Changes Coming for Classic

[Ry Vor]

Complete redo of status point awards, what I would call a rationalization. Lower points for artifacts, eliminate points for casting specific spells, provide points for economic, military, magical, political and covert accomplishments, meaning mainly ranks of characters.

This is also an opportunity to press on the edge of some culture in Alamaze, that being of the wolf pack. Instead of providing status points for allies and subtracting points for enemies, which encourages in itself large alliances and awards those players points for it, reverse this. So having an ally reduces status points as the mission is made easier by having allies. Meanwhile, kingdoms which have declared a target kingdom an enemy means the target kingdom's mission is more difficult, and recognizing this results in more status points for facing increased odds against.

May require a new diplomatic status ("Trading" or "Friendly") to be able to trade with a non-ally.

Likewise, rationalize and simplify Early Strategic Objectives.

[HeadHoncho]

LOVE all of these changes, with two very small exceptions, and one more new suggestion.

1) The dragon sighting change, while generally positive, seems a bit cumbersome. Might be easier (both conceptually and coding-wise) to allow them to investigate all sightings but at a hefty penalty for the "dozen troops" aspect, while separately banning the use of certain artifacts or artifact-classes (e.g. the weapon class which is already coded).

2) Don't like the new diplomatic status proposal for trading with a non-ally.

3) The new suggestion is a pet peeve of mine. Can we please change the order number for sale of a HC seat to AFTER the resolution of a HC vote? The standard procedure of selling your HC seat to an ally if anyone proposes to vote you off is really annoying, IMO.

[kevindusi]

There are status points awarded for casting specific spells?! Where is that listed?

[unclemike]

I like the counter espionage clarification and status point change regarding ally/enemy declarations but I'm kind of disappointed with some of the other changes.

In particular the change to the invisible and teleport spells. The strength of a wizard kingdom is its ability to become invisible and teleport their troops anywhere on the map. If you take that away from them (like a warlord detecting something is amiss) then you ruin the element of surprise for them. I know another thread attempted to address the issue with invisibility but if the proposed changes take effect then it will remove the main power element, really the only power element, for wizard kingdoms.

What would be left if these changes take hold? Wizard kingdoms don't have that many emissaries to make a difference, their agents are fairly low level, their troops absolutely suck, their best battle spell in the game is only 5th level (earthquake) which does very minor damage against others in the latter stages, and raising their wizards are very expensive which limits their growth in other aspects of the game.

If you take away the only power play that wizard kingdoms have (invisible, teleporting groups) then they'll be at a distinct disadvanage compared to the other kingdom types. So are these proposed changes just for discussion on the forum or will they actually take place at the end of September 2013?

[Brogan]

I would like anyone you declare an ally to be un-attackable. Or have a varying level of alliances.

I really like most of the rules, especially the naval section.

I do think it is important that the wizard kingdoms don't lose too much in the magic area. Perhaps leave teleporting and invis the same for them as it is now.

[Hawk_]

I like the changes. I think they will add to game balance.

The seapower stuff sounds good.

I found your explanation on the Chaos spell to be confusing. I understand the Warlord part. But when you talked about increasing the chance of retreating for Marshals you lost me.

RE: invisible groups- How can you counter facing multiple teleporting invisible groups. How do you know the ID? I still wish the you could divine the exact group ID's for at least one square on the map as a defensive move. Otherwise the protect leader/wizard spell is useless.

I think it is great that you continue to modify the game to improve balance.

Let the RD eat the herd of the last stallions!

[DuPont]

How about we get with the times and allow gay marriage in Alamaze? Actually, does that whole marriage of state thing even work? I've never once tried it.

[Brogan]

How about we get with the times and allow gay marriage in Alamaze? Actually, does that whole marriage of state thing even work? I've never once tried it.

LOL DuPont, but only in certain areas is it legal like Oakendell and the Sands!

[Lord Thanatos]

I like the counter espionage clarification and status point change regarding ally/enemy declarations but I'm kind of disappointed with some of the other changes.

In particular the change to the invisible and teleport spells. The strength of a wizard kingdom is its ability to become invisible and teleport their troops anywhere on the map. If you take that away from them (like a warlord detecting something is amiss) then you ruin the element of surprise for them. I know another thread attempted to address the issue with invisibility but if the proposed changes take effect then it will remove the main power element, really the only power element, for wizard kingdoms.

What would be left if these changes take hold? Wizard kingdoms don't have that many emissaries to make a difference, their agents are fairly low level, their troops absolutely suck, their best battle spell in the game is only 5th level (earthquake) which does very minor damage against others in the latter stages, and raising their wizards are very expensive which limits their growth in other aspects of the game.

If you take away the only power play that wizard kingdoms have (invisible, teleporting groups) then they'll be at a distinct disadvanage compared to the other kingdom types. So are these proposed changes just for discussion on the forum or will they actually take place at the end of September 2013?

I agree with UncleMike.

I am against any changes which make a kinder, gentler, easier Alamaze. Forget the training wheels for classic Alamaze; just make the new edition the way you want it.

Presently brute strength has an advantage early in the contest and magic dominates the world late in the contest - precisely the way a magical world should feel.

Since we keep worrying about balance (at the expense of playing in a brutally magical fantasy world)... do the wizard kingoms get to summon troops earlier to... ugh... balance... the loss of their powers?

I agree with fixing status points. Do we really care about who finishes second?

Changes to fleets, etc: The rich kingoms will now have another area of advantage in the contest. Presently, it feels like bandits, pirates and scoundrels rule the seas because the great powers have not exerted their muscle to address the situation. This, too, adds to the feel of a fantasy world.

Reading the proposed changes I feel like my wife does when reading the DirecTV bill for Sunday Ticket. She knows no matter what it costs we are going to keep paying for it. I guess that no matter what changes you make I am likely to keep paying for the game.... really dilutes the value of voicing objections.

Anecdotally - a few days after the first post claiming invisibility and chaos need to be changed a new player completely destroyed my invisible AN group containing three P5s and 5 AN brigades. Ten turns later I now control the region he once controlled (I have lost control of my original region to a third player). I submit that my invisibility spell and his chaos spell didn't unbalance the game at all. I bet we both remember that battle forever! Much better than having lots of battles that will all fade from memory - IMHO.

[Kellenved]

I like the counter espionage clarification and status point change regarding ally/enemy declarations but I'm kind of disappointed with some of the other changes.

In particular the change to the invisible and teleport spells. The strength of a wizard kingdom is its ability to become invisible and teleport their troops anywhere on the map. If you take that away from them (like a warlord detecting something is amiss) then you ruin the element of surprise for them. I know another thread attempted to address the issue with invisibility but if the proposed changes take effect then it will remove the main power element, really the only power element, for wizard kingdoms.

What would be left if these changes take hold? Wizard kingdoms don't have that many emissaries to make a difference, their agents are fairly low level, their troops absolutely suck, their best battle spell in the game is only 5th level (earthquake) which does very minor damage against others in the latter stages, and raising their wizards are very expensive which limits their growth in other aspects of the game.

If you take away the only power play that wizard kingdoms have (invisible, teleporting groups) then they'll be at a distinct disadvanage compared to the other kingdom types. So are these proposed changes just for discussion on the forum or will they actually take place at the end of September 2013?

I agree with UncleMike.

I am against any changes which make a kinder, gentler, easier Alamaze. Forget the training wheels for classic Alamaze; just make the new edition the way you want it.

Presently brute strength has an advantage early in the contest and magic dominates the world late in the contest - precisely the way a magical world should feel.

Since we keep worrying about balance (at the expense of playing in a brutally magical fantasy world)... do the wizard kingoms get to summon troops earlier to... ugh... balance... the loss of their powers?

I agree with fixing status points. Do we really care about who finishes second?

Changes to fleets, etc: The rich kingoms will now have another area of advantage in the contest. Presently, it feels like bandits, pirates and scoundrels rule the seas because the great powers have not exerted their muscle to address the situation. This, too, adds to the feel of a fantasy world.

Reading the proposed changes I feel like my wife does when reading the DirecTV bill for Sunday Ticket. She knows no matter what it costs we are going to keep paying for it. I guess that no matter what changes you make I am likely to keep paying for the game.... really dilutes the value of voicing objections.

Anecdotally - a few days after the first post claiming invisibility and chaos need to be changed a new player completely destroyed my invisible AN group containing three P5s and 5 AN brigades. Ten turns later I now control the region he once controlled (I have lost control of my original region to a third player). I submit that my invisibility spell and his chaos spell didn't unbalance the game at all. I bet we both remember that battle forever! Much better than having lots of battles that will all fade from memory - IMHO.

I'm with LT in general: Seems like training wheels are being put on Alamaze Classic. I understand the rationale, but wouldn't creating different tiers of players be more effective (ala the Anonymous games)?

My biggest concern is the weakening of magic. Not just the invisibility spell (the wizard kingdoms single greatest asset) but also the rule to allow only one firewall spell against a group. How pray tell--even early one--will the wizard kingdoms compete with the military kingdoms. One common example springs to mind:

Many games, both TR and AN show up at Meridon on turn 2 or 3. If the TR has consolidated groups and recruited, he'll be able to blow past a single firewall and...at the very least...prevent the AN from 171. Now...stretch that out ten turns when the military kingdoms have recruited....