Debate on Mage Kingdoms Relative Power

[Ry Vor]

Talk Among Yourselves:  Mages too Strong?  Too Weak?

Alright, this at some level seems like a self-inflicted wound, but I think it warrants discussion for the long-term future of Alamaze.

The discussion of whether mage kingdoms are too strong or too weak (have been "nerfed") seems to permeate in all kinds of threads, so now it can all be discussed here in this space.

So offer your opinion, your rationale, and your suggestions.  We made the January Changes, for which it may be too early to tell the impact.  Those are summarized in Uncle Mike's Corner.  Then there is Valhalla, which is reflecting all 3rd Cycle results.

While we are hoping not to do another set of changes for The Choosing, as even with notice it can be disruptive to games in progress, so mainly this is with an eye to alterations for Maelstrom and Advanced Alamaze. 

It would be helpful if you would also give your own personal tilt on Alamaze regarding your standing on playing Alamaze for fun as a fantasy adventure game while doing as well as you can, or you view it as a war game in a fantasy setting that is played to be won.  I would like to see the top ranked players take on some of the kingdoms lingering at the bottom, and there is enough data in Valhalla to see if they are doing that but I haven't done the study.  It would be helpful if you also relate somewhat your experience, like which kingdoms you have or have not played as it relates to your comments.

Let's not get off on other tracks here on this thread.  I am interested in your opinions and you could have an impact on the future of Alamaze.

[Atuan]

Before January they were overtuned. Now I am not sure. The IL has poor 565 options and the ability to summon is seriously hurt with the changes. Now they feel like destroy bots more than massive army growers.

I used to sit back, have next to no army as a mage and just pump wizards... start invading and using meteor strike and summon spells to pump my army as I went along taking regions. This has changed and you need a different approach. They do have a stronger late game than say the Amazon but now, its more of a question on if they can make it to late game. You won't see groups full of lich7s with 2 support groups. Now you see wizard kingdoms with 5s and 6s. They feel in range of your balanced kingdoms.

You still have kingdoms that need more help but thats more a case of them needing help than the wizard kingdoms being all powerful

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I agree with Atuan that prior to all the new changes, the wizards kingdoms were much too powerful.

But, I have not yet had enough time to play enough kingdoms with all the massive rule changes that have taken place over the past two months. Though I think they are more balanced now. However, having summoned troops only be summonable in non-PC terrains really hurts everyone but certainly the wizard kingdoms. Before you could raise a wizard and still have other wizards summon troops. Now you have to pick one activity over the other which coupled with the other new limitations on wizards will really slow them down... perhaps too much but that remains to be seen (at least for me).

You've also eliminated most rationales for having wizards higher than P6 or P7. Just no longer cost effective getting them to P8+

[Ry Vor]

I'm going to try to stay on the sidelines for a couple days rather than potentially color the comments we get.  But I am listening.

[Devildog]

I think that with the new changes it is rare to see even a power 6. Therefore military kingdoms that have advantaged magic seem better than magic kingdoms. I personally would like to some time for evaluation with the current changes rather than another mid-game change.

[Rogal]

I think mage kingdoms should get good spells.  That being said we went from 3 mage kingdoms with only one not sharing a region to a potential 5 mage kingdoms and a good chance they could all get a starting region uncontested.  Its economics in my option is what make the casters so powerful.    Caster kingdoms benefit more from resources then any other kingdom due to maximizing their gold.  Only one caster starts in a middle position, 2 have a wall and 2 have a corner position.  My idea would be to try some games with 1 to  5 mages and none start in a corner.  I do wonder if the caster kingdoms would be as popular and do as well if they had more potential predators to worry about.  There was a reason it seemed to get the WI in 2nd edition was usually one of the first mage kingdoms picked.

[RELLGAR]

I think you will always have kingdoms that will do better than others.  This will most likely be kingdoms with greater wizardsuccess and Spell lists, because of the versatility they give you. You can adapt to changes in the game and have more strategies available to you with the more spells you can cast over other kingdoms.  I think as you progress through the games, one would want to play other less popular  kingdoms for a challenge to see if they can win and be the first to victory with that kingdom. 

Rellgar

[unclemike]

I think wizard kingdoms are still quite potent but I wouldn't change them any further.

I'm playing in a game now and developed 8 pwr-6's rather quickly without an issue. True, I gained control of two regions before turn 10 and had merchant fleets in two seas that cranked out the gold but it wasn't difficult to raise that many wizards to their optimal power level.

Would I raise them any further? No reason since there aren't any really powerful spells beyond 6th to justify the cost. If lichdom (and wraithform) were back to their original specifications of where the wizard becomes completely immune to agent assassinations then there would be some incentive to develop a lich or two. But ever since that change was made that an agent with a weapon can kill an undead wizard, there's just no real incentive to develop a lich anymore. It's much cheaper to develop agents and find magical weapons than to raise a pwr-8 wizard who's vulnerable in the game.

As for the subject of wizard kingdoms being too weak now after the changes, I would have to disagree. In that same game that I mentioned earlier, I split up my pwr-6's into four groups which allowed me to cast 4 death spells against a much stronger adversary. Totally destroyed his group with only a division of mine! Also meteor strike is still quite potent at 6th level allowing smaller sized divisions to conquer an unmodified town defense.

Which means that wizard kingdoms are still pretty powerful and can dominate with the right player. I've reviewed some completed games in the archive and I'm quite surprised that people aren't developing their wizards as high as they should during the early to mid part of the game. Heck, I even saw a Necromancer kingdom with only pwr-2's, 3's, and 4's on turn 15 while having full control of the Mists from game start!

I guess some have different approaches to the game such as searching for artifacts or developing other aspects of play but if you spend gold on increasing your influence, agents, or something else for a wizard kingdom, you're passing up on the most powerful part of your kingdom.

In my opinion, the biggest restriction that wizard kingdoms have from the Jan '17 changes is not being able to summon troops at pc's which forces the player to decide whether to summon troops in the wild or to raise wizards at a pc. That restriction which also applies for military kingdoms wanting to recruit companions into their main military force while conquering enemy pc's may be overcome by destroying the pc through plunder (or meteor strike if able). Then the pc is removed from the map and the location acts as a "wild" area to recruit companions or summon troops.

So I wouldn't change wizard kingdoms any further for the sake of balancing the game. In the right hands, wizard kingdoms can still be quite powerful if they are played correctly and the appropriate spells are chosen for a given situation or battle (e.g., wind storm is great against tough capitals and cities for smaller sized groups). Adding more spells at the 7-9 levels would be incentive to raise wizards beyond 6th level.

[Rogal]

I am not sure, but I think Uncle Mike agreed with me on the ease of raising wizards?  I like the Sacred Order a lot for I think knights in shinny armor is cool.  There is almost no way they can compete on the mage level.  The SA are the guardians of the north and there is almost no way they can prevent 4 caster kingdoms from rising in power.  Wizards are jack of all trades and can do so much for the gold they spend.  Wizards can really mimic any ability, and the following turn preform another complete different act. They are really cost effective in a world of uncertainty.   A wizard kingdom can survive with one pc if there casters are intact.  Almost no other kingdom that's caster light can do that.

[Hawk_]

I like Alamaze as more of a war game and really like the military part of the game.  I think things could be changed a bit to help the military kingdoms.

I think to benefit the SA, DW and CI it would be better if dome was further altered.  One suggestion would be to make dome only block an army of a certain relative attack value.  Another alternative would be making it so you could only dome one pop center in a region per turn.  That way if you attack multiple pop centers only one could be domed.

I think all the wizard spell lists could be further differentiated and some spells raised further.   Some could get dome and infuriate and prestige.  Others get demonic visions and summon death. Missing spells could be gained at level 9.   This would be the benefit of the non magic kingdoms.

I think you could allow wizards to cast 2 summoning spells per turn but force them to continue do it in non pop center locations.   They can still recruit standard troops at pop centers.