Do you sometimes attack just to raise leaders?

[Drogo]

I do this and I assumed it was a common strategy. I'm speaking about when you could parlay, threaten or diplomacy a PC but attack it instead for the morale or leader bumps.  People do this, right?

[Jumpingfist]

Yes this is done a lot. Especially by the military kingdoms. Although with new leader death vs promotion ratios it seems unless your the ranger this can be almost counter productive at times. The biggest hit/nerfed seems to be the RD. The RD really looses leaders much more often even when attacking on a 2. Looking at the setup sheet in one of the more recent games, it still says I get +35% to avoid leader/wizard death. How do they die so much when attacking on a 2?

[Hawk_]

Yes this is done a lot.   Especially by the military kingdoms.   Although with new leader death vs promotion ratios it seems unless your the ranger this can be almost counter productive at times.  The biggest hit/nerfed seems to be the RD.  The RD really looses leaders much more often even when attacking on a 2.  Looking at the setup sheet in one of the more recent games, it still says I get +35% to avoid leader/wizard death.   How do they die so much when attacking on a 2?

I think the current death loss ratio could be softened some.

For example game 149 DE starting 5 leaders-

Gen 2
captain2

captain 2
captain 1

captain 2


Ending only 3 leaders turn 22

Marshal

Captain 2

Captain 1

(that's it)

All of my combats were fought with DE groups winning by strong margins.

I lost one Marshal on a 140 order other than that they were all by combat where I had the advantage.

The current spawn rate for new leaders seems a bit low and the death rate seems high IMO.

Could be the new norm but seems rough when ending leaders are less than starting leaders.

[HeadHoncho]

From my limited experience, I totally agree. I think this is one situation where I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way (and I agree that the starting point was probably a little bit too lax).

[Lord Diamond]

I agree. Leaders are dying too fast and not getting replaced fast enough.

[Beatific]

I agree. Leaders are dying too fast and not getting replaced fast enough.

Judging from corporate America, good leaders are hard to find.  Of course, they all think they are good leaders, but I suspect that if they were to say "let's charge that machine gun nest" they would find themselves very much alone.........a good leader would not.  It looks like, in this current swing of the pendulum, careful management of leaders is called for........while I may or may not agree with where the pendulum may lie at any particular time, this is one of the things that is nice about a game like Alamaze....subtle shifts in rules can have a profound impact on game strategy (thus avoiding game play stagnation).  Identify, Adapt, Overcome........

[HeadHoncho]

It's adaptive, yes, I agree with that. But it's also part of the fun/challenge equation. It used to be that all military Kingdoms would routinely have main groups with three Warlords. That was fun, but too easy. Now it's perhaps too hard, which is less fun.

My personal philosophy is that fun counts for more than challenge just for the sake of challenge, and it's no fun when your Warlord bites the dust, assuming you can even obtain one in the first place.

[Hawk_]

It's adaptive, yes, I agree with that.  But it's also part of the fun/challenge equation.  It used to be that all military Kingdoms would routinely have main groups with three Warlords.  That was fun, but too easy.  Now it's perhaps too hard, which is less fun.

My personal philosophy is that fun counts for more than challenge just for the sake of challenge, and it's no fun when your Warlord bites the dust, assuming you can even obtain one in the first place.

I think I am good with the promotion rates that are making Warlord tougher to achieve. All of the 3 Warlord groups were a bit crazy.   I would just like a better spawn rate on captains and maybe a little lower death rate.

Could be we are hard to please also.

[HeadHoncho]

I think it's all just part of the natural balancing process. This is not a major complaint, just some jawboning about possible tweaks.

[Ry Vor]

Its all an evolution.  Some have hit on the main points, adapting to the environment.  Some design changes affect that, some miss the mark.  For example, when the Witchlord was first introduced, it was thought (by me, anyway) that players would recognize the danger and change strategy to contain.  I sent Alamaze to NC not long after 2nd Cycle, and it seems Witchlord was watered down some, and it wasn't the threat that was supposed to be: "Yeah, we could fight each other, and then the dark power will win, or we can risk falling a bit behind to deal with Him." was supposed to be a consideration for everyone's strategy.

More recently, some have mentioned the Demon Princes have an advantage in Arcania on the Resurgent map, as might the Witchlord with Viperhead on the north of the Sea of Terror.  Well, yes, they might, if other kingdoms let them do what they want.

Fall of Rome is a really good design, if I do say so, and with its GUI, surpasses the genre of PBEM.  But it was never popular, mainly attributed to genre.  The main criticism on Fall of Rome, besides it not being Kingdoms of Arcania, was that the kingdoms, all human barbarian, were too similar.

So some of the desire to make kingdoms so different, has to be embraced by the players as a fun aspect, and one that requires attention/strategic decisions, or it doesn't work that well.  Most players will recognize what I mean in for example, Wizard kingdoms take time to develop, military ones (other than the Trolls) are better suited working quickly).  The Underworld has its own style, as do other kingdoms.  I think this is why Alamaze stands apart from its imitators like Middle Earh PBM, which it seems, changes about once a decade.