Posts: 345
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
0
Sorry, but who said the Wizard kingdoms were too weak?
Posts: 923
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
0
LT due to wizards now required to be in brigades to casst summon death, destroy PC(and have to be at the PC). I believe he has other claims in those regards and I can see compared to 2nd cycle they the limitations he speaks of. I really am not an expert in the 2nd cycle as I played one primeval and one team game. But in the 3rd cycle I believe if you are a mage kingdom, you should be able to due well.
Posts: 345
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
0
I can see how LT did not like those changes as it may have affected his favorite tactics. But the changes to play style needed in order to deal with those changes is relatively minor compared to the ability of every mage kingdom to be a formidable military power with summon and companions.
UM in 507 demonstrated the remaining capability by destroying 30 some-odd PCs along with several of my wizards. And that was not even with a true mage kingdom!
So, based on what I've heard you have half a dozen folks saying the mage kingdoms are more powerful and one guy saying he didn't like the changes.
But as Ry Vor says, Valhalla will prove the point.
Posts: 310
Threads: 10
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation:
0
Isn't it a fundamental characteristic of mage kingdoms that they're not as strong early on as military-oriented kingdoms? In my experience, until I get P7 wizards (with teleport Army Group), I don't feel the strength of mage kingdoms. I think that agents are rather under-rated in their ability to compete with mage kingdoms throughout the all phases of a game, which is why the UN is my favorite kingdom, and in a toss-up to be the most powerful kingdom. That early-kidnap is wicked, and opens up SO many more strategies and opportunities that you wouldn't have with any other kingdom.
Posts: 5,607
Threads: 618
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
08-13-2016, 01:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2016, 01:57 AM by Ry Vor.)
I'd just add that Lord Thanatos I believe was the first or second player (Morgan Kane being the other) to sign up when we started the Resurgence. So respect. And I won't discount his opinion and it's been a long running discussion about whether wizard kings are too strong or too weak. Obviously in The Choosing they have some geographical advantages they didn't before. But I still think I would next take the Cimmerians and then maybe the Sacred Order. One has to admit it is a unique dynamic between the military and the magic. Most of my 3rd Cycle experience is with Dwarves, Amazons, or Red Dragons and I think they are all fun, which is what we were shooting for, although I acknowledge the Necromancer or Illusionist or the newly placed Warlock would be formidable. Again, I design a game mainly with the diplomacy aspect in mind, so when we have silent games that players request, things work a bit differently.
Trying to find where there was notice given for some of the changes announced today. Seems hasty to announce changes to be made without a single turn to plan for the active games. PC's being tougher and captives not going to capital. Wouldn't it be more fair to give all active games at least a week notice?
Posts: 923
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation:
0
The announcement for most of the changes was in UMs corner, trying to find the other place but most of those changes were put on hold until the server transfer was completed.
