Duel Game Beta Feedback

[Lord Thanatos]

I have only encountered one MAJOR issue with the duel games that, in my opinion, needs to be changed; the Seasons! Ezerbrite gets a huge advantage over Westania. Many games will end before the next Summer comes around. I understand that the whole point of Centauria was to teach new players and I get that. However, I think that both regions should be on the same seasonal rotation.


MINOR Issue: Too few pcs. You doubled the size of the regions and apparently just added one city. Most of the map is bare wilderness. I think a few more pcs should be added to each region.

Thanks for the time to explain UM.  I actually figured it would be kind of a copy and paste of the kingdom and call it DWwest that was only selectable in the dual game with the standard set of kingdoms to appear on the east.   I guess then all other modules would need to know what a DWwest is so same problem again.
Anyway happy to play dual now in current form or random.

I was thinking the same except the "new" copied kingdom would have a unique two letters. DW would not be DWwest but RUnts while SO would be MAge and TY becomes OVerlord, etc...

This variant is not really intriguing to me.  I am trying to be helpful but have no programming skill whatsoever.

[unclemike]

I understand that people would like to help out but just granting a new kingdom ID to the duplicate kingdom will introduce other problems since the kingdom ID is also used for other things like loading a kingdom's orders file (the orders file that is saved on the server by the website has the kingdom ID as part of the filename which is how the collection of orders read from file are correlated to your kingdom). As well as others like pulling up the kingdom setup information (e.g., how many reinforcements the kingdom gets, or the kingdom's terrain movement rates, ...etc.) are all based on the kingdom ID. Heck, even creating a new figure with order 510/511 is checked for a random name if there's a conflict from the kingdom's name file (which goes by kingdom ID). So those suggestions won't work. I know what I need to do to allow the program to handle multiple kingdoms of the same ID (like 12 Elves in a Steel game) but it'll require quite a bit of programming to do.

[Lord Diamond]

It is just something on the wish list, not a deal breaker. Like LT, I sort of figured it would be adding 24 new kingdoms that were simply very closely related to the other 24. Obviously, simply adding 24 kingdoms would require a great deal of grunt work all by itself. I don't know how much (2 hours or 2 months? No idea...) at least they wouldn't have to be designed and tested. I had no idea of what other complications it might cause.

I do know that adding kingdoms to Valhalla is a real pain.

[unclemike]

Well, even if creating dummy kingdom IDs would work out for Duel games, at some point, someone will request to allow the same for the normal game as I mentioned to do for 2nd Cycle (even themes like Orcs vs Elves or something else similar to a tv/movie theme). Which means that the program will need to allow for a game of 24 Elves or another combination to play against each other in Slugfest fashion. And to do that, you'll need quite a bit of dummy kingdom IDs and all of their corresponding configuration files to go along with them (like 576 or so to allow one kingdom out of 24 to play in the same game at all 24 positions).

So instead of creating a ton of files and changes to the website (again that's nearly 600 files just for 24 kingdoms which will increase considerably if the number of kingdoms increase over the years), I would rather do things correctly in the code and allow for an unlimited style of play.

Though I still like the theme aspect for Alamaze. Perhaps after six months or so, have a game like Fall of Rome which was primarily based on troops and larger armies roaming the realm. A Lord of the Rings theme could have the DW, EL, HA, RA vs WI, TY, TR, RD. Or we can have another theme as noted above. All kinds of combinations are possible if we move forward with this idea which is why I mentioned it back during game 300's timeframe. So I would still like to do theme based scenarios in the future which would be a lot of fun.

[Lord Diamond]

Sounds exciting, UM. I can't argue with your desire to program in a solid foundation rather than make it slapdash to appease the masses. It's rather encouraging, actually. Next you'll be telling us that Alamaze has separate Beta and Game servers!

[VballMichael]

Ok, trying to understand a battle mechanic here, in Game 1006.

My 1NE took on the 1WA in a battle at his capital. My army was successful and the 1WA retreated. Then I tried to siege the capital, but received this message:

1st Necromancer No combat or similar action against this population center is possible since not all of the pc owner group(s) had retreated from battle at this location.

He did have a brigade in another group which did not do battle. Is this enough to keep my group from doing a siege?

Couldn't someone then just keep a brigade invisible at the capital at all times, and prevent all attacks?
Not complaining, just trying to understand. I know we cannot attack or siege if our group retreats, but this seems to be a new requirement that every owner group be defeated and chased away.
For instance, if he evades or avoids a fight through a Wall of Flame or some other mechanism, will this also prevent a siege, as he will not have retreated?

[Jumpingfist]

The AN could protect any capital by stopping a fight with the group vs a single brigade.

[Lord Thanatos]

Ok, trying to understand a battle mechanic here, in Game 1006.

My 1NE took on the 1WA in a battle at his capital. My army was successful and the 1WA retreated. Then I tried to siege the capital, but received this message:

1st Necromancer No combat or similar action against this population center is possible since not all of the pc owner group(s) had retreated from battle at this location.

He did have a brigade in another group which did not do battle. Is this enough to keep my group from doing a siege?

Couldn't someone then just keep a brigade invisible at the capital at all times, and prevent all attacks?
Not complaining, just trying to understand. I know we cannot attack or siege if our group retreats, but this seems to be a new requirement that every owner group be defeated and chased away.
For instance, if he evades or avoids a fight through a Wall of Flame or some other mechanism, will this also prevent a siege, as he will not have retreated?

The answer in all those scenarios is yes the PC cannot be attacked (at least this is my understanding). I suggest a mage cast True Sight on the turn you arrive. This game mechanic is one I like. It is similar to how FoR handled defense of a PC. Is even more interesting when multiple kingdoms are present.

[VballMichael]

I don't like it. 
A single brigade with Evasion can now stop an army group?
A Divine Intervention now saves the group and the town?
Dome is tough enough without this nuance.
One must attack every group on a 3, else a single Wall of Flame or a single Evasion or a single invisible group saves the capital. Maybe just me, but this seems silly.
In a diplomacy game, the AN just got huge. Can save any capital and no counter to that.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I don't like it. 
A single brigade with Evasion can now stop an army group?
A Divine Intervention now saves the group and the town?
Dome is tough enough without this nuance.
One must attack every group on a 3, else a single Wall of Flame or a single Evasion or a single invisible group saves the capital. Maybe just me, but this seems silly.
In a diplomacy game, the AN just got huge. Can save any capital and no counter to that.

Yes.... assuming you're willing to pay his fee