Re: Land ownership mechanic

Dan Corrin (
Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:09:02 EST

on Feb 15 19:12:47 (Rich Skrenta) said:
> As a simplification, installing a garrison could require that the
> province just be adjacent to a castle, or an already garrisoned province.
> This eliminates the need for complex path-finding, both for the players
> as well as the program.

This makes a later staement possibly invalid (see below)
> > Why would garrisons switch their loyalty because you defeated the seat
> > of power? At best I would expect the men to desert, and force the
> > conquerer to go around and install new garrisons, in effect subdue
> > the countryside, show the flag, etc. Meanwhile the neighbours can
> > take advantage of the reduction of power.
> >
> > I am defintely against just handing the kingdom over. Do you want
> > emperor Ming the Mild of all of greater atnos to loose the entire
> > continent because someone happened to have a good battle result
> > on the capital?
> Actually, yes. The whole point is to force weak points. Note that Ming
> the Mild has the option to build as many castles as he can afford, thus
> making his kingdom more secure. If he binds 120 provinces to a single
> castle, then he deserves what he gets.

Yes, but unless the garrison of each of the subsidiary castles can point
to the main castle, then he is only credited with one section, and
is ming the very mild, ruler of part of greater atnos. If the castles
do all point to one main castle, then when someone attacks that castle,
we are back to the original case of one castle.

>From above, if the province is added if adjacent to an already garrisoned
province, then for ming to set up the situation with multiple castles,
he will have to leave his kingdom, move to another section of gr. atnos
build there and expand out. Hoipefully soemone else will be minding the
store for him. In this case, what happens when the two kingdoms are about
to join i.e. the new province is adjacent to two (or more) garrisoned
provinces each from a different main castle?

> It seems quite realistic to have the land bound to the castle.

It does require that you have a castle before you can participate
in the conquering scheme... On turn 70 there were 15 castles for 29 players
about 50% unless some players have multiple castles (highly likely)
so maybe 1/3 of the players at that time, less now...

> > I still like the idea of the noble going around
> > collecting the taxes. I can't believe that people can't be bothered to
> > ride around on horseback and collect money...
> I don't have an opinion on this point. It's certainly easier for me to
> not teleport money to the castle, but most players seem to be in favor
> of the auto-forwarding of revenue.
Of course the players are in favour of teleporting money. I'd be in
favour of the gods granting me 20,000 gold, but that doesn't mean
that it is good for the game.

If you must teleport money, why not just put it back into the unclaimed
items. Those factions who were thrifty in the game have an advantage
over those who weren't, as they can make money magically appear if they
are stuck (e.g exploring in a remote corner of the torus), by claiming
the gold.


Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links