Login

Atuan · 08-10-2016, 02:35 PM

the dragon kingdoms are not scary. Between their recruiting limits, the lack of water and the brigade caps. I could be okay with 5 WY limit, but then my only option is to add bats? The most I can have is 16 from 565. The TY can build a 51 brigade army from recruits. Sure I can agree that nothing is as good as the PH and the WY are strong, but wouldn't you rather have 3 HGs, 3 TR, 5 WM, 5 OR over the 16 brigades for a dragon kingdom?

They need additional tweaks to help them over the hump, currently the TY and the SA are better choices and part of it for the TY is the range of choice for regional control that is more limited with the RD.

Lord Diamond · 08-10-2016, 03:29 PM

The new 3rd Cycle Valhalla will help showcase which kingdoms are strong and popular and which could use some help. We are working on that now.

Ry Vor · 08-10-2016, 04:14 PM

All of this is good feedback.

As I've said, I think in general we are still adapting strategy to 3rd Cycle and holding on a bit to 2nd Cycle thinking.

I am not sure we have yet had a top player take the Halflings, and it is a position that requires active trade, so not ideal for silent format, but I'm not sure they have had a fair shot yet in other formats like Alliance, which to me is the best format but I don't seem to have many supporters on that.

The Resurgent map, not all that different from Classic, Arcania in general is a bit vulnerable. No one is likely to bother the Nomads (or Ancient Ones) in the Sands, the Gnomes or Halflings can dig in in Runnimede. When I had the Illusionist in a test, the hidden capital was very helpful. For the Rangers, they are not a swarm. My idea was an elite force, not necessarily a 20 brigade group. Warlords, elite brigades, healing, fast, flanking, magical support, good agents. They should have epic battles with The Tyrant, but not shatter themselves against an 80k defense city.

On the dragons, I may have "over-adjusted" with the Red. If I have a concern on them, it is that they are over-powered. The change to make transfers free orders is huge for them, especially with five groups. Yes, I'm not sure the Black have been chosen much to this point, as the Sacred Order is that shiny new thing, an upgraded Paladin. In terms of Valhalla, same sort of comment, I don't know if we've had the top players take the Sacred Order, its often chosen by new players and it can be a buzz saw in Amberland.

In general, when I do my thing, I am thinking mainly about what will make this kingdom fun and unique. Not so much focused on how to win with them. But in the end, if you look at Valhalla and compare that to other PBM style games (yes, they do exist) that by and large copy Alamaze, even acknowledged by the designers, they have a much, much larger discrepancy from their top to bottom positions.

We may have a tweaking, probably just to setups rather than in-game adjustments.

Jumpingfist · 08-10-2016, 04:14 PM

Having played both RD and TY. I find them both power house military kingdoms. TY perhaps a greater long term threat mostly due to being able to get dispell dome one level above assured power level. But the RD makes up for that with pure brutality early on.
RD complaints that they do not recruit fast enough are over made I felt. Basically you must recruit but the high quality of troops does pay dividends. Also the RD does have and get many kingdom brigades that if protected with bats and WY and healed with Phoenix are all you really need to ruin others day. I have found it is not about going toe to toe with someone's big group but using your mobility to your advantage. Of course you most certainly can go toe to toe. With only 27 brigades I was up to Over 200k vs PC and that was before the 20% bonus for flight.
Both RD and TY need no help they are very fun to play and extremely powerful if used to there strengths. Does not mean they do not have weakness that others can take advantage of but that is the price for early game supremacy.

Netstrider · 08-12-2016, 01:51 AM

(08-10-2016, 12:15 PM)unclemike Wrote: Ranger

I'm playing the RA in a game right now and even though it's still early, I think the RA needs some help militarily-wise regarding companion troop types.

The reason why I selected the RA was to have an elite military force that's mobile and can take advantage of various special attacks like Flanking or Hold At All Costs (though I do miss Thermopylae Stand). But after looking at the companion troop types again, the Ranger only has three: Mammoths, Wood Elves, and Rohirrim.

Wood Elves are ok regarding their archery for a quick and light attack and Rohirrim for their flanking attack but Mammoths? Mammoths are ok for the Cimmerians and Dwarves but are they truly a good fit for the Ranger? Hill Giants may be a better choice since they are more woodland-like in nature than Mammoths.

Including other companion types would help round out the Ranger's elite military force, maybe adding Centaurs to take advantage of the Ranger's flanking attack, or Sprites that can fly for scouting, or Ents for some brutal fighting in the forest. But limiting the Ranger to only 3 companion types is a bit of a disappointment that I didn't expect.

More importantly, I don't know how the Ranger will be able to defend himself in the early going against a RD or TY early offensive. Against the TY, the RA can recruit a bunch of Wood Elves and develop wizards for light attacks (missile/magic only or you'll die against the TY's ogres/trolls) but they really don't have anything that can stop the RD.

So for my brief review of the RA, I would say the Ranger needs some help in the early part of the game against an aggressive RD/TY but may do better in the mid-game if they develop L6 wizards to help their weak military choices. It really shouldn't be that way where the RA is dependent upon wizard development to survive but due to the few companion types available, they'll have to rely on something else than just their military towards the mid and late portions of the game.

Anyway, that's my impression so far of the Ranger in my game...

Giant Eagles!
Dire wolves!

Netstrider · 08-12-2016, 01:58 AM

(08-10-2016, 01:40 PM)wfrankenhoff Wrote: Just a quick note on the dragons: it doesn't make sense to me that the dragons are--basically--military kingdoms. but can be out-recruited by any other kingdom in the game. Three companion brigades/turn is brutal for them, especially when most of those recruits are going to be great bats (some of the weakest companions around) Only way to maximize the WY component is to split into multiple groups, which then lowers their individual combat power since there are only so many BL/RD pure brigades to go around. Not an issue early on obviously, but by mid-game almost every other kingdom has equally strong groups via summons/companions (some of which are better than WY) and normal recruitment, plus higher-level mages.

I'm not advocating a return to the unbridled recruitment of 2nd cycle, but perhaps one of their special abilities would be to recruit double the normal limit (i.e. six brigades/turn)?

On a BL specific note: it's tough for them to start in 5 since it seems there are usually a fair number of pop centres in the water which are inaccessible to their groups. Between the BL or SA in 5, it's a no-brainer: SA every time since they have better intangibles (aside from mages); stronger kingdom brigades and can out-recruit the BL by a long shot.

Great point about the BL in 5 and the water. Switch AN and BL regions? BL in 10 always seemed right.

Ry Vor · 08-12-2016, 03:44 AM

A lot of the thinking was, BL from Amberland can be anywhere on turn 2. Again, players have to look a bit differently at 3rd Cycle.

Netstrider · 08-12-2016, 04:17 AM

Except they can't be on the water - which is a huge problem in R5. But honestly, I don't get your point. What's so different in 3rd cycle? The game designer shouldn't be telling the players what they need to do, the players will figure that out Smile

And it probably won't be what you intended. That's just the nature of the beast.

As far as feedback, I've played several of the new kingdoms and my impressions are:

DU - Most flexible/powerful kingdom in 3rd cycle. Advantageous geographical location. Wonderful companion capability.
NE - Pretty decent. All mage kingdoms have the advantage now, especially ones with good companion options. Summon death at P5 is awesome.
WA - Another great mage kingdom, would always be happy to play the WA
DE - Next best besides the mage kingdoms. DE Princes rock. Can build a very respectable military and decent mage capability (but not like the mage kingdoms)
IL - Suckiest mage kingdom. Crappy companions. Uninspired spell list. Challenging location.
AT - Not sure what these guys are supposed to be. Decent emissary capability, but nothing compared to DE. Fleets would be great if AT had a PC in every ocean. Trading is good, but not worth the effort? Should be able to trade and still use fleets to move your army. The whole water movement thing seems broken anyway. Almost everyone uses intercept or teleport to move any group over 3 brigades. Even more so now with trade orders. Trading would be more interesting if you didn't have to use a standing order? AT should be distributed kingdom? Begging for Steam Punk-ish special abilities?

In general, magic is too generic. NE spells should be unique to NE. No one else should have Zombies. Or liches. WA should have unique battle spells, etc. One level difference in mage spells is nothing - not even worth thinking about. All mage kingdoms can get to P7 pretty easy and they have access to almost everything at that level. Hardly any interesting spells beyond P7. Each mage kingdom should have unique P7/P8/P9 spells that make those kingdoms *different* to play. Each non-mage kingdom should have unique abilities equivalent to 4 x P6/P7 level spells every turn. DE Princes are a good example.

Rogal · 08-12-2016, 04:55 AM

I am too new playing 3rd edition, but it seems that the kingdoms that are hampered with high wizard kingdom costs and low maximum wizard training levels could use a caster boost to match the flavor for the kingdoms. For example we have the following:

1) Halflings have Gandalf
2) Sacred Order has Merlin
3) Red Dragons have Tiamat

I do not believe these kingdoms will get high casters, maybe a few might get the 50 point Victory point level, but I really doubt any will get one 100 victory point hero.

Ry Vor · 08-12-2016, 07:53 PM

As I've said and it is all over the forum from various points of view, players view that either the wizard kingdoms are too strong, or they are too weak. So probably the wizard kingdoms are about right.

I'd be astonished if some player familiar for years with 2nd Cycle and now 3rd Cycle didn't see profound differences. And no, I'm not telling players how to play. One, I am not a top player myself so as to presume to advise on such, and two, if I had to tell players how to play, it wouldn't be a game that has been around for 30 years and won all the awards it has won. I am saying in this thread, that playing the Black Dragons now in Amberland is different from playing them in 2nd Cycle in the Southern Sands.

I would agree Arcania is a bit difficult. However, with fortune, you can get two cities and the region very early. So our best players should take either the Rangers or the Illusionist.

Anyway, all discussion is welcome, but facts are different from opinions. I agree with a different thread that results matter, meaning Valhalla points, so consider the positions and the players. In Alamaze all kingdoms are much closer than in supposedly alternative competitive adult strategy games.