Re: alternative goals

From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 02:13:32 +0000

In article <voh4rxaiaaq.fsf@math.berkeley.edu>,
David desJardins  <david@desjardins.org> wrote:

>It's pretty obvious that you can design a game in which there's no way
>to achieve much militarily against other players.  If you want, you can
>do this by not even implementing player-player combat.  Oly G2 doesn't
>go to that extreme, but the result isn't much different.

Neah, it's not *that* bad -- quite a few factions have had to
essentially start over after losing most of their assets other than
noble points. Yes, war has a limit, but it has limits in games like
"Empires in Arms" and "Civilization", too.

>This isn't really a solution to the question, "How can a game support
>many different kinds of objectives?"  It's just replacing one limited
>set of objectives with a different limited set.

Very true. But it is possible to try and decouple the game: you could
make it such that some players could compete militarily, but that
wouldn't give them the ability to capture and execute traders or
explorers at will -- just tax them or disrupt trade. But high taxes
make the populace restless, and trade disruption reduces taxes and
makes the populace upset, etc, so there's a balance of power...

-- g

References

Re: alternative goals
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:37:33 +0000
alternative goals
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:15:30 +0000
Re: alternative goals
phen376022@aol.com (PHen376022)
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:08:23 +0000