Yes, that is even better.
> At the other end of the scale are ideas like the two that
> follow. These are just "What if?" sorts of ideas, so don't
> get in a huff over them. Just throwing them around to
> stimulate comments and see if there's anything here
> worth investigating.
>
> Idea #1: faction trees persuade system
>
> Given: faction trees, and tree-stealing.
>
> Require that PERSUADE or TERRORIZE used to raise the
> loyalty of your own units be done by the lord of the unit.
> Persuase or terrorize used by a faction member that is not
> the unit's lord would attempt to get the unit to switch
> allegiances to another unit within the same faction; in
> other words, it will lower the unit's overall loyalty.
>
> I hope I explained this well enough so you can understand
> it. :-)
>
> What this would do is to require unit's lords to be
> somewhat geographically close.
Yes, but I thought that was an obvious implication of the faction
tree idea. After all, if units don't even necessarily _know_ who any
boss but their immediate boss is and certainly not whoever else is in
their faction, how could they react differently based on that
knowledge ?
> Idea #2: skill system doubling idea
>
> No limits to skill levels. Each skill level takes twice as
> long as the previous level to attain. Successive levels
> of skill double the output or ability.
>
> Examples: Spell preparation takes 14 days at level 1, 7
> days at level 2, 3 days at 3, 1 day at level 4.
>
> This last idea doesn't seem as good anymore as when I first
> thought of it, but I'll include it anyone.
I still think that this is a good idea, although doubling is much too
strong. That would mean that if you need only 10 days to reach level
1, you'd need 10,000 days to reach level 10 from level 9. A somewhat
softer exponential factor would seem better. 25% longer for each
level would give you tables similar to the current ones.
Carl Edman