>Someone suggested selling riding horses in cities, and this seems like a
Yes. I think they're worth at least 100 gold each though.
>John Sloan pointed out that the wilderness nasties are going to discourage
>exploration big time, and suggested just having monsters in sublocations,
>not at the top level, so you could at least explore provinces without
>I have mixed feelings about not having any threats at the province level --
>I want the world to be a dangerous place, but not frustrating. Perhaps
>the civ/wilderness code will go away again. Speak up if you have an
I also suggested that perhaps Plain and Forest should be safe, and Mountains
could be dangerous (traditional if nothing else). You could even have Plains
safest, Forest less safe and Mountains as dangerous as they are now.
>An idea I had (for a new map) was to have the province level not be
>"forest", "plain", etc. but to simply be generic. Each province would
>contain several forests, mountains, plains, etc. As sublocations, these
>would be guarded by monsters initially. Thus, one could walk around
>easily, but would have to evict monsters to start claiming resources.
> [Let me know if you like/dislike this idea]
It makes your regions conceptually a lot bigger, and the resources in them a lot
easier to control. Its a fairly radical change, so I've no idea what it would
do to game balance. I quite like the current map though, so on a Status Quo
argument I would vote not to change it if I had to decide.
>BTW, I've written a whole bunch of monster/quest code. Every sublocation
>will be guarded by a monster. Every monster has some sort of treasure --
>gold, a rare artifact, a grateful prisoner who joins your faction. Some
>monsters can only be defeated with items taken from other monsters. "Only
>one who holds Sword of Atnerks [cp98] will be victorious against Smaug ."
>I have a few ideas for some super-cool artifacts that I want to add before
>activating this code, but it's ready to go. It should be on within the next
You can replace them with 'IOU one artifact' notes for the time being so we can
get to test them a bit...! Roll on.
>Rich Skrenta <email@example.com>