suggest to replace "if the faction can be seen" with "if the UNIT can be
seen" because that would replace the HOLD order many players miss.

With that rule, avoiding level 0 stealth units would systematically join a
battle in their own hex, and avoid quitting it for other regions. As it is
now, the attacker has INTEREST not to send any observer in a battle, so the
avoiding adverse units won't defend !

I think avoiding could be used more interestingly (tactically) this way.

--
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: Mon, 24 Apr 95 10:54:43 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: ATLANTIS avoiding

--Boundary-9848030-0-0

The thinking behind that rule is that the attacker wants to attack as
many of the defender's units as he can. So, if you attack, you are
assured that you will attack every unit known to be in the faction you
attack, and you don't have too issue an attack order for every unit in
the region.

Russell originally had it planned that avoiding units would never be
pulled in unless attacked specifically. To attack every unit in a region
belonging to a certain faction, you would declare yourself hostile to
that faction. That isn't always effective though, because you might
initiate unwanted battles in other regions.

Avoid is meant mainly for high stealth units, and to hold units out of
battle when _you_ initiate the battle.

Geoff

--Boundary-9848030-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 24 Apr 1995 10:25:17                    Sent: 24 Apr 1995 10:24:54
From:"Eric Dedieu " <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: ATLANTIS avoiding
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net
X-Orcl-Application: X-Organization:  IMAG Institute, University of Grenoble

I just read in the rules that avoiding units don't move to combat only if
their faction can't be spotted. If their faction is seen by the attacker, they
join the battle.

I suggest to replace "if the faction can be seen" with "if the UNIT can be
seen" because that would replace the HOLD order many players miss.

I think avoiding could be used more interestingly (tactically) this way.

--
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

--Boundary-9848030-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 20:23:58 +0300
From: Jason Robinson <ewing@mkoski.otol.fi>
Subject: atlantis: Player list?

Would it be possible to get the player list-file
 posted to the mailing list every game-month?
 Or is it too big? Just thinking about the ppl
 without ftp access (like me.. ;) ).

- Ewing
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: atlantis: Player list?
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 19:34:07 -0700

I really don't want to gob things up any more than they
are, by sending the list to everyone each week. If you
ask me to send the list to you (hopefully not too often)
I will.

Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 21:17:00 -0700

Someone has proposed to me that units inside a building
cannot be assassinated or robbed, except by other units
in the same building. I think this is an interesting
idea, and could add more value to buildings than they
currently have.

Alternately, buildings could give a +1 or +2 bonus to
defense against such stealthy attacks.

I will probably implement something like this, but I
would like to hear what others think of the idea.

Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Building are safer
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:59:30 -0700
From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU>

It should provide some protection from the intruder.
People are normally safer in their home from armed attack
than out in the open public.
Perhaps a check to see if they get in undetected, based perhaps
on who is inside the building, whether there are people on guard
in the building, and maybe a function of how many people are
inside. Too few and it is easier to get in, too many and
there is easier to sneak past within a crowd.

Now, this is too complicated perhaps.
The additional defense will work similar to an attack defence
and should be easier to implement. It would serve the function
just as well as more complicated method.

Turncoat allies would not have this problem in getting in, so
could do it at regular defense values.

Anson Winsor    apwinsor@cs.unlv.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
From: adrian@per.dms.csiro.au
Subject: Atlantis 2.0 : Buildings
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 14:01:25 +0800 (WST)

I agree with the building idea.

Perhaps a stealth penalty for entering a building?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Smith    #44 Mutants
adrian@per.dms.csiro.au
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:46:01 --100
From: mickey@anacad.fr (Laurent ROCHETTE)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal

>> Alternately, buildings could give a +1 or +2 bonus to
>> defense against such stealthy attacks.
>>
>> I will probably implement something like this, but I
>> would like to hear what others think of the idea.

To assassinate or rob somebody in a building, you have first to enter
in the building. Each building must have a kind of "observation" to play
against the stealth (discretion) of the person who wants to enter in the
building. It's more difficult to enter in a castle than in a hut.

If he success to enter, you can play a normal assassinate (or rob) taking
the higher observation level in the building.

Mickey

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 09:09:34 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Atl: Another Design Proposal

Consider the following situation: Unit A is on guard in region X.  Unit B,
which belongs to a neutral or unfriendly faction wishes to tax in that
region.  Therefore, Unit B attacks Unit A.  Now suppose Unit A is routed
but not destroyed.  Currently, it will remain in the same region, and
its guard flag will remain set.  Thus, Unit B has won the battle but still
cannot tax.

I propose the following rules change to rectify the situation: a unit that
is routed in a battle automatically has guard 0 set, and may not set guard 1
during the remainder of the turn.

Also, for your consideration: should routed units remain in the same region
(if they were not otherwise moving) ?

Cheers,
John Bollinger
Melvin's Marauders (105)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 08:57:23 -0500
From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal

Geoff wrote:

It makes sense that the assassin/burglar must be in the same place as the
victim.  Isn't it still true, however, that all units inside a building
are automatically visible?  It seems to me that this would make it
impossible for any assassination or burglary to occur in a building.
Perhaps the automatic visibility rule should be rescinded.

>Alternately, buildings could give a +1 or +2 bonus to
>defense against such stealthy attacks.

How do you mean?  A +1 or +2 to the defenders effective OBS would be very
strong medicine -- consider that with a +2 OBS, one need only have a level
3 observer in the building to foil ALL attempts at stealing or assassination.
Alternatively, a combat bonus only makes sense for assassination attempts,
not burglaries.

>I will probably implement something like this, but I
>would like to hear what others think of the idea.

I think that the idea is good in principle, but that the implementation
should be carefully considered.

John Bollinger
Melvin's Marauders (105)

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:24:20 -0500
From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal

At 9:17 PM 4/26/95, Geoff Dunbar wrote:
>Someone has proposed to me that units inside a building
>cannot be assassinated or robbed, except by other units
>in the same building. I think this is an interesting
>idea, and could add more value to buildings than they
>currently have.
>
>Alternately, buildings could give a +1 or +2 bonus to
>defense against such stealthy attacks.
>
>I will probably implement something like this, but I
>would like to hear what others think of the idea.
>
>Geoff

I don't think buildings should provide immunity from stealthy attack. In
real life, it is indeed possible for burglars to sneak into your house. I
don't see why Atlantis should work any other way. I do like the bonus idea
though.

Josh Mosher

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicholas Jost -- Programmer <nick@av1.vrx.vhi.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0 design: Proposal
Date: 23 Apr 1995 20:11:43 -0700

> Someone has proposed to me that units inside a building
> cannot be assassinated or robbed, except by other units
> in the same building. I think this is an interesting
> idea, and could add more value to buildings than they
> currently have.
>
> Alternately, buildings could give a +1 or +2 bonus to
> defense against such stealthy attacks.
>
> I will probably implement something like this, but I
> would like to hear what others think of the idea.
>
> Geoff
>
I think this is a great idea.  Right now building something
is just not worth it.  If buildings are going to have a
bonus against stealth attacks, does that mean buildings
are going to have an OBSERVE bonus?

This would be very interesting especially in the case of
say TOWERS which you would figure would give a observation
bonus

Nick Jost
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 14:25:06 PDT
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: 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:

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

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.

With a four foundation system, there is still some breadth, especially as
your mage acquires more skills. But I should be able to totally fill in the
graph, and have a unique area for each specific combination of foundations.

]I had figured that you already were doing both of things inside the current
]magic system.  I just naturally expected multiple foundation requirements for
]certain spells; and some of the production skill descriptions I've seen make
it
]clear that there are magical components required for some spells (no spoilers
]here for those of you who haven't seen them).

Well, there are multi-foundation spells, it's just too hard to cover all the
possibilities. Also, I was thinking of having some items that act solely
as material components (as opposed to a sword being a requirement for making
a magical sword).

]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.

Geoff