Bitch / Gripes / Improvement Ideas...Share

[Maximus Dominus]

I like the idea of kingdoms having Rivalries and bonus against it

Perhaps call them blood feuds instead of rivalries?

I just think that it's a more colorful term, is all.

[uncledarkseid]

I like the idea of kingdoms having Rivalries and bonus against it

The haflings should pay tribute to the dragons so we don’t eat them.  Not all of us have a missing belly scale, you know.

[RELLGAR]

Attacked a town only took 6.53 percent of damage and a P2 wizard gets killed. Quite a setback in the beginning of a game with a military kingdom. The algorithm was never this deadly in 3rd cycle. This is the 3rd time lost a wizard in Maelstrom with under 10% casualties.

[Maximus Dominus]

I would like to start gathering game things that would be helpful.

Define helpful. As in maintaining or instilling a greater degree of in-game balance between kingdoms? Or as in increasing the fun factor of the game? or something else?

Keep it positive and rate it from 1-10 with 10 being the least annoying thing for you and 1 being it feels like it's broken.

We are only dealing with the four items that you listed, correct?

What I don't want is a bitch fest, then I can work to see what's easy to fix, what isn't, and lastly a priority.

Bitch fests come at no additional cost.

Give ideas and later we can do polls.

Do you want ideas only on the four items that you listed? Or are you seeking to expand this list?

1. Multiple wizards/leaders able to be moved in 1 order. - 7 (Im used to it)

Yes, I favor this. Of course, part of the game design's "balance considerations" appear to be tied to limitations upon what can be achieved per order given. If you change it, you alter the status quo, where balance is concerned. That said, as a general rule of thumb, I tend to favor increases in the fun factor over game balance, per se.

2. Ability to dismiss a wizard or leader  - 4 (so many times would love to use)

Yes, I favor this. Would the dismissed characters then no longer be a part of the kingdom, and players would lose their investments in developing them? Or what would happen to characters that got dismissed?

3. Disband Army / Disband all troops from the army - 7 - (Useful tactic to free a group)

Yes, I favor this. Provides clarity to newcomers. Not everything is obvious, or at least, as obvious as veteran players might be inclined to believe it to be.

4. Order to add food/gold to simulate funds from PC conquering on a turn.  7 (I used to it)

Not sure what you mean by this. Clarify, please.

[Maximus Dominus]

Attacked a town only took 6.53 percent of damage and a P2 wizard gets killed. Quite a setback in the beginning of a game with a military kingdom.  The algorithm was never this deadly in 3rd cycle.  This is the 3rd time lost a wizard in Maelstrom with under 10% casualties.

Sure, losing characters suck, but it seems to me that consequential decisions should carry with them risk(s) for decisions made and actions undertook.

Your military group attacked a town. A wizard was lost in the process, in the aftermath of that attack being launched.

Lots of things vary from what was the case in 3rd Cycle Alamaze, aren't they? I lack the experience of Rellgar, and perhaps I am missing something. In the grand sum of things, when experienced players are playing against newcomers, especially, risk of losses seem to be a necessary commodity. After all, no matter what the risk factors are, experienced players will always be better positioned to extract maximum advantage from any given rule. When experienced players lose assets that they value, that can be a great equalizer, of sorts, for thew new guys flying around by the seat of their pants, not really grasping all of the game's nuances.

So, I favor the possibility of characters dying, when players undertake to launch military aggression against other kingdoms. If they know that they stand no chance of loosing such assets, them there's nothing to give them pause. Military attacks upon population centers should not be a guaranteed rise. Such actions should be full of risk, for war is bloody as hell, and wars never quite seem to go according to plan. The best laid plans of mice and men go astray. So it should be in Alamaze, as well.

[Wookie Panz]

Attacked a town only took 6.53 percent of damage and a P2 wizard gets killed. Quite a setback in the beginning of a game with a military kingdom.  The algorithm was never this deadly in 3rd cycle.  This is the 3rd time lost a wizard in Maelstrom with under 10% casualties.

Sure, losing characters suck, but it seems to me that consequential decisions should carry with them risk(s) for decisions made and actions undertook.

Your military group attacked a town. A wizard was lost in the process, in the aftermath of that attack being launched.

Lots of things vary from what was the case in 3rd Cycle Alamaze, aren't they? I lack the experience of Rellgar, and perhaps I am missing something. In the grand sum of things, when experienced players are playing against newcomers, especially, risk of losses seem to be a necessary commodity. After all, no matter what the risk factors are, experienced players will always be better positioned to extract maximum advantage from any given rule. When experienced players lose assets that they value, that can be a great equalizer, of sorts, for thew new guys flying around by the seat of their pants, not really grasping all of the game's nuances.

So, I favor the possibility of characters dying, when players undertake to launch military aggression against other kingdoms. If they know that they stand no chance of loosing such assets, them there's nothing to give them pause. Military attacks upon population centers should not be a guaranteed rise. Such actions should be full of risk, for war is bloody as hell, and wars never quite seem to go according to plan. The best laid plans of mice and men go astray. So it should be in Alamaze, as well.

With a p2 I do guarded attack.  With an adept or a p 1 I go invisible and never lose anyone.  With p 3 or higher the automatic presence spell should have the wizard covered.
Not that Rellgar needs a lesson from me.  He has taught me a thing or three.

[Wookie Panz]

I would like to start gathering game things that would be helpful.
Keep it positive and rate it from 1-10 with 10 being the least annoying thing for you and 1 being it feels like it's broken.
What I don't want is a bitch fest, then I can work to see what's easy to fix, what isn't, and lastly a priority.
Give ideas and later we can do polls.



1. Multiple wizards/leaders able to be moved in 1 order. - 7 (Im used to it)
2. Ability to dismiss a wizard or leader  - 4 (so many times would love to use)
3. Disband Army / Disband all troops from the army - 7 - (Useful tactic to free a group)
4. Order to add food/gold to simulate funds from PC conquering on a turn.  7 (I used to it)

Here is a pet peeve that I have heard from EVERY NEW PLAYER that I have tried to help.
Rule of law - take away some of my gold and food every freaking turn for what?  And I get no say in it and nothing in return?

John, where I live we dumped the King's tea in the harbor for unfair taxation.  Lets get rid of this unfair tax.

[uncledarkseid]

I would like to start gathering game things that would be helpful.
Keep it positive and rate it from 1-10 with 10 being the least annoying thing for you and 1 being it feels like it's broken.
What I don't want is a bitch fest, then I can work to see what's easy to fix, what isn't, and lastly a priority.
Give ideas and later we can do polls.



1. Multiple wizards/leaders able to be moved in 1 order. - 7 (Im used to it)
2. Ability to dismiss a wizard or leader  - 4 (so many times would love to use)
3. Disband Army / Disband all troops from the army - 7 - (Useful tactic to free a group)
4. Order to add food/gold to simulate funds from PC conquering on a turn.  7 (I used to it)

Here is a pet peeve that I have heard from EVERY NEW PLAYER that I have tried to help.
Rule of law - take away some of my gold and food every freaking turn for what?  And I get no say in it and nothing in return?

John, where I live we dumped the King's tea in the harbor for unfair taxation.  Lets get rid of this unfair tax.

Agreed!  It will help the “evil” trait not be so powerful as well

[luty]

[/quote]
Agreed!  It will help the “evil” trait not be so powerful as well
[/quote]

Make "rule of law" be optional. Keep the costs the same.

Having it turned on gives you +1 status quo/turn in all PCs in the region and is a 25% penalty on unrest/rebel/usurp orders from other kingdoms.

Having it turned off gives a 25% bonus on unrest/rebel/usurp orders.

Evil and good are agnostic vs. law so let/require both kingdom types use it or not.

[Wookie Panz]

Good ideas luty but one objective we are looking at is making things more simple and streamlined.