02-25-2015, 04:31 PM
The other side of the coin here is to reflect on how far we have come since the start of Game 300.
As an Experimental game, much of the effort was to show the game could run on this new platform (XML instead of Clipper), and demonstrate how quickly changes could be implemented, and to dress up turn results, use automated processing and several other advantages. It has been a true success.
Uncle Mike put in the 1st Cycle kingdoms so we could see what they would look like and if we wanted to bring them back, what changes we would have to put in to make them 2nd Cycle compatible. No changes were made specifically to those kingdoms in #300. He also created a new kingdom quickly in the Druid, which has been a fun position. The game was started with more than 15 kingdoms and handled that, had hidden cities, other changes. Again a demonstration: not the baseline for future releases.
That said, if you ran a 1st Cycle kingdom, if you can strip out everything except the kingdom itself, ie, not about who attacked, the other players, how close kingdoms were, etc, just on the kingdom itself, and be very specific, that would be very helpful to the decision as to whether to bring these back as optional kingdoms.
So, if willing, it would be great if you guys would state here for the community what the advantages of the 1st Cycle kingdom you ran were, so not just "political", but maybe, "starting 14 influence, 2 princes, 1 duke, (etc), Tolerant in 4 regions, for military, 7 brigades with 1200 infantry, 500 cavalry, 300 archers, wizards were 3 P1's and 2 adepts, research 11k, special orders. etc. Then what you would recommend for changes, and whether you think the kingdom should be brought back. Just post on this thread.
As an Experimental game, much of the effort was to show the game could run on this new platform (XML instead of Clipper), and demonstrate how quickly changes could be implemented, and to dress up turn results, use automated processing and several other advantages. It has been a true success.
Uncle Mike put in the 1st Cycle kingdoms so we could see what they would look like and if we wanted to bring them back, what changes we would have to put in to make them 2nd Cycle compatible. No changes were made specifically to those kingdoms in #300. He also created a new kingdom quickly in the Druid, which has been a fun position. The game was started with more than 15 kingdoms and handled that, had hidden cities, other changes. Again a demonstration: not the baseline for future releases.
That said, if you ran a 1st Cycle kingdom, if you can strip out everything except the kingdom itself, ie, not about who attacked, the other players, how close kingdoms were, etc, just on the kingdom itself, and be very specific, that would be very helpful to the decision as to whether to bring these back as optional kingdoms.
So, if willing, it would be great if you guys would state here for the community what the advantages of the 1st Cycle kingdom you ran were, so not just "political", but maybe, "starting 14 influence, 2 princes, 1 duke, (etc), Tolerant in 4 regions, for military, 7 brigades with 1200 infantry, 500 cavalry, 300 archers, wizards were 3 P1's and 2 adepts, research 11k, special orders. etc. Then what you would recommend for changes, and whether you think the kingdom should be brought back. Just post on this thread.