Login

**Atuan** · 08-18-2016, 09:13 PM

I appreciate the feedback UM. As to income, how does one take away the income generated from order 650. If one could attack a sanctuary or if there was a way to kill off a kingdom I would be okay with it. But as it stands unless I am the UN I actually cannot. That to me seems wrong.

**Lord Diamond** · 08-18-2016, 11:34 PM

I like the Sanctuary and have recently had cause to appreciate them. I would not change them at all.

**IMPERIAL_TARK** · 08-18-2016, 11:47 PM

Now that the concept of "hidden" has been introduced in to the game, you could make sanctuaries "hidden" when created (and cannot be built on a water square)..... BUT.... if a group (at least Brigade sized) moves on to it and then issues X order, the sanctuary and everything inside is destroyed.

As for an emmy issuing a 320/330 order at a previously non-capital PC (when a newly created capital suddenly shifts to this new square), it "would" be nice for the code to simply cancel the 320/330 order upon checking for this new capital creation trigger. The emmy is still at that location, but he doesn't end up being captured attempting something that is obviously suicidal. Its common-sensical, but if the code change is too big a pain, its not that huge of a deal.

**Hawk_** · 08-19-2016, 01:15 AM

(08-18-2016, 11:47 PM)IMPERIAL_TARK Wrote: Now that the concept of "hidden" has been introduced in to the game, you could make sanctuaries "hidden" when created (and cannot be built on a water square)..... BUT.... if a group (at least Brigade sized) moves on to it and then issues X order, the sanctuary and everything inside is destroyed.

As for an emmy issuing a 320/330 order at a previously non-capital PC (when a newly created capital suddenly shifts to this new square), it "would" be nice for the code to simply cancel the 320/330 order upon checking for this new capital creation trigger. The emmy is still at that location, but he doesn't end up being captured attempting something that is obviously suicidal. Its common-sensical, but if the code change is too big a pain, its not that huge of a deal.

On the topic of hidden capitol.

I think hidden capitols are overpowered.

Searching a the map 1 square at a time is near impossible versus the pirate.

If you can drive a hidden capitol character back to his capitol I think the locate spell should reveal the location.

**Atuan** · 08-19-2016, 01:24 AM

Im going to disagree with hidden capitals being difficult to find. Do you know what region its in, divine all the pcs and scout the 4-5 potential spots. I personally believe they are too easy to find

**Lord Diamond** · 08-19-2016, 01:31 AM

(08-19-2016, 01:24 AM)Atuan Wrote: Im going to disagree with hidden capitals being difficult to find. Do you know what region its in, divine all the pcs and scout the 4-5 potential spots. I personally believe they are too easy to find

I agree. Some are easier to find that others. They can be a real pain or you might find them on the first try.

Easy: Atlantians, Pirates, Druid

Harder: Ancient Ones, Warlock, Illusionist, Demon Prince, Sorcerer

Hardest: Underworld

I would advocate having all capitals start off as hidden.

**Ry Vor** · 08-19-2016, 03:43 AM

Mostly this is philosophical stuff. The Atlantians triggered the hidden capital idea, which then seemed appropriate for the Pirates, Underworld, and then others, like the Lizard King and finally the Amazons just in keeping with the legend. But a well established kingdom as say the Elves or Dark Elves or Dwarves, wouldn't have a hidden capital. The Necromancer probably has a very tall tower (coming to a location near you soon). It almost, maybe, should be known where it is. "Yep, the High Elven capital is well known to be the town of Sylvan Forest in area DG". A different strategy then.

I want to give credit to Mike for the concept that started with the Druid's Grove. Then it expanded to Pirate's Cove, Dragon's Lair, Hidden Oasis. I think pretty neat. Hobbit Trading Company a unique thing.

One of the paradoxes of a game like Alamaze is it has board game roots. So normally in a board game, you want to knock the other player out. Sometimes in Alamaze you don't want to knock a player out. In a Silent game, I leave the Pirate alone, even when he knows, I know where he is. He doesn't bother me, and maybe makes life difficult for the leader. We used to have it that if you had no PC, or no political emissaries, it was game over. But some players, as DuPont articulates, enjoy the more epic nature of the contest and want to continue. It's a rare happening: establishing and continuing with a sanctuary, but I am ok with it.

**Lord Diamond** · (This post was last modified: 08-19-2016, 01:34 PM by Lord Diamond.)

In Fall of Rome my favorite thing ever was eliminating my enemies while preventing them from eliminating me. I still fondly recall eliminating Lord Thanatos' Alamanni prior to the turn 6 status points. Good times...

Then again, we didn't pay a setup fee to play a game of Fall of Rome. We do in Alamaze and I think that changes everything about my views on elimination. If I pay for a game, I should to be able to stick around as long as I wish. Sure, it is possible to eliminate me, but if I am at all prepared you are doing to have to work at it. Maybe hard enough that you can't do anything else worthwhile, like win the game.

**Atuan** · 08-19-2016, 03:15 PM

(08-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Lord Diamond Wrote: In Fall of Rome my favorite thing ever was eliminating my enemies while preventing them from eliminating me. I still fondly recall eliminating Lord Thanatos' Alamanni prior to the turn 6 status points. Good times...

Then again, we didn't pay a setup fee to play a game of Fall of Rome. We do in Alamaze and I think that changes everything about my views on elimination. If I pay for a game, I should to be able to stick around as long as I wish. Sure, it is possible to eliminate me, but if I am at all prepared you are doing to have to work at it. Maybe hard enough that you can't do anything else worthwhile, like win the game.

I am completely comfortable with your statement, except the part where you state it is possible to eliminate you. That statement isn't true and that's where I disagree. It is possible for me to eliminate your ability to make the podium, but I cannot eliminate your kingdom.

The example of David being in a cave is fine and all, but had his cave been found, could a military have attacked him? When you answer yes, I will point out that I cannot due so to a Sanctuary. Having the ability to run, hide and perform guerrilla attacks is great and your kingdom dying due to the timing of attack orders or political orders sucks. I think the sanctuary is a great tool, but I don't believe it should be a completely safe haven.

If you can show me a real world example of where someone couldn't attack a sanctuary I can get behind the force field protected cave.

**Jumpingfist** · (This post was last modified: 08-19-2016, 04:34 PM by Jumpingfist.)

I think giving the sanctuary a hidden status and allowing them to be attacked as IT suggested is a good compromise of the two camps on this. Still very difficult to kill someone off but possible if you want to start searching square by square. Hidden would not allow you to just divine location of an Emmy you really would be pressed to find it. Also makes issuing the order super early in the game not so much a get out of jail free card.