Re: Making Olympia more interesting

William Bruvold (
Thu, 27 Jan 94 10:44:37 PST

> This doesn't quite fit together...yet. I have a couple of vague problems:
> 1. What inducement is there for a character to give land
> to a group? Why would Osswid donate his 10 provinces to
> the Imperial Realm? What benefit would he gain?

Actually, the problem runs a bit "deeper" than that. If the map
stays current size (and the explorers have good arguments in support
of this) than why build/oppose building empires. With 1000s of
squares, the recruitment-nobles-np contraints, high tax/cost ratio
than empire construction seems more "fluff" than actually important
to do.

However, (and wait another day till I finish) if you build in game
created "conflicts" between different religious/magic schools/skill
classes) Kingdoms become an important source of protection AND, if
properly done, a source of conflict which people will attack.
(perhaps taking 10 provinces from an opposing religion gets you more
nobl points and/or mantra).

> 2. Could there be some way to hierarchically structure ownership?
> For instance, Osswid would retain direct ownership of his
> 10 provinces, but his commitment to the Imperial Realm would
> also places these provinces under their control?

Heirarchies probably pretty confusing/not clear. ALLIANCES would
work (either player or game generated). If Allied than either
player could "stock" the garrison with additional units. Meanwhile
the players could do whatever. Perhaps there could be a "division"
of the tax bases that the money generate but I think that gets
really complex. Better to allow multiple players to simply stock
the province, with the ability to "switch" ownership if this effects
tax revenue.

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links