Re: Olympia - Getting Too Complex?

From: Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)

Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 00:11:49 +0000

In article <rwallace.705612933@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
|> Does anyone agree with me that the Olympia rules are getting too
|> complex, that the direction of modification seems to be perpetually in
|> the direction of adding more and more rules? For example:
|>
|> Loyalty - what does this add to the game?

This has been in from the start (well it was in on turn 2, as I didn't
	have any extra units in turn 1, I couldn't say for sure about then.

Loyalty is what makes me recruit people rather than impress them, sure
	I went through a stage of IMPRESSing the locals, but I didn't like the
	risk of having a large group that might run out on me (especially with
	people using persuasion floating about).

|>
|> Fatigue - ditto

Hmm, well, I may agree with you here.  Several of my units were involved
	in two long combats in Drassa last turn and they came out completely
	unfatigues (and undamaged as a matter of interest, that 2100 coins worth
	of armour must have done the trick :->.  Do we really need this (or
	to put it another way: do we need to know what our 'current' fatigue is)?

On the other hand, this was during the start of the month, it the combat
	had been at the end, then things may have been different.

What about making WORK and MOVEment fatiguing?  The more fatigued you
	are, the slower you go?

|>
|> Guilds - these are good, but IMHO should not be implemented in the
|> rules, but rather left to player politics to work out.

These were (I believe) origionly set up so magicians could teach each
	other specific spells.  Then they generalised.  Of course now we have
	a teach command/skill for that :->  But I wouldn't want to be without
	a guild.  If I'm a member of a guild, other people are going to think
	twice before attacking me, as then they will have the guild after
	them (hopefully).
|>
|> Unit maintenance costs - do these actually add anything to the game
|> except bookkeeping? All that happens is that units have to spend X
|> amount of time WORKing. Why not instead just decrease slightly the
|> amount of money units can obtain with WORK and increase the hiring
|> charge for new men? This would achieve the same financial limitation on
|> the acquisition of large units while reducing the administrative burden
|> on the player.
|>
	YES, it means if you want to have people learning skills fast, you
	have to have a group of earners out there paying for their training.
	This is especially true if you want to train a magician as their
	costs are truely horrendous (training in a tower at 15/day means
	your need about 6 labourers constantly working in order to pay for
	you.

|> Varying month lengths - why not just make them all the same length?
|> Easier to keep track then of how many days of activity you have per
|> turn.

Hmm, I can never remember how long a month is, this is a little
	irritating, but it does add flavour to the game.  It gives the
	nice appearance of a year going past.  (also it should effect the
	local weather conditions, Rich?).  Perhaps a reminder about
	the month lengths should be put in the times?

|>
|> Why have the TEACH command? There is already one way to learn skills and
|> conceptual integrity suggests that extra ways to do something should not
|> be provided without good reason.

So us Wizards can learn specific spells.  Of course once Rich has
	magic research working so we can control the direction of our
	research, then this won't matter so much :->  It also enable you to
	learn skills faster (which is nice for the younger players who
	havn't had 3 years to build up their skills).

|>
|> Combat: bows are better weapons except in wet weather when the
|> bowstrings are wet so swords are better. What does this add to the game?
|> Why not just assign a fixed weapon value to each? (or alternatively have
|> different weapons better against different types of armor or something
|> like that, so it would still be complex, but would at least be
|> meaningful complexity?)
|>
	This is meaningful complexity.  When I first noticed this in the rules,
	I thought to myself 'wow, I never thought of that, thats pretty cool',
	or introspections to that effect :->  I think its pretty neat.  Of
	course I've always been a fan of armour being better against various
	sorts of weapons, say Rich could be have this too, pleeeaaasssseeeee?

|> What do people think of these suggestions?
|>
	You have a point.  However the basic commands are pretty simple, and
	the more complex ones don't get used until your reasonably proficient
	with the turn set out anyway.  Perhaps the rules should be broken up
	into 'basic commands' and 'advanced commands', so you don't have
	to wade though information about persuasion when you first set up
	your faction?

Bill [aka Merlinium the grey [537])

References

Olympia - Getting Too Complex?
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 11 May 1992 19:35:33 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia - Getting Too Complex?
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 11 May 1992 19:35:33 +0000