Change is Enevitable

[Ry Vor]

Still talking 2nd Cycle. There will be many changes that will effect setups, but also ongoing games. No whining. The most significant among ongoing games will be the increased cost and limited number of 565 (special brigades).

So you heard it here first: there will be limits on Wyvern, Ogres, and the like. Likely dependent upon the leader in the group.

Just notice not to be a Dragon or Giant and base everything on having lots of 565's. You are warned. Effective date might be a few weeks off.

[Hawk_]

Still talking 2nd Cycle. There will be many changes that will effect setups, but also ongoing games. No whining. The most significant among ongoing games will be the increased cost and limited number of 565 (special brigades).

So you heard it here first: there will be limits on Wyvern, Ogres, and the like. Likely dependent upon the leader in the group.

Just notice not to be a Dragon or Giant and base everything on having lots of 565's. You are warned. Effective date might be a few weeks off.

That will likely help the EL also. This is a move in the right direction, IMO. Even though those city killing 24 brigade armies are a lot of fun.

[Jumpingfist]

Can we get details when it roles out? I have no problem with change just changes strategy and such but would like to know what effect I am looking at.

If based on leaders is this only check when adding to the group or if someone kills the leader or they die in battle do the troops they command die as well. I know the BL I have seen multiple times all three leaders die in the same battle. GI and RD seem to protect leaders a bit better due to kingdom specials.

Will the numbers be different based on kingdom! Seems TRs should have tons but maybe GI less. And dragons can only recruit using 565 so do they get more?

[Ry Vor]

We will continue to evolve more character-centric. At some point, all orders will require a character.

This is a step in making Leaders have a more prominent role. Details still being worked out, but something like:
1. A Captain is required to recruit the first 565 into the group;
2. A General is required to recruit the 2nd or 3rd of the same 565;
3. A Marshal is required to recruit the 4th or 5th special brigade.

5 is the likely max for most special brigade types like Wyvern and Ogres.

Warlords will shortly be hard to come by. This is how it should have been - no Warlords in ESO's anymore, and less than half the chance of a Marshal II becoming a Warlord as presently.

Some special brigade types, like Orcs, might be easier to come by - maybe up to 10 brigades in a group.

This is a move away from the recruit and transfer 565's. Now the limit is the limit to be in the group, not the limit to recruit and then transfer.

A new special brigade type might become available to Red and Black Dragons, like Great Bats. Not as powerful as Wyvern by a stretch, but they fly. Also, Dragons will get a significant boost vs. PC's.

Meanwhile, everyone else can start to learn what 550 and 560 orders are. Recruits and Veterans will be 1700 food and gold for any kingdom. There are no longer any additional costs to recruits and Veterans other than the initial gold and food to recruit or train.

I am actually thinking about Recruit to Regular to Veteran to Elite, with restrictions, but that most likely will wait until 3rd Cycle, where we will also introduce a number of new brigade types.

Again, all this just in the noodle at this point.

[Jumpingfist]

Good stuff, I like the extra lvl beyond veteran maybe for certain kingdoms. I am totally picturing the RA being able to have some quality elite troops to go along with those great leaders.

[Kalrex]

The RA are being replaced with the Nomad kingdom. The RA leaders were too good.

[unclemike]

We will continue to evolve more character-centric. At some point, all orders will require a character.

Sounds like a good idea to make some orders more character-centric but then you'll also have to resolve the various implications that go along with this type of change.

For example, what if a wizard kills a leader or it dies from combat, will the group still be able to move with the special troops inside it? Or will the group be required to transfer the extra brigades into another group beforehand? This may mean that certain kingdoms should keep a group inactive at all times to prevent their other groups from being immobilized due to brigade type/number.

Middle Earth PBM is character-centric where you have to issue orders based upon the leaders in your group. If your group loses its leaders, your group is stuck and cannot move anywhere. I actually had that happen to me in a game where an opponent assassinated my group's leaders and I couldn't move my group at all.

So I'm saying that based upon my experience playing MEPBM, some orders in Alamaze (but perhaps not all as mentioned above) should be character-centric.

[Hawk_]

We will continue to evolve more character-centric. At some point, all orders will require a character.

Sounds like a good idea to make some orders more character-centric but then you'll also have to resolve the various implications that go along with this type of change.

For example, what if a wizard kills a leader or it dies from combat, will the group still be able to move with the special troops inside it? Or will the group be required to transfer the extra brigades into another group beforehand? This may mean that certain kingdoms should keep a group inactive at all times to prevent their other groups from being immobilized due to brigade type/number.

Middle Earth PBM is character-centric where you have to issue orders based upon the leaders in your group. If your group loses its leaders, your group is stuck and cannot move anywhere. I actually had that happen to me in a game where an opponent assassinated my group's leaders and I couldn't move my group at all.

So I'm saying that based upon my experience playing MEPBM, some orders in Alamaze (but perhaps not all as mentioned above) should be character-centric.

Back when I played ME PBM if you lost your leader the army disbanded and went home. The whole game became based on killing leaders and I lost interest.

[Ry Vor]

For those that don't know, the guys at MEPBM completely "replicated" Alamaze as best they could, even using the same order numbers. They made a feeble offer before that to license Alamaze, which I had already licensed to RSI, and then without that they just tried to reverse engineer it as best they could. For the record, their defense was that their game Earthwood inspired Alamaze, which is true. But Earthwood was like a wood frame to Alamaze. Earthwood had a map and groups and the turn based setting and fantasy kingdoms, and that's about the end of the similarities.

Leaders will be needed to recruit the 565's. After that, the 565's are not dependent on the leader. In the future, like in KoA, there may be mercenary companies that do require a specific leader, but that's for another time.

[Hawk_]

For those that don't know, the guys at MEPBM completely "replicated" Alamaze as best they could, even using the same order numbers. They made a feeble offer before that to license Alamaze, which I had already licensed to RSI, and then without that they just tried to reverse engineer it as best they could. For the record, their defense was that their game Earthwood inspired Alamaze, which is true. But Earthwood was like a wood frame to Alamaze. Earthwood had a map and groups and the turn based setting and fantasy kingdoms, and that's about the end of the similarities.

Leaders will be needed to recruit the 565's. After that, the 565's are not dependent on the leader. In the future, like in KoA, there may be mercenary companies that do require a specific leader, but that's for another time.

Very interesting info. I wonder how much they had to pay Tolkien to use all the LOTR material.

Glad to hear assassins won't be destroying my army group.