Observations For Possible Improvements

[uncledarkseid]

Probably not even then.  My thought is based on total fighting strength, not numbers per se. That includes training, leadership, terrain, and a number of other factors.

And it depends on how far back in D&D games you are talking about.  A couple of good head shots using the Blackmoor hit location tables and the 10th level is in trouble (Yes, I go all the way back to 1974 when I bought my first set of the rules).

That makes you sound really old til i just thought about it, and i bought my first d &d book in ‘81.  That explains the wrinkles around my eyes.

[Frostking]

does brekk usually look at these suggestions? Just wondering if everyone else likes the battles being one sided?

[Tacticus]

I have noticed, raising wizards, warlords and agents becomes so easy in further turns of the game. Happening like mostly war of wizards, leaders, agents. Troops becoming much less effective.
Raising figures would be more costly giving value and fun to battles. Diplomats also would be more difficult to raise, many princes around.
Food and gold easily becoming surplus.
Perhaps maintaining high level figures should be paid food / gold.
Legendary castles would take two turns instead of one.

[davekuyk]

I have noticed, raising wizards, warlords and agents becomes so easy in further turns of the game. Happening like mostly war of wizards, leaders, agents. Troops becoming much less effective.
Raising figures would be more costly giving value and fun to battles. Diplomats also would be more difficult to raise, many princes around.
Food and gold easily becoming surplus.
Perhaps maintaining high level figures should be paid food / gold.
Legendary castles would take two turns instead of one.

I don't see a problem with the value of resources changing as the game develops. As the game progresses gold becomes less valuable and the bottleneck becomes orders and time. 

In many ways, the loss of a prince (and other valuable figures) late game is worse than losing that same prince in the early game as you often won't have the orders to replace the figure nor the time to field the replacement.

I do agree that the building of a legendary castle should require two turns. In the past I suggested that the building of a legendary castle should require a noble (baron or above) at the pop center to oversee the construction; essentially adding another cost to the creation of a legendary castle.

[Zar@shand]

I have noticed, raising wizards, warlords and agents becomes so easy in further turns of the game. Happening like mostly war of wizards, leaders, agents. Troops becoming much less effective.
Raising figures would be more costly giving value and fun to battles. Diplomats also would be more difficult to raise, many princes around.
Food and gold easily becoming surplus.
Perhaps maintaining high level figures should be paid food / gold.
Legendary castles would take two turns instead of one.

It used to be the case that using political and agent orders cost gold with higher level characters costing more to use. This was changed to no cost to make the game more accessible to new players, but the economy was not changed so you will now have much more gold than the original design intended. I do think the economy need to be looked at again as it is too easy to have supper high production from mid to late game.