Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Maelstrom Discussion
I like that idea as it adds to my thought that there should be no neutral PC's. All should be in control of humans and/or NPC's . But the NPC's would need to be limited to one per region and non hostile to the region owner. IE-ally.
(02-12-2017, 09:34 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Here's another idea under development:

PC Improvements:

Each requires a character of one or more classes to construct.  Some require two or three turns from an Engineer and possibly a Sage to accomplish.
Castles provide defense and also imbue the PC with immunity to rebellion and usurpation, unless the castle is first captured or destroyed.  Also, the castle must be captured or destroyed before the PC can be attacked.  So the castle is a separate entity that shares the area of the PC it protects.  Castles can be the base of Leaders and Wizards.  Artifacts now assigned to characters instead of groups or PC's (except glyphs).   Castles maintenance upkeep  after groups and fleets. 

Attack Castle at #145.  If successful in conquering or destroying, can attack PC same turn #150 but with potentially group weary (-15%).
·        Mott and Bailey.  Not a castle.  For village only.  +2000 defense.  +1 MSQ.  +.1 influence when constructed.  One turn with Engineer, two turns with other character.  -500 gold and food per turn upkeep or destroyed.  Wooden Towers after Mott and Bailey +1000 defense.   10k gold, 10k food.  Wooden towers provide level 1 recon and 5% counter-espionage. 
·        Castle.  Requires town or city and Engineer, 4 turns, Level 2 Engineer 3 turns, Level 3 Engineer 2 turns.  Has 10,000 defense.  Must be conquered before town can be conquered.  No MSQ required for castles, impervious to political action.  30k gold, 30k food.   Costs 4k food and gold upkeep per turn.
·        Greater Castle.  Only in city (including mythical cities).  Replaces Lesser Castle.  20,000 defense.  Engineer, 5 turns.    40 points MSQ, 40 points CE.  +1.0 to Rulership, 1.0 to Influence, +1 to RR, -1 RR to all declared enemies.  Replaces Castle (pre-requisite).  Costs 50k good and gold. 
·        Legendary Castle.  50,000 defense.  150k food and gold.  +2 Rulership and Influence.  Replaces greater castle (prerequisite).

(There are about 25 other PC Improvements)

I was kind of holding off to let other reply also.   Anyway I like the customization the castle building and others will allow.   Specifically for the castle how would a siege work?  I would think it should be possible but what defense value is used.   Do war machines do even more damage vs castles?   I do like the idea that building the higher end castles give the kingdom prestige.  Perhaps a greater castle being build is reported to anyone with minor influence in the legendary is reported world wide.

One thing I think I wonder about is the rate of return on these building.  Will not be known until we can analyze them as a whole.  Like artifacts some are game changers but most are actually a net negative for time invested to work towards winning.  Or course they are always fun to get.
I would also add to others when Ry Vor opens up these discussions that this is the time to add input. I think you will be surprised how many ideas that players come up with actually end up in the game at least in some form. Look at the last big topic he opened up about changes that are needed for 3rd cycle. Ry Vor did an incredible job really of translating all the inputs from players into changes to the game.
Thanks, JF.  It is always a slightly difficult thing to open the discussion up because most people get upset when their suggestion isn't implemented (so it would have been better not to invite discussion). 

But we do try to hear the ideas, and to truth, I use this forum in this capacity to test ideas not yet in place, but could be brought in.  So immediately to these last couple posts, the new Castle ideas are real Alamaze-changers, but in one sense it seems sort of like, "Duh, why aren't their castles in Alamaze?".  

Generally, I sort of have a drive to share some big ideas and get feedback before they are implemented, but discussion always seems to splinter off, whereas I am kind of looking for yes or no on what I brought up.  

On sort of a related topic, we will always look to stamp out abuses or exploits and sometimes players get defensive over preserving their pet exploit.  But generally, I think most of the player base applauds stamping out exploits, which they (like me up to that point) didn't realize even existed and are clearly against the intent of the game.  The Trick of the Trade exploit engine being the latest stamped out.
I kind of always visualized the PCs as having defenses anyhow. Villages I figured would have a wooden fort like structure. Towns some sort of stone or combo of wood and stone... and a city would have a keep or castle depending on it's size and defense rating.
Yes to the castle addition but i would prefer that it be implemented and included with the PC defenses so that multiple battles do not need to fought to take it, possibly only to lose it the next turn to an enemy emmissary. An exception would be that the castle includes an intrinsic maintain status quo ability, or if it is a capital. Perhaps we could look into an additional phase or two of battle for conquest over a castle. In either case it certainly should involve heavy losses on the aggressors side to take it which means it would so devastate a kingdom army that these castles would be the only remaining PC's in the region. I believe many kingdoms would choose to multiple meteor strike these castles until the defense could be brought low. Also i think these castles should be exempt from a dome as we do not want it to be impossible to conquer.
The Pharohs

One of the few kingdoms to successfully blend magic and science.

Magic : advantaged. Max power 6
Traits: healing, advanced mathematics (builds buildings faster), charisma, order , Rich, Foreknowledge (alter of old gods, Staff of RA)

Advantage desert +10%

- if they currently have no enemy declarations then they get no penalty for declaring an enemy
- start with 1 less adept, but gain a level 2 and level 1 engineer
- Pyramid - can build a pyramid after T4. Build within 3 squares of capital. Artifact can be moved to the pyramid. In the pyramid they are -30 to be stolen and count as if help by the king. Level 1 holds 1 artifact. L2 2 artifacts, L3 4 artifacts, L4 8 artifacts. Also at the pyramid a group can recruit 565 mummies. They can recruit up to the level of the pyramid per turn. Max 10 per group, no leader required.
- mummies curse - any artifact taken from the Pharohs in any way (group combat, stealing, attacking a PC) will result in a curse being placed on the kingdom. Treat curse same as conjure scandal except no kingdom is immune.
- because they are serving a living god the population in Pharoh controlled regions is less likely to rebel. +6 status quo or all PCs controlled by Pharohs in controlled regions. Also all Pharohs groups fight as if a valor was cast on them while in a Pharohs controlled region.

Staff of RA - shoots a beam of sunlight towards the enemy group. 10% moral boost and casts a P4 kill undead spell.
Oooh, you could introduce chariots with that one.
(02-11-2017, 11:01 PM)Ry Vor Wrote:
(02-11-2017, 10:17 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote:
(02-11-2017, 07:40 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: Some new kingdoms under consideration.  The new ones likely come from here (don't propose new ones on this thread).  So, perhaps comment on what you think of the ones posted.  What would they be like?  Which traits, special abilities?  Intriguing or boring? What comes to mind?



Free Traders

The Scattered Tribes

Descendants of Olympus.

The Samurai
The Giant Ants

Dark Hills Dwarves

Sea Elves

The Knights of Destiny

The Pharohs

I guess it depends on which kingdoms will not follow to the new lands.   I think 10 new kingdoms assuming we are still selecting from 24 total.   Of this list The Giant Ants and perhaps free traders are not to appealing just by name.   If giants and dragons are becoming like artifacts I think giants ants would fall in that same area, perhaps as some cool mounts.   
Some of these could go lots of ways so no idea how much I like or dislike.   Other than most all are cool names except maybe Dark hill dwarves.   Maybe just to much D&D in me I like Deep Dwarves as evil Dwarves and my Elves Dark.

Without any real detail could you give a brief vision of these?

The Giant Ants.  Can burrow, surprise, climb walls, reproduce, no magic, but special abilities.  Look at JF’s Mundanes. Not effected by magic except Fire (Firestrike, Wall of Flame).  Need high Rulership, low influence.   Have Forethought, Devout.  Red ants, black ants, fire ants.  No diplomacy, no allies, cannot be on HC or effected by HC.   Secretive, dispersed.  Six villages in different regions, one town capital with very high numbers.  Recruit ants instead of men.  Population and defense of all PC’s increase 10% per turn.  Population becomes ants after three turns, then, only useful to Giant Ants.  Conquering a PC that is not ant population provides 100% of population in food.   Companions Wasps and Spiders, Scorpions.  Different ant types: Red ants strongest but cannot swim, black ants fight and also work – build improvements, tear down improvements.  Yellow ants can swim, stay underwater.  Flying Ants.
Not to Dig up an old thread -- but this sounds like a fun and different kingdom type.
If the Giant Ants are made into a kingdom, I am going to have to name the queen 'Joan Collins'.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)