Some Specific Design Ideas for Maelstrom

[Ry Vor]

... Again, randomness does not make for a lasting strategy game.  Design does.

Ok lets skip the word random for now. How is the point that I brought up going to be addressed?

If the entire map doesn't experience the same season and the map is split up as how 2nd/3rd Cycle games were, why would anyone select a region knowing that they will receive half production for turns 5-7? The other regions may receive half production for turn 1, which isn't a big deal because of the low number of pc's under control, but mid-game of turns 5-7 is an entirely different matter due to regional control.

So if you don't have the entire map experience the same season (or start the game with a random season to be fair), why would anyone select a region that's going to have depressed production values fairly soon after they gain control? Say it was a special game that has a reward of $100 or such, would you select a region like that which allows other kingdoms 9 turns of full production?

I don't think others are seeing this issue.  They've been playing northern kingdoms without complaint for 30 years.  While we don't have stats, I believe regions 1, 2 and 3 are usually about the first claimed.   It seems this is a solution in search of a problem.   If you continue your analysis, most regions are controlled by turn 7 in The Choosing.  Now many players turn their attention to their expansion, and this can be a problem in timing the action when Summer is coming for the south.  A slimmer point is most consider the 1st High Council seat the best as with an aggressive bid and stating the issue on T1, you can gain 2 points influence, and generally with the south in summer, they don't bid.  The south tries to balance a large military expansion while summer is coming that reduces their gold production 75%.  The north now has 9 turns of 100% production.  They might take advantage at this point of the south's difficulties.  Its all worked pretty well actually over these many years.

Mike is usually right, so is likely referring to the Maelstrom where any kingdom can be anywhere, rather than The Choosing.  On The Maelstrom map, the regions themselves will have more personality.  The smaller regions, like The Crown Islands or Mythgar might have a total of 8 PC's including an unidentified minor city that has to be discovered.  A large region like Triumvia might have 12 or possibly more PC's with a major, high producing city.  The humans will start with a small division outside each city, so cities will not easily be controlled before turn 3 at the earliest, and even that may be hard with slightly smaller starting militaries.  The habit of splitting regions with another kingdom(s) won't be as attractive in Maelstrom as control requires 60% and Tight Control at 80% census provides additional benefits.  This also makes blitzes about 20% more difficult just on the surface to achieve (needing to take 60% instead of 50%). Would you rather choose a large starting region with possibly about double the production if tightly controlled of a small region, or the small region you'll control quicker but then will have those limited production worries?  I've probably gawked at the map more than anyone, and I have no favorite region and no region I would never select.

As Mike has had the PC Improvement documentation for a few days and has not reported heart palpitations, I'll probably post at least the Word if not the Excel document on the 36 or so possible PC improvements shortly.  I just need to strip out some of the development parts like how text is formed and then post for the community's comments.  Easier to change something now than after games in Maelstrom start.  I really hope you give it some thought as strategy will change, I believe for a better, deeper game.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I would also add that the Southern regions often have to contend with the RD or TY early on, a problem that the North does not during its early winter turns.

[Atuan]

I would also add that the Southern regions often have to contend with the RD or TY early on, a problem that the North does not during its early winter turns.

So much this!!! You must prepare to be invaded by them on turn 1 if you reside in 7,8 or potentially 9 or 10.

[JonDoe]

Also the north is where most the wizard kingdoms are the were winning so much to start they needed some nerfig.

But Mike is right in Maelstrom it is a different animal. As RyVor likes to say stop thinking 2nd cycle for 3rd cycle. Stop thinking 3rd cycle for maelstrom. Having no kingdoms to worry about early on will make the south more desirable when picking regions. Perhaps this is good, it would make choosing a region as priority vs kingdom an interesting choice. But if you want to avoid that being a factor I would still suggest simply making it a 50% chance if the game starts at the end of winter or summer. I do not like fully random as it can drastically change the makeup of the game.

[Ry Vor]

Yes, we've discussed this a bit before but worth repeating.  Although doubtless Maelstrom will have its own variants, the intention is a two round draft (snake) where a player can select either the region or the kingdom in either round.

Again, if someone wants to make a case that kingdom X in region Y is too powerful, now is the time to do it.  We don't need to worry about the possible bad combos as they likely won't be chosen, but if something stands out as too strong, let's fix it right away.

[unclemike]

I've been busy at work so haven't been responding in a timely manner but I think we still have an issue here.

The reason why southern kingdoms aren't dominating as they should due to the seasonal adjustment factor is due to the design of the game. Look at Runnimede. The Halfling and Gnome kingdoms aren't going to be aggressive. The Southern Sands has Ancient Ones and Nomads but their expansion plans are all southern-based: Amberland is the closest northern region but that central area gets hit on all sides so not really desirable. There's Eastern Steppes but the Nomads would have to cross two regions to get there so unlikely as well.

There's Arcania with the Illusionist who won't expand up north but the Rangers can if they develop their military instead of wizards. But they will likely move into Amberland which has that central location problem. If the Rangers were placed on either side of the map, they would be more aggressive and invade the north before winter ends.

So that leaves Synisvania. The Lizards are a wizard-like kingdom and don't have the military to invade the north so that pretty much just leaves the Dark Elves. One kingdom in the south for our comparison on the issue. If you include an aggressive Ranger, that could be 1.5 kingdoms. Overall, this means that the southern kingdoms pretty much remain in the south instead of taking advantage of the seasonal winter effect and invade north by turn 7.

Some brought up the dispersed kingdoms but they primarily stay in their respective regions. In other words, the Red Dragon and Tyrant who could be aggressive up north instead try to develop the regions that they started the game with a pc. Such regions have better regional reactions and a starting foothold with a pc there are typically the reasons why the dispersed stay where they are and aren't a factor up north to take advantage of the seasonal effects.

Heck, even Ry Vor who played the Red Dragon in a game pretty much concentrated in the regions where he started off with and from what I can gather, other players do so as well. This is natural but we shouldn't consider dispersed kingdoms as potential aggressors up north because 99% of the time, they concentrate in the regions where they started in (and become non-factors by doing so).

This was the point that I brought up in 2nd Cycle (when I was converting the older program to Java). I mentioned back then that we could have a random kingdom assortment on the map from game to game but the idea was shot down due to Alamaze being compared to Chess where things should be more static than random. I brought up the subject again in 3rd Cycle (The Choosing) where the game would be more competitive with a random kingdom assortment on the map (from game to game). The dispersed kingdoms helped in that regard but they weren't a solution because of the above situation (where 99% of the time, dispersed kingdoms prefer to expand in regions that include a starting pc). Now, 4th Cycle Maelstrom will solve that issue by randomizing all kingdoms on the map between games so this problem should go away.

However, I would still limit the number of wizard (or magically inclined) kingdoms for Maelstrom. Reducing the magic kingdoms to just three (Druid, Necromancer, and Elementalist http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...5#pid43965 ) that are aligned along a specific domain of magic would be better for the game. As well as getting rid of pseudo-magical kingdoms like the Lizard Men. This will also allow for a more exciting game because with too many wizard (or wizard-like) kingdoms around, it only slows down the game where you don't see kingdoms taking advantage of seasonal effects.

So by correcting this problem (of the nature of the kingdoms themselves), we should see more southern kingdoms hitting the north, not only due to the random kingdom assortment between games, but also that the kingdoms themselves are more designed towards expansion rather than just waiting around like a wizard or wizard-like kingdom. Both of these issues should be addressed in the next release. Having random kingdom placement on the map (from game to game) will solve one of these issues. Having too many wizard or wizard like kingdoms that are not aggressive needs to be considered as well or Maelstrom will end up being "slow" as well.

Correcting those two problems leaves only the seasonal adjustment issue. The northern regions will have a distinct disadvantage compared to the south. Again we can't go by Valhalla stats (or dispersed kingdoms) due to the intended design of The Choosing by placing so many non-aggressive kingdoms in the south.

If having a random starting season isn't preferred then how about my other suggestion of having the entire map experience the same seasonal effect? If this issue isn't addressed then we'll see certain areas of the map being always favorable compared to others rather than having a better situation where all regions are equally chosen between games regardless of the random kingdom placement. People didn't listen to me in 2nd/3rd cycle design so hopefully we'll consider these factors in the upcoming release.

If we only had an Ice Age style of game where the entire map is frozen over due to a deep freeze, players will see the difference of what it's like where every kingdom/region experiences the same seasonal effect with production values being evenly distributed among all. This will improve the competiveness of the game rather than others taking advantage of your region's depressed production value which will become a problem for 4th Cycle.

Having the map split up with seasons wasn't an issue before due to the above reasons (e.g., weak kingdoms in the south, too many wizard kingdoms slowing down the game, .etc.). Now that 4th Cycle solves some of those issues, seasonal effects will become a factor more than ever before when we have a random kingdom per region condition between games.

[unclemike]

Since my previous post was rather long, the basic point may have been lost. The issue is that if we don't fix the seasonal situation for Maelstrom, you'll find that the southern kingdoms will dominate the north in every game.

Some may say that winter is only turns 5-7 so what's the big deal but it is a problem design-wise. Those turns are when most military kingdoms need to invade next because just sitting around in their local regions just ends up wasting valuable food/gold while allowing other kingdoms to catch up to them (military kingdoms have the advantage early on while other kingdom types are struggling).

We didn't see that problem with 2nd/3rd Cycle due to the configuration of having weak/non-aggressive kingdoms in the south. That won't be the case with Maelstrom because it'll have a random kingdom assortment from game to game.

So unless everyone is fine with the southern kingdoms dominating the north in nearly every game of Maelstrom, the situation with seasons needs to be fixed. If you don't like my suggestions then come up with something else but it will be a problem if it's not addressed in the design of the game.

[Ry Vor]

We've had players express opinions on kingdoms from the beginning.  The Red Dragon probably as controversial as any, with equal camps saying they are too strong as those saying they are too weak.  They are ranked #7 in Valhalla.  Is that too high or too low?  I always go to Valhalla as the factual basis for how kingdoms are doing.  It's not perfect, as for example, my usual refrain is that for some unknown reason players in their first game love to take The Sacred Order even when I personally try to talk them out of it via email.  They drop, and sometimes leave for good.  Point being, Valhalla doesn't recognize the skill of the players running the kingdoms.  Another controversy with players is The Underworld (dispersed), who are consistently in the top three (#1 for a while now), but a few players will still disparage them as weak.  The Necromancer in the north is #2, the Illusionist in the south is #3.  Looking at the bottom six, they are also about evenly split between north and south.  For games won, there is a five way tie for third place with 9 wins each.  No kingdom has less than 2 wins, even though the Black Dragon has been selected less than half as often as some other kingdoms.   An interesting one to me is the Lizard Kingdom, which has 6 wins in only 22 appearances, and a 40% podium position finish, but are 19th in average points.  So Lizard players are either blowing it up or bombing, so to speak.  In fact, there is otherwise a good correlation for the number of times selected to the number of wins.  This despite kingdoms being as different as The Red Dragons and The Pirates (in 4th).  

Conclusion?  I don't see a problem in the 24 kingdoms, or which have been in the north or south.  The problem if there is one has been Amberland has been, not unexpectedly, difficult.

Having turn 1 be either late summer or late winter is fair, but is it really an improvement for Maelstrom where any kingdom can be in any region?  I think players with their kingdoms in the queue like to start planning their strategy before starting the game, knowing where and who they are and who is nearby.  Making either a summer or winter start takes that away, to no advantage I can see.

As to the wizard kingdoms, I can tell you the players really like them.  They are almost always about the first selected especially by players who haven't yet played them.  Also, Fall of Rome was criticized mainly for not having magic and instead 12 military kingdoms.  However, in Maelstrom you have to construct a wizard tower and research there to go past Power 5.  On the other hand, the maximum assured limit is being loosened up for the other kingdoms.  Wizard kingdoms will also likely start with one less wizard, and the least magical might add an adept to the starting position.

[Acererak]

I've been busy at work so haven't been responding in a timely manner but I think we still have an issue here.

The reason why southern kingdoms aren't dominating as they should due to the seasonal adjustment factor is due to the design of the game. Look at Runnimede. The Halfling and Gnome kingdoms aren't going to be aggressive. The Southern Sands has Ancient Ones and Nomads but their expansion plans are all southern-based: Amberland is the closest northern region but that central area gets hit on all sides so not really desirable. There's Eastern Steppes but the Nomads would have to cross two regions to get there so unlikely as well.

There's Arcania with the Illusionist who won't expand up north but the Rangers can if they develop their military instead of wizards. But they will likely move into Amberland which has that central location problem. If the Rangers were placed on either side of the map, they would be more aggressive and invade the north before winter ends.

So that leaves Synisvania. The Lizards are a wizard-like kingdom and don't have the military to invade the north so that pretty much just leaves the Dark Elves. One kingdom in the south for our comparison on the issue. If you include an aggressive Ranger, that could be 1.5 kingdoms. Overall, this means that the southern kingdoms pretty much remain in the south instead of taking advantage of the seasonal winter effect and invade north by turn 7.

Some brought up the dispersed kingdoms but they primarily stay in their respective regions. In other words, the Red Dragon and Tyrant who could be aggressive up north instead try to develop the regions that they started the game with a pc. Such regions have better regional reactions and a starting foothold with a pc there are typically the reasons why the dispersed stay where they are and aren't a factor up north to take advantage of the seasonal effects.

Heck, even Ry Vor who played the Red Dragon in a game pretty much concentrated in the regions where he started off with and from what I can gather, other players do so as well. This is natural but we shouldn't consider dispersed kingdoms as potential aggressors up north because 99% of the time, they concentrate in the regions where they started in (and become non-factors by doing so).

This was the point that I brought up in 2nd Cycle (when I was converting the older program to Java). I mentioned back then that we could have a random kingdom assortment on the map from game to game but the idea was shot down due to Alamaze being compared to Chess where things should be more static than random. I brought up the subject again in 3rd Cycle (The Choosing) where the game would be more competitive with a random kingdom assortment on the map (from game to game). The dispersed kingdoms helped in that regard but they weren't a solution because of the above situation (where 99% of the time, dispersed kingdoms prefer to expand in regions that include a starting pc). Now, 4th Cycle Maelstrom will solve that issue by randomizing all kingdoms on the map between games so this problem should go away.

However, I would still limit the number of wizard (or magically inclined) kingdoms for Maelstrom. Reducing the magic kingdoms to just three (Druid, Necromancer, and Elementalist http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...5#pid43965 ) that are aligned along a specific domain of magic would be better for the game. As well as getting rid of pseudo-magical kingdoms like the Lizard Men. This will also allow for a more exciting game because with too many wizard (or wizard-like) kingdoms around, it only slows down the game where you don't see kingdoms taking advantage of seasonal effects.

So by correcting this problem (of the nature of the kingdoms themselves), we should see more southern kingdoms hitting the north, not only due to the random kingdom assortment between games, but also that the kingdoms themselves are more designed towards expansion rather than just waiting around like a wizard or wizard-like kingdom. Both of these issues should be addressed in the next release. Having random kingdom placement on the map (from game to game) will solve one of these issues. Having too many wizard or wizard like kingdoms that are not aggressive needs to be considered as well or Maelstrom will end up being "slow" as well.

Correcting those two problems leaves only the seasonal adjustment issue. The northern regions will have a distinct disadvantage compared to the south. Again we can't go by Valhalla stats (or dispersed kingdoms) due to the intended design of The Choosing by placing so many non-aggressive kingdoms in the south.

If having a random starting season isn't preferred then how about my other suggestion of having the entire map experience the same seasonal effect? If this issue isn't addressed then we'll see certain areas of the map being always favorable compared to others rather than having a better situation where all regions are equally chosen between games regardless of the random kingdom placement. People didn't listen to me in 2nd/3rd cycle design so hopefully we'll consider these factors in the upcoming release.

If we only had an Ice Age style of game where the entire map is frozen over due to a deep freeze, players will see the difference of what it's like where every kingdom/region experiences the same seasonal effect with production values being evenly distributed among all. This will improve the competiveness of the game rather than others taking advantage of your region's depressed production value which will become a problem for 4th Cycle.

Having the map split up with seasons wasn't an issue before due to the above reasons (e.g., weak kingdoms in the south, too many wizard kingdoms slowing down the game, .etc.). Now that 4th Cycle solves some of those issues, seasonal effects will become a factor more than ever before when we have a random kingdom per region condition between games.

Why don't we just let Rick's design play itself out and see. All of this is conjecture with some valid data behind it, but is also very much dependent on player style and mix per game. Rick has a 30+ year track record of very well thought out strategic game design and also a willingness to change things when there is a clear trend that isn't working. 

Examples include:

-Making magic advancement and summoning much more difficult
-Increasing the Halfling power and abilities
-Changing the emmy relocation and changing again
-no hp divinations before turn 4

the list goes on and on. 

So why beat this horse any more, let's get the scenario out and watch for what happens.

[Ry Vor]

Since my previous post was rather long, the basic point may have been lost. The issue is that if we don't fix the seasonal situation for Maelstrom, you'll find that the southern kingdoms will dominate the north in every game.

Some may say that winter is only turns 5-7 so what's the big deal but it is a problem design-wise. Those turns are when most military kingdoms need to invade next because just sitting around in their local regions just ends up wasting valuable food/gold while allowing other kingdoms to catch up to them (military kingdoms have the advantage early on while other kingdom types are struggling).

We didn't see that problem with 2nd/3rd Cycle due to the configuration of having weak/non-aggressive kingdoms in the south. That won't be the case with Maelstrom because it'll have a random kingdom assortment from game to game.

So unless everyone is fine with the southern kingdoms dominating the north in nearly every game of Maelstrom, the situation with seasons needs to be fixed. If you don't like my suggestions then come up with something else but it will be a problem if it's not addressed in the design of the game.

Inviting other voices to participate either if you want to make a strong case or indicate you are indifferent on the season start.  We are now talking just about Maelstrom (not The Choosing) where any kingdom can be in any region.

Not wanting to repeat myself, but I wouldn't blow off Turn 1 having the south with 25% gold production vs. the north at 100%.  That also has implications for Turn 2.  A southern player who spends all his treasury on turn 1 will find himself strapped on Turn 2.  In Maelstrom, I don't see any region controlled before turn 5 due to the size of the larger regions, the unknown location of the city in the smaller ones, and having to overcome a human division in either case which will probably require two turns of battle. 

Then just directly about whether it is better to suffer winter on T5 - T7 or summer on T11 - T13 I don't think is a clear answer, especially in this longer game requiring more development especially with the need for somewhat pricey economic developments early (but generally pay for themselves after several turns) and the ability now to better defend the region with defensive improvements.  I don't see lots of early thrusts from the south into the north.  Its going to be hard to build a big enough military supported by some wizards or a political and agent juggernaut before T10 or so in Maelstrom. 

In trying to give the other side of the argument a chance, and to suggest an answer to my own question on what combination of kingdom and region might be too strong, I might suggest say the Red Dragon in Zanthia or Mythgar.  Then again the Red Dragon might choose one of the three large regions figuring who wants to mess with him?  I think we'll see a big uptick in the success of the Sacred Order and Black Dragons on Maelstrom where they escape Amberland.  

Looking at the map with this issue on seasons raises another couple alternatives I will add in the next post.