Some Specific Design Ideas for Maelstrom

[Titus]

I like the combat bonus or perhaps combining pc defense and troop strength in the same area. A leader knows where to maneuver the enemy in range of pc defenses and pc's are not except from mounted troops to attack at a opportune time. Also a wizards spell of fear or shield protecting both factions could change how battles are done.

[Ry Vor]

Thinking of 12 regions, no dispersed kingdoms.  Eight large regions, four smaller ones.  Twelve player game.  Smaller ones easier to control (less population) and Tight Control but also less resources. 

In a 12 kingdom game, each on the surface has "their" region.

[Thunderb0lt]

I love that idea. This would be on a 26x26 i presume? Thought about a 26x30+ map? Alphabet and numbers.

[Ry Vor]

I love that idea. This would be on a 26x26 i presume? Thought about a 26x30+ map? Alphabet and numbers.

26x26   Other is a big change.  But KoA was a;ways intended on a variable size hex map.

[Jumpingfist]

I like the addition of smaller regions so all can feel they have "their" region. Many variants seem to come out because of players not wanting to be forced to share a region.

What about mixing up where the kingdoms start as well? Say a big region kingdom could start in some or all the big regions. Maybe they still choose between this kingdom or the other but your starting location is not set in stone. Number of PC and type would still be.

[Ry Vor]

I like the addition of smaller regions so all can feel they have "their" region.   Many variants seem to come out because of players not wanting to be forced to share a region.

What about mixing up where the kingdoms start as well?  Say a big region kingdom could start in some or all the big regions.  Maybe they still choose between this kingdom or the other but your starting location is not set in stone.   Number of PC and type would still be.

I have talked about that (variable zones per kingdom) with Mike.  He can do it.

But to me, that change takes a lot more away than it offers.  I guess I go back to chess a lot, but would it be a 1600 year old game if the pieces changed? 

I (we) have looked at multiple zone potential and might still do more, but I think early strategy likes to consider some knowledge of who is where.

Opinions?

[unclemike]

Or should the question be: How well liked are the displaced kingdoms in 3rd Cycle games? If not due to their random regional placement (and being spread out) then further enhancing the code to do practically the same for the other kingdoms isn't worth the effort.

[Jumpingfist]

My thinking is no dispersed but as Ry Vor alluded to large region kingdoms and small region kingdoms. A water based large region kingdom may start in other water based large regions but would never start in the same region with another kingdom the way dispersed kingdoms do now. Kingdoms could still be kinda dispersed like Antz could have a town and village in there small region but have other PCs spread around.
An example AM could likely fit in to R4, 5 or 8 on the resurgence map. DW fits well in R7 or R3. This kind of thing to give options. Could also be you decide your starting region when you pick your kingdom and it would remove others from that as a possible starting spot. Guess this would work best with a drafting type GUI. I can already see it getting confusing to the casual player otherwise.

[unclemike]

Well, that's how dispersed kingdoms start the game: in a random selection of possible regions. That's why I brought up the above question of whether dispersed kingdoms are preferred regarding their multiple starting regions (as well as being spread out). If players don't like the concept of starting in several possible regions (as how dispersed kingdoms are handled now) then the effort to allow all kingdoms the chance to start in another region won't be worth it.

--------------- updated ----------------

Let me just say from a coding point of view, if all the starting pc's were located in the initial region, that would be easy to program and it won't matter if it's random regional placement or chosen by the player on game signup. It gets more complex however if the other initial pc's for a kingdom are in another or neighboring region.

For example, say I want to play the Dwarves in region 5. That's fine for the capital and village but what about the DW's second town and village? What region should they go to? Random or a predefined selection? If random then you could have major problems of certain regions being filled up from neighboring kingdoms while other regions are empty. If a predefined list (like if starting in region 5, always have the second town in 7 and second village in 4) then it would be easier to code but you lose flexibility regarding replayability and creating variance between games. Which could be a factor if I knew that the DW is starting in 5, that other town will always be in 7 which may be taken to be unfair to prearrange alliances knowing such info ahead of time (or between games).

So those secondary pc's are the issue and their placement cannot be random like the initial region being chosen otherwise we'll run into problems of multiple kingdoms having random pc's in the same region. The complexity of trying to fit everything together becomes even more problematic if there's a low number of towns/villages in a given region (e.g., one of the new smaller sized regions). If we go this route then it may be better to have all the initial pc's for a kingdom in their particular region.

Going back to my original question, if the players don't really like the dispersed kingdoms starting in a random region then it's probably not a good idea to subject all kingdoms to something similar.

[Jumpingfist]

For me it is not the random location that bothers me for dispersed kingdoms. It is the starting in a region where someone else already has there capital. To go further it is really only in the anon or silent games. In diplomacy games I can work around it, but most games are now anon or silent. I believe the small regions can be used to remove the multiple capital part.

I still see value in allowing a DW to start in different regions and keeping the extra PC locations based on that region vs being the DW. It gives the flexibility to have different neighbors and change how you would approach the position. Yes some can plan to use those PCs to trade with a partner. That issue is already present. If it was decided to put all PCs in the single starting region except for dispersed I would say start with one less town or village and the regional reaction boosts in two other regions could be random. This would make games play different from game to game and need to see you turn 0 before you start planning.