# 502 Choosing Beta 1

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

For both 2nd and 3rd Cycle, the Oracle of the Old Gods should not be able to reference itself (quite the waste of 7000 gold).  This happened to me as the Pirate this past turn.... did a #791 with it and it gave me itself as the divined artifact.

Are you sure about that? Just checked all 15 turns of the Pirate and not once did the results display an artifact that was under your control (itself or otherwise). Maybe you were referencing a 2nd Cycle game...

I was mistaken. Apparently one of the magic kingdoms successfully cast a "Misread Turn" spell on me. My apologies.

[Acererak]

Had an interesting battle this turn with Admiral Blackjack of the Pirate Navy. We've been hitting at each other mostly via agents - with him getting the best of me so far. We both have hidden capitals in the sea of foreboding, and we've both been able to find each other's corresponding capital. I thought I'd release the Kraken on him and his fleets with the hope that eventually I might sail over to his capital and wipe it out with a few meteor strikes. So there was a battle with the Kraken and here it is:


Sea Battle Our kraken approached a foreign fleet transporting a military group across
the sea (Area PI).

Sea Battle Sea battle in the sea of Foreboding over rough seas: 12 fleets of Pirates
galleys vs. a sea kraken. During the first hour of battle, long and medium
range catapult fire inflicted negligible damage to the Pirates navy and
significant damage to the kraken. As the forces drew near, ballistas, fire
arrows and grappling missiles caused negligible losses to the Pirates
galleys and heavy damage to the sea behemoth. When the two clashed at close
range, ramming tactics and melee with the sea beast resulted in additional
negligible damage to the Pirates ships, and negligible damage to the sea
creature. By this time, losses to the Pirates ships based on the overall
number in their navy were very light compared to devastating damage to the
sea creature. The battle continued to rage for some time until both
withdrew. Pirates losses were put at 0 fleet. Damage to surviving ships
resulted in diminished naval quality in that sea.

12 fleets is pretty good, but does it strike odd to anyone else the Kraken is more like a Sea Kitten (tip to JF) in this case? I would expect that he might lose at least one fleet? Dunno.

In any case, I'm not sure the Sorceror king will be loudly proclaiming "RELEASE THE KRAKEN" anytime again soon.

:-)

I would also add to this that while I am a fan of removing destroy town and destroy village, and replacing them with meteor strike - the functionality has been mostly nerfed for those with hidden water capitals. In order to do any kind of damage to one of these, it's quite an onerous mission to cause damage. You must find the square by a single recon with a lvl 4 + agent, then you must be present on the square with at minimum a brigade (thus putting yourself at risk of being sunk- and losing your wizards), and then you can finally cast a spell. Pretty tough, almost impossible against the Pirate. Of course, I'm enjoying it as the Sorceror as well. My capital is basically impregnable.

[Jumpingfist]

I think possible a way to make the Kraken strong but over powered for small fleets is give it a kind of density like groups have for spells. So 5 or fewer ships has what is currently a kraken, 6-10 ships would get a larger version enough to kill maybe 1 strength 15 ship in a fleet of 10. A mammoth of a kraken to take on 11 or 12 ships strong enough to kill 1 or 2 strength 15 ships in a fleet of 12

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Hey, hey, hey...now wait a minute. If anybody can kick a Kraken's behind, its going to the a massive Pirate Fleet (12 ships) with good quality, after all, we do have the Seafaring trait. While its certainly possible that they could lose a ship or two, its also possible that they employed proper naval tactics and took out the beast with magic and harpoons from a distance. So I think the outcome could be quite applicable.

[HeadHoncho]

I've satisfied the T15 minimum for this game, and I'm getting buried on Alamaze deadlines, with some other things going on in life.

Does anyone who's not already playing in this want to take over a viable Cimmerian position with lots of artifacts?

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I know that in 2nd Cycle, its a common tactic to do a Divination (#857) on the turn of, or before, reinforcements arrive to help you deduce where your opponents capital is by where his groups are located to pick them up.

However, I thought this loophole would be fixed in 3rd Cycle for people with the Secretive trait (hidden capital) since it says that it should require a L4 and that Divinations will not work. But it appears that the SO was able to locate my (PI) hidden capital with just such an #857 order (according to e-mails we've exchanged). So hoping that is something that is/can be fixed or the Secretive trait is just gaining a L4 agent and little more.

I would hope that in 3C, if someone does an #857 that it does not reveal anything about the location of ANY groups that happen to be at the hidden capital that turn. So if 3 of the 5 Pirate groups are at the hidden capital and someone does an #857 on the Pirates, they only get info on the two that are not at the capital. And should another kingdom, lets say the 2SA also be at the Pirate capital and someone does an #857 on the SA, their 2SA group shouldn't show up either.

Just my 2 cents.

[Ry Vor]

I know that in 2nd Cycle, its a common tactic to do a Divination (#857) on the turn of, or before, reinforcements arrive to help you deduce where your opponents capital is by where his groups are located to pick them up.

However, I thought this loophole would be fixed in 3rd Cycle for people with the Secretive trait (hidden capital) since it says that it should require a L4 and that Divinations will not work.  But it appears that the SO was able to locate my (PI) hidden capital with just such an #857 order (according to e-mails we've exchanged).  So hoping that is something that is/can be fixed or the Secretive trait is just gaining a L4 agent and little more.

I would hope that in 3C, if someone does an #857 that it does not reveal anything about the location of ANY groups that happen to be at the hidden capital that turn.  So if 3 of the 5 Pirate groups are at the hidden capital and someone does an #857 on the Pirates, they only get info on the two that are not at the capital.  And should another kingdom, lets say the 2SA also be at the Pirate capital and someone does an #857 on the SA, their 2SA group shouldn't show up either.

Just my 2 cents.

This and other safeguards for the Hidden Capital are on the list for the next go-around on 3rd Cycle features, orders, clarifications, bugs, and presentation.  Its a lot to do.  We'd want to have these, and an updated rules set ready before the third beta begins.

[Son of Conan]

I've satisfied the T15 minimum for this game, and I'm getting buried on Alamaze deadlines, with some other things going on in life.

Does anyone who's not already playing in this want to take over a viable Cimmerian position with lots of artifacts?

I could do it

[HeadHoncho]

OOC: I actually found another taker, but thank you so much for offering!

[unclemike]

I know that in 2nd Cycle, its a common tactic to do a Divination (#857) on the turn of, or before, reinforcements arrive to help you deduce where your opponents capital is by where his groups are located to pick them up.

However, I thought this loophole would be fixed in 3rd Cycle for people with the Secretive trait (hidden capital) since it says that it should require a L4 and that Divinations will not work.  But it appears that the SO was able to locate my (PI) hidden capital with just such an #857 order (according to e-mails we've exchanged).  So hoping that is something that is/can be fixed or the Secretive trait is just gaining a L4 agent and little more.

I would hope that in 3C, if someone does an #857 that it does not reveal anything about the location of ANY groups that happen to be at the hidden capital that turn.  So if 3 of the 5 Pirate groups are at the hidden capital and someone does an #857 on the Pirates, they only get info on the two that are not at the capital.  And should another kingdom, lets say the 2SA also be at the Pirate capital and someone does an #857 on the SA, their 2SA group shouldn't show up either.

Just my 2 cents.

This and other safeguards for the Hidden Capital are on the list for the next go-around on 3rd Cycle features, orders, clarifications, bugs, and presentation.  Its a lot to do.  We'd want to have these, and an updated rules set ready before the third beta begins.

I actually have another opinion regarding hidden pc's and groups. If I remember correctly, troops aren't actually inside a pc's walls but rather exist outside so why should a hidden pc provide protection to a group that happens to be there? A defending group at the same location as a pc doesn't gain any benefits of being behind the walls or support from the garrison if they are attacked so why should a group be provided an invisible benefit?

If you're worried that another kingdom may detect where your hidden capital is before reinforcements arrive then there are ways to counter this with your own strategy: (1) use an inactive group to receive reinforcements, or (2) move your capital away from the hidden pc before reinforcements.

I've done #2 quite a few times and in game 185 as the Troll, I moved my capital something like 4-5 times in the early stages to position my capital deep into enemy territory so that my groups would receive reinforcements or additional troops with 565 (in 2nd cycle, you can 565 at capital regardless of terrain). So I was moving my capital quite often to bolster my groups with a ton of orcs and reinforcements. Then I would move my capital back into my home territory where it was safe for a turn or two before moving it again.

Some might say that strategy was excessive (and certainly had disadvantages of your capital being vulnerable if moved to a village which I did a couple of times) but I had to because I was fighting the Giant which has stronger troops so I had to employ an aggressive strategy to fight him. I only lasted until turn 15 or so in that game but I had lots of fun going against one of the best players in the game (Lord Thanatos was the GI).

So I disagree with the change of having hidden pc's provide protection to groups stationed nearby. It doesn't fit the rules (troops aren't actually inside a pc) nor will it be productive for the game since the code would then be countering a well played tactic (of divining groups before reinforcements) and not allowing the other player to counter with a better strategy (like the two suggestions above).