New Spells

[Ry Vor]

If a spell needs to be removed it should be lich form not the destroy series. Then yes you can protect your wizard with wraith but he is not likely to do much more than ward or maybe a regional effect. Not the end of the world both easy to work around.   A p6+ wizard would be able to be killed by a high level agent I guess unless they go invisible.  But really they can already do that in a group as well.

Another option make it required to be on the PC square you are casting the destroy spell and you need to be in a non patrol I guess

I like Mike's Liche spell.  It fits in nicely both strategically and thematically. 

Trust me, the wizard kingdoms will be just fine without patrols running around destroying towns as patrols.  When JF says be in a non patrol to do destroy, that is essentially what an Earthquake spell does, if not even more damage than the old Destroy Town.  A P6 doing 10k damage, but is subject to attack, which is the point - not acting with impunity.

[HeadHoncho]

But there's still the invulnerable Lich in a patrol issue.

And the thing about the Destroy series of spells is that it fires at a separate time than attack, with different ramifications (your currency is regional reaction level rather than group strength). And it also had a good chance to take out enemy emissaries in one swoop, even Kings and emissaries with higher escape chances.

It is that different timing and economy that made it tactically elegant, and the game more richly complex.

[Ry Vor]

But there's still the invulnerable Lich in a patrol issue.

And the thing about the Destroy series of spells is that it fires at a separate time than attack, with different ramifications (your currency is regional reaction level rather than group strength). And it also had a good chance to take out enemy emissaries in one swoop, even Kings and emissaries with higher escape chances.

It is that different timing and economy that made it tactically elegant, and the game more richly complex.

 At its core, this is again about whether wizard kingdoms need to bounce around in patrols destroying stuff with impunity.  Should they really take out emissaries more than an attack would?  With Earthquake (etc) you might still get them, and as prisoners, rather than charcoal.  I'm not sure a patrol taking out a capital and so the ruler with a destroy town spell is a good thing.  Again, 3rd Cycle is to allow 2nd Cycle to stay with its conventions, and meanwhile, bring the game forward for those that want to go.  It's really more than incremental changes, as I hope all will see, by around Christmas or New Years, after the beta has established its stability.

I have more ideas on this, but they are for KoA.  Like a tunnel system in the capital and other PC's to allow escape, and perhaps a tactic or spell to cast a net to capture emissaries trying to escape from the PC.  Again, we have plenty of new stuff right now to get in place.  I just don't like the patrol attacks, but it will remain in 2nd Cycle.

[Jumpingfist]

I do not see these as the same problem. You can limit what spells can be cast from a patrol or remove the patrol all together and require every group to have troops of some kind. But removing the destroy spells is a step backwards as your taking away some of the flexibility of what a Mage class can do and even removing a big motivator for kingdoms like the EL or GN to try and advance past level 6.
Seems in effect your making mages military kingdoms that cast spells.

I am sure we will all play and like 3rd cycle but as always you must take the good with the bad. Hopefully I will not have to read how everyone likes this change later.

[unclemike]

And don't forget that the destroy pc spells are necessary to widdle down a pc defense in many circumstances. I've been in some games where the DW pumped up his city's defense to well over 100k making his capital immune to attack unless you're the RD or GI. With damage city, at least others have a chance of weakening these outrageous defenses to be at risk (though it would still take a lot to bring them down). So if you're serious about taking out the destroy pc spells then also consider placing a ceiling limit on pc defenses as well.

The game probably should have limited pc defenses anyway since mega-groups are no longer possible (with # of brigades being limited in a group) and wizards being curtailed by some amount (both good adjustments) but pc defenses need to be brought into line as well. Perhaps, say a max of 50k ceiling limit or a multiple like a max of 2x (or 3x if DW) the original pc defense value or such...

[unclemike]

If limiting a pc defense with a 2x multiple or such may be too restrictive then there's always the possibility of fortifying the pc with additional constructs!!

I've already mentioned to Ry Vor that 3rd Cycle needs more building types to make the game more exciting (currently only a Temple may be built) but additional buildings could also help protect a pc too. Like a Barracks that not only helps train your troops to a higher experience level but also may give the pc defenders a 10% boost. Or a Wizard's Tower that not only helps Adepts advance (or reduces research cost) but also automatically places a Ward Popcenter spell on the pc every turn against destroy pc spells. Or a Golem may be constructed which could be a tough defender of the town (in the Forgotten Realms PBM game, golems were heavy anti-magic protectors which could reduce the magic damage that a pc receives). Or something else like a Dwarven Forge to create mithril armor for troops and pc defenders as well.

So there's all kinds of possible ways to enhance the protection of a pc while restricting pc defense values to 2x the original defense value or such. When Ry Vor initially mentioned that Temples may be constructed, I've been really looking forward to constructing more buildings for 3rd Cycle so I hope he had the time to come up with new types to create because this is one of the areas that I really want to try out in the game.

[Drogo]

Additional buildings is a great idea. Makes PC's more distinct than just Village and Town.

[Drogo]

I'm fine with two levels of damage spells (4000 pts and 7000) but don't love that they are restricted to villages and towns respectively.

Makes pumping up the defense of a water village for your capital infinitely better than having to contend with 7000 point destroy Town spell.

I might prefer a 'Major Destroy' and 'Minor Destroy' which does not limit which type of PC it can effect.

#toomanycooks?

[Hawk_]

But there's still the invulnerable Lich in a patrol issue.

And the thing about the Destroy series of spells is that it fires at a separate time than attack, with different ramifications (your currency is regional reaction level rather than group strength). And it also had a good chance to take out enemy emissaries in one swoop, even Kings and emissaries with higher escape chances.

It is that different timing and economy that made it tactically elegant, and the game more richly complex.

I wish there was a defensive spell or retreat tactic that could prevent or reduce losses from summon death.  Maybe Shield could reduce some losses depending on caster levels.

If summon death could not be cast from a patrol or if the patrol was at some risk that could also add balance IMO.

Seems like most parts of the game have some offsetting defensive orders but summon death does not.

[Lord Alz]

The truly devastating effect of multiple summon deaths to the large military kingdoms is the moral loss. I fought a 8 brigade WI force with 3 summon deaths and then an additional 3 summon deaths from a patrol and while it killed a lot of troops the real problem was now my group which was still 20 brigades had 10% moral which is basically game over. I was unable to move the groups moral higher than 59% the whole rest of the game which I suspect is a programming glitch but cant prove it. take out the moral hit and see what happens when the WI/SO/WA tries to fight 35 dragon brigades, now I have to run from them as it is always a group plus a patrol moving together basically unbeatable.