ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #16

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 02:53:51 +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: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Wandering monsters
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:36:58 -0600 (CST)

Where to begin?  Since this is the design list, lets talk about the
purpose of wandering monsters in the game.  One may think they add
a bit of spice and randomness to the game.  Well certainly the
spice part is good, but does one really need the randomness?  With
some 300-400 factions in the game I don't think we need anymore
randomness.  So IMHO, that leaves how spicy should the spice be?
Again IMHO, this is just to spicy at least for an unprovoked
assault:

-------------------
Battles during turn:
Pride of Lions (445) attacks Elite Guards (794) in Adrano (44,54)!

Attackers:
Pride of Lions (445), 5 lions.

Defenders:
Elite Guards (794), 10 high elves, combat 1.
Elite Guards (789), 10 high elves, combat 1.

Pride of Lions (445) gets a free round of attacks.
Pride of Lions (445) shoots a Fireball, killing 19.
Elite Guards (794) loses 20.

Elite Guards (794) is routed!
Pride of Lions (445) gets a free round of attacks.
Elite Guards (794) loses 0.

Total Casualties:
Elite Guards (794) loses 20.
Pride of Lions (445) loses 0.
-----------------

In a few more turns 20 men would not be a big deal, but right now that was
half my people.  Since the other half of my people are stuck due
to the unexpected winter in a region that has no taxs availible
and negative wages due to the pillage bug...

Well anyway I think you should have to attack these wandering monsters.
The monsters could do something like guard a region, or pillage, or use
up the resorces. For example these lions could have been eating the
horses so that one would have incentive to attack them.

One more thing,  lions shooting Fireballs?  The bear strengh spell would
have been more realistic, of coarse they may have had that too for all
I know.  One things for sure I don't want to see a dragon.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:06:12 GMT
From: bangerte@eng.utah.edu
Subject: Tax/Pillage

I for one do not agree with the suggested changes that only a war
faction may pillage and all factions can tax.  How long will it be
cost effective to be a war faction if you go around destroying
resources?  Not very long I can guarantee.  It will be enough of
a struggle to have a resource base to fight off enemy war factions
from moving into your area, pillaging, and then running off again.
Why would anyone in their right mind wish to wipe out the resources
in their own area (they won't have very many trade faction allies if
they do).  And if your curious, yes I am in the playtest, but more so,
I'm not a war faction or a trade faction, so I have nothing to gain
either way, and thus am able to maintain an unbiased opinion.

Bryce Bangerter
bangerte@eng.utah.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 09:04:39 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Atlantis 2.0: Faction types

Well, the faction type issue has come up (I was expecting this earlier).
I have thought about this a fair amount, so here are some thoughts.

First, here are some ways that factions _could_ have been handled in
Atlantis 2.0:
1) Same as Atlantis 1, no restrictions.

2) Russell's initial idea (Russell Wallace, the creator and designer of
Atlantis) was the 3 basic faction types (War, Magic, Trade). You decide
at the beginning which type to play, and can never change.

3) The current system, of hybrid faction types.

4) Faction points. There are a number of ways this can be handled. One
system would be that a faction gets, say 10 faction points. Each skill
this faction learns costs 1 point, and each mage costs one point. These
points could either be calculated on the fly, or explicitly claimed
(CLAIM LUMBERJACK, or something like that). This is the system Russell
currently favors (at least the last time we discussed it). There are
many possible variations on the faction point system.

5) Some sort of modification within the game, to limit the number of
skills a player can acquire. Perhaps limit the number of leaders that
a player can control, and require that normal units be taught. Or make
the player build "libraries" to gain skills, and limit the number of
libraries that he has.

Here are my thoughts on each:
1) The problem I have here is that Atlantis 1 factions all tend to be
pretty similar. Atlantis 1 is practically a wargame, with little
cooperation necessary. The only reasons to work with other players
are a) one faction can only have 3 mages, and b) your reports and
orders get too long if you conquer the whole world yourself.

2) Requires the player to make an initial decision, before playing,
which he is stuck with. As far as I can tell, has no benefit over
#3.

3) Of course, I like this system, because I came up with it. It's a
pretty simple way to create varying faction types. There are some
negatives, though. First, it places some arbitrary limits on players,
which can be frustrating. Second, there is some of the problem that
factions will be come very similar. It's just that there will be
three types (or maybe six, I don't know how viable the hybrids are
in the long run). A player can't sculpt his faction to be just what
he wants.

4) A well designed faction point system will allow the player to
build just the faction he wants, while limiting what he can do. For
now, we'll pretend that we have a well designed faction point system
(although I only have ideas at this point). The negatives, in my
opinion, are that faction points are just as arbitrary as #3, but
they introduce some extra complexity, outside the framework of the
game. I think it will be much harder to manage your faction under a
faction point system, because it will be some amount of work to
figure out exactly what you allowed to do.

5) In some ways, an idea like this is very appealling. It fits in
with the game, and isn't some mysterious rule telling you what you
can and can't do. On the other hand, it will probably radically
change the game, and be very difficult to come up with a good and
balanced system.

Geoff

----------------------------------------------------------
From: Lewis Haddow <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:52:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Atlantis: Apend?

My Email software has an option for "copy to self", so that I can
store all messages I send, and send them again in edited form if
necessary.  I thought this was a standard feature.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:39:42 -0500
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage

>Geoff (or anyone else who has an arguement) would you have any problem with
>changing the faction limits to ignore taxation(all units can tax) and
>instead restrict pillaging (only war units can pillage).
>{Besides the obvious objection of too much to do, not enough time :P}
>
>It seems to me that this is much more logical.  Pillaging is associated with
>war, while taxing occurs in any type of situation...
>
>END TEXT
>---
>Perhaps in our day and age  it seems that taxing occurs in any type of
>situation, but it really doesn't.
>What would you say to the IRS if they couldn't send the police (war units)
>after you to force you to pay taxes or go to jail?
>
>Really, taxes are ONLY collected by FORCE!
>If we aren't forced to pay taxes, then we simply won't.
>
>Therefore, only war factions can be capable of collecting taxes.
>All other efforts to collect will be ignored by wise thinking people.

Taxes are not entirely due to force.  People often pay taxes with the
realization that they will improve the country(add roads, improve security,
etc.).  Pillaging is definately more forceful then taxing.  Perhaps a
feature could be added that would require that a certain amount of taxes is
"lost" (spent on infrastructure - if you build buildings, or some other
country oriented thing, then it is taken from this money.).

The end result is that it is better to limit pillaging than taxing.  Maybe
it is true that taxing is a military-oriented action (not that I think it
is) but pillaging is much "worse."  Unless war factions are going to be
allowed to pillage and tax, while other can't do either, than pillaging
should be what is limited.
>
>Anson Winsor
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 12:19:18 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage

--Boundary-7349903-0-0

Hmm, I tried to respond to this once already, but I must not have changed
the To: line correctly.

Anyways, in my opinion, TAX should definitely be limited to War factions.
War factions are supposed to deal with owning and controlling land, which,
in Atlantis terms, means that they TAX it. If other factions were also
allowed to TAX, this practically eliminates the War faction, since
pillaging has pretty limited use.

Geoff

--Boundary-7349903-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 07 Mar 1995 11:42:04                    Sent: 07 Mar 1995 11:40:54
From:"Joshua Higham (NMH96" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage
Reply-to: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu

--Boundary-7349903-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:50:48 -0700
From: "David R. Shook" <shook@ibg.colorado.edu>
Subject: Ruling the world

It seems to me that questions of who can tax or pillage are somewhat
moot, given that even a relatively large alliance (10 factions maybe)
would still not be able to rule the world.  Suppose there are maybe
5000 _land_ hexes, roughly 50% of which are worth taxing or producing
from; no there is no way that 10 factions could reasonably take advantage
of more than about 500 land hexes, giving them a practical empire
size of about 1000 land hexes.  If they try to control more territory than
this, they'll wind up being spread to thin and their opponents can
simply out-produce them.   Of course this empire could do a lot of pillaging,
but I'm dubious that this would allow world domination in the long run.
(incidently, including possible fishery production from the sea only
makes things worse, expect at a slower rate, since the sea are presumably
less producitve than the land hexes.)

So what are those glory-mad megalomaniacs who want to Rule The World! (tm)
to do?  I think it would be nifty if there was some way by which you
could increase your faction maximums.  Perhaps some "management" skill
that would be slow and expensive to learn, or some kind of high powered
magic.  I realize that this is supposed to be an "open ended" game,
but hey, there's balance and then there's keeping them down on the
farm forever.

Equal Rights for Megalomaniacs!!

(hey, not that I'm one, I'm just a peaceful trader type, really!)

Dave
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:16:41 -0500
From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96))
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage

>
>I for one do not agree with the suggested changes that only a war
>faction may pillage and all factions can tax.  How long will it be
>cost effective to be a war faction if you go around destroying
>resources?  Not very long I can guarantee.  It will be enough of
>a struggle to have a resource base to fight off enemy war factions
>from moving into your area, pillaging, and then running off again.
>Why would anyone in their right mind wish to wipe out the resources
>in their own area (they won't have very many trade faction allies if
>they do).  And if your curious, yes I am in the playtest, but more so,
>I'm not a war faction or a trade faction, so I have nothing to gain
>either way, and thus am able to maintain an unbiased opinion.

Well I'm not saying that Factions have to pillage.  I'm just saying that
pillaging is a more reasonable thing to limit.

Also, to Geoff.  While I like your idea, I agree it will be very hard to
balance.  In addition, I'm not interested in making many alliances.  I will
do some, but I am more interested in the dynamics of managing all the
different units.  Like I have previously noted, I am interested in building
an empire.  The problem is that if I get too powerful, I can be stopped if
everyone decides to stop cooperating with me.  I want to have the ability to
produce at least a few items (buildings/weapons/armor).  Thanks.

>
>Bryce Bangerter
>bangerte@eng.utah.edu
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 13:34:08 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Ruling the world

--Boundary-9020543-0-0

I don't really think anyone will have a problem with the 100 region rule,
unless they write a very good automated Atlantis player. Heck, in Atlantis
1, I have enough trouble writing orders to control just one region!

The only way I can see someone ruling the world is if they install their
faction as the ruling faction, while other factions (many other factions)
are the governors of various parts of Atlantis, paying a tithe to the
ruling faction. (Sort of like the Roman Empire). Although this is a
logical possibility, I think most Atlantis players would rather fight
and be exterminated than put up with this. It would be kind of cool if
this happened, though.

Geoff

--Boundary-9020543-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 07 Mar 1995 13:13:17                    Sent: 07 Mar 1995 13:11:23
From:"David R. Shook" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Ruling the world
Cc: tajones@beagle.Colorado.EDU
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net

Equal Rights for Megalomaniacs!!

(hey, not that I'm one, I'm just a peaceful trader type, really!)

Dave

--Boundary-9020543-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Re: Ruling the world
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 16:07:35 -0600 (CST)

David R. Shook writes:
>
>
> It seems to me that questions of who can tax or pillage are somewhat
> moot, given that even a relatively large alliance (10 factions maybe)
> would still not be able to rule the world.  Suppose there are maybe
> 5000 _land_ hexes, roughly 50% of which are worth taxing or producing
> from; no there is no way that 10 factions could reasonably take advantage
> of more than about 500 land hexes, giving them a practical empire
> size of about 1000 land hexes.  If they try to control more territory than
> this, they'll wind up being spread to thin and their opponents can
> simply out-produce them.   Of course this empire could do a lot of pillaging,
> but I'm dubious that this would allow world domination in the long run.
> (incidently, including possible fishery production from the sea only
> makes things worse, expect at a slower rate, since the sea are presumably
> less producitve than the land hexes.)

I really must dispute this.  Currenly atlantis only has 6 exits from
atlantis city this allows for six different alliaces to take over
the entraces into the world.  Why move away from the worlds enterences?
You lose study time if you move and there will be less people to
interact with. It doesn't matter how big atlanis is,
currently if your alliance can control the regions in a two or three hex
radius around an exit point (less than 50 hexes even with no oceans)
then you have basicly won.  It may be feasible to then try to take
out one of the other alliaces that control an exit point.

Control of that many units and the time needed to attack another one
of these super alliances is not my idea of fun.  Some kind of
teleportation or gate spell may make this more feasable.

> So what are those glory-mad megalomaniacs who want to Rule The World! (tm)
> to do?  I think it would be nifty if there was some way by which you
> could increase your faction maximums.

Me too, but this would bias the game even more toward older factions.

> Perhaps some "management" skill
> that would be slow and expensive to learn, or some kind of high powered
> magic.  I realize that this is supposed to be an "open ended" game,
> but hey, there's balance and then there's keeping them down on the
> farm forever.

I really don't see how this is an open ended game.  New factions will
have no way of competing with established factions they will basicly
live or die at whim of the established factions.

Lets face just about eveything in this game has a military purpose
either you are supporting a war faction, you are a war faction, or
your a target waiting to die.

I think the killer here is taxation, its too easy to get money
that way then buy more units to get more money...can you say
expotential growth?

I'm not saying the conflict is bad, but this is defanatly not
an open ended game.

> Equal Rights for Megalomaniacs!!
>
> (hey, not that I'm one, I'm just a peaceful trader type, really!)

Me too.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Lewis Haddow <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:18:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage

It was recently said:
> >
> >It seems to me that this is much more logical.  Pillaging is associated with
> >war, while taxing occurs in any type of situation...
> >
But building forts and war galleys and making weapons are very much
associated with war, and yet War factions cannot do these things!

Lewis
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Lewis Haddow <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:21:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Tax/Pillage

>Perhaps in our day and age  it seems that taxing occurs in any type of
> >situation, but it really doesn't.
> >What would you say to the IRS if they couldn't send the police (war units)
> >after you to force you to pay taxes or go to jail?
> >
> >Really, taxes are ONLY collected by FORCE!
> >If we aren't forced to pay taxes, then we simply won't.
> >

Give me liberty or give me death.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Lewis Haddow <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:16:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Ruling the world

Mark Hesidence writes:

> Lets face just about eveything in this game has a military purpose
> either you are supporting a war faction, you are a war faction, or
> your a target waiting to die.
>
>
I don't agree.  Not everyone is power-hungry.  What about small
factions such as adventurers, long-distance trainers, wandering
scholars and so on, who could be friendly to a few people but
basically do their own thing, at the mercy of the Atlantis environment
and its natives?  There is plenty of opportunity for role-playing in
this respect.  Also, within an alliance there are bound to be power
struggles and schisms developing as the game progresses.  I think
that the world is so large and complex that any player who trys to
maintain a static society is in need of getting a life.  All empires
crumble eventually.
Lewis.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Hesidence <hesiden@Stoner.COM>
Subject: Re: Ruling the world
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:32:37 -0600 (CST)

Lewis Haddow writes:
>
> Mark Hesidence writes:
>
> > Lets face just about eveything in this game has a military purpose
> > either you are supporting a war faction, you are a war faction, or
> > your a target waiting to die.
> >
> >
> I don't agree.  Not everyone is power-hungry.

Doesn't take everyone, just one alliance.  The bigger the alliance
the faster it will wipe out the competion.

> What about small factions such as adventurers, long-distance trainers,
> wandering scholars and so on, who could be friendly to a few people but
> basically do their own thing, at the mercy of the Atlantis environment
> and its natives?

As I said these will either be targets waiting to die, or they
will be supporting a war faction.

> There is plenty of opportunity for role-playing in
> this respect.

It all depends on what the alliace controlling the area will
allow.  Certainly it will not allow any threats to its exsistance
and thus there is not really much conflict any more and the
game is over.

> Also, within an alliance there are bound to be power
> struggles and schisms developing as the game progresses.

Oh yes, I've seen it before in other multi-player games I've
played.  Once an alliance has wiped out (or almost wiped out)
this competition often some alliance member would turn on the
others for a sneak attack.

> I think
> that the world is so large and complex that any player who trys to
> maintain a static society is in need of getting a life.  All empires
> crumble eventually.

Surely such a player would need to get a life, but most likely he
would be declaired winner and the game would start over.
----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [Atl2 - Design] Tax/Pillage
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 18:21:04 -0800
From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU>

When you pillage,you should expect that those around you take notice.
When we talk (not whine) about what to do about the pillagers,
this is only normal for mutal self defence.
After you pillage all the area around us, and you have grown with your
illgotten gains, and you see us nearby, we can only be on defence
or put a prior offence to stop our own future demise.

Not that we won't take your word that you won't go after us.
Oh no, we believe that you will leave us alone. Maybe go after
others, but not us. Sure, we are special and you will leave us
alone. Why would you want our meager wealth? We can see you are
only going to pillage someone else, why should we get involved
sooner...Because, by the time you get to us, it will be too late!!

If you pillage, expect people to take notice. Expect some of the
players to band together to wipe out a scurge to all Atlantis.
We will not wait until its too late to do something about you.