Re: Permissions proposal

William Bruvold (
Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:24:21 PST

> More:
> o I propose that hostile/neutral/ally and admit stick around
> from turn to turn, but receive's expire.
> This is partly because some receive orders implicitly go
> away once they've been used, i.e:
> receive 5501 10 2
> doesn't mean that 5501 can give me 2 peasants 100 times in
> a row.
> Alternately, we can simply have RECEIVE <who> / NORECEIVE <who>,
> to allow a person to give us any amount of goods. These would
> stick around, but you wouldn't be able to limit what items or
> how many you received.

Ok but I think some of the discussion about units/factions/and
attitude indicates that it might be time for people to rethink their
position about the faction hierarchy and chunking the tree. Lets
look at an example......

My faction (Roack's Ranger's) is currently cooperating pretty
extensively with another player. We have pretty extensive
communication via-email and simply tell each other "give x to unit y
this turn". If we needed to know exactly which unit to set
permission for and for which unit I think a lot more of our turns
would be screwed up (which actually is a high percentage). Writing
turns would become extremely tedious as we would have to make sure
that the specific unit being used had recieved permission.


If we only had to issue a recieve/admit order for our respective
factions from the top entity once, it would cut down on the tedium.
Think this out, making it necessary to note units and not factions
really increases chances for error/tedium without markeded
improvement in game play.


Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links