ATLANTISv2 atl-design-digest #5 From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:30:21 +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: "Matthew S. Taylor" <matthew@clark.net> Subject: Re: Atlantis: Tactics Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 01:18:58 -0500 (EST) GDUNBAR.US.ORACLE.COM writes: > > > >On War factions, I still think that there should be some > >combat/tactics skill benifit for specializing as a War faction. > >Let's face it specializing as a war faction makes it so that > >you can't even make your own weapons, and magic is out of the > >question. I suggest that the tactics skill be eliminated > >from the other specialized factions (at least as a learnable > >skill after they specialize, maybe they can keep the ones they > >have already trained and accept transfer of ones from other > >factions). > > Dave, > > I don't think you were on this list when tactics came up before. > What I think I'm going to do is implement a limit on the total > levels of tactics that you can have in your faction, based on > faction type: > Levels > ------ > Non-War 3 > Generic 5 > 1/2 War 10 > War 25 > > So, a War-only faction can have 5 fully trained tacticians, while > a non-War faction can have 1 level 3 tactician, or 3 level 1 > tacticians. > > This system adds two things: > 1) Gives more advantage to War factions in battle. > 2) Makes you deployment of good tacticians an important issue. > > This idea is very much up for debate; what do you guys think? > > Geoff > > > Ok, here is my two cents worth. I do not like it at all. Many of the best tacticians from earth history were merchant adventurers - if you were leading caravans through potentially hostile territory you would often have some very good troops very well commanded with you. Mercenaries do not often have great loyalty, but they have historically been very good at what they do. I would rather enhance the governmental authority of WAR factions by allowing an order such as CONSCRIPT - allowing a war faction gain regular recruits at no cost in direct relation to the number of tax capable [ie combat ready] soldiers present prior to regular recruiting. What the rate would be is open for discussion, and whether or not it should be an instant order or a month long order. I would favor a month long order, since the draftees would not necessarily be cooperative. I would also favor reducing the maintenance cost of exclusively combat/crossbow/longbow trained regular units for war factions [government soldiers are typically paid below the prevailing wage] or raising the cost of maintaining the cost of similarly trained units, including esp. tactics, to non war factions - good merc troops do not come cheep, particularly not their captains. -- Matthew Taylor matthew@clark.net ---------------------------------------------------------- From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich) Subject: Unclaim Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 00:42:05 -0600 (CST) Hi all, I'd be interested in seeing an "unclaim" command. This command would possibly only be allowed when in a town or city, and would basically be the same as putting the money that a unit has into the bank. From there, it would be a available to all of a faction's units using the CLAIM command. -- Any views I express are probably my own... Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them! Timothy Ulrich tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:09:57 -0500 From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher) Subject: Re: Atlantis: Tactics At 1:18 AM 1/25/95, Matthew S. Taylor wrote: >I would rather enhance the governmental authority of WAR factions by allowing >an order such as CONSCRIPT - allowing a war faction gain regular recruits >at no cost in direct relation to the number of tax capable [ie combat ready] >soldiers present prior to regular recruiting. What the rate would be is >open for discussion, and whether or not it should be an instant order or >a month long order. I would favor a month long order, since the draftees >would not necessarily be cooperative. I would also favor reducing the >maintenance cost of exclusively combat/crossbow/longbow trained regular >units for war factions [government soldiers are typically paid below the >prevailing wage] or raising the cost of maintaining the cost of similarly >trained units, including esp. tactics, to non war factions - good merc >troops do not come cheep, particularly not their captains. > I am not at all sure that WAR factions are actually governments--they simply have the strong organization and muscle to forced peasants to pay up or be pillaged. If anyone was a mercenary, it would be a WAR faction I would think. As far as the merchant adventurers being good tacticians, recall that a TRADE/WAR faction would be able to have two of the best tacticians, and a generic could have one. This leaves plenty of room for the adventurer while somewhat realistically giving the advantage to the experts, the pure WAR faction. Josh Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 10:50:11 +0500 From: roy@acasun.eckerd.edu (Jonathan Roy) Subject: Re: Atlantis 2 :Tactics only for war factions unbalancing Your points are valid about tactics being unbalanced if the War factions have all the tactical people, but then, isn't that the point? Perhaps the overal goal of the game isn't what I think it is, but I see the game as a large scale RPG where you have to be interdependant on other factions. Traders need people to sell to, etc etc. I'm considering a Magic faction (If I get my startup turn sheet before Sunday :) ) and if I go for it, I'll try to find a good war faction to ally with, and follow around. THey'll protect my mages, perhaps help pay for my study costs, and I'll repay them with magic. (IN combat, on items, on buildings, whatever!) I don't see giving lots of tactical advantage to the War factions as a bad thing, because I see it as a way to make the other factions more dependant on alliances with war factions. Keep in mind, pure War factions cannot produce or use magic. They'll need the others as much as the others need their protection. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu (Tim Ulrich) Subject: Faction change Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 12:25:26 -0600 (CST) Greetings, I wasn't on the mailing list for a while, so this may have already been dealt with. The rules say that you can change faction types once every six months... and also say that you can change faction types only once every year. Which is correct, and better yet, which one sounds most fair. Also, if I order the change to occur, do things change with that turn? (ie, I go from war to magic... in those same orders can I teach 5 units magic? or will I still be able to tax that turn and have to wait until next time for magic?) More than just the information stuff, though, which seem "right" or best? Should there be a delay? When going from war to magic should there be one turn in which you have a war/magic faction? What does everyone think? -- Any views I express are probably my own... Nobody else is willing to let me speak for them! Timothy Ulrich tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:39:58 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Stapleford <tomas@brahms.udel.edu> Subject: Re: Atlantis 2 :Tactics only for war factions unbalancing On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Jonathan Roy wrote: > Your points are valid about tactics being unbalanced if the War > factions have all the tactical people, but then, isn't that the point? > Perhaps the overal goal of the game isn't what I think it is, but > I see the game as a large scale RPG where you have to be interdependant > on other factions. Traders need people to sell to, etc etc. > [text deleted] > I don't see giving lots of tactical advantage to the War factions > as a bad thing, because I see it as a way to make the other factions > more dependant on alliances with war factions. Keep in mind, pure > War factions cannot produce or use magic. They'll need the others > as much as the others need their protection. I don't know. It seems to me that giving War factions a tactical monopoly will unbalance the game too much. I think that the TAX/PILLAGE option already gives war factions a combat advantage. By training for combat, they have an almost inmmediately available source of income. Trade factions, on the other hand, must scout a region to determine its resources; find profitable trade markets; train groups in several different skills; produce goods; and finally, transport the goods to a profitable market. During all this time, a War faction can be taxing, recruiting, and training men for combat. By the time a Trade faction can even begin to develop and sustain a serious military force, War factions will be able to deploy a large, highly trained combat force. Trade, and obviously Magic, factions will always be a step behind War factions in creating a successful military. War factions will always have more better tacticians, not because Trade or Magic factions are artificially limited, but because War factions have chosen to specialize in War, and therefore they devote all their time and resources to War. In my mind, this provides a more accurate RPG. Factions are limited by the simple neccessity of making choices, rather than being artificially constrained. --Tom ---------------------------------------------------------- From: vjg@cbcosmos.att.com Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 17:26:20 EST Original-From: cbcosmos!vjg Subject: Re: Tactics, and races I really think the biggest benefit of a war faction is the TAX INCOME. Being able to tax in 100 regions gives war factions a huge, reliable source of income beyond anything any other faction type can manage. The higher income will in turn lead to war factions having more and higher-level tactics units - they can AFFORD them! And, consider that a war faction will be able to gain tax income in only two turns, while magic and trade factions (other than entertaining) will need to live off their unclaimed silver for a number of turns until they do all the stuff the need to do (find a source of raw material, find a market, recruit and train the necessary types of workers, build trade goods, transport them to market, and then bring the money back from the market to their hungry workers). As a potential trade faction, I don't see any extra silver lying around to train my own high-level tacticians, at least not in the first dozen turns. Bootstrapping a trade faction big enough to hire and train its own tacticians and troops will take a LONG time and a LOT of work, unless the trader links up with a war faction. In my opinion, there is no need for a game mechanic to control the distribution of tactics skill among the faction types. Second topic (I know, I should send in a separate message). I've been on the design list since virtually the start, but can't recall this being discussed much. I feel that races have too many "good" skills. I'd like to see the list of good skills for each race reduced to three or four at the most. Also, I think it would be nice to balance the good skills with bad skills. A race that's good at longbow (up to level 3) should be bad at combat (limit to level 1); a race that makes good lumberjacks should be poor miners and quarriers; a race that is good at sailing should be poor at riding, and so on. Just to add a bit more thought to each player's choice of recruits. Right now, all races are fair at everything (except orcs), so as a player, I will recruit any race that I come across. If there were strengths AND weaknesses to the races, I'd be pickier about who I recruit, depending on my needs and goals. -Vince Guinto vjg@cbcosmos.att.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:06:05 -0500 From: varela@eliza.cc.brandeis.edu (Juan A. Varela) Subject: Re: Atlantis: Tactics >Ok, here is my two cents worth. I do not like it at all. Many of the best >tacticians from earth history were merchant adventurers - if you were >leading caravans through potentially hostile territory you would often have >some very good troops very well commanded with you. Mercenaries do not >often have great loyalty, but they have historically been very good at what >they do. > I agree with you I don't like the idea. If only war faction can have tactics skill it will mean that trade, magic or trade/magic faction will be at the mercy of the wars faction because only they will be able to have a free round of attacks due to their higher tactic skill level. Of course the solution is to be allied to a war faction but that have further problems: The war faction will eventually dominate the alliance and how about if you are in the middle of a commercial route and you are attacked by a war faction if you don't have an escort with a tactician you will probably lose all your men, then you HAVE to have an escort with a tactician (from another faction) can you imagine the amount of effort in coordination of the movement among these two faction. Unless you can group several units from several factions to move toghether it will be a pain in the ass. And as someone noted the advantages of a war faction by pigaging and taxin are instataneous but a trade faction has to complete a route and who knows what are the pure magic ad-dis in getting money >I would rather enhance the governmental authority of WAR factions by allowing >an order such as CONSCRIPT - allowing a war faction gain regular recruits >at no cost in direct relation to the number of tax capable [ie combat ready] >soldiers present prior to regular recruiting. What the rate would be is >open for discussion, and whether or not it should be an instant order or >a month long order. I would favor a month long order, since the draftees >would not necessarily be cooperative. I would also favor reducing the >maintenance cost of exclusively combat/crossbow/longbow trained regular >units for war factions [government soldiers are typically paid below the >prevailing wage] or raising the cost of maintaining the cost of similarly >trained units, including esp. tactics, to non war factions - good merc >troops do not come cheep, particularly not their captains. I guess is a good idea, or make the way easier to the war factions in war affairs (combat, crossbow,longbow and maybe conscript) like one more combat skill point in non leader units that do not specialize in combat skill. Or you make the war affairs a little bit difficult for non war faction (one combat skill less even if the race specialize in combat skill). However, I dont thing 1)that the Tactic skill should change and 2)actually I thing the balance war-trade-magic is pretty good now. with the exception that nobody really knows what kind of spells you can get. (i have some idea after the first turn ;) ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:58:52 -0500 From: mosherj@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Joshua Mosher) Subject: Re: Atlantis: Tactics At 7:06 PM 1/25/95, Juan A. Varela wrote: >>Ok, here is my two cents worth. I do not like it at all. Many of the best >>tacticians from earth history were merchant adventurers - if you were >>leading caravans through potentially hostile territory you would often have >>some very good troops very well commanded with you. Mercenaries do not >>often have great loyalty, but they have historically been very good at what >>they do. >> > >I agree with you I don't like the idea. If only war faction can have >tactics skill it will mean that trade, magic or trade/magic faction will be >at the mercy of the wars faction because only they will be able to have a >free round of attacks due to their higher tactic skill level. Of course the I have noticed that a few people seem confused about Geoff's modification. War factions do _not_ have a monopoly on tactics! They can produce more tacticians, and they are better tacticians than those of purely non-war factions. Yes, it is true that a maxed-out war faction tactician will beat a maxed-out non-war faction, but non-war factions shouldn't be without war protection anyway. This game has too much of a wargame component to dismiss the need for an excellent military. You make a trade-off: either be a war/trade, war/magic or generic faction _or_ drop the war part but depend upon others for the advantages of the war type. Just to reemphasize the above--if you need tactics, mix war into your faction type or join some one who does. No one should be a pure anything without strong support from two other players, otherwise they will be at a severe disadvantage. Given the uproar, though, perhsps Geoff would consider raising the tactics limit on non-war factions to five, and raising 1/3 and 1/2 a little too. This would mean that any faction could count on having at least one good leader. Josh Mosher ---------------------------------------------------------- From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Subject: Re: Atlantis: Tactics Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:59:28 -0800 (PST) > > > >Ok, here is my two cents worth. I do not like it at all. Many of the best > >tacticians from earth history were merchant adventurers - if you were > >leading caravans through potentially hostile territory you would often have > >some very good troops very well commanded with you. Mercenaries do not > >often have great loyalty, but they have historically been very good at what > >they do. > > > > I agree with you I don't like the idea. If only war faction can have > tactics skill it will mean that trade, magic or trade/magic faction will be > at the mercy of the wars faction because only they will be able to have a > free round of attacks due to their higher tactic skill level. Of course the > solution is to be allied to a war faction but that have further problems: > The war faction will eventually dominate the alliance and how about if you > are in the middle of a commercial route and you are attacked by a war > faction if you don't have an escort with a tactician you will probably lose > all your men, then you HAVE to have an escort with a tactician (from > another faction) can you imagine the amount of effort in coordination of > the movement among these two faction. Unless you can group several units > from several factions to move toghether it will be a pain in the ass. And > as someone noted the advantages of a war faction by pigaging and taxin are > instataneous but a trade faction has to complete a route and who knows what > are the pure magic ad-dis in getting money > I think that War factions do not need to have the upper hand in an aliance because even though the war faction has the military power, it can't do anything without a constant supply of arms/armour/etc... The cities won't have enought equipment for a war faction, specially if there is no trade faction to supply the city. And as far as I can see it, a war faction without equipment is basically useless. At the start of the game there is equipment available in the cities but as the game continues, this source will end. I see the war faction <-> trade faction relation as a very symbiotic one. I can't see, at least not right now, this interdependency occuring with a magic faction. But I see the magic faction as being a very promissing one for the future of any alliance, and it won't be one that needs many resources from the other factions in the alliance. In other words you ( war/trade alliance ) don't exactly need it, but it won't hurt to have magicians in the alliance. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Daudt (csd@microplex.com) Microplex Systems Ltd. 8525 Commerce Court, Burnaby, BC Canada V5A 4N3 Tel: 1-800-665-7798 Fax: 604-444-4239 FTP site: ftp.microplex.com URL: http://microplex.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 21:04:27 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Percival White <dpwhite@THUNDER.LakeheadU.CA> Subject: ATLANTIS: Tactics and Archery... I finally finished reading thru my mail (funny how it all piles up at once..) If longbows seem so ineffective, try allowing them to fire over the front line of troops... i.e. they have a chance of hitting those mages and tacticians in the background... (gives people a reason to want platemail and healers...) that way, even if Mr high and mighty War faction can get hurt (he loses the leader he spent 30 turns studying with) Of course *I* don't particularly like this, as I don't want to lose a mage... :-) (I'm hoping there is some kind of nifty spell to help against this...) Daniel. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: csd@microplex.com (Christian Daudt) Subject: ATLANTIS: Tactics, etc.. Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:16:13 -0800 (PST) I just thought of something which I hope isn't happening. Right now everybody is having design discussions, but at the same time we are playing the game and ( many of us ) have already chosen our paths in the game. This leads me to think that some people may try to tweak the rules to help their personal goals. *I am not accusing anyone of doing this* before a flame-war starts ! What I *am* saying is that, seeing the ongoing discussion on Tactics, I noticed that many people are afraid of giving to much strength to War factions, saying how good it will be to be a War faction, but not mentioning the advantages of the other factions. I personally see the commercial faction as a very strong one ( you can't consider what will happen in the first 10 weeks as the final outcome, this game is to go on forever :^) ) in the long run - commerce has always prospered. No one know what magic factions will be capable of, but Geoff promised good things for powerful magicians. If someone is thinking this way, I ask you to consider this: If the game isn't balanced - as one type of faction being much better than the others, what will happen is that the game simply put, won't be fun. Everybody will be War or Trade or Magic ( or whatever combination is best ) and we won't have the rich environment which was setup by the almighty working. PS: I still haven't decided what I'll be yet in case someone is wondering. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Daudt (csd@microplex.com) Microplex Systems Ltd. 8525 Commerce Court, Burnaby, BC Canada V5A 4N3 Tel: 1-800-665-7798 Fax: 604-444-4239 FTP site: ftp.microplex.com URL: http://microplex.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 09:22:06 +0100 Subject: ATLANTIS. Questions... 1) In the rules, healers can heal 5 casualties/character. How is the skill level used ? 2) When one month a unit has studied OBSERVATION, does the turn report take its new level into account, or the old (both could be logical) ? 3) winter in forest : walking, riding and flying just move 1 hex, right or wrong ? (I hope on-foot units are not stuck!) -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Dedieu <Eric.Dedieu@imag.fr> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:29:13 +0100 Subject: ATLANTIS. "Give" order. 1) Minor question : A unit giving more silver than it has does it give all it has, or is the GIVE order globally refused ? (I guess it gives all) 2) MAJOR QUESTION : Are "GIVE" orders always evaluated in the order given by the order sheet ? I mean, the rules tell: "Where there is no other basis for deciding in which order units will be processed within a phase, units which appear higher on the report get precedence." So suppose unit 1 has $200, and tries to buy 1 leader but isn't sure to succeed, and in case it fails, wants unit 2 to take the money. But if it orders "GIVE 2 120 silver" but fortunately succeeds, it will starve. :( The question concerns the solution : UNIT 1 GIVE 2 120 silver UNIT 3 GIVE 1 20 silver If the first order is guaranteed to come before, the problem is solved. -- 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: 26 Jan 1995 11:29:38 -0800 From: "Mike Hughes" <Mike_Hughes@smtp.svl.trw.com> Subject: Re: Atlantis- Tactics Reply to: RE>>Atlantis: Tactics > I think that War factions do not need to have the upper hand in > an aliance because even though the war faction has the military > power, it can't do anything without a constant supply of > arms/armour/etc... The cities won't have enought equipment for > a war faction, specially if there is no trade faction to supply the > city. And as far as I can see it, a war faction without equipment > is basically useless. At the start of the game there is equipment > available in the cities but as the game continues, this source will end. To address a couple of the points you bring up: A war faction without equipment is definitely *not* useless. Combat skill functions regardless of equipment, although swords give a hefty bonus. A new unit in a war faction can bring in tax income on the second turn it exists and for every turn thereafter. I see nothing in the rules saying that the supply of equipment in a city diminishes as the game goes on. From past discussion about numbers of recruits available each turn, I think that the amount of equipment a city has available is a function of its population. A fairly large city or two would be a steady source of equipment for a War faction, as well as a huge source of tax income. Based on the prices I found in the one city outside Atlantis City that I scouted, trade may not be as profitable as you think. The city offered 36 silver for two different raw materials, 60 for a third, and 300 for plate mail. Atlantis City offered 60 for raw materials, 120 for swords and chain, and 500 for plate. A sample of two may not be very significant, but when you factor in recruiting, training, upkeep, and transportation costs the profit margin does not seem very high. A trade faction will have to make huge capital investments in recruiting and training production and transportation units to get a good income flow, where a war faction can recruit a unit, train it in combat, and get a steady flow of cash immediately. War factions will realistically be able to afford to field much larger armies than a pure trade or magic faction could muster, as they should. Tax income will also more easily support the high costs of tactics training (200 per month of studying means an investment of 3000 silvar and 15 months training a tactician to level 5, assuming no teacher). I think that strict limits should not be placed on tactics at this time. War and Trade factions seem to be fairly well balanced. Magic factions may or may not be, we don't have enough information available to us yet. As this is a playtest, the rules can be changed if runaway tactics skills become an issue. Comments? Mike Up