#300 - Experimental

[Ry Vor]

I think Beatific will be ok tomorrow.

[Beatific]

I think Beatific will be ok tomorrow.

Double ROFL!      You assess correctly (becuz you read them all) BUT you miss the target!  G'night y'all!

[unclemike]

For all games on the new automated system:
There was a misprint in the new kingdom setup files for the two dragon kingdoms (BL/RD) saying that the dragon kingdoms may not investigate unusual encounters. Here's the corrected text for your setups:

"Red Dragon groups are able to investigate unusual sightings but at a slight disadvantage: no 12 man troop entourage bonus, no weapon artifact bonus, and group figure strength is at 80% of its normal value."

[Madmardigan]

FYI, the WA kingdom has just been eliminated this turn but the broadcast message to the other kingdoms didn't display due to a software bug that I need to track down.

Also, nice try to whoever just tried to kill off one of my agents. Even though the target was slept and unguarded, a bad die roll nabbed your guy so you can try again if you wish (I'll be ready ).

BTW, the Nomad does have Evasion in the desert. This was communicated a while back via email along with the other kingdoms who gained Acuity or Evasion abilities. Also, I sent one of the Nomad battle results to Ry Vor and Cipher for review. Cipher found that the new code was incorrectly deducting attrition to the group's defensive value so I corrected that issue but that really wasn't a factor in the Nomad's losses since his starting attrition was only 10% at the time.

Keep in mind that before game 300 started, I mentioned that I was going to copy the 1st Cycle kingdoms "as is" for the most part so they may or may not be at a disadvantage in this game (so play them at your own risk). But even after saying that, nearly all of them were taken over 2nd Cycle kingdoms so I'm a bit surprised at some of the harsh criticisms in playing those positions. Sure they could use some tweaks but they are not that far off from the other kingdoms.

Also, some of the bad feelings towards the 1st Cycles may be due to circumstance than otherwise. The Westmen went against the Elf-Druid combo, Swampmen went against Giant-Sorcerer, Nomad went against Red Dragon (until he dropped) then Giant, Halfling went against the Demon Prince mega-machine (that's me btw). So in nearly every case, the 1st Cycles had 2 on 1 which may have contributed to their negative feelings towards being imbalanced or not competitive.

Rather than dropping the 1st Cycles, I would rather see them reintroduced in the next scenario with some tweaks since they are fairly equal to the 2nd Cycle kingdoms (especially brigade strength values). What I don't want to see as a result of game 300 is that since people have complained so much about the 1st Cycles that there are no plans of involving them into the future.

From my perspective of looking at the kingdom stats, the 1st Cycles only need a few tweaks to compete with the 2nd Cycles but not major overhauls like some are suggesting

I agree Mike.  
I would love to try the Paladin, Swampmen or any of the other 1st cycle kingdoms once they are overhauled.  

[DuPont]

Oh, I don't want the 1st cycle kingdoms to go away, but there's no question there were some weird battle results, but I understood it was a test game. I'm not complaining at all.

[Ry Vor]

I'm leaning toward 24 possible kingdoms in 4th Scenario in a game with 12 active kingdoms.  So some 1st Cycle kingdoms brought back and some new kingdoms introduced.

[Jumpingfist]

I'm leaning toward 24 possible kingdoms in 4th Scenario in a game with 12 active kingdoms.  So some 1st Cycle kingdoms brought back and some new kingdoms introduced.

That is awesome I love choices.  A Warlords type format could get crazy interesting in the draft.

[Acererak]

(NO) Ha. Here are the facts about the Giant: I offered a NAP through turn 5, he kept asking to talk to me on the phone and insisted on a game long alliance. I refused. He attacked me. He never took a single pop center from me and lost much more military than I did. Then he ran away.

As for the Sorceror, there was never any agreement between us and thus no betrayal. If you don't have an NAP and leave your entire region undefended then you should know what's coming.

Now I'm getting attacked by the Giant, Witchlord and Sorcerer and doing pretty well considering. I definitely expect to lose but it's more entertaining than sitting and building up for nothing.

[Acererak]

(NO) Couldn't agree more with DuPont. My intention in pointing out the battle results and kingdom deficiencies here is just to improve the game. I always thought that the best way forward for Alamaze is for automated processing and ingest. It's 2015. Rick should be spending his time on improving the game and the scenarios and not manually typing turns into an Eniac type computer (just my imagination).

[unclemike]

Ry Vor came up with a clever way of handling the situation of when to eliminate a player due to no pc's or to have them linger in the game.

To prevent elimination, a ruler may issue the following unique order that will create a sanctuary for your kingdom. Your capital will automatically relocate to the sanctuary if you lose your last pc. However, you must create a sanctuary before you lose your last pc or you will be eliminated from the game.

There may be a time limit of when the sanctuary will expire to prevent players from exploiting this mechanic but more on this later (e.g., to prevent players from leaving their capitals there for the entire length of the game and never worrying about losing their capitals again).

The order will create a new pc on the map for use only by your kingdom (like a secret hideaway for the royals). No other kingdom's emissaries, agents, or priestesses may locate there. Foreign or kingdom-owned groups may end movement on the same area as a sanctuary but they will not provide a recon report nor will a group passing over a sanctuary provide any info.

The location must be within 5 areas of a kingdom-owned pc and the area must be free of any pc's or encounters. You may not create a sanctuary in an area that another kingdom has chosen for their sanctuary. The sanctuary will physically exist on the map, is immune to attack, provides 100 food, 100 gold, but 0 census to prevent someone from losing control of a region if you create one in their region.

Even though your emissaries, agents, and priestesses may be located in a sanctuary, they are still targetable for effects/spells so they may be slept, assassinated, kidnapped, bribed, ...etc. Your emissaries, agents, and priestesses will be unable to relocate to a sanctuary until after it has been made your capital (which only occurs when you lose your last pc). You cannot relocate your capital via order #355 to a sanctuary but you may use order #355 to relocate your capital from a sanctuary to a kingdom-owned pc without the 20,000 gold cost.

Only one sanctuary may be created for your kingdom and you may change its location at any time by reissuing the order with a new location. If you do then your previous sanctuary pc will be destroyed on the map.

Sanctuaries will not display on priestess/consul divines (since it's not a city, town, or village) and the same for wizard divine pc spells (a sanctuary is immune to a wizard's destroy pc spell). A wizard's locate character spell will work normally and will provide the sanctuary as the targeted character's location on the map. Agent-1 recons, ravens, palantirs, and crystals of seeing will show if an area contains a sanctuary like a normal pc.

New Order: Create Sanctuary (order #455)
  Column A: specify a kingdom-controlled pc location
  Column B: specify sanctuary location
  cost: 10,000 food and 10,000 gold
  (does not count as a sole order for your ruler)

A lot of work for me to do but I should have this order ready sometime next week...