Re: Olympia Economics & Strategic Warfare

From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 20:42:10 +0000

Melvin H. Nicholson YBH writes
> I disagree, but I have a feeling that this is a matter of
> semantics. War itself should never be profitable
> (except in terms of combat experience).  War should be a
> financial drain.  WINNING wars should be proftable, but
> only in so far as the vanquished loses everything to the
> conquered.

You are right. This was just a difference of semantics.

> I don't want Olympia to be a game of constant warfare, and I
> think that those who think that "the rich will only get
> richer and newbie will never have a chance to catch up" are
> oversimplifying.  I agree that a person with more
> resources should be able to accomplish more if s/he plays
> perfectly, but this is not what a complicated game will
> do.  There will be those who establish themselves --- and
> those who try to do so and fail.  Giants *WILL* stagnate and
> die, while other giant grow even larger.  Perhaps the
> barons *WILL* join together to just keep getting righer,
> but *SO WHAT*  I want there to be a peaceful quadrant.  I am
> willing to game-fight for that peace.  If an area gets too
> rich and there is too much $$$ floating around, the
> thieves will appear and become effective (hard to be a
> market thief during wartime).  A well designed system
> well have enough chaos in it to allow for newbies to
> succeed through GOOD PLAY, not bad play of the superiors.

This thread is getting compilcated, but "the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer" is not my line (I believe it is the one of some
loudmouth or other). In fact my article was an argument _against_
artifically restraining the rich.

What I tired to argue was that as long as the world is instable (and I
don't mean code changes :-) ) newbies will always have a chance. Only
if the world became utterly stable newbies would forever be condemned
to be extras on the world stage. I can see two possible scenarious for
stability (ie. ossification) once control over cities is introduced.
One is that of all powerful emperor, the other one that of all powerful
alliance of baronets. As much as I'd like to be the former and join the
later and will as a player do everything I can to achieve this, I think
that would make for a very boring game for the reasons which have been
explained here by others and myself. Hence I believe that the
disincentives against either occuring ought to be put in at the same
time as city controll is put in.

I hope I was more understandable this time.

Carl Edman, BtA[801]

References

Re: Olympia Economics & Strategic Warfare
nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Fri, 22 May 1992 19:20:12 +0000