07-15-2017, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 07-15-2017, 06:31 PM by Ry Vor.)
OK, some other new alternative possibilities regarding seasonality based on the Maelstrom map.
Unlike the Resurgent map, there are several regions that have both northern and southern components based on their geography. Should Krynn be northern, starting in row F or southern ending in row U?
While The Crown Islands, Darkover and The Diamond Coast are clearly winter regions, and Zamora, The Sword Coast, Mythgar and The Untamed Lands are clearly summer regions, the others aren't so clear. For convenience, attaching the map again here so you can see what I'm talking about.
So, several new possibilities:
1. Several regions are neither summer or winter but temperate. These regions are subject to 50% of the seasonality effects of summer and winter such that over both seasons they have lost the production equivalent to summer or winter regions. So no season is that dramatic for a temperate region, but they have two seasons with some reduction. This of course has the advantage of introducing yet another consideration in strategic planning and seems to mitigate concerns about one half of the map being too vulnerable in their weak season.
2. Instead of regions, PC's individually are subject to winter or summer. So if in rows A-M they experience winter, in N - Z its summer.
3. We just eliminate seasons and have turns. Simplifies things, no one can argue its not fair, but takes away a strategic element.
For #1 (partial seasonal effects for middle regions), that's possible to do but doesn't solve the original problem of southern kingdoms dominating the north which will happen.
For #2 (only pc's and not regions experience seasonal effects), there'll be an issue because some kingdoms have special effects if winter/summer and not all battles occur at pc's. So we have to eliminate #2.
For #3 (no seasons at all), it'll be easier to play especially for newer players. In fact, I suggested such for the Centauria map and Duel games but as mentioned above, some strategic considerations would go away with it. So why not just have the entire map experience the same seasonal effect? That way, it'll be fair for all kingdoms/regions involved.
(07-15-2017, 09:29 PM)unclemike Wrote: For #1 (partial seasonal effects for middle regions), that's possible to do but doesn't solve the original problem of southern kingdoms dominating the north which will happen.
For #2 (only pc's and not regions experience seasonal effects), there'll be an issue because some kingdoms have special effects if winter/summer and not all battles occur at pc's. So we have to eliminate #2.
For #3 (no seasons at all), it'll be easier to play especially for newer players. In fact, I suggested such for the Centauria map and Duel games but as mentioned above, some strategic considerations would go away with it. So why not just have the entire map experience the same seasonal effect? That way, it'll be fair for all kingdoms/regions involved.
While I am not concerned about the south dominating regional selection (I think there will be a lot to consider in choosing, as well as looking ahead to the expansion season), if it makes Mike and any silent voices happier, we can have random season start of late summer or late winter determined at game creation.
I think doing the PC location determine seasons makes the most sense on the Maelstrom map and still adds some intrigue on expansion strategy. So choice 2 is what I have in mind now. A-M PC's effected by winter, N-Z by summer.
For group battles option 2 is fine they would just be based on the same A-M if not at a PC.
I purposely am not commenting on advantages because I do see some minor ones but would like to use those myself at least for a game or two. Then I can explain in the write-up. I will say the mountains look interesting
I am not commenting on anything yet either, i see a few possable advantages and disadvantages. I wish to use them in game play first to make sure they even matter enough. There is allready 5 kingdoms in 3rd cycle I will not play again because of disadvantages. I see the same ones in Maelstorm and it is mostly because of the wizard power limitations.
(07-17-2017, 02:05 AM)RELLGAR Wrote: I am not commenting on anything yet either, i see a few possable advantages and disadvantages. I wish to use them in game play first to make sure they even matter enough. There is allready 5 kingdoms in 3rd cycle I will not play again because of disadvantages. I see the same ones in Maelstorm and it is mostly because of the wizard power limitations.
Some of those restrictions have been removed/modified
(07-15-2017, 04:01 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: ... 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.
I'm a Fall of Rome player who actually liked the very limited magic. So far with Alamaze, my impression is that it is too strong, but could be modified with some tweaks. One example: the Summon Death spell should not be stackable. It's just too powerful. Admittedly I am still a newb, but in a game I recently faced 3 armies, with 9 total L6 wizards. I would have had a chance of surviving without all of the damned Summon Death spells; its just not sporting.
(07-15-2017, 04:01 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: ... 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.
I'm a Fall of Rome player who actually liked the very limited magic. So far with Alamaze, my impression is that it is too strong, but could be modified with some tweaks. One example: the Summon Death spell should not be stackable. It's just too powerful. Admittedly I am still a newb, but in a game I recently faced 3 armies, with 9 total L6 wizards. I would have had a chance of surviving without all of the damned Summon Death spells; its just not sporting.
I think the combat spells have been modified so they are not stackable. Not by one player, that is. You could have several different players in the same battle each doing one Summon Death. Is that what happened?
I don't know but if I were facing 3 armies loaded with P6 wizards and survived I would say the magic system is too weak. There is much more invested in all those wizards likely than the group they are fighting
