The Choosing Potential Changes for Jan 1

[Rogal]

Does the Ancient ones early divining powers really matter, for who really plays them anymore besides in maybe team games?

[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.

JF and Hawk both initially like the idea of "limiting all wizard spells to one casting per group".  Do others have an opinion?

[Rogal]

Until I play a true caster kingdom, I feel that my option will have a bias one way and would be uniformed.  I would want caster kingdoms casters limited, but until I can see both sides of an argument, I am influenced unfairly one way.

[gkmetty]

I felt the previous version of Alamaze had a good balance of magic. Rather then limiting all of the spells, why not increase the cost of leveling wizards, more like the previous version. This will slow down the development of high level wizards. Make high level wizards a rarity and something special rather then a commodity that the 5 magic kingdoms and 3 semi magic kingdoms have to spare.

Limiting spell casting to one spell per group seems like moving too far in the opposite direction. Why have 7 or 8 wizards if you can only use 4. There really are not that many useful spells to use in a given situation. What happens in a battle if you have 3 wizards, can only one throw guarded attack? What about kill leader, again only one per group? Only one can increase resources at a pop center?

Alamaze has many artificial restrictions already I dont think adding more arbitrary restrictions will help the game.

[Ry Vor]

Until I play a true caster kingdom, I feel that my option will have a bias one way and would be uniformed.  I would want caster kingdoms casters limited, but until I can see both sides of an argument, I am influenced unfairly one way.

Maybe "Rogal" should be the name of one of the first Sages when that character class is introduced.

[unclemike]

I felt the previous version of Alamaze had a good balance of magic.  Rather then limiting all of the spells, why not increase the cost of leveling wizards, more like the previous version.  This will slow down the development of high level wizards.  Make high level wizards a rarity and something special rather then a commodity that the 5 magic kingdoms and 3 semi magic kingdoms have to spare.

Limiting spell casting to one spell per group seems like moving too far in the opposite direction.  Why have 7 or 8 wizards if you can only use 4.  There really are not that many useful spells to use in a given situation.  What happens in a battle if you have 3 wizards, can only one throw guarded attack?  What about kill leader, again only one per group?  Only one can increase resources at a pop center?

Alamaze has many artificial restrictions already I dont think adding more arbitrary restrictions will help the game.

I agree with gkmetty and don't think casting one spell per group is a cure-all for our ills. A better direction would be what he said and raise the cost of wizard research to make high level wizards a rarity and something special to have. But going that route will also require limiting the problematic spells of dome, death, and summon troops in a manner to be more balanced with others.

[gkmetty]

I believe some of the military kingdoms already have resistances to death magic. Perhaps that becomes a staple of the military kingdoms thus reducing the impact of summon death spells on those kingdoms.

In addition, the military kingdoms could be given a special attack that allows them to partially negate Dome's. The restrictions could be set rather high, Warlord, elite brigades etc, and the attack would not do full damage, giving some benefit to the kingdom using dome. The benefit would stack if multiple domes were used. I guess the name of the dome spell would need to changed to Dome of protection since recipients would no longer be invulnerable.

[Ohman the heartless]

I have been reading this discussion of the Magic Kingdoms. My thought is quit simple. As this is a fantasy game with both magical, political and military combat. Why wouldn't every King not have a Court Wizard. This would be a hybrid, part mage, part adviser, part Priest. The kingdoms spell casting ability per group would be based off the level of the Court wizard. A Level 7 Court wizard allows that Kingdom to cast a total of 7 combined spell levels per group. The Court Wizard would be PC bound, and must train like other wizards, and that cost would be the same for all Kingdoms. The starting Court wizard could be the same as the magic proficiency level for each kingdom. IE Supremacy starts at level 9 Court Wizard, Advantaged 8 and so on. If a court Wizard is assassinated or captured, a New wizard could be hired, but only at the starting magic level for that Kingdom. So if a level 15 DU Court Wizard is lost, only a 9 new court Wizard could be hired. Mage maximums would still be Kingdom specific.

[Ry Vor]

I've asked Mike for feedback on a set of notes on Jan 1 changes, will probably post sometime tomorrow. 

There will be lots of spell power level changes.

Presently, among the things discussed, have not changed Teleport or Dome of Invulnerability.  Am considering changing magic research cost to researching above Power 3, the cost is (base + new level) x new level.   So a magic Supremacy kingdom (normal research 7k) would, researching Power 4, have (7+4)*4 = 44k gold, instead of the previous 28k.  I didn't want to start it with P2 as it would hurt the magic diminished kingdoms more than the supremacy kingdoms.  Dispel Dome likely available a power level earlier.

Summonings limited to 3 per turn per kingdom and in the wild.  

Several others, more later.

[gkmetty]

Could you review the formula used for threaten? It seems to be based more on political standing then actual might. I understand why diplomacy would take into consideration the aggressors region reaction and the owners regional reaction but I would think threaten should be based more on the might of the group outside the pop center.

When a village with 3k defense is faced with an army group with an against PC value of 45k and the kingdom has a +10 to threaten but the village still resists, it seems a bit ridiculous. I would think the owning kingdom declaring the aggressor an Enemy would be a bonus for threaten but that is not the case it seems.

It seems to me that Diplomacy and threaten should be based on different criteria but my recent experience is that they are very similar.