Chronic Logic

I've tested the Wyvern for a while now.

I think the only change that would make it worth 550 is to give it two attacks. So 2 actions gets my vote.

Re: unique abilities vs just plain fighting

I agree with mongolian that it's better to stick to the big army vs big army idea,  rather than having too many powerful unique abilities that change the dynamics of play so much.

However, aside from the once-a-game limitation that I suggested, I'd also note that there is nothing inherently wrong with highly powerful units similar to dracolich or hydra, as long as they are costed appropriately. So either make diplomat weak or make it cost 400 gold or so.


Re: fix

That would help out, except that you can still demolish their army and wait a turn.

Playing vs mongolian I had an idea that could solve the particular diplomat combo.

Make armistice possible once a game per player, no matter how many diplomats you have and also not if you redeploy.

It took about a day for the new diplomat ability to be 'broken', with multiple diplomats, warrior and sergeant. Invincible against the AI and near invincible against human opponents if they don't know it's coming.
While individual units may be strong or weak, it's global abilities that really shake things up. Aegis and Armistice are examples of this.

Now, in the tower-thread there were suggestions of tournament play, which I think would be a great addition. What medieval game wouldn't want to have a glorious joust?!

But besides new game modes, what could be done about combo armies? Perhaps there can be a restriction of the number of units, preferably trough cost tweaks. Or the abilities themselves can be changed. Or is the nature of the game that there will be nigh invincible armies for a time, until the next unit shows up to crack it?

Sure, like the geo army, the diplomat/warrior army can be beaten. With a mirror army and playing better, or with martyrs or some other unit. But armies are getting faster all the time: diplomat/warrior is a turn 4 or 5 kill. This further increases a problem of playing constructed: you need to know what you're up against to combat it. Multiple games with a 'sideboard' may change this, but I don't think we'd want the game to be a copy of Magic.

Please feel free to give your view on this matter.

I actually feel the geo+scout army was more dangerous and harder to stop, because there are lots of ways to make towers ineffective (dodge, acolyte, shield bearer)

But with the update to sergeant, it's lost most of the speed because the geo can't move 4 (1 turn geo + 2 turns rally) but only 2.

The general discussion about unbeatable armies deserves a new thread.

Changeling can't trade with a changeling (not indestructable, just a regular changeling).
Doesn't really matter much, but still.

"Seeing as the Gate Guard is suppose to be immune to skills and spells while on the caslte how come u can stone him with your own Geomancer?"

Because he's immune from enemy skills and spells

The constant changes made to basic units are very very frustrating. I would like to see an extensive list of all changes posted in one place.

For example, warrior used to gain an action from killing gate guard (since it's not inorganic and the skill is warrior-based). Now that it's not, I just lost a game to it. I'm not against changes, but I am very disappointed about all these minor changes without notice. Other examples are the bounty hunter, the axeman gaining a life, catapult missing dodging units, etc.

Please post all these changes somewhere for us to read.

I believe the server crashed, gold is now at -1.

(1) disagree strongly. The random army variation means some games are less winnable than others. But statistics dictate that you gain as much as you lose from that variation.  The cop-out option of surrendering as soon as the opponent has a long range unit, and not getting a loss for it, should be eliminated altogether.

(2) agreed, but not a big deal to wait a few seconds.

(3) Including the ranged mages that is a list of 20 units. It's very rare for an army to have zero of the mentioned units.

(4) why?

(5) good idea

With a public rating system, I'd use some simple form of chess/magic ELO rating.

The main thing for competitiveness is that you gain and lose rating according to whom you play.

If I play a newbie, I should lose more points when I lose and gain less when I win. And vice versa. If the rating is based on a set number of points (or with only minor variation) and the points gained per match are fairly low, you're actually using a rating system that rewards the most playing players. ie if I want to go from rank 200 to 20 I'd win 10-20 times, but from 10 to 1 I'd have to win hundreds (or?).

The point about dropping to 2000+ when losing one match is valid, I'd just make a ranked top100 or so and the rest displaying "low" "new" or zero.

Larger board option would be a cool variety. Mainly with two players using one castle it gets crowded and you don't have much time to setup. For me it's not a high priority though.

I disagree with letting players choose to ban units. Tweaking the more powerful units by, including cost, would be the better option. And is only needed if a unit is so strong that no other strategy can overcome it, which I don't think is the case.


re: Tek777, I think short turn times are very good because they test the skill of players to make difficult decisions really quickly.
This also makes games take less time, whereas with a 3 minute turn that would mean you would have many games last over an hour long.

The new 2 vs 2 team battle works great. Thanks Gabe for making it happen. 
I immediately had some suggestions though, which I'm now posting here.


1. The enemy armies should be identified by color so you know what units belong to which opponent.  And/or print the name of controlling player in the unit info field, but that could get messy.


2. Turn order and player names could be posted in the bottom right corner. That would make it a lot clearer.


3. Is 4-way chat possible? If popularity picks up we'll have a couple team games running side by side and we won't be able to communicate well in the main chat.

I'll go point by point in a reply to Mongolian:


Sergeant.  Now is very pointless.  He needs to have 3 actions and he will be fine as he resets every turn.

>> Agreed that the reset is strange. The dragging was good, now you can only move rallied ally 1 space which does make it worse.


Bounty Hunter Way way too powerful.  I lost a game where #1, i thought his attack would have to be in a line and #2, didn't know it could keep killing things cause of new actions.  I'm sorry but it should get 3 actions period.  It's already way too powerful as is.  Otherwise, reduce the range 4 from range 3.  I think the range 4 might be the worst part.

But it still only attacks range 1 and is only immune to 1 unit. And expends commands. So it's most powerful when you let it sneak in but otherwise I think it's strictly worse than warrior or ranger. Probably worth 150 gold?


Alchemist Welcome to the most rediculously powerful unit in the game.  With combination of riders(love or rock), bezerkers(unsummon), cavalry(unsummon), this is just way too powerful.  I would like to see the rock as a 1 potion only and add see potions that are weaker, but permanent.  Whatever the change its currently too powerful.

Agreed that the rock throwing should be capped. Unsummon costs an action and redeployment, so it may be a good strategy but I don't know if it's overpowered. Haven't extensively played it yet though.

re: unit changes

Agreed that changed specs for existing units should be made explicit and should have good reasons.

Works fine now, was a one-time thing.

Disconnect+resynch loop happened again, while in computers turn. It seems to be a triggered event, not sure about details of what or which unit.