Original_To:  GAMES
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.games-l
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:51:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Gary Grothman <GROTHMAG@SNYSYRV1.BITNET>
From:         Gary Grothman <GROTHMAG@SNYSYRV1.BITNET>
Subject:      Castles reply, question, and comment...

Pretty good game, eh?  At least if you're into that sort of
thing.  Probably a good starter for bureaucrat-wanna-bee's...

Actually, that wasn't the "comment" referred to in the subject line,
that was a spur-of-the-moment comment provided at no extra charge...

The reply:
 Some person was asking about how to let the computer know you've
finished a castle in the three-player game.  Well, it SHOULD be
exactly the same as in the 1-castle (woops, that last line should
have said three-castle)...if the computer isn't prompting you, you
must have fouled up.  Is the castle big enough?  Get counseling
to see how many pieces are required.  More likely, however, you
have some wall segment somewhere that isn't quite finished, even
though it looks fine.  Go to the design screen, and click on every
piece in the castle, making sure they are all "completed".  It's
fairly easy to accidently remove workers from a full-height but not-
yet-completed wall, or even a tower.  Once you have enough pieces,
the computer will prompt you whenever all construction has stopped,
with all designed pieces complete.

 The question:
Has anyone found some system to balance the labour force to give
good efficiency?  In one land I had "excellent" efficiency, and
construction was many times faster than at !@#%^ "satisfactory".
Even "good" is a huge improvement.  However, I don't see any
clear way to know who to hire, other than when certain lands are
"far from the quarries", for example, when one presumably needs
more carters (?).  Trial and error is very tedious and slow, not
to mention stupid, which brings up my

 comment:
Castles is a rather good game, sometimes a bit boring, but one
that I am happy to dust off and start up again every so often.
The graphics are fairly good, and the concept appeals to me (but
some would find it deadly dull, I'm sure).  Combat is a bit
more simplistic than I'd like, and controlling forces in combat
is way too hard.  It's odd that one can't move archers, and
getting infantry to act reasonably is extremely frustrating.
One works and works to get them around the moat, for example,
but then they have a tendancy to walk back to the last place
you sent them whenever their chosen target is toasted...also,
not allowing cauldrons on diagonal walls is a bit daft...
presumably the designers didn't get around to doing the
extra work?  Cauldrons on towers would be nice too...
Actually, all of this preceeding paragraph is added bonus
commentary...what I really wanted to comment on was the
labour balancing thing...as in my question above.  Why did
they make it so difficult to get a decently efficient labour
force?  One is given NO information to base hiring decisions
on, other than overall efficiency.  Come on, it wouldn't have
been difficult, and would have made a lot of sense, to have
an option similar to "counsel" where one is told just what is
lacking...surely the Builder can look at the project and see
that, for example, dozens of masons are picking their noses
because not enough stone has been cut?  Or the carpenters are
off partying with the Celts because they're bored?  This
is something that could easily be included, should realistically
be included, and is pretty darned important considering this
is one of the most significant factors in success in the
game...my ncbb (number of castles before boredom) factor would
increase considerably if it didn't take my workers 250 days to
complete a tower.  Ok, a hundred days...whatever.

Well, good luck all, and thanks for any ideas...

Gary G.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU