Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Game Design Changes
#11
(04-10-2013, 12:54 PM)Cipher Wrote: A design change that has been implemented already:
Dragon kingdoms can no longer investigate unusual sightings, nor benefit from Weapon artifacts in combat.

The kingdom setup for Black Dragons still says that they use artifacts in the infantry stage of combat. Holdover from before the rule change, no doubt. Don't know if the Red Dragon setup also says this.



(04-10-2013, 12:36 PM)Kalrex Wrote: Transfers between groups are tedious.


The designers seem to have deliberately incorporated a cost into complex maneuvers, either through using up orders or actual gold/food/morale.

I think one change worth considering might be to make maneuvers easier/less costly for 'military' kingdoms to recognise the greater training and professionalism of their military.

So, for instance, you could waive the penalties on them for late movement orders.

Or you could give them special orders not available to other kingdoms to make combining/splitting groups easier.
Reply
#12
In Fall of Rome, transfer orders are free - don't count against what in FoR is called Rulership, the restriction on orders for a kingdom which is distinct from Influence. And the transfer orders don't restrict who or what or how many can be transferred. I'd like to address this in the future, but playtesters were mainly happy with Alamaze Classic as is.
Reply
#13
My opinion is as long as everyone has a logistics problem (group transfers) then it's not a big deal although it's tedious/orders intensive.
Reply
#14
Based on my understanding of #170/171 and #310, it seems some tweaking might be helpful.

The order is 'maintain status quo' but that seems like it could be better used if it was 'counter foreign emissaries.'

Suppose I am the EL and I have a group at a neutral town and attempt #170. I follow it up with #310 by my Ambassador because I know there's a GN Baron in the city who could turn it his way, regardless of if the 170 succeeded or not.

Let's say the #170 fails.

At the end of the turn, I move in a second group and combine it with the first making a more potent military force.

At the beginning of the next turn, If I want to try #170/171, my Ambassador's 'status quo' order would be working against me. That seems counterproductive and unrealistic.

If the order were changed to 'counter foreign emissaries' or 'prevent rebellion and foreign usurpation.' then I'd be able to coordinate better without my Ambassador and Group working at cross purposes. This would also be more in line with the agent commands, since ordering an agent to do counterintelligence in an area doesn't hamper another agent from the same kingdom from carrying out a separate mission. (Or does it?)
Reply
#15
(04-12-2013, 10:04 PM)Jumbie Wrote: Based on my understanding of #170/171 and #310, it seems some tweaking might be helpful.

The order is 'maintain status quo' but that seems like it could be better used if it was 'counter foreign emissaries.'

Suppose I am the EL and I have a group at a neutral town and attempt #170. I follow it up with #310 by my Ambassador because I know there's a GN Baron in the city who could turn it his way, regardless of if the 170 succeeded or not.

Let's say the #170 fails.

At the end of the turn, I move in a second group and combine it with the first making a more potent military force.

At the beginning of the next turn, If I want to try #170/171, my Ambassador's 'status quo' order would be working against me. That seems counterproductive and unrealistic.

If the order were changed to 'counter foreign emissaries' or 'prevent rebellion and foreign usurpation.' then I'd be able to coordinate better without my Ambassador and Group working at cross purposes. This would also be more in line with the agent commands, since ordering an agent to do counterintelligence in an area doesn't hamper another agent from the same kingdom from carrying out a separate mission. (Or does it?)

I don't think I get your point. When you 'Maintain Status Quo' you are attempting to keep the political allegiance of the pc exactly where it is now.

You can use it to help a. Friend, hinder an enemy, etc.. You just want it to stay the same.
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply
#16
Right, you want it to stay the same one turn, because you have inadequate political power to take it yourself, but the next turn when you have that power you will end up working against your status quo.

e.g.

A status quo order given to an Ambassador on turn 5 will still be active at the beginning of turn 6.

So if I'm the WA and I recon the neutral PC and I notice that the GN have a baron there, I'll order my Ambassador who's at the PC to maintain status quo to thwart the Baron.

But at the end of turn 5 I move my 1WA (#720) to the neutral PC. At the beginning of Turn 6 I want my 1WA to Diplomacy the PC, but the status quo order of my ambassador from turn 5 is still active, working against me. (If I understand the command descriptions correctly.)
Reply
#17
Yeah, the Maintain Status Quo order is in effect the subsequent turn if a group tries to Parlay or Diplo the pop center.
Reply
#18
Right, so I'm suggesting the command be changed to exempt friendly parley efforts.
Reply
#19
(04-13-2013, 01:36 AM)Jumbie Wrote: Right, so I'm suggesting the command be changed to exempt friendly parley efforts.

That doesn't logically work. An emissary "maintaining status quo" is working to keep the populance feeling the same way they do at present (EX: we hate everyone!). What you're suggesting is that they continue, for example, to hate everyone else but become, in essence, more friendly to you at the same time.

(04-12-2013, 11:24 PM)Jumbie Wrote: Right, you want it to stay the same one turn, because you have inadequate political power to take it yourself, but the next turn when you have that power you will end up working against your status quo.

e.g.

A status quo order given to an Ambassador on turn 5 will still be active at the beginning of turn 6.

So if I'm the WA and I recon the neutral PC and I notice that the GN have a baron there, I'll order my Ambassador who's at the PC to maintain status quo to thwart the Baron.

But at the end of turn 5 I move my 1WA (#720) to the neutral PC. At the beginning of Turn 6 I want my 1WA to Diplomacy the PC, but the status quo order of my ambassador from turn 5 is still active, working against me. (If I understand the command descriptions correctly.)


The scenario who descibe above is easily countered: Just let the GN TAKE the pop center for that turn. The following turn your 1WA shows up and 171s the pop center (remember in taking the pop center, the GN cannot maintain) and then use your ambassador to maintain.
Reply
#20
Well, the thing with letting the GN take it in that scenario is that it becomes twice as hard to take via parley the next turn, I think.

And I'm not suggesting that the 'status quo' logic be exempted. I'm suggesting that the order be given as counter-diplomacy. It would be kind of like a denigrate and counter espionage combined, to prevent other emissary activities from being effective.

I can see a real life version of this quite easily in that your emissary gives counter-speeches to the oratory of those seeking to change leadership, giving counter-gifts, spreading rumors about active emissaries...but never speaking against his own side.

It's the kind of thing real life diplomats do and seems more storyline appropriate than a status quo order (There isn't a diplomat in the world who deliberately raises fears about his own country.)

I know this might be a small thing in the greater scheme of the game, but Alamaze is such a cool game because it has always felt more realistic than other wargames with details like the seasonal production, bribing officials, needing to have your wizard in a town to raise his magic etc.

So an alteration that would make things seem more 'real world' to me is attractive.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)