Overview of Battleground: Kingdoms

[andrewgr]

I received "Monsters" yesterday and both decks are so full of opportunities. With Battleground Kingdoms has anyone thought of used randomly generated critters for select battlefield so as to add a bit of spice to movement?
You could end up like a game like Heroes of Might and Magic, where you opponents are not the only scary thing moving around?

I did play around with a scenario that had some giants off to one side, lobbing rocks at each player, but soon discarded it for various reasons. 

Generalizing the idea to different sorts of monsters is interesting.  It might be hard to balance correctly.  When Kingdoms comes out, take a look a the general format of the maps and scenarios, and if you can think of a workable idea, post it here, and I'll see if I can get my local playtest group to have a go at it.

[Nightfall]

I was wondering when those of us who were lucky enough to play test Battleground: Kingdoms can discuss some of our thoughts on some of the specifics of the system.  I was assuming with the release of the product, but since this thread spoiled parts of the system, do you mind if we start early? 

[andrewgr]

I was wondering when those of us who were lucky enough to play test Battleground: Kingdoms can discuss some of our thoughts on some of the specifics of the system.  I was assuming with the release of the product, but since this thread spoiled parts of the system, do you mind if we start early? 

I don't mind, but be warned: no one outside of YMG has playtested the version that is being published.  We made some substantial changes in response to player feedback, but didn't have time to playtest that version externally.  For example, you now earn Victory Points as the result of battles, not as the result of the resources that you purchase for your Kingdom; and everyone earns the same amount of gold per turn to buy Resources, rather than earning Gold as the result of battles.

But, as long as you keep in mind that there are differences between what you played and what we're publishing, I'd be thrilled to have you share your thoughts!

[Nightfall]

Interesting.  Those changes are rather dramatic departure from the beta test. 

Anyways, I did miss not having army specific locations even though such locations would make it difficult to keep the spirit of the army without plugging up the weaknesses of said army.  I did find it highly interesting that army selection played a big role in determining which buildings a person bought.  If everyone gets the same amount of gold per turn, then the two gold producing locations, provided that these locations are still in the tech tree, might actually be more desirable. 

[ajax98]

I don't mind, but be warned: no one outside of YMG has playtested the version that is being published.  We made some substantial changes in response to player feedback, but didn't have time to playtest that version externally.  ...

That is different... I think it will work fine in that configuration.
Oh, well, there went the early "economic" advantage of the Lizardmen... (IMO in the smaller Force ratios favor the Lizards, in that they have some really solid core units.)

My only question is will there be a process to gain some type of economic advantage, other than the previous Mill/Mine resource? In any case the game components for Kingdoms are malleable enough to present different rule sets in pdf formats.

[andrewgr]

The mine and the sawmill are still the only income generators.  Because building resources no longer translates directly into VPs, their effect is greatly reduced.  Over the course of a campaign, you might gain an additional one building near the end of the campaign as the result of investing in one, but then you need to make that pay off by getting it to make the difference in a battle, which isn't a foregone conclusion by any means.

As you correctly point out, one of the features of the product that I think is going to make people very happy is that the components themselves-- the actual cards-- are not tied directly to any particular set of campaign rules.  Although I set out to design a campaign system-- and I'm not going to be falsely modest, I am very proud of the result-- it turns out that the physical product you get is a scenario/battle generator, with a set of campaign rules in the rulebook.  If you don't like my campaign rules, just change them-- there are no physical components that are tied to any particular set of campaign rules.  I hope and expect that people will try the rules once, then make their own modifications/additions/subtractions to fit their particular playgroup's style-- hopefully sharing their ideas with the entire community.

[Chad_YMG]

I hope and expect that people will try the rules once, then make their own modifications/additions/subtractions to fit their particular playgroup's style-- hopefully sharing their ideas with the entire community.

In fact we specifically ask for that in the rules. 

[Hamanu]

As I understand it, in Kingdoms one progresses from small to epic battles. Any rough guidelines as to how many points that would be per side? Is it 1500 in turn 1 and 4000 in turn 10 or something along those lines? I.e. will one be able to field 2 dragons at the end?

[RushAss]

Hamanu, just be yourself and jump right into the 3000-4000 point battles.  I won't tell anyone...

[Hamanu]

Hehe, I have a feeling our first test of M&M will be over 3000 points

[andrewgr]

As I understand it, in Kingdoms one progresses from small to epic battles. Any rough guidelines as to how many points that would be per side? Is it 1500 in turn 1 and 4000 in turn 10 or something along those lines? I.e. will one be able to field 2 dragons at the end?

1,500 then 2,000 then 2,500.

Playtesting showed battles greater than 2,500 points can be a bit problematic when using the standard size playing surface.

[andrewgr]

As I understand it, in Kingdoms one progresses from small to epic battles. Any rough guidelines as to how many points that would be per side? Is it 1500 in turn 1 and 4000 in turn 10 or something along those lines? I.e. will one be able to field 2 dragons at the end?

Actually, let me give a more complete answer (I was rushed for time earlier).

The campaign system, as written, has 3 rounds at 1,500 points, 4 rounds at 2,000 points, and 3 rounds at 2,500 points.  These are "base" points only.  Some scenarios will give fewer or more points to one side or the other, e.g. a "Last Stand" scenario will feature a smaller force trying to hold out against a larger force and getting victory points for each turn it holds out.

Now, if you want larger battles, the good news is that I calculated every number on every card using a percentage.  So let's say you would rather go 1,500, then 2,500, then 5,000.  The 1,500 and 2,500 values are already printed on the card.  To get the 5,000 values, you'd just double the numbers associated with the 2,500 column.  You'd get twice as many points, twice as many command actions, and you'd need twice as many points to get the same level of victory on the victory point chart.  Completely straightforward.  Using the existing values, you can get 1,500, 2,000, 2,500, 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 with almost no effort-- just using the printed values, or else doubling the printed values.  If you are handy with a calculator, in less than 3 minutes you could calculate arbitray point values for any scenario you choose-- just multiply the values by something other than "2". 

As for the other question, about getting 2 dragons at the end-- even just using the campaign rules as published, this is possible for 2,000 and 2,500 point battles.  You could even field 3 dragons, if you purchased the appropriate Kingdom resource for you Kingdom, which allows you to field 1 extra of each type of elite unit.  They'd be awfully expensive, though.  :-)