Re: Olympia combat

From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (DAVID BONAR)

Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 20:12:05 +0000

In article <rwallace.705864546@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes...
>It looks like there's an extremely wide difference of opinion on the
>combat system, primarily on how easy it should be to kill people. I
>personally think that the solution for people who want to avoid being
>killed is to have an effective combat system, but for players to set up
>areas which are relatively safe (like Drassa now that Zyzak's been
>killed :-( ) so that timid people can stay there. However, I think a lot
>of people are still going to disagree with this. So:

I don't think that anything as extreme as two worlds is needed.
Of course, I don't see two camps developing either.  What I see is that
people have differing ideas on how much/how bloody combat should be.  That's
good; this is a playtest, players' ideas should heard.  Some of us just
do not want to see Olympia end up as a test of who can build up the biggest
army.

>
>On the matter of the WORK command: the excuse for making it less
>profitable is that it's supposed to be the least effective way of making
>money. The problem is that all the other ways require a great deal of
>startup costs, time and energy to do. Fine, make them profitable for
>those who want to invest the effort required. But I don't *want* to be a
>merchant and spend all my time poring over profit and loss figures. I
>want a simple, effective way of supporting my units so I can get on with
>being a warlord/wizard/assassin/bandit etc. So I think the WORK command
>or some equivalent needs to be kept adequately effective. In particular,
>I think there should be a guarantee that a unit will always at least be
>able to support itself with WORK, a guarantee that is not currently
>given because maintenance costs increase with increasing unit combat
>skill.

What?  You expect your highly trained men-at-arms to be supported
by their own manual labor?  I think WORK should be able to support a
unit with a skill level (maybe two) but any more then that makes work
too important.

>Finally: Rich, you realize you're going to have to write the other 80%
>of the manual sooner or later? So I wouldn't go overboard with the
>"hidden complexity" bit because it's eventually going to have to be
>unearthed. I understand that for a playtest game you don't want to have
>to rewrite a large, complex manual every week but when the game finally
>settles down, a manual which gives all the rules rather than vague
>platitudes will be required.

That's funny, I see the opposite.  As a playtest I find it annoying
that there are hidden features that I can't go test (btw, this is not a
complaint about the changes that appear turn by turn).  However, as long
as the manual tells how the basic commands work what does it hurt if only
the people who have studied to be shipbuilders learn how to build ships?

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________

References

Re: Olympia combat
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Thu, 14 May 1992 17:29:06 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia combat
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Thu, 14 May 1992 17:29:06 +0000