ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #15 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 06:40:52 +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: 2 Mar 1995 11:03:49 -0800 From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com> Subject: Re: Faction Types Reply to: RE>>Faction Types Mark Hesidence wrote: (cut) > Harm? Thats hard to say. What defense does a trade faction have > against a war faction if it decides to double cross? If I'm a > trade faction how much trust should I put in a war faction to > defend me from other war factions? I rather depend on my own > skill than someone elses (thus I'm not a trade faction) but that > doesn't mean I don't want to produce things or use magic and > I'm not going to carve out much on an empire as a generic faction. (cut) > Cities have quite a large tax base, Seldmere tax is over 20,000 > and towns seem to have over $5000. This would make them perfect > HQ's for a trade faction and at least one spot where he could feel > safe from a double cross. Nothing prevents a trade or magic faction from maintaining armed troops for defense (or attack), just from taxing with them. As far as feeling safe in a city, the large tax base makes cities prime targets for war factions, especially any where the city guards have been defeated. In order to tax in a city, all the city guards have to be killed first, so a trade or magic faction would have to provide any and all guard units to protect itself. This has all been discussed on this list before the game started. I actually lean toward your point of view, but I am willing to go along and see how it goes. Like you, I would like to experience all aspects of the game. I pushed to try to allow war and trade factions to keep trained mage units when the change faction types, just not do anything magical with them while a trade/war faction. As you can tell, I was unsuccessful. Geoff seems to be leaning toward a more diplomatic game, forcing factions to rely on one another through the faction type system. Comments? Mike Hughes ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "LEWIS.J.HADDOW" <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:09:57 +0000 Subject: Re: Faction Types I think that the faction types are fine as they are. There is a necessity for plenty of diplomacy , which I like. Also, it would be bad management to change a trade faction's taxable regions to 1, a war faction's mage limit to 1, etc, because it is obvious that 1 mage is worth far more than 1 taxable region. I wonder, is the limit of 100 taxable regions purely arbitrary? Is it likely than any one faction could become that powerful? If a war faction has no capacity for trading, does that exclude it from producing swords, mining, lumberjacking, hunting, herb gathering or building? LH ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 19:54:01 -0500 From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96)) Subject: Re: Faction Types > >I think that the faction types are fine as they are. There is a >necessity for plenty of diplomacy , which I like. Also, it would be >bad management to change a trade faction's taxable regions to 1, a >war faction's mage limit to 1, etc, because it is obvious that 1 mage >is worth far more than 1 taxable region. I wonder, is the limit of >100 taxable regions purely arbitrary? Is it likely than any one >faction could become that powerful? If a war faction has no capacity >for trading, does that exclude it from producing swords, mining, >lumberjacking, hunting, herb gathering or building? I agree that faction types should be in place, to encourage cooperation. However, I think that everyone should be able to do a little of everything. Perhaps try this models Produce Reg Pillage Reg Mage ------------------------------------- War 10 100 2 Magic 10 0* 7(10?) Trade 100 0* 2 War/Trade 30 30 1 War/Magic 5 30 3(5?) Magic/Trade 30 0* 3(5?) Generic 10 10 2 *I think that all factions should be able to tax, and faction types put a limit on Pillaging. >LH > > -- "Knowledge is the key to the Universe" - Someone; I can't remember who. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 00:24:04 -0500 From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher) Subject: Re: Faction Types At 12:09 PM 3/2/95, LEWIS.J.HADDOW wrote: >faction could become that powerful? If a war faction has no capacity >for trading, does that exclude it from producing swords, mining, >lumberjacking, hunting, herb gathering or building? >LH War faction _do_ have a capacity to trade: they can buy and sell goods. They _cannot_ make them though. Anything that requires the produce or build orders is out. I can't remember about hunting though. Josh Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 00:18:52 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Percival White <dpwhite@THUNDER.LakeheadU.CA> Subject: Re: Faction Types [snip] > [snip] If a war faction has no capacity > for trading, does that exclude it from producing swords, mining, > lumberjacking, hunting, herb gathering or building? As it stands now, you cannot issue PRODUCE or BUILD orders without having some combination of trade in your faction type... Daniel. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: "LEWIS.J.HADDOW" <9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:51:44 +0000 Subject: Re: Faction Types Josh wrote: > War faction _do_ have a capacity to trade: they can buy and sell goods. > They _cannot_ make them though. Anything that requires the produce or build > orders is out. I can't remember about hunting though. > Does this mean that war factions cannot build their own castles and ships? Surely such activities are a vital part of war? What about vikings, who want to go pillaging? Lewis ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Mar 1995 15:27:04 -0800 From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com> Subject: Re: Faction Types Reply to: RE>>Faction Types Lewis J. Haddow wrote: > Does this mean that war factions cannot build their own castles and > ships? Surely such activities are a vital part of war? What about > vikings, who want to go pillaging? Yes, this means that war factions can not build their own structures or ships. They can't build their own weapons or armor either, all vital parts of war. The point of the faction system is to force players to ally with other faction types. You need to either ally with a pure trade faction or run a war/trade faction in order to provide your troops with arms, armor, ships, and castles. Vikings can pillage to their hearts content as long as they are skilled in combat and belong to a war faction. Mike ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 18:27:01 -0600 (CST) From: <carioca@io.com> Subject: Re: Atlantean Enquirer Mappr On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Peter Fleming wrote: > Hi, > The Atlantean Enquirer Mapper (for Windows) is moving into it's final > version, due next week. It now has Flags, and a Large Strategic Map. > Any suggestions for improvements, additions and other features, please > email me Soon. As i hope to upload it to some site next week. > Oh, and any suggestions for where to upload it to... > -banjo > > You colud probably put it here on io.com SJG wouldn't mind ---------------------------------------------------------- From: 9235367@arran.sms.edinburgh.ac.uk Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 18:17:49 +0000 Subject: Re: Faction Types It seems that being a pure war faction early in the game is a very bad strategy, as you loose a great number of skill options without having the might to make use of the extended taxation abilities. Lewis. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Geoff Dunbar <atlantis@rahul.net> Subject: Atlantis 2.0: atl-design list Date: Sun, 05 Mar 95 21:57:06 -0800 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich) Subject: Atlantis: Apend? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 21:41:55 -0600 (CST) After my last turn got sent in, I realized that I had forgotten one line. It was rather important, and I began to wonder why there is nothing that would allow say: #ATLANTIS 40 APPEND Unit xxx Attack yyy or some such, which would allow you to add a few lines to what's been sent in, rather than needing to retype the entire turn over again. I'm not sure how hard this would be, but would anyone else find it useful? Also, if this command was possible, would there be a way to allow overwriting of only selected parts of the turn (ie. If you give new orders for a unit, they will be carried out, but orders for unnamed units will stay the same as the first turn sheet)? Just some thoughts. -- Any views I express are probably my own... Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them! Timothy Ulrich tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------------------------------------------------------- From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich) Subject: Atlantis: Apend? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 21:41:55 -0600 (CST) After my last turn got sent in, I realized that I had forgotten one line. It was rather important, and I began to wonder why there is nothing that would allow say: #ATLANTIS 40 APPEND Unit xxx Attack yyy or some such, which would allow you to add a few lines to what's been sent in, rather than needing to retype the entire turn over again. I'm not sure how hard this would be, but would anyone else find it useful? Also, if this command was possible, would there be a way to allow overwriting of only selected parts of the turn (ie. If you give new orders for a unit, they will be carried out, but orders for unnamed units will stay the same as the first turn sheet)? Just some thoughts. -- Any views I express are probably my own... Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them! Timothy Ulrich tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Atlantis: Apend? Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 20:35:55 -0800 From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU> Sender: matthew@clark.net After my last turn got sent in, I realized that I had forgotten one line. It was rather important, and I began to wonder why there is nothing that would allow say: #ATLANTIS 40 APPEND Unit xxx Attack yyy or some such, which would allow you to add a few lines to what's been sent in, rather than needing to retype the entire turn over again. I'm not sure how hard this would be, but would anyone else find it useful? Also, if this command was possible, would there be a way to allow overwriting of only selected parts of the turn (ie. If you give new orders for a unit, they will be carried out, but orders for unnamed units will stay the same as the first turn sheet)? Just some thoughts. -- Any views I express are probably my own... Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them! Timothy Ulrich tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu One way to help yourself is to send the first message to yourself also and then you can edit it for changes and send it back out again. This would stop you from having to retype it. At least I can copy and paste messages via windows on my computer. Anson Winsor ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:57:58 -0500 From: jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu (Joshua Higham (NMH96)) Subject: 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... Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Tax/Pillage Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 21:44:03 -0800 From: Anson Winsor <apwinsor@span.CS.UNLV.EDU> EMAIL TEXT From: "Joshua Higham (NMH96" <jhigham@k12.oit.umass.edu> 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. Anson Winsor Up