Subject: MN: more opinions on this week's proposals...

From: kenningd@w... (I am the Water Boatman)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:26:02 +0100

I'm not entirely convinced about some of this week's proposals -- I like 509
and 513, but there are only two I realyl want to comment on...

>Proposal 508 - So They All Manoeuvred Over and One Fell Out [Multiple]

Like Grimace, I'm not sure about this one -- at least if you pay the token
cost, you are guaranteed to get your manoeuvre into the rules. If you rely on
a proposal, it may not get voted in.

>Add the following Manoeuvre to bottom of the list in 
>Rule 1.18.2 (Gambits And Their Costs):-

As if to prove my point.....

I really like this proposed manoeuvre, but I'm going to vote against the
proosal because of the other bits, which I'm not so keen on.

> London Site-seeing (2 Go, 1 Si, 1 Bu)
> Canary Wharf -> Tower Hill -> Westminster -> Piccadilly Circus -> 
> Hyde Park Corner -> Paddington

It's a lovely idea, although I'm not sure I remember Paddington being a great
tourist destination. How about ending the manoeuvre at Camden Town instead?

The proposal I really have a problem with is this one:

>Proposal 514 - Charge Card [Multiple]

>Current is the radial distance of the Station from the Meridian divided by 
>the radial distance of the most remote Station on the Map expressed as an 
>integer percentage. It is calculated using the formula - 
>
> Current = int(station_radius / max_radius * 100) 
> 
>... where 'int' is a function which removes the real part of a number. 

I can't comment on this because I don't understand a word of it. Therefore it
will definitely *not* be receiving a vote for from me. Sorry, but I think it's
grossly unfair to non-mathematicians to try to introduce things like this into
a game which is essentially not maths based.

I also think that even if I did understand it, it would be unfeasibly
complicated to have to work out charge every time you made a move -- my beck's
proposal got voted down and that worked using only the simple addition of two
values, both of which would be provided in the GSD. If that wasn't acceptable,
I don't see how this could be.

dave