Parlay (170) and Diplomacy (171)

[kevindusi]

This might help until the changes go into effect.

Wizard---- Friendly------Tolerant------SUSP
1-----------1.5----------- 5.3---------- 8.3
2 -----------.75-----------4.3--------- 7.3
3 ----------- .29 ----------3.3 -----------6.3
4 ------------.15---------- 2.3---------- 5.3
5-------------low----------- 1.3-----------4.3
6 -------------low-----------..75------------3.3
7------------lower---------.3------------2.3
8------------lower----------.15------------1.3
9------------lowest---------low-----------.3

So if you had a P3 in a friendly region, your group value only needs to be .29% of the PC's value.

You're saying in the case or a P2, the difference between Friendly (1) and Tolerant (2) is 6x? And at P4 it is like 18x to 1? If that was even remotely close, how could anyone argue with an honest heart that the #171 doesn't have to be fixed? There will be no success in any case when the revisions are in place that is not greater than 1 to 1.

I think we're all just waiting for the changes, and not arguing against them, at this point. I agree that 171 is overpowered.

[The Usurper]

This might help until the changes go into effect.

Wizard---- Friendly------Tolerant------SUSP
1-----------1.5----------- 5.3---------- 8.3
2 -----------.75-----------4.3--------- 7.3
3 ----------- .29 ----------3.3 -----------6.3
4 ------------.15---------- 2.3---------- 5.3
5-------------low----------- 1.3-----------4.3
6 -------------low-----------..75------------3.3
7------------lower---------.3------------2.3
8------------lower----------.15------------1.3
9------------lowest---------low-----------.3

So if you had a P3 in a friendly region, your group value only needs to be .29% of the PC's value.

You're saying in the case or a P2, the difference between Friendly (1) and Tolerant (2) is 6x? And at P4 it is like 18x to 1? If that was even remotely close, how could anyone argue with an honest heart that the #171 doesn't have to be fixed? There will be no success in any case when the revisions are in place that is not greater than 1 to 1.

This is just the chart one of the players put together with data he could find.

The way it is, I agree it's pretty easy for 171, but then it's the only thing easy for the wizard kingdoms.

Wizard kingdom troops have very low defensive values, so take HIGH casualties when hitting PC. They have to use all their wizards in that group when attacking, normally casting INV, Guarded attack so they don't die, or shield and risking it.

While attacking they can't train to advance, and are absolutely needed to insure victory, where Military Kingdoms don't even need a wizard in the group, and in most cases lose only a handful of troops where a wizard kingdom would lose many brigades in the same situation.

Wizard kingdoms will find their path to victory just got harder then other kingdoms with this change. Not saying that is bad thing, just stating an observation.

Maybe a fix is taking away diplomacy for everyone but the wizard kingdoms Or not, I didn't really think that through, and I'm to tired right now to ponder it

[Hawk_]

This might help until the changes go into effect.

Wizard---- Friendly------Tolerant------SUSP
1-----------1.5----------- 5.3---------- 8.3
2 -----------.75-----------4.3--------- 7.3
3 ----------- .29 ----------3.3 -----------6.3
4 ------------.15---------- 2.3---------- 5.3
5-------------low----------- 1.3-----------4.3
6 -------------low-----------..75------------3.3
7------------lower---------.3------------2.3
8------------lower----------.15------------1.3
9------------lowest---------low-----------.3

So if you had a P3 in a friendly region, your group value only needs to be .29% of the PC's value.

You're saying in the case or a P2, the difference between Friendly (1) and Tolerant (2) is 6x? And at P4 it is like 18x to 1? If that was even remotely close, how could anyone argue with an honest heart that the #171 doesn't have to be fixed? There will be no success in any case when the revisions are in place that is not greater than 1 to 1.

This is just the chart one of the players put together with data he could find.

The way it is, I agree it's pretty easy for 171, but then it's the only thing easy for the wizard kingdoms.

Wizard kingdom troops have very low defensive values, so take HIGH casualties when hitting PC. They have to use all their wizards in that group when attacking, normally casting INV, Guarded attack so they don't die, or shield and risking it.

While attacking they can't train to advance, and are absolutely needed to insure victory, where Military Kingdoms don't even need a wizard in the group, and in most cases lose only a handful of troops where a wizard kingdom would lose many brigades in the same situation.

Wizard kingdoms will find their path to victory just got harder then other kingdoms with this change. Not saying that is bad thing, just stating an observation.

Maybe a fix is taking away diplomacy for everyone but the wizard kingdoms Or not, I didn't really think that through, and I'm to tired right now to ponder it

So at some point soon all of this 170/171 will change to what Cipher posted in the known issues thread correct? The changes will be for all active games as well as new games?

[Jumpingfist]

yes Hawk will effect the whole Alamaze world. so get those 171s out of your system now

[Lord Diamond]

You know, I always thought that 170/171 were crazy orders for a war game, especially how they were implemented before. We should see more diplomacy from wizard kingdoms and more brute force from everyone else.

I do hope to see the wizard kingdoms given better combat spells to make up for this, but I imagine we will need to evaluate the effects first.

[Kalrex]

I think trickery for the wizards is a better concept versus diplomacy.

That being said fine with the changes and will see how it plays out before I decide if it's a change for the worse.

[Lord Diamond]

I think trickery for the wizards is a better concept versus diplomacy.

That being said fine with the changes and will see how it plays out before I decide if it's a change for the worse.

I should have said that I expect the wizard kingdoms to use their nobles more and to spend more effort on their diplomatic corps.

[Kellenved]

I think trickery for the wizards is a better concept versus diplomacy.

That being said fine with the changes and will see how it plays out before I decide if it's a change for the worse.

I should have said that I expect the wizard kingdoms to use their nobles more and to spend more effort on their diplomatic corps.

Agreed, but I'd hasten to point out that their diplomatic corps tend to be weaker than almost anyone else's and two/three wizard kingdoms start in contested regions. Playing devil's advocate: what happens to the WA/SO if the GI/RA, respectively, refuse to make a deal? Not only do those two nations have vastly superior militaries, they also have vastly superior diplomatic corps.

[Ry Vor]

Just wanted to point out Cipher had a comprehensive post on these changes to #170 and #171 I believe in one of the admin threads. Everyone should review that. This is likely the most significant change of the 30 or so that are coming. This is to be implemented ASAP.

[kevindusi]

What's the ETA on the balance of the changes? Days? Weeks? Is the commands doc going to be updated accordingly with the release? What about the setups for the changes to races? From the perspective of the 'mentor' in one of the primeval games, there has been some expressed frustration regarding setups not matching the kingdom (EL), orders not matching the commands doc for costs (741-744), etc. I understand the desire to refresh the game and keep things moving forward, but I also hope that things are being managed in a way that makes sense. "Little change here little change there" without updating the commands/rulebook/setups has the potential to alienate new players trying to learn the game.