Re: Olympia Question

Scott Turner (
12 May 1995 14:41:32 GMT

>I believe that the game dynamics would have improved for the better
>in oly commerical version 1 if Rich had selected 20 cities, made them
>_each_ safe havens, and then dropped nobles randomy into them.

I think a lot of people have problems with the whole concept of a
"safe haven". It might be interesting in G2 if Rich eliminates the
whole idea of a safe haven and just drops new nobles randomly into any
existing city -- maybe preferentially into empty cities.

>b) Faery is fine the way it is _if_ it really was a dangerous place.

The problem with Faery is that too many faery stones are available.

>c) Bad idea to place a mountain due north of the starting safe haven.
>All turn one players are hereby raked over the coals for allowing a
>castle to be completed, much less standing, on Mount Olympia.

Oh, I disagree! Mt. Olympus is the most interesting situation in Oly.

Building a castle there was a big gamble. Trying to stop someone from
building would have been a big gamble as well (why set yourself back
stopping someone else so early in the game?). Keeping the castle
while placed adjacent to a safe zone is a great and interesting

>d) Limitations on beastmasters.

I think there is general agreement on this problem. Beastmasters need
to either have their stack size limited (the option I prefer), or have
to pay maintenance on their beasts.

>Yes, such a career track at least initially could be boring (and at
>2.50 a week might not be worth it)...

It might be interesting if Rich would credit new players with 1 free
week of play for each 5 weeks a game had been in progress, or some
such. That might compensate new players for the disadvantage of
joining a game in progress.

-- Scott T.