Re: Olympia: faction trees

From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 19:14:18 +0000

}} In article <1992Apr22.173639.14916@cbfsb.cb.att.com> skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta) writes:
}}
}} srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner) writes:
}} > To me, faction trees is one of those things that adds complexity
}} > without adding a lot of interest.  Aside from the persuasion thing,
}} > and adding more bookeeping for the player, what does this add to the
}} > game?

}} It would be harder to track down which faction a unit belonged to.
}} You might see "lord [1058]" instead of "faction [505]".

}} It would limit the growth of factions, since a player would need to
}} invest time to raise the leadership level enough to support the
}} hirelings.

Couldn't we combine this leadership with the notoreity aspect of a
unit?  Thus, a PC starts out with some notoriety, and "normal" units
don't.  Being involved in victorious combat raises your notoriety;
being on the leader board does too.  Higher skilled, larger units
automatically pick up a little more notoriety, etc.

}} It would be more important to keep up the loyalty of your higher
}} level leaders.

My first reaction is to agree with Scott.  We were both in T'Nyc; the
only thing loyalty trees seemed to offer was the possibility to steal
1/5 of an opponents forces.  However, the number of sub-minions was
fixed at 5; it was not dynamic, although there was talk of that for
PBM II.  I'm not firmly in either camp.  I can see that this type of
loyalty tree would be more interesting than a static one, but I'm not
sure that it's a good change.  It seems to be more something that the
players will *have* to deal with, rather than *want* to deal with.

}} Rich Skrenta

sjc@cs.purdue.edu             Steve Chapin             Today's Grammar Lesson:
                       Let's hope the usher lets us in.

"Oh my God!  I shot my eye out!"  (Ralphie Parker, in "A Christmas Story")

References

Re: Olympia: faction trees
srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner)
Wed, 22 Apr 1992 17:25:17 +0000
Re: Olympia: faction trees
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Wed, 22 Apr 1992 17:36:39 +0000