Test Game (pre-beta)

[unclemike]

The new tactics are alright and I'm definitely in favor of giving players more options to choose from during the game but the part that I don't like about them is that they change another player's TAC selection without their consent.

Chaos spell can keep your opponent longer in battle but chaos is limited in it's effect and may be dispelled by a wizard. There's no counter to something like the Flanking Attack which gives a boost during the cavalry (now called charge) phase but also changes the TAC selection of the opposing force. I would rather see another benefit associated with the new tactics than overriding another player's decision in the game like that.

Well, we'll see how it works out in the test game. I should have the new tactics coded and ready to go before the first turn is run so I'm interested in the kingdoms that have the Rider trait (Amazons, Dark Elves, Elves, Nomads, Rangers) that issue a Flanking maneuver and hear what their opponent has to say. I for one will run away 

[unclemike]

For the test game, the kingdom setups are done and most if not all of a kingdom's special abilities have been coded (that pertain to turn 0). So if your setup says that you have a strong navy with 5 ships in a given sea then you should see those fleets on your turn 0 kingdom report. Or that the Tyrant gets a Power-4 Wraith to start the game (which is pretty cool). So if you notice anything like that not showing up on your turn 0 report, then let me know.

[VballMichael]

Just a thought.

Consider adding 100,000 gold to each position. Will make it easier in a short test (about 10 turns) to have people get wizards up, build armies and ships and agents and buildings, etc in order to test the abilities and battles. Yes, it will make the first few turns less realistic from a development view, but there are trade-offs to anything. Anyway, no axe to grind, just thinking on how best to test things.

Alternatively, make orders cost nothing for this test, so the focus is on the orders, not on what kingdoms can or cannot afford or have to choose between.

[unclemike]

Well the purpose of this test is really for the new web site. To see if it properly formats the orders behind the scenes for the players and how easy it is to use for both the beginner and experienced player. I would also like to see if the new kingdom setups makes sense, are informative for 3rd cycle games, and if the turn 0 kingdom reports match what is stated in their corresponding setup files (such as the Tyrant getting his pwr-4 wraith). Anything else during the test is a bonus such as trying out the Barrage attack or Flanking maneuver during combat. Those areas will be thoroughly tested during the Beta but if we can get some of that done now, that would be good too. So let's start the game tomorrow with the default settings without any extra gold and see how it runs.

[HeadHoncho]

Would it be possible to give everyone the chivalry bonus? Still enough to help achieve and test higher-cost functions, without unbalancing to the point of making the Kingdom experience unrealistic.

[Lord Diamond]

The new tactics are alright and I'm definitely in favor of giving players more options to choose from during the game but the part that I don't like about them is that they change another player's TAC selection without their consent.

This actually makes combat a bit more realistic. You go into a battle with all sorts of plans and they are liable to get shot to hell by the enemy's plans.

[unclemike]

Even while considering your argument, I still don't like taking control of another's force like that. It'll cause further problems in the future when spells and/or kingdom abilities get in the way of a player's TAC selection. As if I issued a TAC 3 to get thru a wall of fire but the opposing force changed that to a 2. Or to get thru Dwarven traps or some other effect becomes nullified by the other player.

Increase the damage or generate some other effect but don't take away the player's desire to do something in the turn. I just don't think it's a good idea and would rather see another effect take its place. Rick mentioned that he wants to hear everyone's opinion good or bad about the new game so I'm just giving my two cents worth.

[Lord Diamond]

I suppose a general could decide to ignore that flank attack and continue with his original plans; "How dare they interfere with my tactical masterpiece!! Ignore the rascals."

Of course, this would result is a lot more casualties!

I hear what you are saying Mike, but this was normal in Fall of Rome and the battles were much more dynamic. Of course, this is only the beginning. There should eventually be many more tactical selections to choose from. It gets a lot more complicated and dynamic and you will be able to choose tactics based on what you think your enemy will use.

[Ry Vor]

Interesting.  There are so many sides to so many design decisions.  In general, players usually ask for more variety among the kingdoms, which of course is not an efficient use of development time: spending 4 hours for something occasionally affecting one kingdom as opposed to 4 hours on something effecting 24 kingdoms, etc. 

With what Mike has said, about impacting the opposition's orders, I kind of had reservations on that in the past, for example, there have been spell ideas that would reduce an enemy's movement, so he doesn't get to where he thought he would.  Ultimately, we've never implemented those kind of spells or effects.

When Fall of Rome came out, it was pretty much all Alamaze players that were in the beta and early games.  They were very suspicious of the new Tactics model, including Cipher as I recall, who thought it might be a rock, paper, scissors guessing game.  Eventually, I think we had 100% converts that the varied tactics in Fall of Rome, admittedly a game more tightly focused on the military, offered a level or two above Alamaze's 1, 2 or 3.  The moves in 3rd Cycle don't get us to Fall of Rome level tactical choices, but they do offer variety, new concepts, new considerations as to when to launch a campaign, or expect one launched against you.  There is going to be a lot more variability.  Fighting the Amazons in the plains in the summer is going to be a lot different than say the Cimmerians attacking them at night in the winter in the forest.

As a student of military history, I agree with Lord Diamond that while the opposing generals each have their plans and wish to exert their will on their enemy, it is quite rare that both sides get to do what they intended.  Flanking is probably the most storied military tactic.  Even generals in the 21st century are always trying to flank, or wary of an enemy flanking maneuver.  I like the advancements we are offering in tactics.  Players will have to consider when issuing their tactical decisions that if they are facing the Amazons in the plains with good Amazon kingdom brigades and leaders aligned against them, there's goin' to be some hurt.  I think this is a positive, a dynamic change and enhancement of strategy both to the Amazons (to stay with them here), and to their potential enemies.

[Jumpingfist]

I like there to be opposites to each move. So you are trying to out think the other. For example you know the sacred order will want to use that heavy cavalry to its fullest so you issue an order to counter the flank. Maybe the sacred order decides to take the loss in bonuses and issue the best count to the flank counter. Seems like Rock Paper Scissors but really is a lot if thought and tactics to learning and knowing your enemy.
What I do not like is an unanswered move. Like what I see now if you land on the same square you have no way to run away because your tactic will get changed to a 2 even if you already knew any site of the enemy you would run. You can not flank someone running at full speed the other way unless you knew they would be there but that is an ambush.