199 3 vs 2 primeval

[Lord Thanatos]

Maybe:

R1: EL
R2: WI
R3: RD
R4: AN
R5: GI
R6: DA
R7: UN (no natural enemy, so penalized with GN as a computer player)
R8: DE
R9: SO (no natural enemy, so penalized with RA as a computer player)
R10: BL

Completely unselected: DW, TR, WA

I would suggest that the GI, RD, TR become the unselected kingdoms.

Then we have:
R1: EL

R2: WI
R3: DW
R4: AN
R5: WA
R6: DA
R7: GN (UN as a computer player)
R8: DE
R9: SO (RA as a computer player)
R10: BL

With RA and UN as computer players we completely eliminate the four primary military kingdoms as well as the unique UN kingdom.  The purpose someone stated of the 10 kingdoms in 10 regions is so that players are able to begin in relative peace.  With one or more of the primary military kingdoms on the board there is going to be an early attack somewhere because those kingdoms must win the contest before the wizards come into their primacy.

Just my thoughts, of course.

[Netstrider]

Maybe:

R1: EL
R2: WI
R3: RD
R4: AN
R5: GI
R6: DA
R7: UN (no natural enemy, so penalized with GN as a computer player)
R8: DE
R9: SO (no natural enemy, so penalized with RA as a computer player)
R10: BL

Completely unselected: DW, TR, WA

I would suggest that the GI, RD, TR become the unselected kingdoms.

Then we have:
R1: EL

R2: WI
R3: DW
R4: AN
R5: WA
R6: DA
R7: GN (UN as a computer player)
R8: DE
R9: SO (RA as a computer player)
R10: BL

With RA and UN as computer players we completely eliminate the four primary military kingdoms as well as the unique UN kingdom.  The purpose someone stated of the 10 kingdoms in 10 regions is so that players are able to begin in relative peace.  With one or more of the primary military kingdoms on the board there is going to be an early attack somewhere because those kingdoms must win the contest before the wizards come into their primacy.

Just my thoughts, of course.

Yes, I like it. Would be nice to be able to play the RA though if someone wanted to as it's not a 565 kingdom.

[HeadHoncho]

The only problem with that is that WI (no natural enemy, no shared zombie Kingdom possible) and even more so BL (no natural enemy, only 565 Kingdom, no shared zombie Kingdom possible) will be advantaged, and whoever gets stuck with the shared regions (out of a possible R3, R4, R5, R7, R9) will be disadvantaged.

Acknowledging that they're all Ry Vor's beloved children, my own personal view is that DW, GN, TR, WA are, on balance, among the four least powerful Kingdoms, which is why I was thinking they could be eliminated. RA is strong, but was eliminated to make way for SO who seemed to fit better.

But that's just my $0.02 and I may be willing to throw in for just about anything.

EDIT: For the layout you propose, the non-home-region pop centers are as follows:

Kingdom (town, village)
EL (2, 4)
WI (1, 3)
DW (6, 2)
AN (8, 5)
WA (9, 8)
DA (9, 3)
GN (4, 8)
DE (10, 9)
SO (3, 6)
BL (8, 5)

So the non-home towns are in: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10
The non-home villages are in: 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 8, 9

Based on this, having the zombie Kingdoms start in R5 (GI) and R7 (UN) would seem to make sense.

EDIT 2: We could alleviate some of this problem by replacing BL with RA and having an understanding that RA moves south to claim R10. The RA advantage of having no natural enemy is counterbalanced slightly with the more difficult time of taking R10 (still should be very doable, though). Which would leave no 565 Kingdoms, and WI as the only other "advantaged" Kingdom.

[Jumpingfist]

If playing as teams why not just draft regions and put a zombie in one of each teams regions. The teams can pick which capital to play in the region and each team can pick a zombie kingdom that shares there region

[HeadHoncho]

I think that would work for team, I'm just personally more interested in trying to pitch out a viable Anon or Public setup.

[Lord Thanatos]

Acknowledging that they're all Ry Vor's beloved children, my own personal view is that DW, GN, TR, WA are, on balance, among the four least powerful Kingdoms, which is why I was thinking they could be eliminated.

Everyone has their own opinions on relative power of kingdoms.  I have placed second with DW, GN, and WA in various formats.  I have only played the TR once, but finished 4th (there was an early SVC claimed).  I am not a fan of the TR, but do not believe I am at a disadvantage playing the other three.

I have no problem replacing BL w/ RA (provided he moves into R10) in this format.

[VballMichael]

After reading through this thread, my head hurts.

I think I have a slot and would be good with anon or team (I am ok with gang-ups as long as both teams have the same chance to do so).
I don't think the public works very well, though it was a very cool idea. But to HH's point, coordinating a 5-player team does take a lot of time, so I volunteer to be on the HH team as long as he leads it.

And HH is just wrong about the GN. I have a win and a podium finish from that position, but it does depend on them being left alone for a little bit.

[Ry Vor]

Mike has the game creation utility so we could have a game with any number of active kingdoms.  So there could be a game with 10 kingdoms and 5 inactive.  No need for zombie kingdoms.  My question is mainly, "Why?"

We have been trying to form a team game, which seems to be a lot of players favorite format.  What's the point of trying to mellow Alamaze by quasi-assigning regions to 10 kingdoms?  Sounds a lot like Fall of Rome, and that was about the major criticism of that game - it felt too vanilla or obvious with one region per kingdom.  Its fine for an introductory game, but why take the tension out of having the dispersed kingdoms?  Its not like the Red Dragons "have to" go for either region 3 or 7: one of their best performances was when they took the Eastern Steppes early.

Anyway, I'm willing to set this up in 2nd Cycle if you guys agree on which kingdoms and send the details to signup.  Of course, we can't move PC's around to cede Runnimede to the Underworld, for example.  As we get ready for The Choosing, I don't mind playing around with 2nd Cycle, but there has been more than a year's worth of work in The Choosing, so we won't be monkeying with formats there.

I'd like the 12 player Magic game and the potential two mentor, four new player game to start, or the 3v2.  A problem is when we have too many games forming in the queue.

[Netstrider]

Mike has the game creation utility so we could have a game with any number of active kingdoms.  So there could be a game with 10 kingdoms and 5 inactive.  No need for zombie kingdoms.  My question is mainly, "Why?"

We have been trying to form a team game, which seems to be a lot of players favorite format.  What's the point of trying to mellow Alamaze by quasi-assigning regions to 10 kingdoms?  Sounds a lot like Fall of Rome, and that was about the major criticism of that game - it felt too vanilla or obvious with one region per kingdom.  Its fine for an introductory game, but why take the tension out of having the dispersed kingdoms?  Its not like the Red Dragons "have to" go for either region 3 or 7: one of their best performances was when they took the Eastern Steppes early.

Anyway, I'm willing to set this up in 2nd Cycle if you guys agree on which kingdoms and send the details to signup.  Of course, we can't move PC's around to cede Runnimede to the Underworld, for example.  As we get ready for The Choosing, I don't mind playing around with 2nd Cycle, but there has been more than a year's worth of work in The Choosing, so we won't be monkeying with formats there.

I'd like the 12 player Magic game and the potential two mentor, four new player game to start, or the 3v2.  A problem is when we have too many games forming in the queue.

I so totally don't understand this. Can the experienced players chime in and relate experiences where they had to contest for a region - with a equally competent player - and where it came out good for them in the end? How can the WA have an even chance at the game if the GI comes after them from the get-go? And think about the answer in the context of anon games which seem to be the new rule. I understand how it could maybe work out with full diplomacy and creative deal making, but with anon it seems to be blood from the beginning unless one the parties just surrenders their home region. Which, btw, just moves the problem to some other region. E.g. the GI decides to vacate R5 and goes after Eastern Steppes. Well now the DA is going to have the same handicap. And of course the GI is equally handicapped and will probably have a starving army by turn 6. Point is, I would think that in virtually every game ever played, whoever starts fighting on T2 is going to finish at the bottom of the standings. But maybe I'm totally wrong and I just haven't figured out how to play the game yet

[Jumpingfist]

Your not wrong but the smart player even the GI or RD do not start the fight out of the gate. It tends to hurt them as well. Something else I have noticed is the shared region seem to get invaded less at least early on in anon games most likely because the invader does not want two enemies early on. I have also won a game as the WA anon Rex when the GI landed on my original capital turn 4. Back then the WA was almost always in the mountain so I knew to move it early.

But I get the idea 10 region 10 player makes it feel like a more equal start likely everyone takes there region before advancing on others. Not likely to happen that way as a team game but still the fairness aspect is still there. For me I like the idea of two large teams going after each other. I like the Titan game a lot but issuing orders for 6 kingdoms at once is a bit of work at times. This one you would get to plan with your teammates and only have to issue orders for one kingdom.

Also very cool that it is not any extra work for admin.