Alamaze - New

I will take #11

(01-13-2020, 03:40 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-13-2020, 03:33 PM)Draugr Wrote: [ -> ]HA also has 2 hidden villages.  so not a capital but two village one of which can even be in another region.

I thought about that.  However, these hidden PCs are villages, and therefore cannot be fortified.  With a secret town, the difficulty lie not only in finding the PC, but being able to recon and conquer once you've found it.  Because once its been found, there has likely been a castle, great castle or even a legendary castle built on it.  This plus a good agent on counterespionage prevents recons and captures in many (though not all) cases.

Yes, the Secretive trait is powerful in itself, as to defense.  But is it a bad thing?   I kind of like the trade off between major city and hidden capital.  Other opinions?

In 12 regions we have 7 major cities, and 5 minor cities.  Is it out of balance?  I am all about balancing lots of variables in Alamaze, for now shockingly, over 30 years.   When I had those long talks with Phil, his favorite topic was kingdom balance.  

Anyone think a specific kingdom is too strong?

I really only have enough data for my conclusion about the secretive trait, it is quite powerful in determining average status at game end.  The AN is about 25% higher than any other kingdom in status finishes, but I suspect that is due to a small number of very high AN finishes, including a ridiculously high 67k by Wookie.

And, no, in my opinion, its not a bad thing that hidden capitol kingdoms have high status finishes.  High status doesn't necessarily mean winning advantage (for example, the UN had a top quartile average status, but did not win a single game).  I did not really have enough data to look at podium finishes... plus there were a lot of zeros, and analysis of variance isn't reliable with a bunch of zeros in the data.

(01-13-2020, 03:19 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote: [ -> ]This is a great idea, and I'd like to play.  I'd also like to share a bit of research on the completed maelstrom games I have done for my own edification: I divided the kingdoms into four groups based on the average status points at end of game and found that the top quartile of status finishes (top 6 kingdoms) all (but one) have "secretive".  Its a powerful trait shared by the AN, AT, UN, IL, AM, all five of which have finished highest average status in the first 12 or so Maelstrom games.  The sixth top finisher was the RA, who has for 30 years always had a very powerful mix of individual brigade strength and magic potential.  The other kingdoms with "secretive" (DU, DE, PI) also have stronger finishes (all in top half of average status finishes).  Lowest, in case anyone was curious, included DW and HA, which I think is the reason they have become more popular lately.  People like a challenge.  The bottom also includes CI, SA, EL, and DA for those looking to prove the more difficult to play kingdoms...  I should think the EL and DA might be a popular choice in this game, since they would now be the "magic" kingdoms.

I have tried many ways to analyze the data, with no clear results, but I am guessing that the power of the AN and DE lie mostly in their "secretive" trait, and not as much for their special abilities.  Having played these kingdoms in the paper and pencil days, I can say they were not nearly as dominating then as they are today.

So, my suggestion would be, in this particular game, to also eliminate that trait.

I liked that post.  And in the future, I would like to have more choices on customization.  I have a folder of Word and Excel files that I call "Build Your Own".  Yes, I agree, Secretive is a very strong trait.  Hopefully it balances with everything else.  I don't think any kingdom or region is running away with anything in Maelstrom, though some combinations are looking good, if you can get them in a snake draft.

To many factors play here that aren’t being calculated. Player playing the positions, early conflict, drops, and things of that nature which will influence the overall outcome?

(01-14-2020, 12:10 PM)PTRILEY Wrote: [ -> ]To many factors play here that aren’t being calculated.   Player playing the positions, early conflict, drops, and things of that nature which will influence the overall outcome?

Not surprisingly, player was an influential variable (on the low side of status), so I did cherry pick a little bit.  I eliminated very low status scores (and a player or several, including myself) as they probably didn't represent the kingdoms efficacy but rather player behavior.  (dropping early, getting ganged up on, etc.)  Starting region is not part of the Valhalla data set so could not investigate.

Also, I have noticed some newly completed games that kind of fly in the face of my data already.  Pine needle and Painted man scoring high status in 5342 with kingdoms previously underperforming.  Its a difficult question for numbers to answer which bodes well for the game, actually.

Mark Twain said "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", or something to that effect. A phrase that a Russian scientist tried to take credit for while I was in grad school, lol.  Anyway, stats need to be backed up by logic.  It makes sense that if your capitol is not located you might possibly stay in the game longer even if you're not winning.  If, on the other hand, you're getting beat on and then lose your capitol, your king gets captured, your orders get cut in half, you might consider dropping.

(01-14-2020, 01:05 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2020, 12:10 PM)PTRILEY Wrote: [ -> ]To many factors play here that aren’t being calculated.   Player playing the positions, early conflict, drops, and things of that nature which will influence the overall outcome?

Not surprisingly, player was an influential variable (on the low side of status), so I did cherry pick a little bit.  I eliminated very low status scores (and a player or several, including myself) as they probably didn't represent the kingdoms efficacy but rather player behavior.  (dropping early, getting ganged up on, etc.)  Starting region is not part of the Valhalla data set so could not investigate.

Also, I have noticed some newly completed games that kind of fly in the face of my data already.  Pine needle and Painted man scoring high status in 5342 with kingdoms previously underperforming.  Its a difficult question for numbers to answer which bodes well for the game, actually.

Mark Twain said "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", or something to that effect. A phrase that a Russian scientist tried to take credit for while I was in grad school, lol.  Anyway, stats need to be backed up by logic.  It makes sense that if your capitol is not located you might possibly stay in the game longer even if you're not winning.  If, on the other hand, you're getting beat on and then lose your capitol, your king gets captured, your orders get cut in half, you might consider dropping.

I think you kind of hit on it: who is playing which kingdom matters.  So the design intention is to make it even at the start, in any of the 1000's of possible combinations.  Players decide things.  When I see certain combinations of region and kingdom and player, it can make me think, that will be a tough out. 

Overall, my objective is that no experienced player would think I would never take that kingdom, or that region.  Or opposite, that I would always want that kingdom and that region.  I think Valhalla is kind of showing that its working.  Its more about the players, not to minimize the vast differences in kingdoms and regions.

I've been doing this analysis for my own benefit and hadn't really planned to share the info.  What I hoped to glean was a better understanding of what leads to a good finish so I could capitalize on that factor(s), regardless of which kingdom I decided to play.  I've concluded, I think, what good players really already know... capitol security is important, magic potential is important, individual brigade strength is important (I started looking at reinforcement schedule and companion troops but not enough data).  You can take this information and really apply it to any kingdom.  For instance, The EL and DA are pretty dramatically underperforming... I suspect the reason may be that people are not capitalizing on the magic potential (a guess, of course).  The troops are only slightly above average, good early in the game, but not so much so that you can rely on them to carry the day (and companions suck, so must recruit paladins).  On the other hand the DW, HA, CI, SA have very low magic potential, possibly leaving some players to neglect wizards altogether... to their detriment.

Another example of possible strategy: fortifications can compensate for a kingdom not having hidden capitol. A legendary castle on the water will be nigh impregnable to all but the most determined attackers, for example.  So, if you are playing a non-hidden capitol kingdom, you might consider picking a region where you are likely to find a water town (or invading a neighbors water town before it gets a big castle on it, preventing political unrest), that sort of thing.

I was unable to differentiate the strength of the other traits with the data I have.  I suspect their importance varies based on a lot of other variables.  For instance riders is going to be of good benefit early, when you are looking for PCs.  Healing is going to be a game-long benefit and be more important the stronger your individual brigade strength is (more important for Ranger than Druid, for example).

1.  Draugr
2.  Vball
3.  Strongwill
4.  
5.  Windstar
6.  Senior Tac 
7.  
8.  
9.  
10. 
11. 
12. 

Back to business...

Can we also post of non eligible kingdoms? Might be a small debate on wizard and non wizard kingdoms?