Re: Two long-term problems

Thomas Hudson (
Wed, 28 Sep 1994 21:05:22 -0400 (EDT)

> > This has the exact same result - seriously effects long-term decisions
> > which players have already made and can't undo.
> I'd like to hear an explanation of that. I can't see how it does.
> In the latter case (increasing FORM cost), whatever you were planning to
> do, you can still do, unless your "plan" was to have zillions of nobles,
> which is the one thing we are trying to discourage. In other words, it
> specifically targets the thing that people want to discourage, without
> interfering with other decisions that players have made.

Hmm... Well, I'm still not sure that I agree that the number of nobles
has to be reduced. (As I said in the postscript of the message there).
Although, giving it more thought, I agree that making FORM cost more when
you have a larger number of nobles is probably one of the better possible
"solutions" to this (non-)problem. Shutting off FORM completely is a hard
limit and one I dislike.

I probably just glossed over it in the ongoing discussion; can somebody
state again exactly why it's bad for me to have 20 nobles after another
2-4 _years_ realtime?

> David desJardins

Tom, who set up his early diplomacy assuming that he would be able to
get at least one oathed noble every two years. Yes, it made a difference.
My faction in and of itself was assumed to hit 8-10 nobles early on.

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links