(05-26-2017, 04:29 AM)Tomag Ironfist Wrote: I like the additions mentioned above. Will be cool to see some fancy PC customization.
In regards to any of the kingdoms being able to occupy any of the regions, my question is: what is going to make the middle regions appealing to occupy? Already in the current state of the game, they are known to be more vulnerable. What about the middle regions will be appealing to military kingdoms? And the same going to magic kingdoms? There will certainly be some risk/reward involved, but I can see the popular strategy to consist of grabbing a mage kingdom and selecting a corner of the map.
In the current state of the game, the middle regions have two cities. As mentioned earlier, this isn't always a plus for military kingdoms since owning two cities will starve the troops that you start the game with during the winter. To keep the theme of having two cities (among maybe more benefits?), I would suggest giving military kingdoms a trait that reduces the winter subtraction of food from cities. I think that would make that set up more appealing.
I love the idea about any kingdom starting in any region. That will make alliance games even more interesting 
I am seriously overwhelmed with the ideas and the strategies in this aspect alone! I cannot wait for Maelstrom.
The economic aspects of Alamaze were lagging compared to the other elements. Now it will be pretty robust. Yes, its going to take some orders to develop your PC's and improve their defenses, and so will be another set of tough decisions on what to prioritize and another aspect of strategy including planning for several turns. This in itself will provide longer games. Between castles and fortresses / citadels, you can defend your territory better. Additionally, kingdoms likely will start with about one less brigade and one or two fewer wizards, who also will likely be P3 for mage kingdoms instead of P4.
In 2nd Cycle the wizard kingdoms in Valhalla were something like 11th, 13th and 15th. In Resurgent, they started dominating the top of the board. As most know, we made some adjustments a few months ago and balance seems pretty good if a player plays to the strengths of his kingdom. For example, the Sacred Order is not doing well because for some reason we have new players selecting them despite being advised not to, and they drop so that kingdom is lower than it should be. But a skilled player with a plan should do well with the Sacred Order.
As you can see from the list of PC improvements, a military cannot only defend his PC's more effectively, but can armor and weaponize his troops. I don't think a good mage player is going to do that instead of research, but a player with a good military will certainly think about it.
PC's now will have a lot more personality instead of being somewhat generic. Control of coastal towns and cities will be important, which also draws fleets more into play.
Just the addition of the separation of Rulership (order count) and Influence (political strength) will add to strategy and make selecting king orders more difficult and less reflexive, especially with denigration and enamoring being widely reported if not universal results.
The other side of the coin with the PC improvements is Sabotage will come more into play. Sabotage now will target an improvement, so you might now target that castle under construction and take it down a level, or blow up that granary when winter comes. Diversion is likely a new order that counters counter espionage.
The spell lists will be redone, and the max power loosened. And you need a Wizard Tower to get to P6, so that's a limitation and a PC with a tower might be more of a target for the military kingdoms.
There's lots more. Again, we think Alamaze Resurgent might be the best strategy game, without a qualification. It's too bad the complexity stops a lot of people. But I think Maelstrom takes Alamaze up a couple notches.
