>John Sloan <johns@unipalm.co.uk> writes:
>> The second time I reckon I could easily have flattened the culprit
>> militarily, but it would have taken so many noble-days and orders of
>> training and making and equipping and marching down there to do it, I
>> couldn't be bothered.
>No doubt this will show how dense I am, but I thought that was called
>"playing the game." If you take that out, what's left?
Quite a lot, actually. Olympia isn't _only_ a wargame, despite some
people's efforts. I was there to explore the system, try to find out what
made the economy tick, and playtest the thing. Just because I don't play
the game the way _you_ would, doesn't mean I'm not playing.
Given the effort involved in constructing the orders to stomp on someone
militarily, I didn't think it worth the effort. If I want to stomp someone
in a wargame, I play a real wargame. I played Galaxy, before the order
overhead on that got too big, and I play a lot ftf.
Olympia, I think, was designed as something _more_ than just a wargame, but
the militarists don't seem to let the little guys do their own thing, and I
think that is a little bit unfortunate, to say the least. The attitude
that there is nothing else to do seems a little myopic.
> David desJardins
>--
>Copyright 1994 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
>from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
John