Review of The Choosing Kingdom Balance

[Ry Vor]

We've got a bit of experience under our belt now with The Choosing, expedited some by the DUEL games that finish quickly.

Generally sticking to kingdoms, are there comments that a kingdom might now be too strong or too weak?  I realize different formats have different implications, so let's just keep it to in the Full-On (diplomacy) game format.  Is there a zone where you might always choose just one of the kingdoms because of the relative overall strengths, rather than personal preference?

And then, do you enjoy the differences in strategy/play between kingdoms and look forward to trying them, or is that not an important aspect?   If say the Dark Elves are the top ranked kingdom, would you always choose them over trying the Lizard Kingdom for that zone?

[Lord Diamond]

It does look like the Darkelves are more powerful than the Lizardmen, but I still want to play the Lizards.

I really don't see anyone picking the Halflings if they are at all interested in winning. Never in Anon.

The wizard kingdoms seem very powerful, generally more powerful and desirable than the alternatives.

[Ry Vor]

It does look like the Darkelves are more powerful than the Lizardmen, but I still want to play the Lizards.

I really don't see anyone picking the Halflings if they are at all interested in winning. Never in Anon.

The wizard kingdoms seem very powerful, generally more powerful and desirable than the alternatives.

I don't want to direct the conversation, and perhaps it is early, and between my limited 3rd party experience:  The Amazons, Dwarves, Lizardmen, and Red Dragons, and my notoriously average play, I am more a player that wants to experience the difference in style.  The Amazons flanking in the plains is pretty impressive, as is The Dwarves barraging after getting a veteran War Machines brigade.  Since the launch of The Choosing, the Red Dragons have been the kingdom changed the most - I kind of challenge the argument against them with the changes to no order cost for transfers, adding a fifth group, and adding two additional starting brigades, as well as being Rich (the last trait added) and of course having that Dragon Lair special ability.  I'd like to make a case of course for all 24 kingdoms but since I've only played four, I am interested in the opinions on the others.  Including the 2nd Cycle kingdoms that are relocated, for example, The Warlock in the Talking Mountains or the Ancient Ones in the Southern Sands. 

Then as a second subject, I wonder how many players at this point really are recognizing, to mean more pointedly, strategizing, based on both their own kingdom's traits and abilities and that of their neighbors or potential enemies.

[Lord Diamond]

I would like to think that all the players are strategizing based on their own traits and the known traits of their neighbors. One consideration is that we don't always know exactly what some of the kingdoms start with. There have been quite a few changes since the Beta testing and the dicumentation hasn't kept up with them all.

I plan to eventually play all of the kingdims in Duels to get a better feel for them, even the Halflings.

[Drogo]

I have limited experience but it seems like the Halfling and Lizardmen don't get chosen very often.

[Jumpingfist]

The LI is not a bad kingdom at all it is just paired vs the DA which is still a rather strong kingdom even after getting tweeked a bit.

[Tomag Ironfist]

I think the LI is a powerful, well balanced kingdom. Just paired up against the DA which doesn't seem to have any weakness, it makes it a pretty easy choice if you're looking to be competitive.

My concern is for R6. If someone picks the Atlantians, I'm really not too concerned of my safety when they border me. Rather, when there is a DE, they will always be on my radar; I want to know what they're up to at all times.

I look at the AT as the 'well-rounded' kingdom alternative to the DE. So, if a newer player finds the DE too intimidating, the AT is a good pick for them. I find the AT a little underwhelming with a lot of player's play-styles. Perhaps they're not taking advantage of their prowess in the seas? Perhaps their not really investing a lot into the AT's political court? Hard to say. I think if the AT got more of a... unique flare to them, that they'd be much more appealing of a pick.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Between the Beta games, Duels, and normal games, I've played 17 of the 24 3rd Cycle kingdoms so far (still missing RA, DW, IL, BL, SA, DE, and AT). I think all have a chance to win a game save for the HA (especially in a Silent/Anon game). The HA military and magic abilities are too limiting to overcome its positives in trades, diplomacy, and agent/recon advantages (IMO). So other than that kingdom, I really like the uniqueness and balance of the kingdoms.

Wizard kingdoms are likely to dominate in full 12 player games with the Dome, Dispel Dome, Summon Death, Group Invisibility, Conceal Emmy, and Teleport Army Group spells being their bread and butter to give them dominion over the military groups! Given that they almost all have hidden capitals, their wizards can grow in safety. Military kingdoms can gain the upper hand early but that magic cap will doom them in the late game (and if they fail to find that hidden capital). I'm coming to enjoy the balanced kingdoms a lot (e.g., DA, NO, GN, EL) but my favorite so far is the TY. It's just a blast being the big bruising juggernaut right out of the gate (Hulk smash).

One "interesting" tweak to the game, might be to add some additional High Council motions (when is the last time somebody raised or lowered Food/Gold with a HC motion?). For example, you could have a motion where for the next month, no kingdom can cast Dome of Invulnerability, Teleport, or Invisibility spells (outlawed for that month). Or a motion where there is game-wide peace for the next month (no 110/110, 150, 180, 190, or 705 orders allowed and no new enemies declared). A motion where no trades are allowed next month. A motion where no sea actions are permitted next month. And so on. You could also have it where certain motions can't be issued in consecutive months so it can't be abused (like game-wide peace for 8 turns in a row).

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Then as a second subject, I wonder how many players at this point really are recognizing, to mean more pointedly, strategizing, based on both their own kingdom's traits and abilities and that of their neighbors or potential enemies.

I take this into account a great deal (though I still don't know what all each kingdom's traits/abilities are yet). But who I'm likely to ally with, attack on T1, worry about/ignore, etc. depends not only "who" the player is but what traits/abilities that kingdom has. Furthermore, you REALLY want to play to your kingdoms strengths or you're wasting your Aces. Having just finished the game with the NO, I went crazy with the Flanking order trying to draw every opponent into Plains/Desert terrain and run them into the ground for that double losses in retreat. I also ended with 5 HP who were spitting out Avenging Angel and Lesser Angel to take advantage of the Devout trait as often as I could afford it; plus their resistance to become Exhausted was also huge; most of the time all 5 were available every turn. And jacking my Agents through the roof since the NO trains agents at a very low cost. With 5 groups who were both Riders and Trackers, I could almost match the dragons in movement and scoured the regions faster than my opponents for find PCs, track down artifacts, intercept at will, and drop 5 functional Armies on to 5 different enemy PCs (coupled with an emmy blitz, that's pretty brutal).


In my RA vs. WA duel, by T4 the Ranger had destroyed ALL my brigades AND killed 3 of my 7 starting wizards/adepts including my starting P4); he had me beat down! But by utilizing my hidden capital properly (keeping my groups/wizards hidden so they could not be intercepted and my diplomatic corps very active), I was able to prevail by pouring everything into getting that first Dome wizard. The use of the hidden capital and the magic supremacy were the deciding factors. When I finally emerged on T16 with my Army Group and wizard trio, I crushed his armies and his capital and took home the Status Point win on T18.

For my 3rd example, any time my neighbor has that Order and Ruthless combo, giving them a double-whammy on PC protection from emmys, I know that its foolish to try and take their region from them diplomatically unless you gain complete surprise and bring all your groups for support. And even under optimal conditions, it's still dicey and slow. Waiting till they are engaged in a war with someone else tends to be the most opportune time

[Rytek]

I've played the halflings and the gnome.
In my halfling game I was attacked first by the amazons, who I managed to beat back and then go on the offensive. Then the tyrant invaded and I lost. I would like to see more companion brigade types. Fix getting the wood elves (has that been fixed?). I would like to see treants available. Also dwarves. Either homeless, mercenery, bezerker or slayers. I think had I the choice of tougher companions it would have been better.

Compare that to the gnomes. They get ogres, war machines, wargriders, goblins, chameleons. Not to mention level 7 wizard and stone golem at level 3.