Re: Olympia reviews/post-mortem

From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 02:26:49 +0000

In article <1r4ugaINNaae@bredbeddle.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin) writes:

>I think that yes, Olympia was about to become stagnant, but not
>because of anything wrong with Olympia.  It is true that everyone who
>wanted to be was loaded with money, but that had been fixed (or we had
>designs to fix it before we took Oly down).

I'd opine that the folks who found the game stagnant would be the
factions who didn't have lots and lots of money. Those of us who did
had a choice of either being boring, or doing things.

I was going to kill that twit on Shavnor Island. But I needed 3 more
turns to complete my fleet of galleys. I wasn't thinking big enough
when I built my shipyard, so it was only building out 2/3 ship per
turn...

>But when it is, you can be sure it'll be complex enough to make
>Russell Wallace nauseous :-)

That's OK -- with Atlantis around, Russell has a chance to make his
point. Odds are his game simply doesn't have the kinds of flaws that
Olympia had. Only time will tell if it remains sufficiently
interesting.

References

Re: Olympia reviews/post-mortem
sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)
Thu, 22 Apr 1993 02:04:58 +0000
Olympia reviews/post-mortem
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:53:50 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia reviews/post-mortem
sjc@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Chapin)
Thu, 22 Apr 1993 02:04:58 +0000
Olympia reviews/post-mortem
troyer@cgl.ucsf.edu (John M. Troyer)
Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:53:50 +0000