Re: Olympia

Bill Viggers (
16 Jul 1995 23:23:51 GMT

Dave806459 writes:
>I recall a suggestion made long ago that as a faction grows nobles become
>more expensive. I'd like to revive this proposition: it makes the
>practice of terrorize 99 much less useful & it makes death in big factions
>a little more severe (which would balance it seems to me). It seems to
>make sense from a character point of view: a faction is small in Olympia
>because the members know & trust each other: as a faction grows too big
>anonymity sets in: different nobles may never meet each other, & lack a
>basis for trust. The result: corruption sets in, distrust & lies spread:
>the dark times

This of course encourages factions with more NP to use them in
other ways, such as gaining magic skills. While I agree that
factions with multiple nobles maybe should pay more for new
nobles I don't think that will solve the problem of some factions
growing much faster than others. Those freed prisoners will
still be out there. Perhaps prisoners should have a lesser
chance of joining a larger faction? This would be a first
step and not involve the wholesale overhaul of how nobles
are purchased.

I'd like to see NP not used for 'rare' skills at
all. I've said before and I'll say it again. Why should
I be able to learn Survive Fatal Wound simply because I
terrorised some other noble into joining my faction and
then sent it off on a suicide mission. Skill Points and
Noble Points should be kept separate.

William Bruvold writes some suggestions about starting cities.
> some solutions
> i) Building restrictions enforced at least four provinces
>from starting city.
> ii) No mountain next to starting city
> iii) Multiple starting cities making it difficult and less
>advantagous for previous gaming communities to use existing
>relationships as basis of meta-alliance.

I think (i) may be a little harsh, four provinces from a
starting city is a _long_ way. Maybe one or two. (ii) however I
agree with. The same should be said for Rocky hills and deserts
though. (iii) I disagree with. By having multiple starting cities
you actually help large alliences get spread about. I suspect
many alliences are formed as a matter of convenience rather than
through prior gaming contacts, so you will still get locals starting
in a city together forming power groups amongst themselves. That
said I think multiple starting cities are good in that players
do get scattered about. This will tend to mean that factions
grow faster than in the current game, due to less compition at
the start for scare resources (peasants and wood).