And a second confederation game

[Kellenved]

As some of us have just started a confederation game, I know it'll be awhile until another but wanted to start the sign-up thread (ala my lonely 2nd Warlords ) Same format: six players running two kingdoms apiece; first person to control six regions wins. Silent game with no alliances/naps beyond the kingdoms you control.

1. Morgan Kane
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

[Wookie Panz]

As some of us have just started a confederation game, I know it'll be awhile until another but wanted to start the sign-up thread (ala my lonely 2nd Warlords ) Same format: six players running two kingdoms apiece; first person to control six regions wins. Silent game with no alliances/naps beyond the kingdoms you control.

1. Morgan Kane
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

I don't know how you do it Will.  If only I had more time I would join you.

[Strylian]

I would be willing to play.

[Strylian]

Just out of curiosity is confederation game count as two slots or one. It doesn't really matter as either way it moves me up to the top level.

[Draugr]

Two slots but there is an all in version

[Ashgar75]

Two slots but there is an all in version

What is the all in Version?

Total cost please?

[Ry Vor]

Alamaze is presented in various formats, and development costs incurred to provide that variety as seen on the Game Creator.

Even those options, IMO, are too much.  For example, many people are not fans of Ice Age, or Pagan.  To make them options slows down the filling of games, which is why I prefer, for the benefit of players, to have one game queuing at a time, so as to not have a game thread open for a long time.  Better to fill them one at a time quickly.

Then, again, we present many formats, whereas, I think we may be alone in that among purveyors of episodic games, not sure, but I think most others run just one format.

While it is possible as we just saw to create a custom format like we did with Confederations, this is not how the pricing, recently reduced about 50% due to automation through the expense of developing that capability, was determined.

So, I recommend players use the existing formats that form and work flawlessly, rather than request a custom game that requires me to navigate 100 potential errors in its manual creation not to mention, let's just say, I didn't sign up for that, at least not at $9.95 for a game, where competitors charge that for a turn.   I'll leave out some of the early bloody history in the interest of community, but the point was to have automation and so, no particular demands to start games on the designer or the ample opportunity to have human error in that effort.

There would have to be a customization charge for these variants going forward.  

Short answer:  Confederations is 2 game slots, and 2x a Steel All-In, and will have a customization charge, likely $10 a player (not position). 

I'd like to see us return to Steel or Alliance and maybe consider a second Confederations later.

Related, but something of a digression.  Alamaze was intended as a game with player diplomacy, and we have recently gone through the reasons why players prefer Silent.  But I would like some kind of middle ground in a future release to encapsulate within the game some diplomatic efforts, even if it is rough.

[Ashgar75]

Alamaze is presented in various formats, and development costs incurred to provide that variety as seen on the Game Creator.

Even those options, IMO, are too much.  For example, many people are not fans of Ice Age, or Pagan.  To make them options slows down the filling of games, which is why I prefer, for the benefit of players, to have one game queuing at a time, so as to not have a game thread open for a long time.  Better to fill them one at a time quickly.

Then, again, we present many formats, whereas, I think we may be alone in that among purveyors of episodic games, not sure, but I think most others run just one format.

While it is possible as we just saw to create a custom format like we did with Confederations, this is not how the pricing, recently reduced about 50% due to automation through the expense of developing that capability, was determined.

So, I recommend players use the existing formats that form and work flawlessly, rather than request a custom game that requires me to navigate 100 potential errors in its manual creation not to mention, let's just say, I didn't sign up for that, at least not at $9.95 for a game, where competitors charge that for a turn.   I'll leave out some of the early bloody history in the interest of community, but the point was to have automation and so, no particular demands to start games on the designer or the ample opportunity to have human error in that effort.

There would have to be a customization charge for these variants going forward.  

Short answer:  Confederations is 2 game slots, and 2x a Steel All-In, and will have a customization charge, likely $10 a player (not position). 

I'd like to see us return to Steel or Alliance and maybe consider a second Confederations later.

Related, but something of a digression.  Alamaze was intended as a game with player diplomacy, and we have recently gone through the reasons why players prefer Silent.  But I would like some kind of middle ground in a future release to encapsulate within the game some diplomatic efforts, even if it is rough.

If you want to bring Diplomacy back into it, one consideration is making it so that the players don't know who is playing which kingdom.  That way you negotiate with the kingdom and not the player.  There would be an honor system in place once the game starts so that friends would be expected to not let each other know, but if they respect that, then diplomacy would be more viable.     Just a thought.

[Ry Vor]

Alamaze is presented in various formats, and development costs incurred to provide that variety as seen on the Game Creator.

Even those options, IMO, are too much.  For example, many people are not fans of Ice Age, or Pagan.  To make them options slows down the filling of games, which is why I prefer, for the benefit of players, to have one game queuing at a time, so as to not have a game thread open for a long time.  Better to fill them one at a time quickly.

Then, again, we present many formats, whereas, I think we may be alone in that among purveyors of episodic games, not sure, but I think most others run just one format.

While it is possible as we just saw to create a custom format like we did with Confederations, this is not how the pricing, recently reduced about 50% due to automation through the expense of developing that capability, was determined.

So, I recommend players use the existing formats that form and work flawlessly, rather than request a custom game that requires me to navigate 100 potential errors in its manual creation not to mention, let's just say, I didn't sign up for that, at least not at $9.95 for a game, where competitors charge that for a turn.   I'll leave out some of the early bloody history in the interest of community, but the point was to have automation and so, no particular demands to start games on the designer or the ample opportunity to have human error in that effort.

There would have to be a customization charge for these variants going forward.  

Short answer:  Confederations is 2 game slots, and 2x a Steel All-In, and will have a customization charge, likely $10 a player (not position). 

I'd like to see us return to Steel or Alliance and maybe consider a second Confederations later.

Related, but something of a digression.  Alamaze was intended as a game with player diplomacy, and we have recently gone through the reasons why players prefer Silent.  But I would like some kind of middle ground in a future release to encapsulate within the game some diplomatic efforts, even if it is rough.

If you want to bring Diplomacy back into it, one consideration is making it so that the players don't know who is playing which kingdom.  That way you negotiate with the kingdom and not the player.  There would be an honor system in place once the game starts so that friends would be expected to not let each other know, but if they respect that, then diplomacy would be more viable.     Just a thought.

So again, I would have to have a developer create and code a new method to have games queue, draft and start without revealing personas.

[Ashgar75]

Alamaze is presented in various formats, and development costs incurred to provide that variety as seen on the Game Creator.

Even those options, IMO, are too much.  For example, many people are not fans of Ice Age, or Pagan.  To make them options slows down the filling of games, which is why I prefer, for the benefit of players, to have one game queuing at a time, so as to not have a game thread open for a long time.  Better to fill them one at a time quickly.

Then, again, we present many formats, whereas, I think we may be alone in that among purveyors of episodic games, not sure, but I think most others run just one format.

While it is possible as we just saw to create a custom format like we did with Confederations, this is not how the pricing, recently reduced about 50% due to automation through the expense of developing that capability, was determined.

So, I recommend players use the existing formats that form and work flawlessly, rather than request a custom game that requires me to navigate 100 potential errors in its manual creation not to mention, let's just say, I didn't sign up for that, at least not at $9.95 for a game, where competitors charge that for a turn.   I'll leave out some of the early bloody history in the interest of community, but the point was to have automation and so, no particular demands to start games on the designer or the ample opportunity to have human error in that effort.

There would have to be a customization charge for these variants going forward.  

Short answer:  Confederations is 2 game slots, and 2x a Steel All-In, and will have a customization charge, likely $10 a player (not position). 

I'd like to see us return to Steel or Alliance and maybe consider a second Confederations later.

Related, but something of a digression.  Alamaze was intended as a game with player diplomacy, and we have recently gone through the reasons why players prefer Silent.  But I would like some kind of middle ground in a future release to encapsulate within the game some diplomatic efforts, even if it is rough.

If you want to bring Diplomacy back into it, one consideration is making it so that the players don't know who is playing which kingdom.  That way you negotiate with the kingdom and not the player.  There would be an honor system in place once the game starts so that friends would be expected to not let each other know, but if they respect that, then diplomacy would be more viable.     Just a thought.

So again, I would have to have a developer create and code a new method to have games queue, draft and start without revealing personas.

Which would mean more money and that is not an option at this time.  I understand.  just a thought.  I think some of your veteran players have developed some relationships and have people they prefer to work with and those they don't.  It makes diplomacy sort of turn into Team games.  It was just a thought.  Trying to help.