Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why the change in kingdoms from 1st to 2nd?
#1
Looking at the rules I noticed several of the kingdoms from the first cycle, e.g. west men, paladin, nomads, barbarians, urik, swamp men, were not used in the second cycle. I am just curious as to why those kingdoms were chosen to sit on the sidelines as opposed to others. Too overpowered? Too underpowered? too boring to play?

Anyone know?
Reply
#2
No idea, but we REALLY need to bring back the Halflings... my favorite kingdom to play!
-The Deliverer
Reply
#3
Halfling Halfling Halfling Halfling!!!!

And I loved the feel of the Paladins and Nomads also.
Podium player returning to the conflict!
Reply
#4
I think it was more that Rick wanted to bring in some new kingdoms and thus some had to be left on the shelf. I think the only 1st Cycle kingdom that he actually disliked was the Swampmen. I very much want to play the Westmen again and I do think the plan is in the 3rd cycle, some of those kingdoms might be coming back. I even enjoyed playing the Uriks. The Paladins were too goody-goody, though.
Reply
#5
Yeah, I loved the Westmen, staring influence of 16 or something like that, what's not to like. and the halflings were a blast as well with that food to gold order. Never heard of the swamp men position. What were they like?

Yeah Westmen with their starting influence of 16 (if i recall correctly) and the halflings with their food to gold order--what's not to like. Paladins were the position with the heavy cav right? Never heard of the swamp men. Maybe they came after my time. What were they like?
Reply
#6
The Swampmen were around at the same time as the others. They were spead all over the map. A much weaker version of the Trolls.
 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
#7
Swampmen were in the 1st Cycle team variant and I believe started with 6 pop centers. The position was tough to get to play cause not so many team games ran and then 2nd Cycle came and the Gnomes/Giants stayed (another team variant from 1st Cycle) but the Swampmen were gone. I thought it was a solid position.

Paladin was a military powerhouse.

Westmen was a vanilla position but pretty strong.

Urik was a hoardes of Orcs type of position, very good imo.

Nomads was in the Southern Sands and desert themed.

Barbarians existed to knock the Sorcerer out of the game by turn 3-4.
Similar to the Giant Witchlord rivalry if the Giant also started in the Northern Mists and the Witchlord had lesser starting wizards...

All the positions were fun imo and the game was equally good/compelling albeit simpler. Not in a bad way though.
Reply
#8
Note: If you browse the old site via the resources threads regards Pegasus Productions you should find the old set-ups and whatnot there.

Also, several 1st Cycle positions started with artifacts. These added flavor to the kingdoms who had them and made sense imo.
Reply
#9
(08-25-2014, 08:02 AM)Kalrex Wrote: Note: If you browse the old site via the resources threads regards Pegasus Productions you should find the old set-ups and whatnot there.

Also, several 1st Cycle positions started with artifacts. These added flavor to the kingdoms who had them and made sense imo.

I agree, I loved the starting artifacts it did add flavor and a certain richness to the game that is missing now.
Podium player returning to the conflict!
Reply
#10
It would be great to have each kingdom start with a unique artifact suited to the flavor of that kingdom. The Underworld might start with a special Crystal of Seeing or an assassin's blade. The Sorcerer might get a Wand. That sort of thing. Maybe losing the artifact would have a penalty like one for losing an envoy.

I would consider it a special challenge to collect as many of these artifacts each game as possible!
 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


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)