Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Parlay (170) and Diplomacy (171)
#11
Chaos definitely a military position spell imo. I think magic user positions have been helped by nearly all changes thus far made/discussed.
Reply
#12
(08-19-2014, 10:09 PM)Kalrex Wrote: Chaos definitely a military position spell imo. I think magic user positions have been helped by nearly all changes thus far made/discussed.

I do not see how limiting 171 helps Mage kingdoms more. Before the three mages kingdoms could all take a city on turn 2 now none can. Some would even struggle to do it with emissaries. For sure will be interesting to see how Mage kingdoms go about there starting turns. Will Viperhead still goto the WI or will others now jump it and take it from under them.

I would like to see some Mage spells offensive and maybe 171 have an exponential component in them. Maybe to the power of 1.5 or something. This would greatly increase the value of those high level mages for combat purposes. Also if a p7 were to cast 171 shouldn't the populace be more inclined to obey as he could just destroy the town.
Reply
#13
Also AN could get a city, at least. Is that a mage position?

Are you certain the WI cannot get Viperhead T1? Enamor, Move, recruit SK and the Marshal.

GI, RA, EL also benefit/ed from having 171 T1.

Need to see it played before I can agree "Before the three mages kingdoms could all take a city on turn 2 now none can".

What about move noble/noble and rebel/usurp? Also supported with sleep/ward they all have decent politicals.

If WA or SO shows up on a city and the GI/BL/RA is there were they going to get the city anyways? Lots of variables.
It looks to me like the changes expand the games and into the teen turns forward the wizards have a massive edge imo.

I think the game will be better with the removal of literally unbeatable GI/RD armies running around turn 1. Other things being scaled back makes sense. We'll see what happens but I don't see the wizards doing worse with the modifications.
Reply
#14
Chaos and Diplomacy are both heavily mage kingdom spells.

Witchlord teleports a division, invisible to a location and surprises a GI army group, boom, division kills army group with chaos; the old way.
This was why it was changed in the first place because small mage groups could completely wipe out larger anyone groups.

These modification will defiantly make it harder in the beginning game for the mage kingdoms. Not being able to diplomacy the cities off the bat makes it harder, and that's the point right?

I'm not saying I don't like the changes I do, I like seeing longer games. However when you take and take and don't give over time, you might find you caused more harm then good overall. Like I said we wont know till we see it play out.

As it is now, smart mages only cast Dispel magic, slay leader/wizard, Protect hero's and wizards, maybe wall of fire, maybe fear, and summon death, for combat, all other battle magic vs troop is worthless. So continuing to take from them, with out giving back will have consequences.
Podium player returning to the conflict!
Reply
#15
I would pay good money to see a WI division wipe out a GI army group, even via a surprise attack. Heck, I'd even pay bad money, or someone else's money. Point is, I'd pay money.

I agree that we'll need to see how things play out. It seems to me that a lot of the changes will serve to slow down the pace of the game, at least partially in answer to a rash of games that finished much too quickly a while back. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing remains to be seen, but we won't know until we give it a go. Will the changes to 170/171 make inter-player diplomacy more important for taking cities early on? Definitely. Will it force folks to change tactics? Probably.
-The Deliverer
Reply
#16
(08-20-2014, 12:59 PM)kevindusi Wrote: I would pay good money to see a WI division wipe out a GI army group, even via a surprise attack. Heck, I'd even pay bad money, or someone else's money. Point is, I'd pay money.

I agree that we'll need to see how things play out. It seems to me that a lot of the changes will serve to slow down the pace of the game, at least partially in answer to a rash of games that finished much too quickly a while back. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing remains to be seen, but we won't know until we give it a go. Will the changes to 170/171 make inter-player diplomacy more important for taking cities early on? Definitely. Will it force folks to change tactics? Probably.

Really? a division with, 2p7's and a P3, with Chaos the old way, would make a GI army group disappear...
Podium player returning to the conflict!
Reply
#17
(08-20-2014, 01:03 PM)The Usurper Wrote:
(08-20-2014, 12:59 PM)kevindusi Wrote: I would pay good money to see a WI division wipe out a GI army group, even via a surprise attack. Heck, I'd even pay bad money, or someone else's money. Point is, I'd pay money.

I agree that we'll need to see how things play out. It seems to me that a lot of the changes will serve to slow down the pace of the game, at least partially in answer to a rash of games that finished much too quickly a while back. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing remains to be seen, but we won't know until we give it a go. Will the changes to 170/171 make inter-player diplomacy more important for taking cities early on? Definitely. Will it force folks to change tactics? Probably.

Really? a division with, 2p7's and a P3, with Chaos the old way, would make a GI army group disappear...

Maybe 5 wights v a mix of GI/OG in a small army group, and a couple of weapon artifacts added in, maybe
Reply
#18
Well Cipher has chimed in.

What I am saying, I saw, during the 90's. As soon as you triggered the retreat, you won the old way.

The point is, the new chaos makes it more difficult for the wizard kingdoms, and again that is the point.

I personally like the new Chaos, but this is the second time we are making it harder for the Wizard kingdoms. Is that bad? We don't know yet.
Podium player returning to the conflict!
Reply
#19
I'd also pay good money for the 90's to come back. Oh, to be young again....
-The Deliverer
Reply
#20
(08-20-2014, 01:11 PM)kevindusi Wrote: I'd also pay good money for the 90's to come back. Oh, to be young again....

Sorry, bro, that ship has sailed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)