Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Underworld Rule
I'd be intersted to know people opinions on the new UN rule: Agent training nets the UN a flat rate of 1500 instead of 25%. Specifically, I'm curious to know if anyone who has played the UN previously, or currently, would be less motivated to max out the agent training cost. Assuming that is something you would have done under the old rules, of course.
Maniacal Menace
I think the UN should raise prices on agents regardless - limit other kingdom's abilities to have hordes of good agents. The percentage of gold the UN gets is just a bonus - I never saw that as the main reason for doing it.
I mostly agree. The primary motivation for raising the agent training cost is to reduce the number of high level enemy agents. And I think the adjustable income rate (25%) was ment to offset the effect of raising the agent training cost (the higher the rate, the fewer people will raise agents, statistically speaking, but the income will remain somewhat steady if not equal). Now, with the new rules, when you raise the cost, your income goes down. Its no longer really an agent related strategic consideration, (I raise the training cost on myself and everyone, or I keep it low for myself and everyone with little or no effect on income) its now more strongly tied to income considerations. (If I raise the agent training rate, my income goes down). For me, its still zero motivation for me to keep the cost low, so the new rule is in effect nothing more than a reduciton in the kingdoms power over agent related activity, kind of a "watering down" of the kingdom. SO, for those of you who have played hte UN, do any feel it was overpowered with the old rule? Do we have any old valhala data to indicate the win ratio of the UN in relation to other kingdoms?
Maniacal Menace
I've added a thread under Rules and resources for this type of discussion. Seems like it might be a better place to consolidate discussions like this one.
The Underworld actually did very well in old Valhalla. Below the Giants and Elf they were in a cluster of positions that fared better than the rest...

Note, I was in the playtest group that made the decision on the Un. It wasn't one of "my" issues and so I wasn't on board with the change either way. It seemed like everyone else really liked the idea as it's presently ruled and I didn't give it any consideration (oddly as I gave more than 2 cents on every other matterWink -Pretty sure people got sick of hearing my thoughts on some other stuff...

I would max out training asap. In my experience the Un usually would bump up training, on average, T2. Then max it by T3 or T4. Of course it's the players option.

If it turns out to be a change for the worse then it can be changed back. I don't believe the change was meant to weaken the position. Nobody was concerned the Un was overpowered by any means.

That being said the Un fared surprisingly well in old valhalla like I mentioned.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)