RS> But should the concept of knowing that a unit is there be
RS> taken further? For instance, can I pay money to one of your
RS> units if you're there but I haven't seen you? Can I attack you?
RS> Should there be some notion of having "contacted" a unit?
RS> Do the benefits of such a system outweigh the complexity?
OK! Here's my ideas on stealth vs. observation vs. what you know vs.
what you don't know :>
What I propose is that whenever you go to interact with another character
whose not in your faction and who doesn't want you to do the interaction,
Before the interaction takes place run it through a routine to determine
whether the 'attacking' unit found the 'defending' unit. If the attacking
unit finds the defending unit, complete the interaction as normal; else
give a message on the turn report saying that the target couldn't be found.
Now I also suggest we figure in things as follows:
add to Observation skill:
log base 2 of the number of men in the unit # more eyes
Add to Stealth skill:
log base 2 of the population of the province # more people to hid among
Subtract from Stealth skill:
log base 2 of the number of men in the unit # more bodies to see
Thus, it will be harder to find people in large cities and the more
men who are looking the more likely it is to find them, and the larger
the unit the more noticible it is.
Also, add to each 'interaction' command another field, telling the unit
how many days to maximum use to execute the command....
For Example: Order Black Company Attack Helpless Newbie 2
might have a return like this on the turn report:
15> Black Company searches for Helpless Newbie, but cannot find him
16> Black Company breaks off search for Helpless Newbie after two days
From: firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU (Steve Chapin)
SC> Some comments/replies on various things:
SC> 1) combat capture is coming.
SC> After the base mechanics are in place, I'll
SC> take a look at ramping up the damage for skilled units to make them
SC> more valuable (or toning down the unskilled damage).
OK, since I'm on an ideas kick, here's my idea for pumping up more skilled
Have the damage be more concentrated the more skill a unit has. For
instance, if in a melee round 500 hits are done to a 50 man unit, a skill
0 unit will to 10 hits to each man, while a skill 10 attacker will kill
5 men outright <or some variation of above>
also implement that the morale of a unit goes down as men are killed,
and !wala! skill means something!
SC> 2) the economy will be rehashed. Plans for now include the pioneering
SC> of new markets and items within markets, and having a supply/demand
SC> model including population, plus distance from source to determine
SC> market prices. At some way-off hazy day, NPC traders may be put in.
SC> This is a big change, and won't happen real soon, but it's on the TODO
A point I would like to make on markets, tho, is that it is a total
crock to walk into a market, plop down 9000 gold, and walk off with 100
suits of chainmail... I think what would be good would be to have all the
'staples'... ie. leather armor, spears, daggers, axes, etc. to be available
at markets but require more esoteric (and useful) items like chainmail,
warhorses etc. to be actually created by somebody.
SC> 3) thievery is also in the works (use stealth), along with mining,
SC> armorsmithing, etc. Fleshing out the skills is next on my list after
SC> I get finished with combat.
Lore Sheets! Lore Sheets! Goody Goody!
SC> I am considering ways to make archery more effective. As it stands,
SC> archery is always a weak sister to combat. There is a bonus in for
SC> being mounted on war horses.
My proposals for Archery:
1) Make it really important in seiges;
2) distribute less damage to people using bows in battles;
This reflects that the archers stand back a ways, allowing the
swordsmen to take the brunt of the enemy attacks; allows archers
to get away with less armor.
email@example.com (Bill Viggers) writes:
BV> 3: Something else.
BV> How about we feed them? If Food becomes a comodity,
BV> then perhaps units will have to buy food to eat
BV> (1 unit/person/month).
firstname.lastname@example.org.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
GL> I have never found keeping track of food pleasant in a game like this.
GL> If we have to provide food, we need rules for stealing food, growing
GL> food, hunting for food, lots of places to buy food, rules for fishing
GL> at sea, but no, then you catch scurvy, etc. Yech. Starvation rules.
GL> Automatic things that kick in when your unit is starving to make them
GL> get food in case you forgot to check -- is it realistic for a unit to
GL> follow orders and starve to death? Well, you have to check their
GL> morale, and then...
Ditto... One thing I really hate about empire is the way you have to move
food around... It really bites when your highly educated populace starves
one hex away from a 999 food agribusiness because you forgot to move the
But I do like the idea of food for sieges.
What I had in mind when I originally proposed the food idea was more of a
multiplier to maintenance costs, ie. if food was plentiful for the population
maintenance costs would be lower, if food was rare, maintenance costs would
go up. Also, it would be a producible commodity that could be sold for
GL> I wanna explore the vast hinterlands, not worry about food.
Why not buy one of those maps that people are selling?
'less than the cost of raising one unit'. :D
About the various suggestions on combat:
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions about making combat reflect medieval
mass battles... What I would like to point out is that olympia is a
factional/role-playing game and that a lot of combat is not going to
be of the 'ok I'll line up my army in full equipment while you do the
same so we can have a real open field battle with knights charging, arrows
flying etc.' I think a lot of combat is going to be of the 'bad bart's
hanging out at the Flying Horse inn... let's go grease him while he's drunk,
not wearing his armor, etc.' variety... ie. people are not usually going
to have all the preparation that would go into a mass battle.
Tying in with my earlier stealth vs. observation proposal,
I think that the following 'algorythm' could provide interesting
1) does unit executing unit see target?
Y= go to step 2
N= waste day; go to next order
2) does target see executing unit?
Y= fight results
N= Ambush! target surprised!
The probability of capturing a target could go way up if he was
etc. Just some ideas.
So far, a most excellent game!