(12-05-2014, 01:52 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: US encounters will be getting tougher.  It's not supposed to be just about getting their first, but having powerful enough leaders to overcome what are often legendary guardians.  At some point we will match Guardians with the difficulty of the encounter and resultant artifact, graded Fine, Excellent, and Superior.

Meanwhile in existing games expect more leader fatalities, more difficult promotion to Warlord, in all kinds of battles.  Soon more benefit to Weapon Artifacts.

(12-06-2014, 03:16 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: Yes, getting artifacts is going to be more heroic than in the past.  And then, the artifacts themselves will be more powerful.  Hopefully in 4th Scenario (still on Resurgent map) we review all artifacts and their abilities, and classify them, as has been mentioned elsewhere.  The Ring of Power will likely be stronger, and always have a Superior guardian, rather than a random association. 

So encounters will be more difficult, surviving leaders will advance much more frequently, guardians will be matched to the power of the artifact at the sighting, the artifacts at sightings will be classified Fine, Excellent, or Superior, and the artifacts themselves will be more powerful in many cases - no wimpy artifacts, but no bend down and pick it up encounters either.

Good idea, that makes it more challenging. Do I risk losing that leader or wizard for an unkown artifact? Now instead of a race its a decision!

(12-08-2014, 05:26 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: Order checker didn't recognize that my group traded away its last brigade and would go up to 100 moral and allow the force march.  Game engine had no problem performing the orders correctly.

(12-10-2014, 07:18 PM)Beatific Wrote: So now I see something in turn 5 that is a little concerning.  Tried to take a village at better than a 2.1 to 1 (as Giant) and failed (5220 vs 2480)!   In another game, I have had repeated success as GI at 1.5 to 1 with little loss (although the drop off from there is pretty steep).  I understand that this is an experimental game, but I guess I missed the part where the military abilities would be nerfed (to the tune of over 40% and maybe a lot more than that!).  

If the plan is to indeed nerf the military powers for the next gen of Alamaze that seems to create a game that becomes one dimensional (diplomacy) - at least in the early game - in a dimension which is probably the least fun to play (at least from my perspective).   Am I observing this correctly and, if so, is that really the planned direction?  I am now looking at a Giant kingdom that, absent a useful military, has nothing else of competitive utility (poor magic, mediocre dilplomacy, poor agents).  Need some experienced perspective here because I am finding game 300 unfun (notwithstanding the entertaining forum exchanges) probably because repeated failures at the only thing the GI is really good at is rather, well, unfun.  And as the Giant king would say "unfun not good".

There has been a lot of forum chatter on balancing but I cannot find a definitive direction decided upon.  I do agree with most everyone else that spells needed upgrading (with a resulting positive shift in balance for the magic kingdoms).  But this seems to go to the other extreme.  Not that I really care in this experimental game, but this does provide the opportunity to queue up the question.

Note, unclemike, I do not assume that something is wrong with the combat outcome.  The question is one of balancing kingdoms and the direction Alamaze plans on taking in this regard.  The tool itself rocks as does your willingness to improve everything! 

(12-10-2014, 07:35 PM)kevindusi Wrote:

(12-10-2014, 07:18 PM)Beatific Wrote: So now I see something in turn 5 that is a little concerning.  Tried to take a village at better than a 2.1 to 1 (as Giant) and failed (5220 vs 2480)!   In another game, I have had repeated success as GI at 1.5 to 1 with little loss (although the drop off from there is pretty steep).  I understand that this is an experimental game, but I guess I missed the part where the military abilities would be nerfed (to the tune of over 40% and maybe a lot more than that!).  

If the plan is to indeed nerf the military powers for the next gen of Alamaze that seems to create a game that becomes one dimensional (diplomacy) - at least in the early game - in a dimension which is probably the least fun to play (at least from my perspective).   Am I observing this correctly and, if so, is that really the planned direction?  I am now looking at a Giant kingdom that, absent a useful military, has nothing else of competitive utility (poor magic, mediocre dilplomacy, poor agents).  Need some experienced perspective here because I am finding game 300 unfun (notwithstanding the entertaining forum exchanges) probably because repeated failures at the only thing the GI is really good at is rather, well, unfun.  And as the Giant king would say "unfun not good".

There has been a lot of forum chatter on balancing but I cannot find a definitive direction decided upon.  I do agree with most everyone else that spells needed upgrading (with a resulting positive shift in balance for the magic kingdoms).  But this seems to go to the other extreme.  Not that I really care in this experimental game, but this does provide the opportunity to queue up the question.

Note, unclemike, I do not assume that something is wrong with the combat outcome.  The question is one of balancing kingdoms and the direction Alamaze plans on taking in this regard.  The tool itself rocks as does your willingness to improve everything! 

Beatific, was there a difference in morale and/or troop composition? I've had groups that were all OG fail at similar odds, but never groups that were primarily GI brigades. I actually had, in a warlords game, a single GI brigade with 130% morale and great leaders take a beat-to-hell city at just under 1:1. Now, I would never willingly attack at 1:1, but the SO player in that game set a great trap with a couple of summon deaths from an invisible group. The attack went through, and I was shocked at the result. GI troops, historically, have been tough as nails... but OG, to the contrary, have been pretty lackluster. 

(12-10-2014, 07:59 PM)Beatific Wrote: Nope.  All GI (actually one GI brigade with the cited strength) and all good morale (106%) and negligible attrition (1%).   Although I expect that the "value vs. PC" captures all these relevant factors (including leaders).