ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #11

From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt)

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:36:57 +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: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:30:28 -0500
From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

At 1:48 PM 2/8/95, Larry Morris wrote:

>> 3) Defenders can be drawn out of buildings by attacking in an
>> adjacent region.
>
>This seems like the biggest problem. Suggestion: any unit on GUARD
>status will not leave the region. Thus castle troops can be placed
>on guard and won't be distracted; mounted support troops simply
>don't GUARD and are ready to be drawn into battles.

I really don't have an opinion on the gathering units idea--it's a
fascinating concept, but I have no idea how this will work in practice. I
do like Larry's solution to the problem of being drawn out of buildings.
Guarding would be an excellent way to keep units where you want them,
whether or not they are in buildings. This makes sense in terms of realism
too--How are guards supposed to watch for trespassers if they are running
off to fight at a moment's notice?

Josh Mosher

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 13:34:45 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

--Boundary-8479734-0-0

]> To be fair, here are some pluses:
]> 1) Makes synchronizing an attack from multiple regions possible.
]> 2) Eliminates some "guess where the enemy is" situations.
]>
]It also helps make up for Atlantis having no "repulse" combat rule,
]where an unsuccessful invader is forced back to his original hex.

This is no longer true in Atlantis 2. On guard units will forbid
units entry into their region, if they are Unfriendly to the units.
The ADVANCE order is required to attack in this case.

Geoff

--Boundary-8479734-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 08 Feb 1995 12:58:22                    Sent: 08 Feb 1995 12:56:49
From:"Larry Morris" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net

Larry here, (Crimson Robes)
Regarding the neighbor-combat controversy:

> 1) It allows factions to hide the number of troops they have
> guarding a border, by putting them behind the front line.

I don't see this as a big problem, just means invaders have to
scout better.

> 2) It doesn't fit with the policy of units only interacting
> with units in the same region.

True...but war breaks lots of peacetime rules.

> 3) Defenders can be drawn out of buildings by attacking in an
> adjacent region.

This seems like the biggest problem. Suggestion: any unit on GUARD
status will not leave the region. Thus castle troops can be placed
on guard and won't be distracted; mounted support troops simply
don't GUARD and are ready to be drawn into battles.
>
> To be fair, here are some pluses:
> 1) Makes synchronizing an attack from multiple regions possible.
> 2) Eliminates some "guess where the enemy is" situations.
>
It also helps make up for Atlantis having no "repulse" combat rule,
where an unsuccessful invader is forced back to his original hex.

I think the "there&back" rule does increase the importance of horses
(even for troops with no official riding skill) and weaken defense
a bit; but this balances increased benefits of buildings and "hidden
defense" that strengthen the defense. I think we should see how this
really plays before changing it.

But see if you like the GUARD==no move suggestion.

Crimson Robes.

--Boundary-8479734-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 13:40:53 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

--Boundary-8479886-0-0

]> 3) Defenders can be drawn out of buildings by attacking in an
]> adjacent region.
]
]This seems like the biggest problem. Suggestion: any unit on GUARD
]status will not leave the region. Thus castle troops can be placed
]on guard and won't be distracted; mounted support troops simply
]don't GUARD and are ready to be drawn into battles.

The problem with this is that sometimes you might have good troops
on guard, that you want to have fight in other regions. You would
have to form another unit to be on guard.

There really should be another flag to determine whether units will
move out for battle, if the system stays. Of course, that adds more
complexity. I'm really wondering if the benefits outweigh the
negatives.

Geoff

--Boundary-8479886-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Larry here, (Crimson Robes)
Regarding the neighbor-combat controversy:

> 1) It allows factions to hide the number of troops they have
> guarding a border, by putting them behind the front line.

I don't see this as a big problem, just means invaders have to
scout better.

> 2) It doesn't fit with the policy of units only interacting
> with units in the same region.

True...but war breaks lots of peacetime rules.

> 3) Defenders can be drawn out of buildings by attacking in an
> adjacent region.

But see if you like the GUARD==no move suggestion.

Crimson Robes.

--Boundary-8479886-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1995 17:27:56 -0800
From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

Reply to:   RE>>Atlantis 2.0- Possible

> There really should be another flag to determine whether units will
> move out for battle, if the system stays. Of course, that adds more
> complexity. I'm really wondering if the benefits outweigh the
> negatives.

An alternate solution might be a new flag called HOLD.  Units with the HOLD
flag on (HOLD 1) will not support combat in other sectors.  This would allow a
faction to decide exactly which unit(s) are too valuable to risk supporting
neighboring sectors.  This solution would decrease the complexity of the task,
as all other units would be assumed to be available.

Example: The owner of a building could set HOLD 1 so the faction would not
lose control of the building, while all other units are available to support.

Comments?

Mike Hughes

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 17:33:38 EST
From: lam@eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

Crimson Robes here.
More on GUARD flag to restrict move-to-combat:
> The problem with this is that sometimes you might have good troops
> on guard, that you want to have fight in other regions. You would
> have to form another unit to be on guard.
>
Sure...but considering it only takes one peasant one month to learn
to guard a region (these peasants are real wimps, eh?) that doesn't
seem to be much of a limitation. GUARD isn't exactly the most useful
command anyway (judging from A1.1 experience...if ya don't want them
to tax your region, ya just kill them) and it'll most likely
be used just to set roadblocks. Seems like we might overload the
meaning and not need the complexity of (gaaak) another flag.

Using GUARD certainly has fewer drawbacks than the current method
of keeping them home: the AVOID flag. What, just because we don't
want to ride halfway across creation to your battle, we're not
allowed to stomp this spy here at home?!

Re territory defense:
I realize ADVANCE is necessary to invade a hostile/unfriendly region
now, but pretty soon any military force will be using ADVANCE. If I'm
trying to defend a region, the auto-attack may spank them, but it
won't send them home; the survivors are still there looking at my
region. With the neighboring-region combat, I can deploy my scouts
forward and try to stop them one hex further out.

Crimson Robes.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 15:23:44 PST
From: "GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM" <GDUNBAR@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

--Boundary-8482845-0-0

]I realize ADVANCE is necessary to invade a hostile/unfriendly region
]now, but pretty soon any military force will be using ADVANCE. If I'm
]trying to defend a region, the auto-attack may spank them, but it
]won't send them home; the survivors are still there looking at my
]region. With the neighboring-region combat, I can deploy my scouts
]forward and try to stop them one hex further out.

I guess this isn't in the rules, but the ADVANCING troops have to
win the battle, or they will be repulsed from the region. Of
course, if they win, they get to stay.

Geoff

--Boundary-8482845-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 08 Feb 1995 14:34:46                    Sent: 08 Feb 1995 14:34:27
From:"Larry Morris" <owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net>
To: atl-design@tango.rahul.net
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible
Reply-to: owner-atl-design@tango.rahul.net

Crimson Robes.

--Boundary-8482845-0-0--
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:28:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Percival White <dpwhite@THUNDER.LakeheadU.CA>
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

Re: the battle problem...

In addition to the GUARD = no movement Idea, here's another possibility:
don't allow foot troops to do the there&back jump - only allow mounted or
flying troops to do that (the idea being they're the only ones who can
really move fast enough...)

Also, you could set up some kind of flag like guard and avoid...
add a flag "SUPPORT 1" - that would set up your troops to aid any attack
or defence involving you or your allys...

- just my 2 cents worth,

Daniel.

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 15:12:48 --100
From: Laurent ROCHETTE <mickey@anacad.fr>
Subject: GIVE orders

In my last orders, I swapped some objects with an other faction.
I saw in my report that what he gaves me is now in my possession, but
to see that, I had to go over my report with a fine-tooth comb.

Will it possible to have an explicit line in the report indicating :
"Unit 127645 give you 687687678 horses"
or something like that ??

Comments ?

Mickey
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Anders <alindbac@sw.seisy.abb.se>
Subject: ATLANTIS DESIGN Observation for Allies !
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 15:49:26 MET

Why is it not so that when one declare ally against another faction the
other faction do not see ones units better ?

Should not one automatically know that the units is part of one's ally ?

That is should not a faction(a) who declares ally to another faction (B)
give that faction(B) a  +1 in observation against the first factions(A)
units ?

It could simplify the game.
--
Anders Lindb�ck

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 11:17:13 EST
From: lam@eng.tridom.com (Larry Morris)
Subject: Re: Atlantis 2.0- Possible

Crimson Robes, hearing for the first time:

> I guess this isn't in the rules, but the ADVANCING troops have to
> win the battle, or they will be repulsed from the region. Of
> course, if they win, they get to stay.
>
My oh my, this does indeed make a bit of a difference! I'm feeling
more secure in my territory all the time ;-)

Off to tell my allies. I suspect this'll migrate into the rules at
some point, might as well publish this scoop while I got it ;-)

Crimson Robes.
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 11:24:36 -0600 (CST)
From: <carioca@io.com>
Subject: Re: ATLANTIS DESIGN Observation for Allies !

This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--0-1120583702-792350676:#15269
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

something like this will help,  as we don't want to be stealing
from out allies.  a list of incomes and expendetures would also be helpful.

-carioca@io.com

--0-1120583702-792350676:#15269
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: <Pine.3.89.9502091141.E15269@pentagon.io.com>

Why is it not so that when one declare ally against another faction the
other faction do not see ones units better ?

Should not one automatically know that the units is part of one's ally ?

That is should not a faction(a) who declares ally to another faction (B)
give that faction(B) a  +1 in observation against the first factions(A)
units ?

It could simplify the game.
--
Anders Lindb�ck

--0-1120583702-792350676:#15269--
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew S. Taylor" <matthew@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Atlantis Attacker Faction
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:15:59 -0500 (EST)

GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM writes:
>
> ]Hi Geoff, I was wondering why I didn't know
> ]which faction attacked me, as I think this should have been shown
> ]on my combat report. (Aren't attacking faction numbers revealed ?)
>
> No, they are not.
>
> Geoff
>
It would make sense that if you have survivors, and certainly if you are the
victor, that you should know who you fought.  Think of it as spotting the
livery of the troops in the first case, and in inspecting the dead on the
field of battle which yonow hold in the latter case.

--
Matthew Taylor

matthew@clark.net

----------------------------------------------------------
From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich)
Subject: ATLANTIS: Some suggestions
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 01:44:30 -0600 (CST)

You may notice a long question post from me on the player list.  This
is different.

Some things that I've seen that I think could be added or changed.

1. I'd like to see the give command come AFTER the buy command.  It
would be nice to be able to issue one buy command and then give the
swords, men, etc to other units.

2. I'd also like to see some "un" commands.
     a) An "unclaim" command would be great.  With this, a unit
could take the silver that they have and put it into the CLAIM pot for
the whole faction.  This could be like banking, and could possibly be
limited to units in cities.  There could even be a fee (ie, 10 % of
the funds put into the "bank" are deducted for service charges).
Other units could then CLAIM the silver just like always.
     b) An "unlearn skill" command would also be good.  After teaching
a unit a skill that you decide is worthless, the "unlearn" command
could be used to strip the unit back to "skills: none."  This could be
a month-long command, or could even take one month for each month that
was spent learning the skill.  (I dread making a typo someday, and
finding that the 1 man nomad unit I wanted to teach hunting learned
combat, and the 50 man orc unit I tried to train in combat learned
hunting instead.  That unit would be worthless, as the orcs couldn't
learn any other skills, and couldn't even learn to hunt better!)
     c) Finally, I'd like to see a command to disband a unit.  I
suppose one could wait until the unit starved to death, but if there
is still money in your claim account, they're going to keep sucking it
dry until they get killed or they use up all the money.  I suppose
they could be made to just work somewhere for eternity, but I can
imagine units that get too far away from home and can't get through
the enemy to get back.  If they're leaders, they're going to be a
constant drain.

3. One last command that might be nice would be an IMPRISON flag.  If
on, this would work much like the guard flag, in that if my unit had
IMPRISON on, it would not allow enemy units to EXIT the sector that I
controlled.  This could be used with or without GUARD.  Imagine
capturing an enemy unit who moves into the sector, but then can't get
out.  Or, have IMPRISON on, and the enemy units in the sector will be
unable to respond when you issue an attack order in an adjacent
sector.  Units which issue the ADVANCE command would fight their way
out, just like units fight their way in against the GUARD command.

Just a few ideas to bat around for a while.
--
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: Anders <alindbac@sw.seisy.abb.se>
Subject: Re: ATLANTIS: Some suggestions
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 9:38:31 MET

> 1. I'd like to see the give command come AFTER the buy command.  It
> would be nice to be able to issue one buy command and then give the
> swords, men, etc to other units.

Why ? Do it the other way !  Let UNIT A give the money to UNIT B
that buys the required items instead of letting UNIT A buy it and
then give the itom to UNIT B.  You just have to do it in the
correct order.

> 2. I'd also like to see some "un" commands.
>      a) An "unclaim" command would be great.  With this, a unit
> could take the silver that they have and put it into the CLAIM pot for
> the whole faction.  This could be like banking, and could possibly be
> limited to units in cities.  There could even be a fee (ie, 10 % of
> the funds put into the "bank" are deducted for service charges).
> Other units could then CLAIM the silver just like always.

This is just a fast way of moving money between distant units.
This only gives advantige to large factions with lot's of cash

>      b) An "unlearn skill" command would also be good.  After teaching

Yes, I agree. How about calling it FORGET ?

>      c) Finally, I'd like to see a command to disband a unit.  I

Why ? Just set them to work and you will not have any more
problem with them ! They may even continue to live an prosper and
give you soem money out of it. Or use them to explore the world.

The added benefit of this is minimal it just adds a bit of complexity
to the game nad is not very useful. Just a gimmick that one may never
use.

--
Anders Lindb�ck

----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 10:03:37 -0500
From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher)
Subject: Re: ATLANTIS: Some suggestions

At 1:44 AM 2/10/95, Tim Ulrich wrote:

>1. I'd like to see the give command come AFTER the buy command.  It
>would be nice to be able to issue one buy command and then give the
>swords, men, etc to other units.
>
This actually could be significant. If you are in a competitive market, and
you need to buy large quantities to get _anything_ it would be good to be
able to distribute afterward. Distributing the money beforehand and having
each unit buy what it needs wouldn't work because the lots would be too
small.

>2. I'd also like to see some "un" commands.
>     a) An "unclaim" command would be great.  With this, a unit
>could take the silver that they have and put it into the CLAIM pot for
>the whole faction.  This could be like banking, and could possibly be
>limited to units in cities.  There could even be a fee (ie, 10 % of
>the funds put into the "bank" are deducted for service charges).
>Other units could then CLAIM the silver just like always.

I find this idea interesting but perhaps too cushy. It would give immense
flexibility to any faction with vast stores of cash and access to a city.
Think of the possibilities! You could have a one-man unit with high stealth
infiltrate the enemy, then claim a huge quantity of cash and recruit an
army. Can you imagine how chaotic that could get? I know that these same
possibilities apply to the present store of unclaimed silver, but people
are going to need that just to get started.

>     b) An "unlearn skill" command would also be good.  After teaching
>a unit a skill that you decide is worthless, the "unlearn" command
>could be used to strip the unit back to "skills: none."  This could be
>a month-long command, or could even take one month for each month that
>was spent learning the skill.  (I dread making a typo someday, and
>finding that the 1 man nomad unit I wanted to teach hunting learned
>combat, and the 50 man orc unit I tried to train in combat learned
>hunting instead.  That unit would be worthless, as the orcs couldn't
>learn any other skills, and couldn't even learn to hunt better!)

Geoff really is working on this I think.

>     c) Finally, I'd like to see a command to disband a unit.  I
>suppose one could wait until the unit starved to death, but if there
>is still money in your claim account, they're going to keep sucking it
>dry until they get killed or they use up all the money.  I suppose
>they could be made to just work somewhere for eternity, but I can
>imagine units that get too far away from home and can't get through
>the enemy to get back.  If they're leaders, they're going to be a
>constant drain.
>
Might not really be a significant issue, but who knows.

>3. One last command that might be nice would be an IMPRISON flag.  If
>on, this would work much like the guard flag, in that if my unit had
>IMPRISON on, it would not allow enemy units to EXIT the sector that I
>controlled.  This could be used with or without GUARD.  Imagine
>capturing an enemy unit who moves into the sector, but then can't get
>out.  Or, have IMPRISON on, and the enemy units in the sector will be
>unable to respond when you issue an attack order in an adjacent
>sector.  Units which issue the ADVANCE command would fight their way
>out, just like units fight their way in against the GUARD command.

This might be a significant complication to the code, but would be fun.
Just for the record, I would advise against a system like Olympia where you
get the loser's troops. I think that would grossly imbalance the game in
favor of powerful military forces. Something more limited, like what Tim
has suggested would be better, although I am not entirely sure if it would
add anything dramatic to the value of the game.

Josh Mosher