How Bloody Do You Like It?

[Ry Vor]

As said, Classic will remain as is today.  But what about tomorrow?  Alamaze into the future?

Lots of the changes made in the Resurgence were to eliminate the one turn wipeouts, such as Invisible Army Group casting Chaos.  Or Multiple Wall of Flame.  Also really reduced HP death (in theory), another big setback, etc.

Going forward, would you be OK with say, a P7, P4, and P4 being assassinated in one turn by a group of L15 agents?   Similar dramatic results?  Is that exciting, and something to plan toward, or would you drop if on the receiving end?  Or neither?

So is that direction "nerfiing", or what is needed to not frustrate players spending many hours to get to a point and then being dispatched in a single turn by something they couldn't likely detect?

BTW, Combat Spell Density is in effect in the new platform games.

Have to address this kind of thing for 4th Scenario and 3rd Cycle.

[unclemike]

As said, Classic will remain as is today.  But what about tomorrow?  Alamaze into the future?

Actually, I don't thing players will be that interested in going back to a preserved Classic game. Just look at the map situation that we have today. When the new resurgent map was introduced, how many players wanted to go back and use the classic map? Even after a year of using the new map, I gave the players in game 300 a choice of which map to use, classic or resurgent. Take a guess how many players asked for the classic map: zero.

The same will be done after you introduce new scenarios involving new kingdoms, spells, abilities, ...etc. I think it's a fairly safe bet that no one is going to go backwards and ask to play in a preserved 2nd cycle game.

So in my opinion, instead of tweaking current rules like invisibility, agents, or such to make things more bloody (or less), as a player I would rather see fresh new concepts for the game. I am more interested in playing something like the Centaur kingdom, equipped with mithril armor, trained as elite forces, and being able to issue them a variety of TAC options like in Fall of Rome where I have more control of the battle outcome.

Will I ever request going back to a stale 2nd cycle game, probably not, just like no one is clamoring to use the classic map over the resurgent one even after a year's time...

[Beatific]

As said, Classic will remain as is today.  But what about tomorrow?  Alamaze into the future?

Actually, I don't thing players will be that interested in going back to a preserved Classic game. Just look at the map situation that we have today. When the new resurgent map was introduced, how many players wanted to go back and use the classic map? Even after a year of using the new map, I gave the players in game 300 a choice of which map to use, classic or resurgent. Take a guess how many players asked for the classic map: zero.

The same will be done after you introduce new scenarios involving new kingdoms, spells, abilities, ...etc. I think it's a fairly safe bet that no one is going to go backwards and ask to play in a preserved 2nd cycle game.

So in my opinion, instead of tweaking current rules like invisibility, agents, or such to make things more bloody (or less), as a player I would rather see fresh new concepts for the game. I am more interested in playing something like the Centaur kingdom, equipped with mithril armor, trained as elite forces, and being able to issue them a variety of TAC options like in Fall of Rome where I have more control of the battle outcome.

Will I ever request going back to a stale 2nd cycle game, probably not, just like no one is clamoring to use the classic map over the resurgent one even after a year's time...

I too like the looking forward view as well as some of the stated concepts captured in FoR.  In general, I would suggest using the lessons of the past to design the game of the future.

Play balance is a good example.  Rick brings up some good examples of what can happen in a later game to a military kingdom that has allowed a wizardly kingdom to fluorish.  That P8. P8, P8 patrol just teleports in invisibly and then summons death and eliminates 12 brigades a turn (with no counter).  The key, I think, is to build in a way that each kingdom can counter such "abuses" IF that counter is invested in (gold, food, etc) early enough.  In this case, one could create a counter magic user (the so called Namer) who can't cast offensive spells but CAN counter them.  Similarly, all for the wizardly kingdoms to summon creature to build up milatary forces and maybe good leaders for a battle "summon dark general" or "general of light" or somesuch.

In this way, it seems theoretically possible to allow each kingdom to have its strengths but also to allow each kingdom to balance its investments to counter enemy strengths.  

Now, saying is easier than doing.  But with such a creative and supportive community who is apparently comfortable with voicing disagreement but testing concepts, this should be achievable........the key is to harnass that creative resource but firmly deal with the inevitable "if you don't do this, I am going to take my bat and go home".  I have seen such posts and I think we all know that voting by walking can always occur, but it really is rather immature.  I myself prefer to look at the game setups and choose what I participate in (which is why I like Rick's move into varying game setup parameters - if you don't like a set up parameter, don't sign up for the game).

Anyway, just a students perspective........I  (philadelphia not eros) what you guys are trying to do!  Don't get discouraged!

[Lord Diamond]

As said, Classic will remain as is today.  But what about tomorrow?  Alamaze into the future?

Actually, I don't thing players will be that interested in going back to a preserved Classic game. Just look at the map situation that we have today. When the new resurgent map was introduced, how many players wanted to go back and use the classic map? Even after a year of using the new map, I gave the players in game 300 a choice of which map to use, classic or resurgent. Take a guess how many players asked for the classic map: zero.

The same will be done after you introduce new scenarios involving new kingdoms, spells, abilities, ...etc. I think it's a fairly safe bet that no one is going to go backwards and ask to play in a preserved 2nd cycle game.

So in my opinion, instead of tweaking current rules like invisibility, agents, or such to make things more bloody (or less), as a player I would rather see fresh new concepts for the game. I am more interested in playing something like the Centaur kingdom, equipped with mithril armor, trained as elite forces, and being able to issue them a variety of TAC options like in Fall of Rome where I have more control of the battle outcome.

Will I ever request going back to a stale 2nd cycle game, probably not, just like no one is clamoring to use the classic map over the resurgent one even after a year's time...

I'm with you Unclemike. I am always looking for thr more advanced game. I have played every Civilization game ever created, but have never once took a step back to play even one game of a previous version. 

The biggest flaw of Fall of Rome was that the kingdoms were all pretty much equalized. Some might arbue that giving one kingdom and 5th level agent and another an extra brigade really distinguishes them, but I disagree.