Re: OLY: breaking Beastmastery

Robert Christopher Butchko (
18 Sep 1995 21:16:32 -0700

In article <43ku1i$>,
David desJardins <> wrote:
>Robert Christopher Butchko <> writes:
>> They're over twice as good as giant birds (but they can't fly). What
>No, a dragon is in almost all cases considerably less good in combat
>than two giant birds (and it can't fly).
>of a balanced piece (attack = defense) scales roughly as the square root
>of its strength.
>I also think that the effect on game balance if dragons did not exist
>and everyone was breeding giant birds instead, would be virtually nil.
>Copyright 1995 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
>from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.

As the great Bard once said, 'That wasn't what I meant. It may be the
same as what I said, but it certainly was not my point."
Twice as good meant in terms of rating only, not in a balanced, overworld
view of wonderfulness. I'd much rather have two giant birds than one
dragon, but I'd rather have one dragon than one bird.
Birds are, as you say, horribly overpowerful for the game and should
be done away with. I agree with you when you say that birds are too
powerful to be flying pieces. I would also agree with you when you
admit that your point about bird-breeding being just as overwhelming to
the game as dragon breeding is wrong. The advantage birds have over
giant spiders is nowhere near the level of a dragon's advantage over
a giant bird.
I would go so far as to say that I would second your agreement to all
the various proposals I floated in the main body of my note, as soon
as you do so agree.
I'm puzzled, though, as to whether you do, in fact, actually, straight
out, agree with me that beastmastery needs to be broken. Could you
address the point directly?