A different kind of build tree

[gull2112]

I would like to see a different kind of build tree. I would rather players had the full choice of units for each battle as per the standard rules. The builds would be for variations from the norm. Granted, without playtesting, some of the variations might be unbalancing, but that is somewhat limited by the fact that both players have equal access to the builds. I think one of the strongest points to the Kingdoms campaign is that previous successes are not required for advancement. In other words players start equal each turn and no one is every forced to face opponents with substandard armies that can only get trounced.

I would like to see a build tree that allowed deviations from the norm and some variability. To start each faction is assumed to have these improvements built:
Farm
Market
Logging camp
Bank
Barracks
Mess Hall
Forge
Aerie

These are builds that can be bought each turn as long as the prerequisites are built:
Training grounds (+1 discipline)
Sawmill
Watchtower (+1 foresight)
Smelter
Palace expansion
Embassy - as per plus, multiple buys allowed and each buy allows you to field one unit from another faction.
Harbor
Tavern as per or allow one legendary unit or Hero (keep track of how many times this option is chosen, that is the max number of each per battle).
Warehouse
Keep
Armory
Fortress
Mercenary camp

This system is also ideal for shorter turn campaigns since so many structures are already built.

[Mexico]

OK, so how would you branch it out?  Are you considering all the now core buildings the trunk, with several different branches?  Or is each improvement something separate, with no prerequisites?

[gull2112]

I was assuming that as long as the prerequisite was in play, the build would be legal. My goal on one level is to skip the beginning part where you just race to get your basic stuff on line and jump right to the variables. So, right out of the box you could build any army that would be allowable in a standard engagement.

[andrewgr]

Apologies for the tardy reply.

One of the main design goals of the build tree was to force players to field units that they otherwise would not.  In fact, I consider that to be the single nicest thing about Kingdoms: whenever I play, I find myself fielding units I wouldn't field in a tournament, and needing to think about how to use them.

So, to me at least, allowing players to field whichever units they want is not an improvement.

However, there is no reason why you need to be bound by my design choices.  I had always assumed that we would post alternative build trees; since the buildings and their abilities aren't printed on cards, you need only print out a few pages of new abilities to have an entirely new game.  Unfortunately, other projects have grabbed my attention, and I haven't continued developing Kingdoms the way I had intended to.

If someone did want to develop an entirely new build tree, there are two approaches that I think would be very interesting:

(1) I was very careful that none of the resources you could acquire would change a game of Battleground once it was set up.  That is, there are no abilities that give your units plusses to their stats, or anything like that.  This was a very deliberate decision, and I think it was the correct one, for several reasons.  However, now that the official build tree has been published and is available, I think it would be fun to explore this design space.  So, a build tree with resources that allowed you to create veteran units, or magic weapons, or attach heroes to units, or whatever, would be interesting (albeit very hard to balance).

(2) Assymetrical build trees, in which each faction has their own set of buildings, would be fun and challenging to develop, and probably impossible to balance.