Troop Changes from the High Overlord of Alamaze

[Frostking]

i would like to see battles not be so one sided.

[Olorin]

Some analysis (thanks to AI for the help!):

Here are selected comments:

Alchemist: You guys must really not like them! The Alchemist went down in every category, two in Combined. Is this intended?

Amazons: The reduction in defense concerns me, as they were only "average" before, which was already low for a military kingdom.

Ancient Ones: The buff in archery seems out of character for this kingdom. I didn't see an issue with how they were before.

Atlanteans: Buffed in archery but nerfed in most other areas. This is a disappointment, as this was a chance to buff an underperforming kingdom.

Beholder: I understand the move away from long-range damage; however, it lost defense, granted it is a bit better in other phases. I am concerned, as this is mostly a nerf to the iconic troop for a struggling kingdom. I'd like to see an increase in the Beholder's defense. Poor defense is pretty...poor.

Centaur: I am unclear why this troop type saw downgrades nearly across the board. Every category but long-range was reduced with no buffs. If nothing else, they should be good at Charge. This is an indirect nerf to Atlanteans and Elves, as they recruit these (or would, before this nerf).

Chimeria: I note this states a max of 3 per group; is this intentional (was one)? They were buffed substantially in melee, making them much more of a close-quarters unit. I like the change.

Deathknights: Ah, the rich get richer! Missile phases reduced by one level, and charge and melee increased by two! Defense did go down one level. Overall seems like a buff. Disappointed we didn't see an outright nerf in some manner.

Druid: Substantial nerfs; however, given the kingdom, it doesn't really matter. They are going to summon troops.

Dwarves: Good buffs to melee and defense. Should be a help.

Ents: These have become top tier PC taking troops. Good change.

Halfling: Thankfully the military scoruge of the Halfling has ended! Or one would think, given these changes, archery buffed one level, every other category reduced or eliminated entirely. Do they now have among the worst troops? Perhaps.

Part Two Later

I thought I would address this. We found when we looked at the brigades that the ratings were often way off from what was listed in the rules. Some way better, some distinctly worse. So first we tried to adjust the numbers to fit the ratings, then realized that the whole system needed updating. So we worked out what seemed a better, more balanced system, which included trying to make the ratings more appropriate to what people would figure on just looking at the names.

As I do not want to hijack this thread from people's comments and suggestions for improving the brigade ratings I will make a thread for the comparisons; the original ratings in the rules, the actual ratings as we found them, and the ratings we ended with. I will start with the ratings we used for the system Brekk posted above.

[Tacticus]

In my opinion, this forum interface also should be revised.
For example answering a message or posting a new message, showing previous message as quoting (seems default option).
Meanwhile would be good to have reactions to messages, like, thumbs up, etc..

[Brekk]

It will take some time to digest these changes and provide proper feedback. Thanks for all the work! I look forward to digging into it.

One immediate benefit is capping the Trolls at 30% when having three brigades. This is, in some ways, beneficial, as one only needs to recruit three brigades to get the full benefit, rather than five. An alternative approach would be to adjust the bonus per brigade down.

Dave,

I think you were getting 50% not 30% when you recruited 5, thats why the number was reduced.  I''m unable to chnage code so this is the solution we have to use for now.

[Brekk]

Some analysis (thanks to AI for the help!):
Here are selected comments:
Alchemist: You guys must really not like them! The Alchemist went down in every category, two in Combined. Is this intended?
Amazons: The reduction in defense concerns me, as they were only "average" before, which was already low for a military kingdom.
Ancient Ones: The buff in archery seems out of character for this kingdom. I didn't see an issue with how they were before.
Atlanteans: Buffed in archery but nerfed in most other areas. This is a disappointment, as this was a chance to buff an underperforming kingdom.
Beholder: I understand the move away from long-range damage; however, it lost defense, granted it is a bit better in other phases. I am concerned, as this is mostly a nerf to the iconic troop for a struggling kingdom. I'd like to see an increase in the Beholder's defense. Poor defense is pretty...poor.
Centaur: I am unclear why this troop type saw downgrades nearly across the board. Every category but long-range was reduced with no buffs. If nothing else, they should be good at Charge. This is an indirect nerf to Atlanteans and Elves, as they recruit these (or would, before this nerf).
Chimeria: I note this states a max of 3 per group; is this intentional (was one)? They were buffed substantially in melee, making them much more of a close-quarters unit. I like the change.
Deathknights: Ah, the rich get richer! Missile phases reduced by one level, and charge and melee increased by two! Defense did go down one level. Overall seems like a buff. Disappointed we didn't see an outright nerf in some manner.
Druid: Substantial nerfs; however, given the kingdom, it doesn't really matter. They are going to summon troops.
Dwarves: Good buffs to melee and defense. Should be a help.
Ents: These have become top tier PC taking troops. Good change.
Halfling: Thankfully the military scoruge of the Halfling has ended! Or one would think, given these changes, archery buffed one level, every other category reduced or eliminated entirely. Do they now have among the worst troops? Perhaps.
Part Two Later

Let me address a few things I can speak to from memory:

• DK lost 1 Fiend, which is a pretty significant hit to their relative strength.
  
• Ents will become the new shock troops for the good, woodsy kingdoms.
  
• Beholder was broken behind the scenes—nearly maxed in every category before the recent adjustments.
  

I’ll go through the rest of the units that have been flagged. In some cases, like the Amazons or Atlanteans, they might feel like they were nerfed, but that’s likely because their previous stats were incorrect or misleading in what players could see. They’ll still need some fine-tuning.
One of the major changes we’ve made, beyond just archery and storm damage, is reworking troops' defense. We’ve found that defense plays a huge role in determining combat outcomes.
Please keep the comments coming. Olorin and I will continue addressing feedback as best we can—without giving too much away about what’s going on behind the scenes.

[Brekk]

Hey Brek,

Sounds great.  I have some questions.

1) Did you simply Un-nerf archery and restore brigades to the old levels or did you buff it beyond that?  I see in some brigade types where it made sense, you took out archery completely.

2) How have PC storm values changed?  Did you tweak the formula found in the Rulebook?

3)  Good call nerfing Trolls.  30% seems fair.

---

Oh and

4)  Have these changes already been implemented?

1. Archery had its values significantly diminished compared to other combat phases. For example, if a "Charge" phase with an "Awesome" rating dealt 1,000 damage, the same "Awesome" rating in the archery phase might only do around 350. As a result, we rebalanced kingdoms like the Elves, whose damage was previously spread across all phases. While we didn’t change their total damage output much, we shifted when that damage occurs. Now, their Long-Range and Short-Range phases hit much harder—closer to what you'd expect from a top-tier (e.g., SA in Charge) phase. They’ll likely do less damage in other phases, but their archery phases now better reflect the Elves of lore. Hope that makes sense.
   
2. We increased the power levels for troops designated as the new shock troops, and we’re starting to assign these to kingdoms. This allows most kingdoms to take at least minor cities and towns with just troops, and potentially take Legendaries later in the game if it fits thematically and strategically. Of course, this still needs testing.
   
3. This was needed. It should make it harder for evil kingdoms to steamroll Legendaries without a real challenge.
   
4. It is essential to clarify that in Alamaze, when I modify these values, they apply to all games. So while I can revert changes, both the initial and backout affect ongoing games. So as a community, we’ll need to decide on a good time to implement major updates. Most likely, I’ll pause all games for a weekend to get the work done properly.
   

[Brekk]

@Brekk Are you able to remove the limit of 15 troop types per group? That has a big impact on group composition, which will become more important.

Sadly at this time no, I dont have a programmer for this code of Alamaze

[Brekk]

So zombies and zealots are comparable troop types? Phoenix should be tougher as it’s a stand alone troop type, like pit fiend and Iron Golum. Imo

I seem to recall we upped its defense a bit, as well as the Black Dragons.  Blackdragons will now be almost as tough defensively as Red dragons, just not as much offense

[Brekk]

i would like to see battles not be so one sided.

Frostking,
Examples of what you're seeing would be helpful. Just about everything impacts a battle, so it's important to look at things in context. These changes aren’t altering how combat works, they’re meant to make troop types more unique and their roles more understandable.
The old stats that were displayed weren’t accurate, so if players made decisions based on them, the outcomes could have been way off.
Let me know some specifics, and I’ll take a closer look.
and see if I can address them.