Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.

From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:03:19 +0000

In article <9aua1p$qr8$1@eressea.upb.de>,
Enno Rehling <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de> wrote:

>We limit the number of units a player can have, the number of mages and
>alchemists. they can yhoose only one race, one colour of magic, and
>that's it. It caps the maximum influence they can have, and they can't
>have it all.

I don't like schemes like that. If every faction is limited to 3
mages, they'll all have 3. One Atlantis version made you choose trade,
magic, or war as your faction type. So I got 3 players in my alliance,
one of each. You have a more complicated scheme, but I think Oly's
scheme is better.

>Furchtbar. It's a design style that I really hate. Making a game hard to
>play to seperate good players from bad. You have a computer background,
>so you get an advantage at playing.

No, I don't think so. First, remember that in real life, especially
before radios, military operations have frequent mistakes. Units don't
rendezvous when they are supposed to, people misunderstand orders. I'm
not perfect with my Olympia orders, but I make fewer mistakes than my
enemies. As a result, I'm fairly good at catching their units
flat-footed. One of my allies is really good at attacking attacks,
especially when the enemy is being a bit disorganized and thus leaves
more openings. It's not a game of typoes.

-- g

References

More Arguments. Favourite games.
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:49:16 +0000
Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 23:47:54 +0000
Re: More Arguments. Favourite games.
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:47:09 +0000