I'll chime in here with a few points.
1. Of course, this was a test game preliminary to a beta test. This was mainly about testing the web order entry and we were hoping to get feedback on all 12 kingdoms.
2. From time to time, over the years, we have had players ask for more pages of rules, examples of how everything is executed, explicit causes for an order to fail, etc. I think we already have well over 100 pages of rules. Probably closer to 200 if you consider kingdom dossiers and spell lists. I've said before, and this was a goal of the new interface, we need to make it more accessible to new players. Some are intimidated by the technology (not completing an order form with a pencil and snail mailing it, not used to using a forum, not used to using the various applications that are now less needed (Excel, Powerpoint, etc) than previously, and a good number intimidated by how complex and nuanced it is. I just am not in favor of adding something to virtually every character order that for example, an emissary attempting to Usurp Control or an agent trying to Steal Gold must be conscious, alive, not captured, not have done a previous activity, must be under your control, etc.
3. With the Tactics, I guess keep in mind the order of events is known by the order number. So for example, Stun Leader occurs before battles, and no leader enters a turn stunned. So a leader would always be stunned during the turn but before any battle, and so cannot execute a sophisticated tactic that depends on him, if he is stunned. I believe Protect Heroes and Wizards is a power one spell for pretty much every kingdom, so a recommendation might be if you are relying on a single leader capable of executing a tactic, and the enemy has wizards, you might consider Protect Heroes and Wizards.
4. I think it is very, very early to make determinations on much of the new things across the board in 3rd Cycle. I'll look at reducing the effectiveness of Industrious, but at some point this is like saying all militaries should be the same because flight, or archery, or cavalry is too much of an advantage. If the designer has done his job correctly, even if a trait is strong in a suitable kingdom, like Flight for the dragons or like Industrious with the Dwarves, I don't know that that makes the Dwarves the favorite on its own merits. It's a balance across every aspect inherent in the game. Five kingdoms of 24 have the Industrious trait, and I guess I'd be thrilled if someone wanted to take one of those kingdoms because it had that trait. And if the Halflings, Dwarves, Gnomes, or Underworld start running away with it, maybe it was too strong, all other things being equal (of course, they never are). I gave it to the Tyrant because it is a new style kingdom with the handicap of being spread out without too many obvious friends and I was influenced by the scenes in LOTR movies where those goblins are always hammering away, whether chopping down forests, creating Uriks, etc. And as Acererak hinted at, as the Tyrant is spread out, if he spends a lot of orders improving production in PC's he may not be in a position to defend, that just makes them juicy targets. I could have a similar discussion on any trait, again, any one component of a kingdom that has 30 components is just that, one component of the whole. All that said, we may make changes to a couple traits, either before, during, or after the beta. And any rule or resolution may change during the beta itself, so again, don't be upset by that. No status points in Valhalla for the beta games.
In general, I think players will require some time to adjust their 2nd Cycle tactics to this new world of 3rd Cycle. Something like Protect Heroes may have almost never been used in 2nd Cycle, it may become a staple in 3rd Cycle. The nearly rote commands given by experienced players in the first couple turns in 2nd Cycle may not be appropriate in 3rd Cycle. I don't think that is a bad thing. Something I was shooting for.
1. Of course, this was a test game preliminary to a beta test. This was mainly about testing the web order entry and we were hoping to get feedback on all 12 kingdoms.
2. From time to time, over the years, we have had players ask for more pages of rules, examples of how everything is executed, explicit causes for an order to fail, etc. I think we already have well over 100 pages of rules. Probably closer to 200 if you consider kingdom dossiers and spell lists. I've said before, and this was a goal of the new interface, we need to make it more accessible to new players. Some are intimidated by the technology (not completing an order form with a pencil and snail mailing it, not used to using a forum, not used to using the various applications that are now less needed (Excel, Powerpoint, etc) than previously, and a good number intimidated by how complex and nuanced it is. I just am not in favor of adding something to virtually every character order that for example, an emissary attempting to Usurp Control or an agent trying to Steal Gold must be conscious, alive, not captured, not have done a previous activity, must be under your control, etc.
3. With the Tactics, I guess keep in mind the order of events is known by the order number. So for example, Stun Leader occurs before battles, and no leader enters a turn stunned. So a leader would always be stunned during the turn but before any battle, and so cannot execute a sophisticated tactic that depends on him, if he is stunned. I believe Protect Heroes and Wizards is a power one spell for pretty much every kingdom, so a recommendation might be if you are relying on a single leader capable of executing a tactic, and the enemy has wizards, you might consider Protect Heroes and Wizards.
4. I think it is very, very early to make determinations on much of the new things across the board in 3rd Cycle. I'll look at reducing the effectiveness of Industrious, but at some point this is like saying all militaries should be the same because flight, or archery, or cavalry is too much of an advantage. If the designer has done his job correctly, even if a trait is strong in a suitable kingdom, like Flight for the dragons or like Industrious with the Dwarves, I don't know that that makes the Dwarves the favorite on its own merits. It's a balance across every aspect inherent in the game. Five kingdoms of 24 have the Industrious trait, and I guess I'd be thrilled if someone wanted to take one of those kingdoms because it had that trait. And if the Halflings, Dwarves, Gnomes, or Underworld start running away with it, maybe it was too strong, all other things being equal (of course, they never are). I gave it to the Tyrant because it is a new style kingdom with the handicap of being spread out without too many obvious friends and I was influenced by the scenes in LOTR movies where those goblins are always hammering away, whether chopping down forests, creating Uriks, etc. And as Acererak hinted at, as the Tyrant is spread out, if he spends a lot of orders improving production in PC's he may not be in a position to defend, that just makes them juicy targets. I could have a similar discussion on any trait, again, any one component of a kingdom that has 30 components is just that, one component of the whole. All that said, we may make changes to a couple traits, either before, during, or after the beta. And any rule or resolution may change during the beta itself, so again, don't be upset by that. No status points in Valhalla for the beta games.
In general, I think players will require some time to adjust their 2nd Cycle tactics to this new world of 3rd Cycle. Something like Protect Heroes may have almost never been used in 2nd Cycle, it may become a staple in 3rd Cycle. The nearly rote commands given by experienced players in the first couple turns in 2nd Cycle may not be appropriate in 3rd Cycle. I don't think that is a bad thing. Something I was shooting for.
