Re: Olympia

Bill Viggers (
13 Jul 1995 21:03:48 GMT

In article <3u0dji$>, Robert Beverley <> writes:
|> I am a new player of Olympia and some things are becoming apparent
|> with regard to new players and how they develop in relation to
|> experienced players. The short answer seems to be that they are
|> unable to catch up and must always remain subservient to
|> established positions.

Firstly let me say, I began Olympia in turn 1. So I guess
my post is going to be biased towards retaining power in
the 'old guard', maybe.

I disagree that new players must remain subservient to established
players. There are _vast_ tracks of land out there that have never
been explored (look at the recent GM Summary) and I'm willing
to bet that most of the 'explored' land is not claimed/garrisoned.

If you want to compete in Provincia then you are up against a large
number of established players and of course you will be subservient,
so go elsewhere.

|> It seems to me that the only thing that cannot be developed by a
|> position in an effort to catchup is noble points. So why not
|> allow new starters to begin with the total amount of noble points
|> they would have gained if they had played since turn 1. This would

Because Noble points can also be _lost_ by established factions.
I am willing to bet a couple of thousand gold that few (well
less than half) of the players who started on turn one, now
have a 'full' allocation of noble points. Heck. I've never
been involved in player combat, and I've still managed to
lose a noble point.

I see noble points as being the reward you get for lasting
a length of time in the game. By drip feeding them to players,
Olympia forces a gradual expansion.

Starting players now get more wood, gold and I think peasants
than the origional starters did a year ago. Combine this with
the large amount of information publically available (the
atlas for instance) and new players will be advancing faster
than the origional players did anyway.

Because noble points can _only_ be accumulated through time
(or interactions with other nobles) I would be very reluctant
to see an inflation of them.

What might be interesting, if Rich could manage it, would be to
see a list of the number of noble points and factions in the game
on a per turn basis. For instance my faction is now worth
20 noble points. After a years worth of carefuly playing I'm
still only worth a third more than a starting player. Noble
points is not what makes one position subservient to another.