Posts: 2,071
Threads: 70
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
0
Good point: ok consider the village a donation to the SA empire. But please leave my group to depart peacefully.
There were no threats made; just reality. An attack on my group would leave me no choice.
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
Diplomacy works wonders. I was actually trying to take the region. Would guess I am a village short. Wonder if my early recruiting or attacking the village was enough to swing the census against me.
For those that did not notice. Some times a town and village = significant or 15%+ in your starting region. Which means a city would be about about 20% so if you can take the city and 3 villages or a town and village it should be enough for the region. Find someone to trade with and a well planned 725 you could have the region on turn 2. In this game I only had minor so figured I may not get the 2 city region taking 2 cities and a village on T2, but still fun to try.
Posts: 2,570
Threads: 39
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
0
I have not made a comparison to 2nd cycle not sure why that is always the answer.
The reasons I think the SA are a weak long term kingdom are all third cycle.
The way I was trying to gain control of amberland is a 3rd cycle mechanic.
Gaining control of a region on turn 2 will happen in 3rd cycle maybe not to often but it will. Most likely the DE can do it often once they start to learn who and what PCs start in there region.
Posts: 2,071
Threads: 70
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
0
True, but the smallness of the region is made up for by lots of forest through which the DE does not move very well.
Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
12-09-2015, 11:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2016, 04:26 PM by Ry Vor.)
I don't think on turn 1 of the first beta, players will accurately gauge the long term success of the new kingdoms, or the re-placed kingdoms, or even the ones that didn't change geography. So when a kingdom identified on turn 1 as weak is the leader with two controlled cities after turn 2, I think that might deserve mention as to my point it is too early to judge how kingdoms will do.
There have been some player references to 2nd Cycle, and what expectations might be in 3rd Cycle beta, that relate to what happened in 2nd Cycle. I'm just trying to say don't expect what happened in 2nd Cycle to happen in 3rd Cycle. In some cases, this can provide a compare and contrast, but I don't want players to expect an explanation of why something that worked in 2nd Cycle didn't work in 3rd Cycle.
And it's ok to form an opinion early on kingdoms, as I asked for those impressions, but I would think it would be more about is it colorful?, does it offer lots of possibilities?, does it seem fun?, rather than perhaps a condemnation that it will never amount to anything. And am somewhat saddened we still have heard nothing from several kingdoms.
When Resurgent map came out, we heard the Demon Princes would be tough. And they have been. One of the things we have frequently been asked for is to make the kingdoms as different as practical. When 2nd Cycle came out on the original map, the Witchlord was supposed to be a kingdom that several good kingdoms might have diplomacy about to slow down. When Resurgent came out, yes, if no one interferes in Arcania, the Demon Prince might have a significant advantage. So in both 2nd Cycle and 3rd Cycle, at least in diplomacy games, I think players need to weigh how leaving a Witchlord or Demon Prince in 2nd Cycle alone may play down the road.
Meanwhile, I don't see how the Sacred Order player will ever think he or she had a boring experience. I would think every turn could be a test.
Posts: 549
Threads: 11
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
0
AN Turn 2.
I ran into a town on turn 1 that was under human control. Is that correct?
Posts: 1,962
Threads: 70
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
0
Yes. One town and one village in each region starts human-controlled.
