The Kingdoms for 4th Scenario

[Ry Vor]

I'm planning on this going from 15 to 12 kingdoms for reasons discussed elsewhere, mainly to provide a bit more breathing room, and hopefully with more effort in discovery than jumping an opponent early. So some new artifacts, changed artifacts, possibly more characters in the wild.

Both Full Diplomacy and Anonymous games would have 12 kingdoms.

So deciding on the 12 kingdoms means three might be eliminated, and so there is a decision there to be made - which 3 go? What are your thoughts?

Another approach is one I haven't bounced off Cipher yet, but it would be to potentially allow each of the 12 kingdoms in play to be one of two possibilities.

For example, one position might be either the Gnomish Bastions of Alchemy, or instead, Hobbits, Inc. Once one of these is selected for a game, the other is out of play for that game. Several of the old kingdoms from 1st Cycle could be brought back and modernized, and a few kingdoms created. The two possibilities would have similar geographical positions.

Enough for now but would like your thoughts as this second option could be a tough one to do and we may have to just eliminate 3 kingdoms. So comment on which to eliminate and how you think the 2 possibilities would affect the game. Thanks.

[Jumpingfist]

I would remove kingdoms that share regions these are forced to ally or someone quit early a lot of time. So the shared kingdoms
GN/UN
TR/AN
GI/WA
RA/SO
I would probably remove UN/WA/TR. If I was factoring in Natural enemy UN TR RA
Besides the first reason of sharing a region
UN - although it can be fun to play the kingdom really has a low chance to win by taking 4 regions. Yet almost always has high status points seems the odd guy out.
WA - it is harder for the Mage kingdoms and the WA gets some of the important high level spells later than the other pure mages.
TR - I find the one sided aspect of this kingdom to get in the way of others that may want to work something out or try to build. The TR is built to fight and if your the chosen victim even if you beat the TR off your growth is normally slowed enough to ruin your chance to win

I really like the idea of more kingdom choices. For the full diplomacy game it would be fun to see the sign-up develop and make each game more unique. For warlords, Anon, and the magic draft the unknown of which kingdoms are even in the game would truly bring the game to an exciting new playing field as it becomes clear which kingdoms are playing and who the teams are.

[The Broken]

Just at first look I would get rid of a wizard kingdom, there are three right?

[unclemike]

I would drop the UN as I mentioned previously. I would also drop either the RD/BL and the GN. I wouldn't drop the WA since the WA shares the rather large Amberland region with the Giant/Paladin/Centaur.

I also wouldn't restrict kingdom choices as in choosing Halflings over Gnomes for a region but allow players the freedom to choose whatever kingdom they would like to play. Even in duplicate if players want to play a scenario like 6 Elves vs 6 Uriks (Goblins).

As for adding new kingdoms, that is ALWAYS a good decision in order to keep the game from going stale. Here is a suggested new kingdom as an example:

New Kingdom: Druid
o Has kingdom abbreviation DU
o More of a magical kingdom than military
o Max wizard level 7, max agent level 12
o Shares initial location with the Elves in Oakendell
o Spells favoring nature are attained earlier than any other kingdom (create food, create gold, all regional land spells e.g., bounty, famine, ...etc.)
o Favorable in all regions (starts as Tolerant in every region)
o No natural enemies so Neutral to all kingdoms
o Elves have -15% penalty attacking Druid groups (Dark Elves +15%)
o New Spell: Summon Woodland Creatures (only Druid wizards may cast), woodland creatures (fairies, sprites, dryads, brownies, ...etc.) require food but not gold consumption, better strength/defense rating than the Summon Monsters troop type.
o Special Ability: Druid's Grove (Order 650)
 Only one grove allowed per game
 May be placed anywhere on map except on a pc (if pc was destroyed by pillage or magic then it becomes a valid map location)
 Once created, generates 30,000 food per turn (immune to seasonal effects)
 Druid groups resting inside a grove heal up to 8% attrition per turn (any group size). Agents cannot poison a group's food supply or assassinate leaders/wizards/steal artifacts that are stationed inside a grove since the group is unreachable. Druid groups within a grove are still susceptible to magical regional effects (e.g., demonic visions).
 Figures wounded/poisoned are 100% healed when located in a grove (Fall of Rome add-on). Only Druid figures are permitted inside a grove.

[Lord Diamond]

I love the idea of having 2 or even 3 interchangable kingdoms! Just imagine the numerous variations. Something would have to be done about natural enemies though, but it could be as simple as making the Dwarves be natural enemies with both the Halflings and the Gnomes since only one would be in any given game.

I would even advocate having the system assign a random natural enemy each game.

This type of system would allow you to effectively move some kingdoms around the map. Wood Elves might be located in Synisvania, for example. In which case the High Elves wouldn't be an option that game. Instead, Druids or Forest Gnomes would start in Oakendale.

You wouldn't have to eliminate any of your existing kingdoms. They would just be put in a rotation or used less frequently.

I realize that this is more than you were looking at, but I tend to get excited about this sort of thing. I bet we could come up with a logical randomizer that assigns kingdoms to each game based on whatever criteria makes sense.

[DuPont]

I am very much in favor of the option of having two kingdoms to choose from and thus making more available. So the GN/HA would be NE to the DW/(Swampmen) for example - you could have up to four different combos there. Plus, you can create and renew some kingdoms without having to sacrifice any.
I know you hate the Swampmen, but I think they are worth bringing back. There are no swamp based kingdoms now. But most of all, I want the Westmen brought back!

[Cipher]

I think having 18 or so kingdoms avail to choose from with different starting locations would add a heck of a lot of flavor to each game instance. There might need to be some behind the scenes work to be sure that there aren't combinations that make some positions too deficient or at too much of an advantage though.

[twhitewolf10]

I would like to see the mult kingdoms in one area but once one is the pick the other is out like gnome/halfling or giant/paldin.
Because imagine a game were you drafted kingdoms and did not know who was there. 1st way you would find out is when you get your turn report and find out Westmen have won seat on HC or there a group of swampmen sitting on one of your villages.

[Lord Diamond]

If it were my game, I would schedule new kingdom releases for once every 3-4 months rather than all at once. Make a big deal about it and get everyone excited. Then keep releasing them forever. That would bring some players bak and keep other players from getting bored.

[Cipher]

I would like to see the mult kingdoms in one area but once one is the pick the other is out like gnome/halfling or giant/paldin.
Because imagine a game were you drafted kingdoms and did not know who was there. 1st way you would find out is when you get your turn report and find out Westmen have won seat on HC or there a group of swampmen sitting on one of your villages.

My train of thought was towards having the EL/RA/DA/?? be avail to start in 1, 4, 6, 7 or 9. Similar combinations that could start in different mountain/swamp/plains heavy regions. You get a mix of kingdoms/starting locations, probably only 3 or 4 permutations, but still some variety...