Re: Region control

Greg Lindahl (gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU)
Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:30:24 -0400

I like Rich's region control rules. Unlike all the other plans
presented so far, it has checks and balances. It provides a way for
people to have conflict over regions without being forced to attack
each other. It makes getting into a tower or castle important but not
everything. It keeps the economic benefits of terrorizing the peasants
to a reasonable level.

I'm not sure if the province attitudes will be useful, though. If
attitude HOSTILE for players is implemented, and you don't like player
X, you're better off letting him into the province and then killing
him. Using the province attitude means either you'll get into combat
with him anyway, or if he is weak, he will stop and you won't get a
chance to kill him. Thus, with both province and player attitudes
working, people will mostly use the player attitudes to get their

> The one part of this plan which I don't like is that there isn't
> much of a use for castles and towers (Scott pointed this out).

Traditionally, these were places you could stick your troops for
defensive purposes. This is true in Olympia. What more do you want?

-- Oleg

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links