Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What You Want the Most
#21
(01-27-2015, 12:46 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: I am good with random locations but do not like 0-3 cities per region.  It gives to much of an economic difference.  Starting in a region shared with someone is really harsh with no cities.  Likewise a single kingdom region with 3 cities would be a huge advantage over others.

I also want balanced region production. I don't want the random city factor to ruin the game. 

If a region has more or less cities than normal than I think the number of towns and villages should go up or down.  The actual production per town and village could also be impacted.

I think regions with multiple starting capitols should get a 50% boost in overall production.  This could show up in towns, villages, cities or average production.
Reply
#22
I actually like the varied starting cities, but I can see how starting with three cities in an uncontested region could really swing the game in your favor. 1-2 per region would be fair. While we are at it, give more randomness to the number of towns and villages.

I have never been that found of the whole concept of political regions myself. They encourage artificial borders and discourages the 'take what you can' mentality of a war game. My Giants might control 2 cities, 6 towns, and 6 villages spread over two neighboring regions that I don't control but would be less powerful than another player who controls the same number of pcs all within the same region.

I would advocate randomly placing pcs all over the map, but would take away the political power of controlling the majority of pcs in a pre-defined region. Instead, the area your kingdom and groups contro, would define the actual borders. The regions would be simple map names and not political borders.

I realize that this is unlikely, but it would be doable with a gui.
 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
#23
I pretty much agree with the earlier suggestions for the next generation of the game but I would also like to see equipment enhancements for our forces.

In game 300, there's an order to equip seapower/fleets with reinforced hulls and such but I would like to see that concept for land forces as well (e.g., mithril armor, enchanted weapons, ...etc.). I would think that providing the players more choices for their kingdom will result in a more exciting game.

And I'll always be in favor of random cities. If 0-3 is too much of a shift between regions then just one city per region is fine but make it random like towns and villages. Randomizing all pc's in a region is more of a natural fit for exploratory mode anyway.

Another concept I would like to see is to have a border patrol effect for regions under kingdom control. So any group that moves past that border, gets a movement/combat penalty the following turn. This will slow down invasions while you may be away doing something else and not left at such a disadvantage in the game if you get invaded by several kingdoms at once.
Reply
#24
How about:

Capital (listed on the map, maybe requires two political "steps" to move, higher defenses, higher gold, higher negative on food)
Cities (1-3 per region, not listed on map)
Towns (4-6 per region, not listed on map)
Villages (7-9 per region, not listed on map)

City/Town/Village quantity balanced to at least some extent per region, so if you have three cities, you'll have fewer towns/villages.
Reply
#25
I like where LD is going with the no regions idea. What if by controlling PCs close to each other you create your own regions in a way. Say when you get to 150k census in your cluster you will gain something like .5 influence and as your cluster grows your bonus influence grows. This becomes public when you have something like 300k census cluster and a total of 1 point of bonus influence. Your cluster center would be reported globally and your considered The Lord of that area. Continue to grow your cluster or merge other clusters to form larger kingdoms gaining more influence and maybe abilities to help defend the area. If someone was to attack and break your cluster you would start to loose your bonus influence not all instantly, it would happen of the course of a few turns give you the chance to fend off the would be attacker.
Just tossing some thoughts out obviously not something for this next game.
Reply
#26
I think a big revamp of the military system is the most important thing. This would include things like:

-more and varied recruiting types
-much more tactical battle selections
-ability to station wizards and commanders at pop centers
-pop center morale bonuses
-more pop center defensive upgrades
Reply
#27
"-more pop center defensive upgrades"

Ooh, I like that. Maybe even make them automatic for certain thresholds. At 10K you get more archers. At 20K a cavalry contingent and armor (higher defensive a la the tougher brigades like GI/RD) upgrades. At 30K more archer towers and wall upgrades (higher defensive value again). Or whatever.
Reply
#28
(01-27-2015, 04:48 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: "-more pop center defensive upgrades"

Ooh, I like that.  Maybe even make them automatic for certain thresholds.  At 10K you get more archers.  At 20K a cavalry contingent and armor (higher defensive a la the tougher brigades like GI/RD) upgrades.  At 30K more archer towers and wall upgrades (higher defensive value again).  Or whatever.

The Fall of Rome engine already has this with forts, citadels, taverns, etc,. I would expect to see more of this in the gui version.
 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
#29
The two things on my wish list:

1) No SVC. [We have been playing without SVC for some time now and the games last longer, allow greater development of all aspects of a kingdom, and are not suddenly truncated - resulting in disappointment/annoyance.] Just my opinion, of course, but no SVC results in a much more enjoyable contest.

2) No status points for artifacts! [Artifacts provide such a powerful boost to a kingdom that players will continue to artifact hunt even if no status points are awarded.]

I agree with much of the discussion above about incorporating some of the excellent features of Fall of Rome.
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#30
(01-28-2015, 10:43 AM)Lord Thanatos Wrote: The two things on my wish list:

1) No SVC. [We have been playing without SVC for some time now and the games last longer, allow greater development of all aspects of a kingdom, and are not suddenly truncated - resulting in disappointment/annoyance.] Just my opinion, of course, but no SVC results in a much more enjoyable contest.

2) No status points for artifacts! [Artifacts provide such a powerful boost to a kingdom that players will continue to artifact hunt even if no status points are awarded.]

I agree with much of the discussion above about incorporating some of the excellent features of Fall of Rome.

As an artifact-whore of the first degree, I reluctantly agree with LT. Artifacts have too much of an impact on the final standings. I was bumped out of 3rd place and into 4th when my opponent stole my Palantir. I have also placed higher than I would have without them. Artifacts should enhance your game of war, not supersede it.

I also prefer no SVC. I would be okay with the FoR style of offering several different versions of the victory condition because at least everyone knew what you might e shooting for. However, the jury is out on the new SVC. Will games still end too soon or will they be too difficult? 
 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: 1 Guest(s)