Any Doubts on Valhalla Rankings?

[Ry Vor]

For Maelstrom, in evaluating any future kingdom adjustments, I look at this page in Valhalla (kingdoms, single games, Steel, points):  http://fallofromegame.com/alamazeorders/valhalla.html

Then look at average points per game.  You can't look at wins, et al, because The Druid and Red Dragon have 30+ appearances in 42 games, while the six kingdoms with zero wins all have fewer than 20 appearances, with 4 of them 15 or less appearances.

So I like average points per game, and then maybe podium percentage.  Of course, there is no denying some players are more skilled and the specific player impact is not measured here.

So, now with 42 completed Maelstrom Steel games, does Valhalla reflect a true assessment of the kingdoms at present?

[Pine Needle]

It looks pretty fair to me. As a noob.
It seems like the kingdoms break down in quarters- the bottom quarter is clearly in need of some buff. But even the DE, CI an TY have some flex in them.
The RD at 17 (I might be looking at the wrong thing- so that's what I see, not sure if that's your list, too) is a little deceptive as it has 6 wins, more than any other. Its an early winner, or flame out, as people have said. Because the kingdom is drafted almost always, people like it as is, seems like little change is needed.
The top 7 look strong, but balanced, maybe with the UN and the SO nerfed a bit. I saw your changes with regard to early actions by the UN and counter-espionage. That will be big bringing UN back to the pack. Also, the AN at 7 I consider in the top group for sure. Again, as you have said, the Plow is just huge. Not really in line with the story that this minor artifact makes such a difference, so nerfing that makes sense.
Thanks for asking. Again, just a noob with my early perspective here.

[Senior Tactician]

I looked at kingdom performance last year and speculated about what might contribute to that, it looks pretty similar this year.  All of the hidden capitol kingdoms are in the top 10, save the DE.  All of the wizard kingdoms are in the top 10.  RD not being in any top 10 list is weird, but clearly the RD marks its strength in wins instead of status, as Pineneedle suggested.

The nerf of bounty will have an impact on wizard kingdoms primarily, which considering they are pretty dominant, seems like a very good move.

A note on specific kingdoms:  EL: I played once, and am currently playing them, I'm not sure why they score so low.  Its not exactly easy to build military with both limited companions and no undead summons, but its an obstacle that can be hurdled.  Plus they get bounty at 5, like wizard kingdoms (I just don't use bounty, seems like easy mode).  You could maybe just give EL some better companions, more reinforcements, or more summoned troops, maybe hidden capitol.  Not sure.  This probably alters their flavor to the point where they are not significantly different from other kingdoms though.  Maybe just the hidden capitol.

SA: Played once.  They are so low on the average status I am wondering if people consider them an easy target and therefore choose to attack them early.  Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing... although not fulfilled yourself, but instead by your neighbors.  Magic is really tough, I did manage a power 5 and could protect from regional spells, but this limits you to the number of groups you can protect from being slowly destroyed, basically 1 group.  Maybe making them able to protect from regional effect at 3, changing death resist into death immune (sacred order seems clerical, paladin-like to me), you could keep the same basic template of a low magic, high brigade strength kingdom without changing the flavor.  Maybe give them a hidden capitol.

RD (BL):  Haven't played either, but have noticed that the RD and BL are kind of polar opposites on the results scale.  Both can move 8, can recruit phoenix and wingedbeasts.  How are they so different?

BL stuff RD doesn't have: - wizard training cost, trackers.

RD stuff BL doesn't have: + brigade strength, stalwart, rich.

Making BL more like RD would defeat the point of kingdom variety, so maybe instead, emphasize the differences.  Decrease magic cost and increase magic potential for BL.  And since the RD are so dominant, slow them down a bit, to 6 or 7 maximum movement.

All kingdoms devoid of magic (DW, SA, CI, BL, TY) do very poorly, unless their mobility AND kingdom brigade strength is overwhelming (RD).  The changes involving brigade toughness, PC sturdiness and the magic changes might address some of this.

Should the magic kingdoms still be considered overpowered, I'd suggest perhaps getting rid of summon death, or making it so that it can be dispelled at least.  This is probably a small change.

If they are STILL too powerful, getting rid of teleport army group should put a stop to that.  I'd consider this a major change, possibly crippling.

[Ry Vor]

I don't recall if I posted intended kingdom adjustments but in either case Senior Tactician nailed several. 

We steer novice players to the Elves, Dwarves, Dark Elves and Rangers to start: it would be silly for a newb to take a specialty kingdom (AN, DE, PI, UN) - those are advanced strategy and understanding kingdoms.  Spmetimes a novice gets lost and it is possible some 0 point games get put in a few kingdom averages.  The wizard kingdoms also tricky, especially not getting stepped on early and getting a balance between actually doing something with the mages or have them research.

I think the Elves are a strong position, but (as hopefully can be said of all kingdoms) you have to play them as they are: to their strengths unless you want to try some new risky gambit thinking to confuse your opponents.  So great political abilities and the ability to enhance then further in Customization.  Perhaps consider Dynasty option.  Getting to Influence 17 is a breeze.  At the beginning of the middle game, likely a veteran army in the forest with maybe two Marshals, A P5 and two P4's.

I'm not sure I've seen the Imperator type players take the Dwarves, but they can provide an entertaining, different styled game even more so in Maelstrom. 

Sacred Order and Cimmerians will see the most improvement.  I had heard some gripes against The Sorcerer as in under-powered from a few players so I was surprised to see their high position in Valhalla.

Keep thoughts coming in.

[Wookie Panz]

I was looking at the kingdoms played page and noted that the NO has only been chosen 8 times.  As I recall at least one of those was a new player who put them in the north instead of south.  Going back to the setup it looks like the reason may be the companions.  Both the wild companions and summoned are very limited in number and ability.  Other than that the NO has lots of traits and decent magic.  Tweak the companions and I think they will get played more often and do okay.  Maybe give them camels that act like mammoths.  

Companions (Order #565):


Great Bats
800
600
Scorpions
1,400
1,200
Zealots
1,000
1,000


Summoned (By Spell):


Minotaurs
2,000
2,000
Phantoms
0
0
Rock Golems
500
2,000

[Diamond Cutter]

The map makes a kingdom like the Nomads unfavorable. If you changed the map a lot of the kingdoms would be better/worse.

[Pine Needle]

I looked at kingdom performance last year and speculated about what might contribute to that, it looks pretty similar this year.  All of the hidden capitol kingdoms are in the top 10, save the DE.  All of the wizard kingdoms are in the top 10.  RD not being in any top 10 list is weird, but clearly the RD marks its strength in wins instead of status, as Pineneedle suggested.

The nerf of bounty will have an impact on wizard kingdoms primarily, which considering they are pretty dominant, seems like a very good move.

A note on specific kingdoms:  EL: I played once, and am currently playing them, I'm not sure why they score so low.  Its not exactly easy to build military with both limited companions and no undead summons, but its an obstacle that can be hurdled.  Plus they get bounty at 5, like wizard kingdoms (I just don't use bounty, seems like easy mode).  You could maybe just give EL some better companions, more reinforcements, or more summoned troops, maybe hidden capitol.  Not sure.  This probably alters their flavor to the point where they are not significantly different from other kingdoms though.  Maybe just the hidden capitol.

SA: Played once.  They are so low on the average status I am wondering if people consider them an easy target and therefore choose to attack them early.  Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing... although not fulfilled yourself, but instead by your neighbors.  Magic is really tough, I did manage a power 5 and could protect from regional spells, but this limits you to the number of groups you can protect from being slowly destroyed, basically 1 group.  Maybe making them able to protect from regional effect at 3, changing death resist into death immune (sacred order seems clerical, paladin-like to me), you could keep the same basic template of a low magic, high brigade strength kingdom without changing the flavor.  Maybe give them a hidden capitol.

RD (BL):  Haven't played either, but have noticed that the RD and BL are kind of polar opposites on the results scale.  Both can move 8, can recruit phoenix and wingedbeasts.  How are they so different?

BL stuff RD doesn't have: - wizard training cost, trackers.

RD stuff BL doesn't have: + brigade strength, stalwart, rich.

Making BL more like RD would defeat the point of kingdom variety, so maybe instead, emphasize the differences.  Decrease magic cost and increase magic potential for BL.  And since the RD are so dominant, slow them down a bit, to 6 or 7 maximum movement.

All kingdoms devoid of magic (DW, SA, CI, BL, TY) do very poorly, unless their mobility AND kingdom brigade strength is overwhelming (RD).  The changes involving brigade toughness, PC sturdiness and the magic changes might address some of this.

Should the magic kingdoms still be considered overpowered, I'd suggest perhaps getting rid of summon death, or making it so that it can be dispelled at least.  This is probably a small change.

If they are STILL too powerful, getting rid of teleport army group should put a stop to that.  I'd consider this a major change, possibly crippling.

This is very thoughtful. Senior tactics, like