Which Kingdom do you NOT want to play

[Olorin]

And why?

What is it about that Kingdom that makes it undesirable for you?  Not your game style? Not able to hold its own in combat? Do not like the concept?

[Mauler]

I have an admitted soft spot for the Nomads. It was the first kingdom I ever played. But they are rarely picked in the new format. They closest resemble the Amazons, who are just superior to the Nomads. I think that if you add some thematic companions (say rohirrim & wildlings) and add the secretive trait, they would get picked more often.

[davekuyk]

I have played a number of kingdoms since I began playing again in Feb 2024. I have not played them all yet but the one I dislike the most to date is the Atlanteans.

The Atlanteans are not "bad" but rather gosh darn boring. Consider:

*Agents are average (max of 11)
*Kingdom brigades are middle-of-the-road
*Companion brigades well below average.
*Troop movement is below average (only bonus is when on the sea, which isn't much of a bonus IMHO)
*Magic tier is actually named "Standard" (tier 4) and spell selection is poor, with no impactful early spells (IMHO)
*No special rules (they do start with an extra general, so yay?)

They do have a number of good "utility" traits - Secretive, Industrious, Rich, etc. But no good "dynamic" traits, such as Adventurers or Riders.

It is the close to what a "base" kingdom might look like. Average agents, average military and average (standard!) wizards.

To be fair, the emissaries will be above average due to Charisma and Feudal traits, but at the end of the day a prince with 25 influence is pretty much the same regardless of the kingdom. The Atlantean's economy is strong, but isn't any better than any other Industrious kingdom (and doesn't compare to the Halfling).

So yeah, Atlanteans, the average kingdom!

[JohnnyUtah]

I found Black Dragons to be kind of pointless. Wizards are weak, troops aren't great and companions are limited. Not great for rushing, not great for development... Just a victim in waiting.

[Xerro]

The faerie folk   And the reason is convoluted. If you look at them on paper they are great. They have good wizards the ability to go to level 9 at 100%.
Full set of summoning spells and some special abilitys including a hidden capital. They should do as well as the pure wizards. And yet they have one of the worst win records. Why??? And the answer is they are small. Their description says they are small and weak. When players are deciding which neighbor to invade they get picked on way more often then even pure wizard kingdoms. They start with the unwrittten disadvantage of looking weak and therefore attract predators.  I honestly believe they SHOULD be a good kingdom with strong win chances. Yet they rarely get a chance to develop and even then are subject to ppl looking for therir 3rd or 4th region due to apearence of weakness. Its hard to do well if you are constantly attacked by your neighbors. That is why I think they are not doing great and sadly there is no fix for it. Renaming them humungous faeries probably wont work.

[Pine Needle]

These are all good (bad) choices. Nomad just is boring. There's not enough desert on the map to give it much military advantage. Bad companions.
Atlanteans same but ocean. Bad companions. The land battles at sea thing degraded AT and PI kingdoms (as a sop to the Red Dragons who couldn't attack sea PCs before).

Fairy Folk might be ok, but really are just a wizard light kingdom. Flying is no advantage anymore. Having lots of sprites doesn't really make these companions good as they are weak and just take a lot of actions to recruit.

Black Dragon is just a weak Red Dragon.

The theme is bad companions. (RA EL too).

[davekuyk]

Agree with all of the above. I would have thought the Fairy Folk would have better movement seeing as they fly and all.

In the old days, I liked the Black Dragon a lot - killer movement and pretty good wizards was a good tradeoff for not-quite-as-good troops. But yes, they are now essentially a worse Red Dragon.

A note about the Ranger - they don't have access to the Fear spell. Other than Crack the Sky at power-9, they have no fear effects whatsoever. This is stunning given how critical fear is as a combat effect. I do wonder if this is an oversight.

[Strongwill]

I think that everyone of those kingdoms could be improved by revamping the spells and spell list for kingdoms… for example, any non evil kingdom should have have access to the monster summoning spells to bolster their militaries. All the evil kingdoms get the undead… would also help those kingdoms with crap companion lists, although it would be better if companion list be revamped and made more kingdom specific.. imo

[Lord Garth]

Agree with all of the above. I would have thought the Fairy Folk would have better movement seeing as they fly and all.

In the old days, I liked the Black Dragon a lot - killer movement and pretty good wizards was a good tradeoff for not-quite-as-good troops. But yes, they are now essentially a worse Red Dragon.

A note about the Ranger - they don't have access to the Fear spell. Other than Crack the Sky at power-9, they have no fear effects whatsoever. This is stunning given how critical fear is as a combat effect. I do wonder if this is an oversight.

I think you are right about the Ranger. I they were trying to make some 'good guys' in the game and the RA and AN were denied fear but given stalwart. But it's kinda ridiculous to give fear to the halfling and not those kingdoms. So yeah, should be fixed.

[davekuyk]

Perhaps the issue is how powerful fear is versus the other options.

Vs a legendary with 200k defense a p-5 fear spell reduces the defense by 50,000. No other p-5 spell can compete with that.