> >However, it's important to note that this is only an argument about
> >the realism of the plan. I don't give doodly squat for realism; the
> >reason that I propose things is for play-balance.
> I don't know if this is always the best way to look at things. In the
> realm of wargames, chess is wonderfully balanced and abstracted BUT it
> no longer bears much resemblance to the military battles it is roughly
> designed to simulate.
Well, this game doesn't really resemble any "realistic" fantasy
situation either -- longbows required years of training, for example,
to be used in battle. Yet this happens to not bother you. That's OK,
I'd rather not play a game where I have to train longbowmen for years.
It does bother me, though, that my henchmen are so stupid that they'll
do unskilled work for me in their hometown for only a fraction of
their earnings. Perhaps I should try to hire a better grade of
Under Rich's new plan, of course, they get 50% of what they earn, so
that's not outrageous.
> I thought the idea was that we WANTED the game to move more slowly as
> far as new units go.
The only thing everyone doesn't like is the idea of exponential
growth, as personified in the Drucartan Heresy technique. I don't
think we have to massacre the entire game to fix that. We could go and
make movement non-deterministic, but I bet you'd hate that ;-)