01-10-2016, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2016, 02:40 AM by Ry Vor.)
(01-08-2016, 06:06 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I assume you mean groups, not brigades?
What would players think about the Humans starting with a two brigade force in the area of the city, so blocking emissary relocation on turn 1 until the Humans are destroyed? Possibly random as to whether a 2 or 3 brigade force. So Meridon might have a group of 2 or 3 Westmen parked outside Meridon at the outset. This also provides a prime combat opportunity to elevate kingdom leaders and brigades with a known battle location and slows down regional control as desired.
(01-08-2016, 06:06 AM)HeadHoncho Wrote: I assume you mean groups, not brigades?
What would players think about the Humans starting with a two brigade force in the area of the city, so blocking emissary relocation on turn 1 until the Humans are destroyed? Possibly random as to whether a 2 or 3 brigade force. So Meridon might have a group of 2 or 3 Westmen parked outside Meridon at the outset. This also provides a prime combat opportunity to elevate kingdom leaders and brigades with a known battle location and slows down regional control as desired.
No issue with this. If UM gets an AI at some point. would be good in the future to even allow them to get reinforcements and maybe start to slowly try to expand. Random barbarians 725ing there way through Alamaze.
Will say I would expect more gating trinkets and the DE would be a happy camper having guards for his city.
(01-05-2016, 11:47 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Battles against Population Centers.
I'm inclined to revise significantly PC battles. I acknowledge that to veteran players, they have a generic feel over time. Some things I am considering for The Choosing and beyond include:
The terrain of the PC will influence the defense of the PC based on the controlling kingdom. So an Elven PC in the forest would have a substantial bump to defense, for example. We didn't do that in Fall of Rome because it was surmised PC's were cut out of clearings, rather than (say) Elves building their PC's among the trees, or Dwarves directly within mountains, etc.
Instead of PC's going directly and only off a fixed value of PC defense, the relative infrastructure of the PC influences how it fights. So a PC with a defense of less than 5000 likely has no towers, wooden walls, etc - not offering nearly as much as a fortified town of 15,000 defense with stone walls, towers, etc. Those PC's would enjoy greater defense and missile values than the smaller village, expressed not just in one numerical value, but in round by round combat.
The traits of the owner of the PC can in some case transfer to to the PC in defense. PC's controlled by a kingdom with Military Tradition have better trained militia, kingdoms with Cunning place traps like flooding a ditch, murder holes, or pouring boiling oil or fire, kingdoms with Siege Engineering have defensive catapults.
From the beginning, defensively minded Alamaze players have felt their strategic approach was not well served by combat resolution, particularly protecting "the homeland". I admit this makes sense in a medieval setting, where the rule is at least 3 to 1 to attack over defenders. I think I'll go with the above modifications for PC defense, modified somewhat. So terrain adeptness, some cultural traits, and regional control will improve the defense of those PC's controlled by those kingdoms.
If a kingdom controls a region, the internal lines and logistics, as well as nearby rural militia improve PC defense by 10%;
Terrain adeptness modifies the PC defense of controlled PC's by the same percentage as groups, so Master provides 20% to controlled PC's in that terrain.
Several cultural traits including Stalwart, Military Tradition, Cunning, Siege Engineering also increase PC defense by 10% each.
These are under review - not official changes, but I invite replies. We will probably show two values for PC defense, one as is currently, and a second showing the effective PC defense given the current PC owner and what his kingdom's traits and abilities do to modify defense.
I want to try not to get cuter with making some traits more than 10%, some less. Let's keep it fairly simple for now, and it can be modified later. I think this change, along with presentation and combat result changes will liven up PC battles and provide much of what the Turtles have wanted. What Dwarven King would not be happy with the above?
I don't think I would ever be confused as being in the turtle camp so naturally am not the most fond of this. Maybe for the capital or starting PCs but really an EL takes a DW PC build into the side of a mountain and suddenly it becomes very weakly defended. Only very few traits should offer a bonus. Siege engineering and military tradition I get, but start adding cunning and you could likely make a reason any of the traits works. I would add dragons get 20% for flying (like they get for attacking) because really if they can fly they have no need for a door and could easily block any door when a PC got taken over.
Terrain adeptness adding to PCs would be helpful for the sea-based kingdoms. I'm the Atlantians in 503, and have realized the boosted Value In Terrain for being on the sea is basically pointless - it doesn't apply to any battles you can get into in a water square(vs PC or naval). The better movement rates are very nice, but over all mastery of the sea is worth noticeably less than other terrain adeptness traits.
01-19-2016, 01:19 AM (This post was last modified: 01-19-2016, 02:20 AM by Ry Vor.)
See attached doc mined from beta tester feedback on the positions in 3rd Cycle posted here on the forum.
Thanks to those that have provided feedback on the kingdoms here in the earliest phases of The Choosing.
We may send this out to our players on hiatus - so please reach out to your buddies to Return to Alamaze now. Reacquaint with 2nd Cycle and jump in when The Choosing begins next month. New Valhalla coming too just for 2016 results.
Just will copy a tidbit here to get you to open the attachment:
The Tyrant of Gor:
First, wow. Lots of traits, groups, troops, pop centers, special things like ESO bonus, etc.... Truly a kingdom to be feared and a kingdom that can vie for the podium.
Second, wow, not concentrated anywhere. What are my strengths, what are my best attributes, and what should my strategy be? This will take some thinking. I am thinking one way to go is maybe a military below-the-radar kind of kingdom, extort a couple of pop centers in each of a few regions, and save regional control for a later fight.
The Tyrant is challenging. Dispersed, it is difficult to fight for a region early on (like the RD in 2nd cycle). Resources are scarcer in 3rd cycle, so owning pieces of a region don't quite add up to enough to develop well. I did a little diplomacy to avoid conflict in one region, then went stronger in a different region. Taking a while to consolidate my forces there, which gives the opponent some edge. We shall see how the strategy works. In the meantime, the mechanics are working.
The kingdom is definitely cool, just trying to get enough resources together to do some recruiting and try to get some troops blooded. Starting with lots of pop centers is awesome, but with orders limited, it is difficult to get value out of all 6 available groups. Maybe later in the game with more resources and more influence, that will make a difference.
(01-22-2016, 01:19 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: Some changes to 3rd Cycle Traits. There were a few exploits, and we have done more to allow some traits to effect the defense of a PC.
There will be some changes in turn result appearance as well, so you might see a PC getting 50% or more of expected defense given certain conditions.
See attached.
I read over the trait sheet and your comment above.
Are you saying a controlled city may display 20,000 defense but actually defend at 30,000 when the bonuses are figured in?
(01-22-2016, 01:19 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: Some changes to 3rd Cycle Traits. There were a few exploits, and we have done more to allow some traits to effect the defense of a PC.
There will be some changes in turn result appearance as well, so you might see a PC getting 50% or more of expected defense given certain conditions.
See attached.
I read over the trait sheet and your comment above.
Are you saying a controlled city may display 20,000 defense but actually defend at 30,000 when the bonuses are figured in?
Thanks!
Most players will already know that capitals fight above the listed defense, generally about 25% higher. Now those values, along with the random plus or minus 15% are sometimes amplified by some traits, like Military Tradition, Cunning, Siege Engineering. We intend to show both the base value and the effective value on the PC encounter defense as well as the listing of owned PC's.
