Re: Olympia: region resources

From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 02:33:44 +0000

In article <EeGWCvS00VB=47wEoI@andrew.cmu.edu> eh1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edwin Huang) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.pbm: 24-Jun-92 Olympia: region resources
>Rich Skrenta@cbnewsg.att (1190)
>
>> I'm writing some new production code to more realistically
>> model competition for region resources, such as lumber, stone,
>> horses, etc.  Resources may also be things such as demand for
>> entertainment.
Yeah!
>
>> Overview:
>
>> 	Multiple units trying to obtain resources from a region
>> 	each get a chunk proportional to their skill and the size
>> 	of their effort (just as entetainment works now).
>
>> 	Resources may be replenished, on a scale specific to the
>> 	resource.  A city may get 1/3 of its entertainment demand
>> 	back each month.  Perhaps 10% of a forest would regrow
>> 	monthly.  Maybe only one or two horses would be born for
>> 	each plain region each turn.
It might be really useful if the resource replensihment was proportional
to the amount of specifiable other things.  Aside from the small gain in
realism (A clear cut forest won't grow back), also there is the big gain
that NPC market "supply urge" can be modeled as a resource which grows
proportional to the amount of perceived demand and resource
availability.  This could allow the NPC market backdrop to use much of
the same code the rest of the program does...

>
>Back to addressing how older characters will benefit from the change is
>that they will always be one step ahead of a newbie in terms of skill
>and units.  So that if oldbie unit with the equestrian skill of  7 and
>the newbie unit with  equestrian 3 compete for horses, the newbie loses.
>Granted the learning curve of the skill will allow the newbie to catch
>up eventually, it is both more unlikely that the newbie will pursue the
>skill of equestrian further as they suddenly declare it unprofitable.
>From Rick Socia's post it seems that profitability from a newbies eyes
>seem to be to either follow Dr. Pain's  or Varian's example or to have
>their units simply work.

I think you are confusing "newbie" with "child"  I am a newbie by most
standards and I haven't fallen into any of those traps.  I am thinking
long term to setup industry that will work in spite of competition from
my elders.

>Second of all. This resource limitation is also encouraging a warlord
>style of play.  Rocko's  use of licences for entertainers will quickly
Drat!  Someone started licencing before I could.  Well done Rocko!

>catch on not only for entertainers, but for foresters, equestrians,
>shipbuilders, everything.  Then Olympia loses some of the more personal
>flavor that I like and becomes a more turf oriented game.  You are
>entering my territory, you need a licence for anything you do. You may
>not recruit in my lands or I will capture you and terrorise your unit to
>my side.  Right now, I suppose I can run off and start claiming
>territory for my own. However, this starts a conflict with what I see as
>"in character" and what I see as a sure way of success in the game. In
>this scenario, the newbie loses again.  I suppose the newbie could go
>out and explore the wilds for his very own plot of land but who will
>have been there before him? And once he found it can he hold it? You
>might as well have started everyone off in their very own plot of land
>and see what they can do for themselves.

Of course, if the licenser gets too greedy, the subjects will leave to
greener pasteurs of revolt.
>
Mel

References

Olympia: region resources
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Wed, 24 Jun 1992 16:41:58 +0000
Re: Olympia: region resources
eh1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edwin Huang)
Thu, 25 Jun 1992 19:51:23 +0000