Ovatha Easterling
2nd February 2008, 01:27 PM
Earnie:
Here is my experience---in some games the loyalty drops when you destroy a
pop and sometimes it does not. Likewise, in some games a siege train, in a
battle, will lose a porportion of its machines but none in others. The
siege train exists until the last 100 men are gone.
The conclusion I drew was that this was GSI's 'uncertainty' principle was at
work. But I have been wrong before.
Ed
>From: DrakaraGM@...
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] PC loy drops
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:03:56 EST
>
>
>In my own experience, as I mentioned in another reply on this subject, I
>believe I had found that a destroy order had a greater impact on pop
>center
>loyalties than a capture order. But other factors also apply -- the
>larger the
>pop center, the larger the impact of either order -- a destroyed camp may
>well
>have no noticeable loyalty impact as its effect may be indistinguishable
>from the normal +/- impact of current tax rate, while a captured MT or
>City is
>definitely going to get the notice of the general public.
>
>However, in a recent game I DID have a city destroyed in one of my games --
>and loyalties did indeed appear to be unaffected. So it is possible that I
>too have been misunderstanding the effect of the destroy order
>somehow...despite playing in a bazillion games! Hmmm...
>
>Or it could be that somehow a bug creeped into the program? I know that
>may
>have happened in other cases -- for example, characters in armies are not
>supposed to be able to get character encounters, and in games run by GSI
>and
>later DGE that was indeed the case, yet in games run by MEGames, on more
>than
>one occasion characters in armies have gotten character encounters. In
>actuality they were unable to actually react to the encounter -- so that
>factor was
>still applicable -- but they should not have gotten the encounters to start
>with... And sometimes other things go wrong as well -- in a game just
>recently processed, a ransom demand was made and met, all the factors were
>correct
>for that to work, yet the program thought the character was not a hostage
>for
>some reason and thus did not process the ransom correctly! MEGames
>corrected the problem manually, but still, a bug in the program
>somewhere... So it
>may be that loyalties DID drop more from destroy orders in earlier games
>but
>that in the current software being run at MEGames the order has no
>deleterious
>impact...
>
>-- Ernie III
>
>P.S. -- Happy Holidays all!
>
>In a message dated 12/29/2006 10:14:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>skmyg@... writes:
>
>Brad Brunet wrote:
>
> > With a capture there are survivors who spread the news
> > of terror and conquest. The rest of the nation is
> > embittered as their supposed masters and protectors
> > allow their subjects to become enslaved - who's to say
> > they won't be next?
> >
> > With a destroy they kill everyone, including the
> > pigeons and nobody is the wiser...
> >
> > Or choose a rationalization for yourself,
>
>A reasonable enough explanation; but as I've learned from decades of
>game analysis and design, you can rationalize nearly anything in the
>parts of a game which are abstracted. No biggie there.
>
>However --
>
> > but that's
> > how the code works. Destroy when appropriate but
> > capture when you can as it accelerates your enemy's
> > demise.
> >
> > Brad
>
>I know I've read articles and comments on this issue and somehow I came
>away with the wrong information.
>
>I've had it backwards all these years. I thought the benefit of
>destruction was lowering enemy global loyalty, and the benefit of
>capture was you got a pop center. Seemed like a fair trade-off, so I
>never thought to question it.
>
>However, since learning to play the game, I guess I've never really gone
>back to re-read all those MEPBM articles with the benefit of context.
>
>Hmm. I guess that's a new item on my to do list now. :: sigh :: Like
>I need more to do.
>
>- Steve M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Here is my experience---in some games the loyalty drops when you destroy a
pop and sometimes it does not. Likewise, in some games a siege train, in a
battle, will lose a porportion of its machines but none in others. The
siege train exists until the last 100 men are gone.
The conclusion I drew was that this was GSI's 'uncertainty' principle was at
work. But I have been wrong before.
Ed
>From: DrakaraGM@...
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] PC loy drops
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:03:56 EST
>
>
>In my own experience, as I mentioned in another reply on this subject, I
>believe I had found that a destroy order had a greater impact on pop
>center
>loyalties than a capture order. But other factors also apply -- the
>larger the
>pop center, the larger the impact of either order -- a destroyed camp may
>well
>have no noticeable loyalty impact as its effect may be indistinguishable
>from the normal +/- impact of current tax rate, while a captured MT or
>City is
>definitely going to get the notice of the general public.
>
>However, in a recent game I DID have a city destroyed in one of my games --
>and loyalties did indeed appear to be unaffected. So it is possible that I
>too have been misunderstanding the effect of the destroy order
>somehow...despite playing in a bazillion games! Hmmm...
>
>Or it could be that somehow a bug creeped into the program? I know that
>may
>have happened in other cases -- for example, characters in armies are not
>supposed to be able to get character encounters, and in games run by GSI
>and
>later DGE that was indeed the case, yet in games run by MEGames, on more
>than
>one occasion characters in armies have gotten character encounters. In
>actuality they were unable to actually react to the encounter -- so that
>factor was
>still applicable -- but they should not have gotten the encounters to start
>with... And sometimes other things go wrong as well -- in a game just
>recently processed, a ransom demand was made and met, all the factors were
>correct
>for that to work, yet the program thought the character was not a hostage
>for
>some reason and thus did not process the ransom correctly! MEGames
>corrected the problem manually, but still, a bug in the program
>somewhere... So it
>may be that loyalties DID drop more from destroy orders in earlier games
>but
>that in the current software being run at MEGames the order has no
>deleterious
>impact...
>
>-- Ernie III
>
>P.S. -- Happy Holidays all!
>
>In a message dated 12/29/2006 10:14:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>skmyg@... writes:
>
>Brad Brunet wrote:
>
> > With a capture there are survivors who spread the news
> > of terror and conquest. The rest of the nation is
> > embittered as their supposed masters and protectors
> > allow their subjects to become enslaved - who's to say
> > they won't be next?
> >
> > With a destroy they kill everyone, including the
> > pigeons and nobody is the wiser...
> >
> > Or choose a rationalization for yourself,
>
>A reasonable enough explanation; but as I've learned from decades of
>game analysis and design, you can rationalize nearly anything in the
>parts of a game which are abstracted. No biggie there.
>
>However --
>
> > but that's
> > how the code works. Destroy when appropriate but
> > capture when you can as it accelerates your enemy's
> > demise.
> >
> > Brad
>
>I know I've read articles and comments on this issue and somehow I came
>away with the wrong information.
>
>I've had it backwards all these years. I thought the benefit of
>destruction was lowering enemy global loyalty, and the benefit of
>capture was you got a pop center. Seemed like a fair trade-off, so I
>never thought to question it.
>
>However, since learning to play the game, I guess I've never really gone
>back to re-read all those MEPBM articles with the benefit of context.
>
>Hmm. I guess that's a new item on my to do list now. :: sigh :: Like
>I need more to do.
>
>- Steve M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>