I think that this is likely to be a problem unless you can specify
what you want to keep and what you don't. But that can get to be a
real pain. I favor a
ACCEPT <who> <item> <amount>
Or maybe an alternate form would address the problem better:
ACCEPT <who> weight <weight>
The default weight for any character/faction is zero
I'd like to specify factions in my ACCEPT orders.
I'd like to specify ALL as an item.
I think
ACCEPT t6k 77 0
should mean "I'll take no wood from Taira" rather than "I'll take any
amount of wood from Taira"
This is, unfortunately, another way to screw up your turn, but that's
life in the big city.
The tactic is much more effective than some give it credit for. For
example, I bet I could have messed up a bunch of peoples turns last
turn by giving someone an unexpected "gift" of a bunch of beans. Not
that I was likely to, mind you. I paid good money for those beans :-)
It seems to me that there aren't many advantages to being the defender
in Olympia. Even the advantage of a tower or castle doesn't really
let you hold of someone with a 2:1 advantage. And should an attacker
manage to bring an assailant to battle, there is little chance that
any of the attackers forces will get away, as noted here earlier.
Therefore, it doesn't seem too out of line that it should be difficult
to bring a defender to battle. Thus I don't think that taking away
this delaying tactic is unbalancing, particularly since the counter
(writing egregious numbers of DROP orders) is highly unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, allowing the "suicide" delaying attacks seems more
reasonable to me. It is odd that an activity that two parties engage
in only costs one time, but it can be justified.
The way you might handle this in military terms would be to establish
a rearguard which takes care of the harassing attacks, and lets the
main body keep moving. I think you can approximate this with the
current game mechanics, but it depends on how the "harassing attacks"
are ordered.
-j