>> Land ownership.
>> For sake of argument, lets call it a Kingdom.
>Some stuff deleted....
>I like some of this but the problem is that it doesn't lead to
>competitive/cooperative interaction. If kingdoms are not
>restrictive on the activities of others or that valuable for the
>"king" than what is the incentive to either construct a kingdom or
>to oppose the construction of one? If I want one and "faction x"
>sets one up that crowds me a little, I simply move.
The counter to this is that a Kingdom takes time and significant effort to set
up. Therefore you can stand up and walk away, but you will be leaving your
buildings and standing troops behind. Also, it provides a method of taxing a
large area without having to actually be there. 10% of the tax base may not
seem a lot, but it will add up fairly quickly [30cr of which 20 minimum spent on
standing troops leaves 10cr/region]. If it isn't enough incentive, you could
increase it to 15% or 20%.
It would also give you limited intelligence on happenings in your Kingdom. I
didn't mention it explicitly, but you might well hear about pillaging going on
in your kingdom, and would certainly learn of any buildings or mines being
constructed. A network of standing soldiers would give you that information.
>An underlying factor which has to be addressed by whatever system is
>created is something that, by design, adds some sort of "zero sum"
>quality to the game (as is, there is very little that is zero sum
>as close as we get are some of the reseources that are partcilarly
>rare (yew, etc.)
This is why I was very careful to say '10% of the tax base'. Pillaging will
start to hurt people other than peasants. [Lose soldiers, and hence tax from
that region]. Anything else which reduces the tax base will hurt. [Opium].
>Some stuff on religion/magic....
>I like this much more. (or perhaps in combo with the kingdom idea).
>This encourages conflict and competition and provides incentives for
>some aggressive/peacible interaction.
Kingdoms provide a political framework for the powerhungry, or merely
expansionist, to build upon. When worked in with my Religion ideas, which allow
for conversions of entire Kingdoms at a time, then the framework starts to have
>I will try to send out a proposal sometime Thurs/friday that I think
>would work and incorporates most of what has been mentioned by Rich.
>I do think that a way to progress may be to start "big" - with lots
>of things that breed competition/cooperation in Olympia and then
>"cut away" the excess to the point that we get something that works
>to strengthens the game, keeps it open ended, and adds useful
I'm in favour of competition/cooperation as long as players can opt out of it
and stay uninvolved for the main part. Enforced cooperation was the worst part
of Atlantis, as it ensured that the people who could cooperate to mug the most
people got powerful, and everyone else got dead. I'd rather build up from the
current happy state where you _can_ wander around without (too much) fear of
other people gratuitously attacking you, than down from the Atlantis state of
affairs. That way if you opt into the political or theological or magical
debates, you know in advance that you will be a potential target. If you remain
a merchant, then you are unlikely to be bothered much. There are better ways
than banditry of earning money.