Alamaze Hunger Games

[Lord Thanatos]

In current games, the enemy/ally chart categorically tells you on T0 what Kingdoms are in each game.  I actually like this feature quite a bit, personally.

With that said, I have no problems with a draft, with all Kingdoms being available.

Even though I do not like this new "improvement" I don't dislike it enough to carp too heavily.  I will simply sigh, acknowledge that it takes less actual deduction to play Alamaze now, and focus upon the elements of game-play I still enjoy.

I still prefer that drafts have all 15 kingdoms. Since I historically have finished better in games where you have also played, I welcome the fact that you are interested in this format and will look forward to trying out JumpingFists' splendid idea. 

[Jumpingfist]

Is this a team game comprising of two kingdoms per team or an individual-based game that just controls two kingdoms? The victory conditions suggest an individual Steel game where only a single kingdom may win via Lion's Share (most points) but I'll need to know for sure in order to configure this type of game format.

The victory declaration orders should also disallowed so that no one may declare Rex, SVC, or Team victory via orders 995, 996, 997. I can make changes in the code to enforce some of the rules (like not allowing sanctuaries) but I'll need a new name for this game variant first.

I think of it more like a single player game.   This will be 6 players to get things started and maybe stay that way if preferred.  If it is popular then 12 players could join only knowing your "ally" but still only one player can win.

The victory if none win before the end would be to have the winner be the player that eliminated the most other kingdoms, but that I do not think is kept track of and not required.  Easy enough to go with lions share.

[Jumpingfist]

Looks like enough interest is around just some slots issues. I will start a sign up thread and see we can get 6 players.

Please though still discussed rules in this thread so the sign up thread does not get to confusing.

So far changes I see mentioned are full draft all kingdom available. Basically a snake draft with random positioning.

And we need to remove players being allow to declare other types of victory. Hopefully having fewer than 5 kingdoms will not be an issue in this game either.

[unclemike]

In current games, the enemy/ally chart categorically tells you on T0 what Kingdoms are in each game.  I actually like this feature quite a bit, personally.

With that said, I have no problems with a draft, with all Kingdoms being available.

Even though I do not like this new "improvement" I don't dislike it enough to carp too heavily.  I will simply sigh, acknowledge that it takes less actual deduction to play Alamaze now, and focus upon the elements of game-play I still enjoy.

I still prefer that drafts have all 15 kingdoms. Since I historically have finished better in games where you have also played, I welcome the fact that you are interested in this format and will look forward to trying out JumpingFists' splendid idea. 

You know, I could hide that ally/enemy relationship chart throughout the entire game. That would be pretty wild where you don't know which kingdoms are playing alongside yours in the game. We could call this the Mystery variant but only that part of the kingdom report will be hidden. Not other messages as if your emissary moves to a pc which is another kingdom's capital, it'll still say the other kingdom's name.

[Jumpingfist]

That does sound like a fun variant UM. Not sure it is best for this format. It is going to be hard already to find and kill so many PCs. I am actually wondering is there something easy to do to make things start out quickly out of the gates? I do not want anything that would tie up much of UM time

[unclemike]

Nah, disabling that ally/enemy display is easy. I guess it comes down to if players want to expand the Exploratory concept further where you don't know what kingdom is playing in a nearby region as you invade. The exception would be if they controlled the region which shows up on the kingdom report but I could look into disabling that info as well.

[Frost Lord]

Is this a team game comprising of two kingdoms per team or an individual-based game that just controls two kingdoms? The victory conditions suggest an individual Steel game where only a single kingdom may win via Lion's Share (most points) but I'll need to know for sure in order to configure this type of game format.

The victory declaration orders should also disallowed so that no one may declare Rex, SVC, or Team victory via orders 995, 996, 997. I can make changes in the code to enforce some of the rules (like not allowing sanctuaries) but I'll need a new name for this game variant first.

I think of it more like a single player game.   This will be 6 players to get things started and maybe stay that way if preferred.  If it is popular then 12 players could join only knowing your "ally" but still only one player can win.

The victory if none win before the end would be to have the winner be the player that eliminated the most other kingdoms, but that I do not think is kept track of and not required.  Easy enough to go with lions share.

It is fine if you allow individual victory, but for Valhalla, this would not be considered a "Classic" game.  It looks like it would fall under the Warlords category.

..

[Ry Vor]

No, not interested in this (hidden kingdoms).  I generally do not agree with trying to instill randomness into Alamaze.