Subject: Directive

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Aug 2002 21:35:27 -0400

Doc notes that things have gotten somewhat stagnant, with little more
than minor rule amendments and dull doctrine actions happening
lately. 

Doc finds this boring.

Doc calls for proposals to shake things up a little.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Aug 2002 07:32:32 -0400

In particular...

(First subdirective:)

Quoting Kevan a while ago:

Kevan Davis <[email-masked]> writes:

> This I like less. Fair enough in that it prepares the ground for more 
> interesting Doctrine actions, but the three actions you specify are 
> disappointing no-brainers - if (flock/10 > influence) then Spread, else 
> Influence. And Steal if that would get you more, or if there's some future-
> strategic reason to cut an enemy down to size.
> 
> A bit unexciting that the actions can always be performed, too, that there's no 
> reason *not* to perform a Flock-fuelling action every dun. A bit of a shame 
> that any Leader who has weekend/frequent Internet access automatically gets an 
> easy edge over those that don't.

Yet no one has proposed doing anything about these deficiencies.
Actions always have simple, deterministic, favorable
consequences... unfortunately.

(Second subdirective:)

Also, you guys have been busy building Flocks. Why? What are Flocks
good for? *Are* they good? Do big Flocks have a down side?

(Third subdirective:)

Also: One word: Jihad...

-- 
- Doc

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:55:28 +0100

> consequences... unfortunately.

Well, requiring the expenditure of an Action to add and remove Doctrines made 
it a bit more of a dilemma, and the new Stealing method almost gives the 
biggest Doctrine a tiny pause for thought. But yes, mostly quite dull.

> good for? *Are* they good? Do big Flocks have a down side?

Mm, just arbitrarily following the other Leader, on my part. Best to try and 
keep variables roughly equal, if you're not sure whether they're suddenly going 
to become very useful or very useless (and if you're nothing better to be 
doing).

Lazy of me not to come up with a solution before now, though.

> Also: One word: Jihad...

I've considered this, but have yet to come up with a neat mechanic that doesn't 
involve big Doctrines easily pounding the smaller ones.

As a stab at balancing things:-

--

Proposal - Man or Mouse

In Rule 1015, replace "A Doctrine may take a Doctrine Action, but only if it 
has not done so in the past dun." with "Large Doctrines may take an Action if 
they haven't already taken one in the past dun. Small Doctrines are able to 
implement changes more quickly, and may take an Action if they haven't yet 
taken *two*, in the past dun."

Add to Rule 1014:-

"If a Doctrine's Flock is less than half the size of that of the Doctrine
with the biggest Flock, it is considered Small. Otherwise, it is considered
Large."

{ Allowing Small Doctrines to catch up quicker, or to just operate more
efficiently if they'd rather keep their numbers down. }

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 19 Aug 2002 14:41:44 -0400

OK. Though I fear its main effect will be to increase the number of
dull Doctrine Actions. +10 Kevan, +5 Goateus, Ian, Zarba.

-- 
- Doc