Buddy/Ignore List
06-02-2025, 08:25 PM
I have been working on a kingdom rating system for some time now. It started as a way for me to learn and compare the various kingdoms when I returned to playing last year and great into what you see now.
Methodology
Each kingdom is evaluated and ranked using a custom methodology intended to reflect overall strategic impact. Rather than using a linear scoring system, I applied the Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, etc.) in most areas. This approach places greater emphasis on top-tier advantages, creating a distinct separation between mid-range and exceptional capabilities.
Example: GI’s kingdom troop quality receives a score of 21, the highest value, reflecting its substantial battlefield impact. In comparison, the GN scored 2, the LY a 5 and TY 3 (kingdom troops only). These numbers illustrate just how substantially the GI troops outperform others.
Each category was evaluated independently. For kingdom traits, I measured impact by summing the individual effects. Take Flight as an example:
PC attack bonus: 1
Immunities (Summon Death, Flanking, etc): 0.5
Maximum Patrol Movement: 0.5
Fly Over Water: 2
Auto level 1 recon: 1
Extended Emissary Range: 0.5
Total Score: 5.5 (note - movement is accounted for elsewhere)
The evaluation considered various factors:
Bonuses were awarded to kingdoms with access to Bounty and/or Iron Golem, while those kingdoms without access to Fear were penalized.
Additional penalties were assigned for strategic limitations, such as the dragon kingdoms being unable to establish water capitals or use fleets.
The final rating for each kingdom represents the sum of scores across all categories, capturing both strengths and limitations in a single overall value.
Naturally, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved in this process. These rankings reflect my current perspective based on the available information and my game experience over the past 18 months. Others may weigh factors differently, and as I continue to learn and observe gameplay, I expect my assessments will evolve.
Note I did not include the Nomad, as that kingdom is currently undergoing balancing adjustments.
The DK Tier
Deathknights - 128.2
Surprising no one, the DK is far and away the top kingdom, scoring over 20 points more than the next kingdom. It also leads in single player wins, with 11 (DU is next with 8).
The DK has:
The DK’s only weak spots are low starting influence, group movement and no economic enablers (other than hidden ore/fertile fields).
Clearly, the kingdom is a bit much and should likely be examined. A straightforward adjustment would be dropping them to tier 3 in magic.
Top Tier (100+)
NE 106.8
WA 106
IL 105.7
DU 105.1
SO 104.6
DA 102.9
DE 102.6
AN 101.9
This group is dominated by tier 1 and 2 wizard kingdoms, with the sole exception of the AN. The AN is also the only one of this group that would not be able to reliably conquer a legendary pop center.
Mid-Tier (95 - 99)
UN 99.6
GI 98.9
FT 97.5
LI 97
LY 95.7
CI 95.4
TY 95.2
All of these kingdoms feel more or less “fair”. I do wonder why the UN was given five groups and such good companions (compare his companions to the SA or RA for example).
Low Tier (80 - 89)
AL 93.6
HA 91.7
EM 90.7
RD 89.4
RA 88.5
AM 87.6
SA 87.2
GN 86.9
FO 86.5
DW 86.2
The AL and EM are tier 1 wizards but fell very low compared to the other wizard kingdoms. I may underate the AL; I have not played them and thus I had to judge their gunpowder abilities without first-hand experience. The EM I have played, and they do indeed feel inferior to the WA, IL, DU and SO. The elemental summons are cool but they are summons - if they were companions, I believe the kingdom would be much more interesting.
The GN is a bit of a standout here; they would score in the low 90s if they had access to Fear.
The Dregs (below 80)
PI 79.8
EL 79.2
FF 78.1
BL 74.7
AT 69.4
The EL is the odd one here but when I look at the numbers - traits are all pretty meh, early spells are non-impactful, the troops are quite good, but troop movement is only a bit above average, and companions are among the worst of any kingdom.
The BL really is a worst RD with slightly better wizards. He also suffers from having only four groups.
The AT is nearly a generic kingdom with so many advantages based around sea power. The frustrating thing about the AT is they are not even the best at the sea mechanics - the PI has the 20k gold sea patrol, and the FT has the improved mercantile fleet. If the AT did not have a hidden capital, they would score below 60.
While these kingdoms score low this only indicates they may be more challenging to play. I recently won a game as the PI and another as the EL. Each game is different, and the state of the game world has a huge influence. The DK will not win every game (but has won the most) and the AT will not lose every game (but has yet to win one).
Methodology
Each kingdom is evaluated and ranked using a custom methodology intended to reflect overall strategic impact. Rather than using a linear scoring system, I applied the Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, etc.) in most areas. This approach places greater emphasis on top-tier advantages, creating a distinct separation between mid-range and exceptional capabilities.
Example: GI’s kingdom troop quality receives a score of 21, the highest value, reflecting its substantial battlefield impact. In comparison, the GN scored 2, the LY a 5 and TY 3 (kingdom troops only). These numbers illustrate just how substantially the GI troops outperform others.
Each category was evaluated independently. For kingdom traits, I measured impact by summing the individual effects. Take Flight as an example:
PC attack bonus: 1
Immunities (Summon Death, Flanking, etc): 0.5
Maximum Patrol Movement: 0.5
Fly Over Water: 2
Auto level 1 recon: 1
Extended Emissary Range: 0.5
Total Score: 5.5 (note - movement is accounted for elsewhere)
The evaluation considered various factors:
- Kingdom Traits
- Magic Tier
- Early Spell Access
- Troop Quality
- Companion Unit Quality
- Reinforcement Options
- Troop Movement
- Terrain Masteries
- Special Rules or Unique Mechanics
Bonuses were awarded to kingdoms with access to Bounty and/or Iron Golem, while those kingdoms without access to Fear were penalized.
Additional penalties were assigned for strategic limitations, such as the dragon kingdoms being unable to establish water capitals or use fleets.
The final rating for each kingdom represents the sum of scores across all categories, capturing both strengths and limitations in a single overall value.
Naturally, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved in this process. These rankings reflect my current perspective based on the available information and my game experience over the past 18 months. Others may weigh factors differently, and as I continue to learn and observe gameplay, I expect my assessments will evolve.
Note I did not include the Nomad, as that kingdom is currently undergoing balancing adjustments.
The DK Tier
Deathknights - 128.2
Surprising no one, the DK is far and away the top kingdom, scoring over 20 points more than the next kingdom. It also leads in single player wins, with 11 (DU is next with 8).
The DK has:
- Tier 2 Magic
- Impactful Traits - Evil, Military Tradtion, Immuniy to Death Magic. Ruthless. Siege Eng and Stalwart
- A powerful, unique companion in the Pit Fiend
- Five groups
- Early access to Summon Death
- Access to Iron Golem
The DK’s only weak spots are low starting influence, group movement and no economic enablers (other than hidden ore/fertile fields).
Clearly, the kingdom is a bit much and should likely be examined. A straightforward adjustment would be dropping them to tier 3 in magic.
Top Tier (100+)
NE 106.8
WA 106
IL 105.7
DU 105.1
SO 104.6
DA 102.9
DE 102.6
AN 101.9
This group is dominated by tier 1 and 2 wizard kingdoms, with the sole exception of the AN. The AN is also the only one of this group that would not be able to reliably conquer a legendary pop center.
Mid-Tier (95 - 99)
UN 99.6
GI 98.9
FT 97.5
LI 97
LY 95.7
CI 95.4
TY 95.2
All of these kingdoms feel more or less “fair”. I do wonder why the UN was given five groups and such good companions (compare his companions to the SA or RA for example).
Low Tier (80 - 89)
AL 93.6
HA 91.7
EM 90.7
RD 89.4
RA 88.5
AM 87.6
SA 87.2
GN 86.9
FO 86.5
DW 86.2
The AL and EM are tier 1 wizards but fell very low compared to the other wizard kingdoms. I may underate the AL; I have not played them and thus I had to judge their gunpowder abilities without first-hand experience. The EM I have played, and they do indeed feel inferior to the WA, IL, DU and SO. The elemental summons are cool but they are summons - if they were companions, I believe the kingdom would be much more interesting.
The GN is a bit of a standout here; they would score in the low 90s if they had access to Fear.
The Dregs (below 80)
PI 79.8
EL 79.2
FF 78.1
BL 74.7
AT 69.4
The EL is the odd one here but when I look at the numbers - traits are all pretty meh, early spells are non-impactful, the troops are quite good, but troop movement is only a bit above average, and companions are among the worst of any kingdom.
The BL really is a worst RD with slightly better wizards. He also suffers from having only four groups.
The AT is nearly a generic kingdom with so many advantages based around sea power. The frustrating thing about the AT is they are not even the best at the sea mechanics - the PI has the 20k gold sea patrol, and the FT has the improved mercantile fleet. If the AT did not have a hidden capital, they would score below 60.
While these kingdoms score low this only indicates they may be more challenging to play. I recently won a game as the PI and another as the EL. Each game is different, and the state of the game world has a huge influence. The DK will not win every game (but has won the most) and the AT will not lose every game (but has yet to win one).
