>>Yah, definitely more of an MI or Quest kind of thing. So you see
>>Olympia primarily as a strategic wargame? Or rather, don't let
>>me put words in your mouth: what appeals to you about Olympia,
>>why do you play it?
>>
>>--
>>Rich Skrenta <skrenta@pbm.com>
>
>
>2) OLY can be played 100% via email. BIG plus in my book.
BIG BIG PLUS.
>
>6) OLY looks to have the ability to support the lone wolf player who doesn't
>really want to compete with other players, he can just go explore to
>find new and intersting artifacts, creatures, etc.
initially yes, but I'm not sure how long that will last beyond say turn 100.
>7) OLY has a built in medium to role-play the game if you want to and the
>mechanics to support some of the role-play as well.
Other plusses include
8) Oly is fairly bug free, and when a bug is found it is rapidly fixed.
I've been bitten by big bugs too. They are however rare, and the policy
concerning them is fair (if painful).
9) Excellent customer service.
10) inexpensive
11) diplomacy is very important to success. And due to email much easier to
achieve than a normal PBM.
12) magic/trade/combat/and empire building are fairly well balanced
>Guess while we're at it, let's give some of the negatives I see so far...
>
>1) The 'size' of a position is too easy to build up sginificantly. Skills are
>too easily learned, additional units (nobles) are too easy to obtain, castles
>are too easdy to build (given that there is only really ONE size and evenif
>that wasn't true I still think they may be).
This will become much more of a problem in the long run.
>2) There doesn't APPEAR to be much additional gain for becoming a master at
>something. Even if there is, it's too easily attained. I have 1 maybe
>2 master archers already.
I think that providing some concrete bonuses for experience/mastery that
could only be gained after several years of use would be an excellent
addition to the game. If there was a reason to specialize such that a noble
which has used HARVEST WOOD or SAILING would perform the task faster/better
after 20, 50 and even 100 uses, a lot of variety would be added to the
game. So and so, the master sailer would have new meaning, and you would be
able to offer your services as an excellent woodcutter because you could
get more wood than an apprentice noble. Perhaps title changes at number of
uses=4,8,16,32,64,128 or 5,10,25,50,100 if you like decimal better.
>3) The lack of BATTLE magic is glaring (for me). Look at LEGENDS method of
>implementing battle magic. It's not the best in the world but it is one of
>the things from that system that works and works quite well.
I don't miss this, but haven't seen an effective implementation before.
>4) The 'apparent' lack of a troop morale that would effect breaking.
Being able to select breacking point (probably with a skill) would be very
useful.
>
>7) Having to spend several boring turns just to start up nobles and get a
>starting skill set. I would much rather be given XX NPs and XX gold to spend
>on a set-up and then go from there. say 6 NPs and 1200 gold. Anything not spent
>on setup would go into the claim stuff (which is where these should be taken
>from to begin with since I think you starting numbers for NP/gold are about
>right). I think implementing this in g1 would be a good way of making newbies
>more competative with older players even now.
This is an excellent idea, and one that has been suggested before I
believe. Is there a good reason not to do this?
8) It is harder in the long run to be a powerful mage or trader than it is
to be a powerful castle owner. I would rank the order of power of the
"professions" as Empire Builder/Warlord/Mage/Trader. In fact I would say
that you can't be a successful Warlord Mage or Trader, without a castle. I
am of course hoping to see someone prove me wrong.
>That's about all I can think of off the top of my head and it's getting on
>towards bed time anyway.
>
>Hope you really wanted this missive.
>
>Chip
>
-- Harold