The Choosing Potential Changes for Jan 1

[Hawk_]

Separate topic- FEAR

I think the stacking of fear spells is overpowerful.  3 power 5's can reduce a capitol's defenses by 75% on top of special troop and brigade modifiers.

I propose the following:  A HP order to ward a pop center she is located within from all fear spells and fears effects like the stalwart trait.  

This will allow players to create a stronger capitol to keep prisoners in without relying on dome of invulnerability.

[Drogo]

I've generally been feeling that the cost and value of companion and recruitable troops does not measure up against the cost and value of summoned troops. I would like to see recruitable brigades have greater advantages and/or lower costs to measure up against summoned troops that have no recruiting cost and often consume no food or gold. This would help the non-wizard kingdoms.

[Ry Vor]

I've generally been feeling that the cost and value of companion and recruitable troops does not measure up against the cost and value of summoned troops.  I would like to see recruitable brigades have greater advantages and/or lower costs to measure up against summoned troops that have no recruiting cost and often consume no food or gold.  This would help the non-wizard kingdoms.

I've been considering other limitations on summoned troops, as in not summoned before T4, and possibly limit to 3 per kingdom per turn like Companions. 

I don't want players to think the wizards are being picked on, we want a fair game for 24 kingdoms.

[Acererak]

Separate topic- FEAR

I think the stacking of fear spells is overpowerful.  3 power 5's can reduce a capitol's defenses by 75% on top of special troop and brigade modifiers.

I propose the following:  A HP order to ward a pop center she is located within from all fear spells and fears effects like the stalwart trait.  

This will allow players to create a stronger capitol to keep prisoners in without relying on dome of invulnerability.

(NO) Couldn't agree more. That is completely absurd, basically nullifies all pc defense.

[Lord Thanatos]

[W]izards are already becoming more and more just military kingdoms with fireworks.  They are likely stronger still but loosing more of what makes them special.

The main reason I left Alamaze !!!



My two cents -- if my thoughts are still worth even this much:
Intrinsic Dire Wolf and True Seeing are GREAT changes. (Limiting to one per group is also GREAT.)

Dome of invulnerability should NOT be dispelled by HP because HP are too commonplace.  Domes would likely become useless.  The Dispel Dome spell would definitely be "put on the shelf."  Rather than Angels dispelling Domes I think maybe the Angels should cast Domes for the devout kingdoms in the regions where they have built Temples -- one casting per region maximum each turn.

Devout Fanatics gaining +2 levels is a GREAT change.

Wizard Teleport should be limited to 10 areas -- consistent with Gem of the Planes.  [Teleport is a HUGELY powerful ability.]

Summon Death limited to one casting per group is also a GREAT change.

Wizard Summon Spells should also be limited to one casting per group.

In fact, I think limiting all wizard spells to one casting per group would be an excellent change (then we could eliminate the requirement that wizards have at least a single brigade in the group to cast certain spells).  Fear, Dome, Summon Death, Summon creatures, Kill Leader, Destroy popcenter, etc... would all have to be cast from multiple groups if a player wished to utilize multiple castings.  This would add a small restriction on wizard kingdoms to bring them back to the pack a little bit.  Eliminating the requirement of having troops present would restore the thematic elements of wizards being apart and beyond the normal.  Also, it would make wizard kingdoms play less like "military kingdoms with fireworks."  [Once players are forced to have at least one troop to cast certain powerful spells there is no reason to not put those wizards in the most powerful available group.  Just like that, wizard kingdoms are transformed to military kingdoms.]  Also, limiting summoning spells to one per group per turn will slow down the proliferation of wizard kingdoms being nothing more than strong military kingdoms while simultaneously reducing the ever-increasing advantage of having summoned troops which require no upkeep. Finally, this would restrict the proliferation of Domes and bring viability back to military kingdoms in the end game.

I absolutely HATE the idea of outside constraints on players in the form of turn limits before orders become available.  All turn 4 (or other turn) restrictions should be eliminated.  Players already have to take three turns minimum before they can use HP abilities.  Is it really unbalancing for devout kingdoms to have access a turn earlier?  Or for the AN to utilize Consuls as HP (risking death) on turn one?  Conceal emissary would open up turn one assaults again (Tomag may appreciate this?).  Using wizards to divine popcenters on turn 2 or 3 certainly makes wizards "feel" like purveyors of forbidden knowledge.  Demon princes summoning skeletons on turn one (instead of all the other things they could be doing) are not unbalancing.  Already some kingdoms gain control of their regions on turn 3.  The difference between those kingdoms which gain control turn 3 and those which do not is not a matter of utilizing orders more efficiently but, instead, a function of chance in locating random popcenters on turn 1.

[unclemike]

On a different note than just discussing wizards, Ry Vor, can you inform us why the next version of the game will be called Maelstrom? By definition, maelstrom means either a powerful and violent whirlpool or, in general, a restless and tumultuous state of affairs.

I hope it's the latter and represents a tumultuous onslaught of forces in the realm. In other words, turn 0 setups for all kingdoms will have much more powerful militaries/forces in order to conquer the region and each other for some early action in the game.

Having extra kingdom brigades and an assortment of companion brigades in groups will allow every kingdom to conquer pc's and cause "mayhem" in the realm from the onset of the game!

If going this route then increasing the number of pc's in every region should be considered in order to make the game more worthwhile. Just ask the people who played the last 20-kingdom Slugfest game, having extra pc's on the map was actually fun and more challenging than they may have thought!

The Choosing was designed to slow down the initial game with some people loving it while others hating it so will Maelstrom be the opposite and result in a tumultuous onslaught of events from the very beginning? I hope so and such a scenario would help broaden the audience for playing these types of games.

Players can select The Choosing for a slower or more moderately paced game or they can select Maelstrom if they're power gamers looking to conquest (like Fall of Rome). That difference in offering several varied scenarios would help increase the player base as well!

[Atuan]

On the devout fanatics plan. Currently the level for AM agents is max training of 9 with a max of 12. Regularly its 11 with max of 14. Would AM fanatics have 11 or 13 as its max training?

I am not a big fan of just being able to use tactic 3 on getting past dome. If that is going to be the plan, then just remove dome and dispel dome all together. If you are going to allow Devout kingdoms the ability to use a HP for it, just make sure its a different order than the 86 order.

I am at the moment undecided on limiting the teleportation.

If you are going to limit summon death spells then you need to give something to the AN. Part of their special abilities are weakened by these proposed changes. I would probably just give their consuls the ability to use devout spells.

[unclemike]

Actually, if Maelstrom represents a more conquest-like game, then Ancient Ones and Demon Princes should be replaced with other kingdom types that are more inline for this type of game.

Like replacing them with a Centaur kingdom and another that would provide a better fit for this type of scenario. Then 3rd Cycle would have two unique scenarios: The Choosing for those who like magic/political actions to dominate and Maelstrom who like the more military/conqueror type of game.

I would also reduce the number of emissaries for every kingdom so that political actions wouldn't be the norm when conquering a region (but instead relies on military/wizards to conquer). And make other game related changes that would fit this type of scenario better.

But we need a different scenario like this in order to attract the different mindset of players that are interested in playing tabletop-strategy-fantasy games. So I say, feel free in making the changes necessary to develop a new scenario that's different than 1st/2nd/3rd Cycle. By doing so, you'll attract the attention of the former Fall of Rome players among others who like this style of play.

Besides, Alamaze needs a fresh look and different scenario like this in order to broaden its product line and market appeal. A scenario like this would be worth it just to get the Fall of Rome players back. Any more than that would be frosting on the cake for all of us!

[Jumpingfist]

LTs suggestion of a maximum 1 spell of each spell per group is actually very good.

It would allow Dome to stay as it is. Most low magic kingdom have 5 groups to work with so could over power a wizards 4 groups.

For me it would finally give a reason to get those wizards past level 7. Now that only 1 wizard per group can cast meteor strike you will want to get the biggest bang for your spell. Also true with some combat spells.

Would also create a need use/try other spells.

[Hawk_]

Actually, if Maelstrom represents a more conquest-like game, then Ancient Ones and Demon Princes should be replaced with other kingdom types that are more inline for this type of game.

Like replacing them with a Centaur kingdom and another that would provide a better fit for this type of scenario. Then 3rd Cycle would have two unique scenarios: The Choosing for those who like magic/political actions to dominate and Maelstrom who like the more military/conqueror type of game.

I would also reduce the number of emissaries for every kingdom so that political actions wouldn't be the norm when conquering a region (but instead relies on military/wizards to conquer). And make other game related changes that would fit this type of scenario better.

But we need a different scenario like this in order to attract the different mindset of players that are interested in playing tabletop-strategy-fantasy games. So I say, feel free in making the changes necessary to develop a new scenario that's different than 1st/2nd/3rd Cycle. By doing so, you'll attract the attention of the former Fall of Rome players among others who like this style of play.

Besides, Alamaze needs a fresh look and different scenario like this in order to broaden its product line and market appeal. A scenario like this would be worth it just to get the Fall of Rome players back. Any more than that would be frosting on the cake for all of us!

Maelstorm sounds like a fun variant on the game.  Old first cycle Almaze lended itself to recruiting and attacking right away also.  

I am not a fan of the turn 4 limitations except for the limit with Ancient Ones divining pop centers.

I like the idea of one spell being cast per group. 

Re: Dome.  It used to be easier to get dispel dome spells than it is now.  I think that has increased the power of the spell as well.  It could be changed.