Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battle Damage Spells: should they be more powerful?
I keep wanting to wrap up 2nd Cycle, at least to the point of the next release with the new 565 and some new kingdoms and setups, but 2nd Cycle changes are still not complete and that 4th scenario is probably some ways off.  So I struggle between wanting to preserve much of what Alamaze was (Classic) for the traditionalists, and putting in newer concepts that improve the game.

Currently, many/most players don't use Battle Damage Spells (like Firestrike) against large opposing groups.  This is because the spells are delivering a fixed amount of damage that becomes less significant against larger forces. 

A remedy for this, if one is needed or desired, is to incorporate the concept of Density.  It's pretty simple, really.

Spellcasters would continue to deliver the stated damage in the spell list against brigade sized groups.  Against division sized groups, the damage would be 1.5x.  Against armies, 2.0x and against army groups, 2.5x.

So a Power 3 Firestrike that currently does 2100 points of damage, would then do 4200 against an army.

I don't think I'd want to apply that vs. PC's as PC's are already pretty vulnerable in Classic.  Perhaps a scaled down to like 1.25x vs towns and 1.5x vs. cities but even that might be too much.

This will be coming at some point.  The question is, do you want it here in Classic, or do you want to preserve Classic in this regard as it has always been?  Post your thoughts here.  It is not difficult to implement and would effect all existing and future games.
Sounds fine to me. Currently I basically never use damage spells. Would summon death have the same bump or stay as is? I think vs PCs maybe just earth quake should do more damage and on same scale.
So then a power 6 WA wizard could cast Earthquake vs. an army group and do 16,500 points of damage instead of 6600 points.

Would those 16500 points be similar to the value of 5 brigades of veterans  with a 30% leader/morale modifier?  (5*2200*1.3=16,500)

It sometimes seems that the wizard combat points don't have the impact that we anticipate.

On a cost basis recruiting, training, paying and feeding 5 veterans for 10 turns costs about  181,500.  Plus they are a renewable resource.

Training a P6 wizard will cost 160-170,000.  They could also die as a result of casting the earthquake spell.

Increased damage seems fair to me.
I think it's fair. Many times I've been part of a battle and just haven't used battle magic because it's frankly ineffective.
Agree with JF, Hawk, Acererak.
(02-03-2015, 04:50 PM)HeadHoncho Wrote: Agree with JF, Hawk, Acererak.
Please add my yes vote to this group.
I am the greatest swordsman that ever lived. Say, um, can I have some of that water?
I believe Uncle Mike is confident we will have Density for Battle Spells in the now forming Pagan Anonymous.  This may mean some of the new battle spells will not be in play.
Spell density for battle spells is now in effect for the new software. All games running under the new platform (# 32, 166, and 300) will be affected. Due to this change, the following new battle spells are disabled:

112 Ice Torrent
113 Acid Rain
114 Prismatic Rays
115 Disintegrate
Spell density also factors in with pwr-3 wizard presence (just the lighting part, not shield).
I'm currently being threatened with density damage vs my capital in 300 but wanted to check as it appears that Rick said it would not apply to pop centers. Can we verify whether it does apply vs pop centers or not?

From Rick: "I don't think I'd want to apply that vs. PC's as PC's are already pretty vulnerable in Classic."


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)