Second attempt @ thoughts and impressions

[Natmus]

Perun said:

Yeah. Although 100 sounds a bit too much. 50 maybe?

In the old way we had 100 men per turn in 4-player games. 20 riders and 30 warriors in 2-player games, 30/45 in 3-player games and 40/60 in 4-player games, remember?

I thought the new 12/16 figures had been chosen as they could be divided out across each player's turn in either 2, 3 or 4-player games, but then I realised that 16 can't be divided by 3, so down the drain went that theory

[celebaglar]

I'd make it 24 riders and 36 warriors per day.

2-player games: 12r/18w per "night".

3-player games: 8r/12w per "night".

4-player games: 6r/9w per "night".

This would make 4-player games work even when some players die off by keeping "frozen" troop increases at a minimum, while adding interest to 2-player games by making the holding of citadels relatively important.

Another workable combination would be 36r/48w per day. More than that would detract from the tactical aspects of the game.

[Perun]

Natmus said:

1: Movement.
After the infantry movement was put back and the Targ cavalry movement put a bit down, I have felt a lot happier. However, with both Targ and Wise still moving 2 squares per turn (s/t) faster than normal cavalry, I fear that a lot of games will still be conclusively decided in the recruitment phase, which is the least fun games. My preference is the games where the two or more sides are not too far from each other in strength, so we actually get some duels on tactics and strategy. Recruitment can ultimatly be broken down in mathematics, and if starting point and the following recruitment continues to be more important, I think we are on a wrong course. So I fear the increased speed may be a danger to the gameplay in the long run.

I agree with a notion that Wise move too fast now. With increased speed and reduced mortality rate, they are now too powerful. Although, only Rorthron and Spider (especially Spider!) are of any real value, since Lorgrim is way too far up northeast to be used for recruitment.

2: Searching:
Is it just me, or do searching seem so yield another set of results than before? I have asked J-Y about this, and he say the chances hasn't been altered. But I still feel that something has changed, even if I have no statistical material to base it on.
Strongholds do not give Shelter as often as they use to. I old versions it felt like a 50 percent chance of finding it, now it seems more like 25 percent. I am considering moving my armies from Citadels to lakes for giving them their energy back. Lakes seem to work as they used to, at least.
Liths do produce more Dawns than they used to, and both Bloods and Chills are down. More blank results than before. Result is that you search more at liths than before, with the more downs giving extra turns, but in the end I think it take longer to get a lord up to full courage. And since we now can see the energy being used every time they search, and knowing it takes longer to get energy levels back, well, it makes the game seem longer in the preparation phase (the phase between recruitment and active campaigning, if you were in doubt).
Lakes, as I said earlier, seem to work as usual. The other features of Midnight; Caverns, Henges, Snowhalls, Ruins and to a certain extent even Villages, are pure landscape to me. I never waste time searching there, but at least they don't come with a movement penalty, so I tolerate them and treat them as plains. In later developments I would like to see these features have each their own attraction to make searching there worth your while. Swords, armour, extra movement for army, ect... ?

First of all, I don't see any more dawns than before. And lakes are as useless to me as before also. However, strongholds really seem to have been far less friendly when giving shelter than before.

And I agree that caverns, henges et al. are utterly useless. I know that JY has a reason here - it is legacy from original. But, there's a HUGE difference: in original they were hardcoded results for searching in any particular place, and we knew where to look and where not. In M/MU there's a random chance. So, if I know that I have just 5 percent a chance to find anything useful, will I ever try my luck? Of course not. It would be better if these locations give equal chance of finding anything, being it good or bad. That way caverns, henges et al. would be much, much more useful, and visited often.

3: New Lords: Generally I like them. Good names, reasonable placements. I just have the same old complaint that Tujarg shouldn't be in a mountain keep, new passes or not. But that's an old thing, and has nothing to do with this version.

I'm ambivalent here. Having armyless lords of troop-recruitment-enabled races doesn't make any sense to me (Rachel, for example). And placing lords anyplace other than strongholds is a bit mystery to me as well. Why would any nobleman wish to live in a ruin or snowhall (Enuits excluded)? If they're mad, of course, but than they would be deserted by their men...

4: Garrisons:
Citadels produce a lot less new troops, something like 12 riders and 16 warriors per turn. I'm not sure I like this, as this reduces the strategic aspect of the game, the incitament to actively defend you holdings instead of just concentrating one place. I know the argument that in longer 3- or 4-player games the citadels of dead kings just kept increasing in strength to make them impossible to _easily_ take over for the active players. I never thought this was a problem, but I hated the invisible garrison commander. With him gone, taking on a citadel, even with 2500 defenders, doesn't bother me.
I feel that new recruits generated at citadels should be at least doubled. In longer games it should be an advantage and a reward to control citadels, as controlling a lot of citadels usually is a result of active playing. An active player should more easily be able to risk losing some troops in engagements, as the more citadels allows for faster replacements, compared to the player with one citadel where all the players armies are hiding.

I agree here. Citadels should produce more men.

Garrisons at keeps are a mystery to me, or rather, most keeps are at the present gameplay a mystery to me. I know three keeps [+] where there is a bit merit of keeping a garrison to block enemy forces, otherwise they seem a waste to garrison. The garrison is passive, and apart from denying the keep itself to an enemy the benefit is limited. Like with citadels, I would like if holding and garrisoning keeps gave a more direct benefit somewhere in the gameplay. I know that putting 250 men inside give you a view from the keep, but there should be more. Extra recruitment at nearby citadels?

I again agree. Maybe keeps should also produce armies, though far less than citadels. And the last suggestion isn't bad either. But that would mean introduction of "area of control" feature, or at least addition of some sort of "belonging to/empowering citadel xxx" flag for keeps, which both are not bad ideas IMHO.

5: Battles: Should not be different at all, should they? They feel different. I have only had one major engagement in the new version so far, game 9 - Birds of Fire, but it seems very wrong. Some of my armies inflict a lot of damage, while similar armies (same size and composition, same leadership, same energy) make no impact at all. Likewise some armies seem to take all the damage, while other in the smae spot barely is touched at all. A faint guess would be that the random factors have become greater, so that the ranges in recieving and inflicting damage has increased. A greater range, together with random numbers concentrating at the extremes could be an explanation.
I liked the old system better, it seemed more dependable. You knew what to expect when going into battle, and that has changed.

Again, I agree. I cannot put my finger on it, but things have changed. That last comment is right - old ways were better.

Dragons as well seem strange. They are reported to die, yet they live on. And the damage they inflict when fighting half a dozen enemy armies and survive is amazing.

Haven't fight with my dragons yet, so cannot comment on that one. They still tire way, way too fast.

6: Allies Page: I love it. Simply love it. The only thing I would have changed is to move dead allies to the bottom of the list and don't continue to include them in the number of members in the alliance, but that's a minor thing. At a time further down the line I would like to see a local 'Allies and Enemies Page' replace the 'Here' button, as the Allies Page have better design and are easier to access information-wise.

If there was a feature of clicking on the button/name of allied lord in that window, and everything about it would be perfect. And making the window resizable, of course.

Oh yeah, resign button. We have talked about it before. I think it is placed a dangerous place. You know that.

Agreed. 'Nuff said.

7: Alliances: Sometime in the future I would like to see an option where two players officially can join in alliance and help each other in battles and at strongholds. However, 'Alliance victory' should not be among the victory conditions. All alliances should automatically end as the enemies of the alliance are dead. There can only be one!

I don't know what to think about this. History teaches us that no alliance lasts forever. But again, if all our mutual enemies are dead, then we're victors, aren't we?

So I would suggest that allied victory be allowed a legitimate way to win a game, but with severe penalty when it comes to scoring such a victory.

[Perun]

Celebaglar said:

1) Movement:

Targ cavalry were too fast (have they been slowed down again?). I quite like the Wise having extra speed though. Before this, they were no more than any other army-less lord and next to useless (in fact they were worse, not even having the capability of bringing up reserves). There should always be a choice to make when presented with an option to go for a nearby army or a nearby Wise at the recruiment stage. Previously, there was no choice at all, the army was obviously the more useful unit.

I don't agree about the Wise. See previous post.

2) Searching:

Too many Dawns. This not only impacts on the chances of getting anything else, but again can have a decisive influence at the recruitment stages.

As I said before, I don't see much changes, except for strongholds.

3) New Lords:

No complaints, except that maybe the map now feels a bit crowded. There's no "wilderness" any more. I guess you can't win...

I agree 100%. Too much lords now. Maybe it's time to introduce a new, bigger map?

4) Garrisons:

The recruitment rate is too low. I'd want to see it back to the previous levels. The negative impact on gameplay is more significant than the benefit of dead citadel garrisons filling up slower, so it's a backward step. I'd also like to see garrisoned keeps attract new recruits, perhaps at half the current citadel rate.

I would NOT like to see DDR style recruitment in the hundreds. IMHO that would destroy the game tactically and strategically.

Agreed.

[celebaglar]

OK, having been on the receiving end of Targ and Wise recruitment combined, I agree, they're both way too fast.

I'd also say that my earlier impression that we're too crowded has been confirmed.

The result of the above is that most games are decided in the early days of recruitment, after which they are just formalities because of the fact that the forces are so unequal. I haven't played a single two-player under 0.1g that has turned out to be balanced. One side or the other has always had a massive lead within 5 days, and the contest would be over at that point.

Extend the map or remove some of the new arrivals, or else the wargame is gone.

There also seems to be a problem with extreme values being generated by the random number generator. I suggest a spectral analysis be carried out to determine if the numbers cover the entire range as expected, or if more extreme values are generated for some reason.

[celebaglar]

A note on the Wise: while I do feel they are now too fast, I also think that the Wise need some form of special ability to make them useful in the game. Otherwise, they're just skulkrin who can recruit, and we'll only bother with them if they're central and we have nothing better to do. The number of times Lorgim was just ignored - because his home is a dead end recruitment-wise so by the time anyone got him, he was next to useless - was quite a clue in this direction prior to 0.1g.

The Wise need to matter, and if they can't do it through fast recruitment, there must be something else.

[premis]

Perun said:

I'm ambivalent here. Having armyless lords of troop-recruitment-enabled races doesn't make any sense to me (Rachel, for example). And placing lords anyplace other than strongholds is a bit mystery to me as well. Why would any nobleman wish to live in a ruin or snowhall (Enuits excluded)? If they're mad, of course, but than they would be deserted by their men..

That's exactly what happened to Rachel.
Now you see that armyless lords have a sense. ;D